A prominent female barrister facing disciplinary proceedings after she said a judge displayed a “boys' club attitude” has applied to have the case against her dismissed, arguing that she is held to a higher standard than male barristers.
Charlotte Proudman is a member of the Garrick Club who was charged by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) in relation to a 14-part thread she posted on X about comments he made in a family court ruling two years ago. The Garrick Club recently lifted its ban on female members for the first time in 193 years.
At a closed hearing in central London on Monday, Alison Padfield, a lawyer representing Proudman, argued that the BSB had discriminated against her by suing her because of her gender and feminist beliefs.
In her thread, Proudman said she was troubled by Judge Cohen's use of the word “intense” to describe the woman's relationship with her ex-husband, a part-time judge and barrister, and by his use of the word “reckless” to describe the alleged domestic violence. She added that the ruling “is reminiscent of the 'man's world' that still exists among men in positions of power.”
The BSB's charges include that Proudman used “offensive and derogatory language intended to degrade and denigrate the judge”.
Ms Padfield said her client had received “very different responses” from nine male barristers who variously described the response to a bail application by another judge in a different case as “unfathomably stupid”, “very stupid”, “absurd”, “pretty strange”, “unlawful” and “illegal”.
“It is incomprehensible that the Bar Standards Commission would investigate and prosecute Dr Proudman over his tweets,” Padfield wrote. [Cohen] Yet they have decided not to even investigate such extreme comments made by male barristers about judges.
“Accordingly, the Bar Standards Board has upheld article 10 of Dr Proudman’s case. [of the European convention of human rights] “Barrister's right to freedom of expression is respected less than the Article 10 right to freedom of expression of male lawyers,” she added.
She also contrasted the BSB's treatment of Mr Proudman with the regulator's attitude towards Good Law Project founder Jolyon Maugham KC, who said the High Court judge was “something of a martyred hero because we all see her as the work that has rolled back trans rights and empowered transphobia and transphobic supporters in the national public debate”.
Mr Padfield said the BSB had written to Maugham saying it did not consider his actions to have breached its rules because his comments “expressed his honest views, whatever the value of his reasons or conclusions and did not amount to unfair libel”.
Mr Padfield wrote: “The Bar Standards Commission treated Dr Proudman less favourably than a male lawyer, Mr Maugham KC, and charged Dr Proudman but not Mr Maugham.”
In a written submission, the BSB said it failed to investigate “individual and group allegations of discrimination, bullying and harassment against Dr Proudman by lawyers on social media”.
None of the judges involved have responded to the criticism levelled at them, in keeping with practice that judges cannot comment on cases outside court.
The judge denied a motion by Proudman's lawyers to hold a hearing on the dismissal motion in public. The hearing is scheduled to conclude on Tuesday.
The BSB said that because the hearings were being held behind closed doors, it was “unable to provide any documents relating to the proceedings and it would not be appropriate to comment further”.
