A barrister has accused her professional regulator of failing to protect her from online gender violence, at the start of a disciplinary hearing against her for saying a judge had shown a “boys’ club attitude”.
Charlotte Proudman is alleged by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) to have breached its professional standards but has been permitted to argue that the decision to bring proceedings against her constitutes discrimination because she is a woman and a feminist.
The five charges against Proudman relate to a 14-part Twitter thread she posted in April 2022 about a judgment by Jonathan Cohen – a member of the Garrick Club, which recently ended its ban on female members – which she said “has echoes of the ‘boys’ club’.”
Proudman said she was also troubled by Cohen referring to the relationship between a woman and her ex-husband, a part-time judge and barrister, as “tempestuous” and describing the alleged domestic violence as “reckless”.
The BSB claims the thread “inaccurately reflected the finding of a judge on a case in which she was instructed” and that Proudman had used “seriously offensive, derogatory language which was designed to demean and/or insult the judge”.
Proudman wept as she denied the charges at the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service in central London on Tuesday. She was supported outside by women, who she had previously represented in the family courts, chanting “Bullshit board, protect her speech”.
Her lawyer, Mónica Feria-Tinta, said in written submissions that Proudman had separately been investigated by the BSB for using the words “these male lawyers”, adding: “In contrast, the Bar Standards Board concluded that male barristers who called Dr Proudman a ‘cunt’, mentally ill, and a ‘wanker’ did not use gendered language or breach the code of conduct.”
She said the treatment constituted sex discrimination and violated article 14 of the European convention of human rights “as it demonstrates a double standard in how the BSB assessed conduct based on gender”.
Feria-Tinta added: “While the BSB unfairly scrutinised Dr Proudman’s lawful expression, it excused blatantly misogynistic and abusive language by male barristers, highlighting bias against Dr Proudman and a failure to apply its regulatory powers equitably.
“As a result of the Bar Standards Board’s failure to protect Dr Proudman from gender violence online from other barristers, Dr Proudman suffered further abuse from men on social media.”
She said the BSB had found that language used by barristers about Proudman “was ‘unpleasant and inflammatory’ but was not even a potential breach of the code of conduct”.
Feria-Tinta further told the tribunal: “The failure to properly investigate Dr Proudman’s allegations, particularly when juxtaposed with the rigorous scrutiny of Dr Proudman’s alleged actions, is evidence of bias and discrimination against Dr Proudman as a female barrister and feminist.”
On Wednesday, arguments will continue as to whether Proudman’s tweets are protected by article 10, which protects freedom of expression, and the case should consequently be dismissed.
