Sign up for the Independent Women email for the latest news, opinion and features
Get the Independent Women email for free
Get the Independent Women email for free
A women’s rights lawyer has been accused of professional misconduct after challenging a judge for having “a boys’ club” attitude in a ruling on a domestic abuse case.
Charlotte Proudman, a family law lawyer who specialises in violence against women, is facing a Bar Standards Board (BSB) disciplinary tribunal over a 14-part Twitter thread criticising a ruling in a case she worked on.
In the posts in April 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 minimization 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 “trivialization” of domestic abuse.
“Tempestuous? Lose his temper? Isn’t this the trivialization of domestic abuse & gendered language. This is not normal married life,” she wrote.
The five charges against Dr Proudman allege that she “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.
She is 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.
On Tuesday, Dr Proudman’s defence team argued that the proceedings brought against her by the BSB were an “unlawful interference” of her right to freedom of expression.
The 36-year-old cried as the charges were read out to her and denied them all during the first day of the tribunal.
Monica Feria-Tinta, acting on behalf of Dr Proudman, argued that the tweets were “commentary” by a “feminist” and not “statements of fact”.
She said: “A robust judiciary would welcome a level of criticism which actually makes democratic society healthier and the rule of law more robust.”
She added: “Clearly her intention was to share commentary on the specifics that troubled her on issues of domestic violence and issues of gender violence”.
In written submissions, Ms Feria-Tinta argued that the BSB’s proceedings “constitute gender-based discrimination” that is “based on her sex and/or her feminist beliefs”.
She said it was “well-known” that Sir Jonathan was a member of the Garrick Club, a central London private members’ club that was strictly male-only from its founding in 1831 until it reportedly voted to permit women applicants earlier this year.
The bar standards board “disproportionately targeted” Dr Proudman for expressing “legitimate critique of systemic bias” while Sir Jonathan’s Garrick Club membership went “unquestioned”, she said.
“In contrast, the judge’s membership in an all-male club, which arguably perpetuated gender inequality, went unquestioned,” Ms Feria-Tinta added. “This selective scrutiny of Dr Proudman’s commentary demonstrates a gendered double standard and further highlights the Bar Standard Board’s discriminatory treatment against her as a woman and feminist advocate.”
Mark McDonald, also representing Dr Proudman, told the three-person tribunal panel that she had dedicated her career to issues surrounding domestic violence and women’s rights.
The panel heard that Dr Proudman had written two books on discrimination and more than 65 articles for publications including The Independent, The Guardian and The Telegraph on issues related to domestic violence and gender discrimination within the law.
“She has spent her career, her professional life, addressing these issues,” he said.
Mr McDonald told the tribunal that Dr Proudman was a former mentee of his who had first come to his attention when she wrote and complained about the lack of female portraits in the hall at Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, one of the four inns of court.
The subjects depicted in the hall’s portraits, he said, are now more diverse.
“That’s an example of how Dr Proudman has led the charge to change things,” he added.
A group of more than a dozen protesters, including former clients of Dr Proudman, gathered outside the tribunal holding placards with slogans such as “Blatantly Sexist Board” and “silencing women to protect the establishment”.
The demonstrators chanted “equal rights for all” and “stop silencing women and children”, as the barrister arrived and greeted them outside the hearing.
Speaking to The Independent last year, Dr Proudman hit out at the Bar Standards Board for not taking action against colleagues who verbally abused her in foul-mouthed rants on Twitter/X.
The lawyer reported more than 50 barristers, who were predominantly male, to the body over a series of public messages. She believes the criticism is “an attempt to silence” her from speaking out about violence against women and girls.
But despite being acknowledged as “unpleasant and inflammatory”, the board said it would not take action because the messages do not meet the threshold for regulatory action.
Tweets sent by currently practising and retired lawyers, seen by The Independent, brand Dr Proudman a “c***t”, a “w*****”, a “narcissist”, and “dreadful” — as well as accusing her of “idiocy”.
The tribunal at Gray’s Inn Square, London, is expected to last four days.
Additional reporting by Press Association
Source: independent.co.uk
