Barrister who was cleared of misconduct over social media posts demands Bar Standards Board heads resign

Dr Charlotte Proudman, a high-profile barrister specialising in family law, has called for the resignation of the head of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) after she was cleared of misconduct over social media posts. The 36 year old faced a BSB disciplinary tribunal over a 14-part Twitter thread in which she criticised a judge’s ruling on a domestic abuse case, describing it as reflective of a "boys’ club".

However, all five charges against her were dropped on Thursday. Speaking to The Times, Dr Proudman described the position of Mark Neale, the board’s director-general, as "untenable" and also called for the chairwoman, Kathryn Stone, to step down.

She expressed her desire to work with the BSB to address issues of misogyny and sexism within the profession but stated that under the current leadership, this would not be possible. The charges against Dr Proudman alleged that her tweets were misleading, inaccurately reflected the judge's findings, amounted to professional misconduct, and demonstrated a failure to act with integrity.

The women's rights advocate faced allegations of acting in a manner "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" through her social media posts. However, panel chairman Nicholas Ainley ruled that her tweets are safeguarded by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which upholds the right to freedom of expression.

He stated that her tweets did not "gravely damage" the judiciary to an extent that would remove them from Article 10 protection, despite the possibility that they were "not pleasant for any judge to read" or could be "hurtful". "We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that," he added.

The panel also found that some tweets were only slightly inaccurate and did not meet the threshold for a charge of lacking integrity. After the verdict, Dr Proudman told 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 asserts that her tweets contribute to "foster confidence" in the justice system, stating: "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."

She also revealed that the BSB seems to have spent nearly £40,000 "of barristers’ money" on legal representation in her case, commenting: "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 is calling for "systemic change" within the board, criticising their understanding of gender and diversity issues: "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 remarked. She believes that until the board acknowledges the "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."

which she has endured "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."

there will be no progress, adding: "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 recounted experiences with male barristers who have insulted her on social media and made derogatory remarks about her.

In her April 6, 2022 posts, Dr Proudman mentioned a case involving her client who claimed to have been a victim of coercive and controlling behaviour by her husband, a part-time judge, which allegedly prevented her from freely engaging in the couple's "post-nuptial" financial agreement.

Dr Proudman, commenting on the ruling by Family Court judge Sir Jonathan Cohen, 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.