Barrister who slammed judge says attempts to reprimand her are sexist

A barrister who hit out at a judge for being part of a 'boys' club' has said attempts to reprimand her for the comments are sexist. 

Dr Charlotte Proudman is facing disciplinary action by the Bar Standards Council over her posts about Sir Jonathan Cohen's judgement in a family case two years ago. 

She suggested the judge minimised the significance of the domestic abuse her client suffered by her ex-husband, in a 14-part thread. 

Dr Proudman failed to have the case against her thrown out on the basis of 'abuse of process' during a disciplinary hearing held behind closed doors this week.

But she successfully argued that the tribunal should consider her counterclaim that the proceedings against her violated her human rights as it was unlawful discrimination.

The lawyer claims she was discriminated against due to both her sex and feminist beliefs which go against the European Convention on Human Rights and Equality Act 2010. 

The case stems from Dr Proudman's comments on Mr Justice Cohen about a family law dispute judgment two years ago. 

Read More

EXCLUSIVE
Campaigners' fury as police refuse to name depraved pervert it fears is a 'risk to women' after 'very concerning and escalating' behaviour

'I lost the case. I do not accept the judge's reasoning,' she wrote on X, then known as Twitter. 

'This judgment has echoes of the 'boys' club' which still exists among men in powerful positions.' 

Dr Proudman has argued that the Bar Standards Board decided not to investigate offensive comments made by nine male barristers about another judge.

Another lawyer claimed that a judge had 'rolled back trans rights', but similarly faced no action.

Meanwhile, barristers who have taken to social media to abuse Dr Proudman also haven't faced any action against them.  

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, the Telegraph report.

'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 now faces a wait to see whether she will face suspension for up to 12 months or a fine of up to £50,000. She has denied allegations of wrongdoing.