Barrister hails dismissal of misconduct case as ‘victory for women’s rights’

A high-profile barrister has hailed the dismissal of a professional misconduct case against her as a victory for women’s rights and freedom of speech, labelling the proceedings a “personal attack against me as a woman and as a feminist”.

Dr Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in family law, had faced a Bar Standards Board (BSB) disciplinary tribunal over a 14-part Twitter thread criticising a judge’s ruling over a domestic abuse case, saying it echoed a “boys’ club”.

The five charges against the 36-year-old were dropped on Thursday. They alleged Dr Proudman had “failed to act with integrity” in posting the tweets, that they amounted to professional misconduct, were “misleading” and “inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge” in the case.

The women’s rights campaigner was also accused of behaving in a way “which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public placed in her and in the profession”, and that she “knowingly or recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the public” by making the posts.

But panel chairman Nicholas Ainley found her tweets are protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right of freedom of expression.

He said her tweets did not “gravely damage” the judiciary, which would “put them outside” of Article 10 protection, even if they “might not have been pleasant for any judge to read” or even “hurtful”.

“We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that,” he said.

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

Speaking after the hearing, Dr Proudman told the PA news agency: “This ruling is a victory for women’s rights and a right to freedom of speech.

“The prosecution against me brought by my regulatory body, the Bar Standards Board, should never have happened and I said that from day one.

“I criticised a domestic abuse judgment. Everyone should have the right to do that, whether you’re a barrister or not. Our justice system, which I strongly believe in, is robust enough to withstand criticism from me.”

She believes her tweets help “foster confidence” in the justice system, adding: “Only that way can we go about building change and a better treatment for all victims, women and children and men who are affected by domestic abuse.”

Explaining that the BSB appears to have spent almost £40,000 “of barristers’ money” on instructing counsel in her case, she added: “I think it’s shameful that they’re using our money to pay for, in my view, malicious, vexatious prosecutions which I have no doubt was a personal attack against me as a woman and as a feminist, as an outspoken critic and advocate for 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 misogyny and certainly not institutional misogyny,” she said.

“Until they recognise the deeply rooted, entrenched issue of bullying, harassment, sexism at the bar, for which I have suffered relentlessly… and own up to it I don’t think we’re going to see any change and I have no confidence in them.”

She told of how male barristers have called her insulting names on social media and made derogatory comments about her.

Dr Proudman spoke of the “tremendous” impact the tribunal proceedings have had on her emotionally, psychologically and reputationally for the past two-and-a-half years.

“At times, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it,” Dr Proudman said. “It’s the first thing I think about when I wake up, first thing I think about when I go to sleep. It’s been really overwhelming.”

Current and former clients of hers had attended some of the proceedings, and the barrister expressed her gratitude for their “outpouring of support”.

“One young woman, who is 18, travelled all the way from Scotland to support me,” she told PA.

“I represented her in the High Court when she was 15 and to see her standing there with a placard alongside her mum was extremely moving, and it allowed me to go into the tribunal and face it head on.”

Dr Proudman will be celebrating Thursday’s ruling with champagne and her first worry-free Christmas in two years.

“I’m looking forward to going out with my amazing legal team, who I cannot thank enough, and we’re going to go out and have some champagne,” she told PA.

“And I’m just looking forward to enjoying my Christmas. It’ll be my first Christmas in the last two years where I don’t have this hanging over my head – that worry and dread, talking to my mum about it, fretting over it, feeling anxious – so excited for that.”

The BSB declined to comment.

In the posts on April 6 2022, Dr Proudman referenced a case in which her client alleged she had been subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour by her husband, a part-time judge, meaning she had been “unable to freely enter” the couple’s “post-nuptial” financial agreement.

Commenting on the ruling by Family Court judge Sir Jonathan Cohen, Dr Proudman wrote: “I represented Amanda Traharne.

“She said she was coerced into signing a post-nuptial agreement by her husband (who is a part-time judge). I lost the case.

“I do not accept the Judge’s reasoning. I will never accept the minimisation of domestic abuse.”

She continued: “Demeaning the significance of domestic abuse has the affect of silencing victims and rendering perpetrators invisible.

“This judgement has echoes of (t)he ‘boys club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.”

In the thread, Dr Proudman wrote that the judge had described the relationship of the couple as “tempestuous”, which she argued was a “trivialisation” of domestic abuse.

“Tempestuous? Lose his temper? Isn’t this the trivialisation of domestic abuse & gendered language. This is not normal married life,” she wrote.