Punishing me for criticising judge is sexist, says ‘boys’ club’ row barrister

A renowned barrister who attacked a judge for being part of a “boys’ club” has claimed that attempts to discipline her for the remarks are sexist.

Barrister Charlotte Proudman is facing disciplinary action by the Bar Standards Council following her comments on social media about a family law dispute judgment.

At a disciplinary hearing held behind closed doors this week, Ms Proudman failed to have the case against her thrown out as an “abuse of process”.

However, she successfully argued that the disciplinary tribunal should consider her counterclaim that the action against her violated her human rights as it amounted to unlawful discrimination.

She claimed to have been discriminated against on the grounds of both her sex and her feminist beliefs, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the Equality Act 2010.

Ms Proudman made headlines nine years ago when she attacked a middle-aged law firm partner for “sexism” after he complimented her LinkedIn profile photograph.

In the disciplinary action, she has been accused of posting “misleading tweets” that “inaccurately reflected the findings” of Mr Justice Cohen, of the High Court.

In her tweets, Ms Proudman said a judgment by Mr Justice Cohen – a member of the Garrick Club, which recently ended its ban on female members after 193 years – had “echoes of the ‘boys’ club’”.

She said she was troubled by him referring to the relationship between a woman and her part-time judge and barrister ex-husband as “tempestuous”, as well as his description of an alleged domestic violence incident as “reckless”.

Fine threat

Alison Padfield, KC, Ms Proudman’s lawyer, told the tribunal that the profession’s regulators had failed to punish male barristers who made similar social media comments. She said this amounted to sex discrimination.

“The practice or policy of initiating and pursuing proceedings against barristers who make gender-based criticisms of judges and/or their judgments puts women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men,” she said.

“This is because women are overwhelmingly more likely than men to make gender-based criticisms of judges [who are predominantly male] and/or their judgments, especially in certain types of cases such as family law cases involving domestic abuse.

“Women are more likely than men to have concerns about the judiciary being predominantly male, about the metaphorical ‘boys’ club’ and its literal equivalent: membership of high profile, exclusive, all-male private members’ clubs [such as, until recently, the Garrick Club].”

Ms Proudman, who was called to the Bar in 2010, could face suspension from practice for up to 12 months or a fine of up to £50,000. She has denied the allegations of wrongdoing.

Accepting that Ms Proudman’s claims of sexism could be heard, the tribunal’s Judge Carroll said: “Discrimination is properly regarded as a deep and serious social ill that most democratic governments have legislated to prohibit … The European Convention on Human Rights itself, in article 14, acknowledges the deep social harm it causes.

“There is overwhelming public policy/public interest reasons to ensure that where discrimination is said to have contaminated decisions of public authorities and/or judicial/regulatory processes that that issue is litigated.”