A barrister is facing disciplinary proceedings for expressing frustration at the “echoes of a boys’ club attitude” that she claims were in a family court judgment that went against her client.
Charlotte Proudman criticised a judgment of Sir Jonathan Cohen – a member of the men-only Garrick Club – over remarks he made in a family case two years ago.
She knew he was a member of the Garrick when she published a series of tweets expressing criticism, but in a defence she argued she had been making a broader point about “unconscious male bias”.
When Proudman discovered earlier this year that Philip Havers, the judge appointed to handle her disciplinary proceedings, was also a member of the Garrick, she made a formal request that he recuse himself on the grounds that a “fair-minded and informed observer, having considered these facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias”.
After considering her request, Havers withdrew himself from the case this month.
There is no suggestion that Cohen and Havers discussed this case or any work matters or ever met at the central London club. But it highlights some of the issues around public perception raised by the membership of significant numbers of Britain’s most senior judges of a club that has resisted calls to allow female members since the 1960s.
Proudman could face a 12-month suspension of her licence or a fine if found in breach for posting a 14-part thread on X, then called Twitter, in April 2022. It expressed her concerns at the tone of a judgment handed down by Cohen in relation to a family court case.
A three-person disciplinary panel will consider the five professional misconduct charges against her later this year. She is accused by the Bar Standards Board of tweeting misleading information that “inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge in a case in which she was instructed”.
Charge four accuses Proudman of tweeting posts that contained “seriously offensive, derogatory language which was designed to demean and/or insult the judge”.
In her 14-part thread, Proudman suggested the judge had minimised the significance of the domestic abuse her client said she had faced at the hands of her ex-husband.
“I lost the case. I do not accept the judge’s reasoning,” she wrote. “This judgment has echoes of the ‘boys’ club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.”
The fifth charge says Proudman had “behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in her and in the profession” by tweeting posts that were insulting to the judge.
Proudman denies all five charges and she will argue that the proceedings infringe her “right to freedom of expression, to hold opinions”. She will also argue that the tweets “were neither misleading nor were they inaccurate” and that the language used was “neither seriously offensive nor derogatory”.
In a formal note to the Bar Standards Board requesting that Havers recuse himself, Proudman’s counsel wrote on 4 March: “Sir Jonathan Cohen’s entry in Who’s Who says that he is a member of the Garrick Club. Mr Havers KC’s entry in Who’s Who says that he is a member of the Garrick Club. The Garrick Club is a high-profile, exclusive, all-male club and is the literal embodiment of the metaphorical ‘boys’ club’ referred to by Dr Proudman in the tweet.”
The note added: “The use of the term ‘boys’ club’ is well known within a legal context. The background to this is that the vast majority of KCs and members of the judiciary at high court, court of appeal and supreme court level are cis, white, able-bodied men from a similar demographic background that includes public school and Oxbridge educated. As such, the term has become a shorthand to exemplify both conscious and unconscious male bias.”
Havers responded to her on 13 March saying he would recuse himself.
The guide to judicial conduct says a judge’s decision to recuse himself or herself is based not on “whether the judicial office holder would in fact be biased (which would, of course, require recusal)” but on whether a fair-minded observer could “conclude that there was a real possibility that they would be biased”.
Havers noted that no objection had been made earlier on this matter, pointing out that he had already made some directions on the case. Proudman said she only made the request for recusal when she discovered in late February that Havers was also a member of the Garrick.
Proudman has applied to have the case, which is now due to be overseen by another judge who has yet to be named, struck out.
The judiciary press office said Havers and Cohen had been made aware of a request to respond and would not be commenting. Cohen’s judgment in the divorce case has not been appealed against. The Bar Standards Board said it did not comment on ongoing disciplinary proceedings.
Details published by the Guardian last week revealed that some of Britain’s most powerful judges, including a supreme court judge, four appeal court judges and 11 high court judges, were members of the Garrick, a gentlemen’s club that has repeatedly blocked attempts to allow women to join. The Garrick’s membership also includes about 150 KCs, dozens of serving and retired judges, current and former ministers in the Ministry of Justice, and numerous senior solicitors.
In the US, the federal code of conduct for judges states that they “should not hold membership in any organisation that practises invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin”, and that such membership “gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s partiality is impaired”.
