Feminist lawyer calls on law chief to resign after court clears professional misconduct over insult to judge over ‘boys’ club’

A barrister who was cleared of misconduct following social media posts criticizing a judge for his ‘boys club’ attitude, has called on the chair of the Bar Standards Council to resign – as she called his position a “untenable”.

Dr Charlotte Proudman, 36, was subject to disciplinary action by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for her publications in April 2022 relating to Sir Jonathan Cohen’s judgment in a family law case she lost, saying it smacked of a “boys club.”

But a three-person panel at the disciplinary tribunal at Gray’s Inn Square, London, threw out the case after ruling that his 14-part thread constituted protected speech under section 10 of the Rights Act of man, which guarantees freedom of expression.

In an interview with The Times, Dr Proudman described the position of Mark Neale, the council’s chief executive, as “untenable” and said its chair, Kathryn Stone, should also resign.

“They need a change, not just in those two people, because, of course, that trickles down to the rest of the organization,” she said.

She told the newspaper she “genuinely” wanted to work with the BSB to help them understand the impact of misogyny and sexism on women at the bar.

However, she said that “under current leadership this simply will not be possible”.

The charges alleged that Dr. Proudman “failed to act with integrity” in posting the tweets, that they constituted professional misconduct, were “misleading” and “inaccurately reflected the judge’s findings” in the case.

The women’s rights activist was also accused of behaving in a manner “likely to diminish public confidence in her and the profession”, and of having “knowingly or recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the public” in the messages.

But the panel’s chairman, Nicholas Ainley, ruled his tweets were protected by section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to freedom of expression.

He said his tweets had not “seriously damaged” the judiciary, which would “put them outside” the protection of Article 10, although they “might not have been pleasant to read for any judge” or even “offensive”.

“We believe the justice system in England and Wales is much stronger than that,” he said.

The panel also concluded that some of the tweets were only inaccurate “to a minor extent” and not to the extent necessary for a charge of lack of integrity.

Speaking after the hearing, Dr Proudman said: “This decision is a victory for women’s rights and a right to free speech.

“The proceedings brought against me by my regulator, the Bar Standards Board, should never have happened and I have said so from day one.

“I criticized a judgment for domestic violence. Everyone should have the right to do this, whether you are a lawyer or not.

“Our justice system, in which I firmly believe, is robust enough to withstand my criticism.”

She believes her tweets help “build trust” in the justice system, adding: “Only in this way can we build change and better treatment for all victims, women, children and men who are affected by domestic violence.

Explaining that the BSB appears to have spent almost £40,000 of “lawyers’ money” instructing a lawyer in her case, she added: “I think it’s shameful that they are using our money to pay , in my opinion, malicious and vexatious acts. prosecutions which, I have no doubt, were a personal attack on me as a woman and a feminist, as an outspoken critic and defender of women’s rights.

Dr Proudman called for “systemic change” within the board.

“They don’t understand gender, they don’t understand diversity, I don’t think they’ve ever heard of the concept of misogyny and certainly not institutional misogyny,” she said.

“Until they recognize the deep-rooted, entrenched problem of bullying, harassment, sexism at the bar, for which I have suffered relentlessly…and admit it, I don’t think we will see any change and I have no confidence in them.

She recounted how male lawyers insulted her on social media and made derogatory comments about her.

In the April 6, 2022 articles, Dr. Proudman referenced a case in which his client alleged that she was subjected to coercive and controlling behavior by her husband, a part-time judge, meaning that she had not been able to freely enter the couple’s house. postnuptial financial agreement.

Commenting on the decision of Family Court Judge Sir Jonathan Cohen, Dr Proudman wrote: “I represented Amanda Traharne.

“She said her husband (who is a part-time judge) coerced her into signing a postnuptial agreement. I lost the case.

“I do not accept the judge’s reasoning. I will never accept the minimization of domestic violence.

She continued: “Devaluing the importance of domestic violence has the effect of silencing victims and rendering abusers invisible.

“This ruling echoes the ‘boys’ club’ that still exists among men in powerful positions.”

In the thread, Dr. Proudman wrote that the judge called the couple’s relationship “tumultuous,” which she said was a “trivialization” of domestic violence.

‘Stormy? Lose your temper? Is this not the trivialization of domestic violence and gendered language? This is not a normal married life,” she wrote.

Dr Proudman was visibly emotional upon learning that the case had been closed and celebrated by sharing a warm hug with his partner and the defense team.

“The case brought against me by my regulator, the Bar Standards Board, should never have happened and I said so from day one,” she said.

“Daily Mail readers believe in freedom of expression and there is a right to be able to criticize judges and judgments,” she said.

“What I said was not really offensive, nor was it seriously damaging to the justice system. These were comments I would make in an appeals court.

“Frankly, we should talk about domestic violence in this way and label our systemic failures of the justice system.

“Everyone in our country believes in democracy, which is why the establishment should be open to criticism.”

The Mail previously reported that it was considering taking action against the BSB for discrimination and violation of its human rights.

The feminist lawyer faced a suspension of up to 12 months or a fine of up to £50,000 if found guilty of professional misconduct.

It is unclear whether the BSB will appeal this decision.

The BSB has been contacted by MailOnline for comment.