Proudman: Publicity has helped carve out a niche practice
Journalists love Charlotte Proudman. You might think it would be for her pioneering legal work and campaigning on violence against women and girls, resulting in over 60 published cases, including high-profile matters such as that of Kate Kniveton, the former MP who waived her anonymity to speak out about the abuse she endured from her husband, who at the time was a government minister.
But, of course, it’s not that. In the era of identity politics, it’s the fact that she happily labels herself ‘the feminist barrister’, is willing to speak out on big issues such as Johnny Depp/Amber Herd, and has a seemingly unrivalled ability to wind people up, whether intentionally or not.
She is active on social media, pops up regularly on TV and radio, and generates reams of copy for journalists – one column in the New Stateman in 2023 was headlined: “The problem with Charlotte Proudman.” Not many lawyers get singled out like her.
Meeting with Legal Futures after a day in court, the 36-year-old insists she doesn’t consider that the ‘controversial’ description often attached as a prefix to her name is justified.
“I don’t think that speaking up about violence against women and girls or being a feminist is controversial. I certainly didn’t think it would mean death threats and giving evidence in a criminal court over that or threats to ruin my career.”
The threat to her career nearly manifested itself late last year, only for a Bar disciplinary tribunal to take the highly unusual step of declaring that she had no case to answer from the Bar Standards Board (BSB). We’ll come back to this.
Dr Proudman was called in 2010 and subsequently received a doctorate in the law and policy of female genital mutilation from King’s College, Cambridge and an MPhil in criminology from Queens’ College, Cambridge.
Having previously worked from Mansfield Chambers, now practices from Goldsmith Chambers, where we meet. She continues her academic pursuits on gender inequality in the law, as a senior research associate at Cambridge University, as well as a Fellow at Queens’ College in law and sociology.
She is a little coy about her background – she has a book coming out on 1 May on sexism in the justice system, called He said, She said – but explains that “I thought the law could be used as an empowering tool to help protect women from violence and help prevent it as well. And genuinely believed in the powers of the law as a tool for good and social change”.
The barrister burst into the public consciousness in 2015 after she called out a senior solicitor who had messaged her on LinkedIn to compliment her “stunning” profile picture. The response was extraordinary, sparking a media frenzy.
Most memorably, the headshot was splashed across the top of the Daily Mail front page promoting a column by Sarah Vine with the headline: “A glam lawyer and the Feminazis who hate men who praise their looks.”
Dr Proudman says it was a shocking introduction to the public spotlight: “Never in my wildest nightmares did I imagine that would happen. Every aspect of my life was scrutinised and I experienced a lot of misogynistic abuse and bullying.
“I do wonder, if that happened today, would I be prosecuted by my regulator for daring to publicly criticise a solicitor for sexual harassment? They would accuse me of breaching the code, rather than him.”
Whether or not this is the case, it is a window into how bruised Dr Proudman feels after her encounters with the BSB.
Back to 2015. She struggled with the reaction and for a couple of years disappeared from social media. But then she put her head back above the parapet, where it has stayed since, providing a target at which many have taken aim.
“I took the view that to create the kind of change that I think needs to happen and to raise awareness, the best way of doing that is in the public eye. That means putting yourself out there and sharing your views and your experiences and doing it with other women as well and arguing for change like we do in court, but in a more public forum.”
This has come with an obvious price and one ultimately – despite the downsides – Dr Proudman has clearly been willing to pay. “I think I just expected better of humankind,” she sighs.
And has it been good for business? “I’ve done a lot of really interesting cases and represented some remarkable courageous women who I perhaps would never have met if they didn’t know that I was the person that I am and putting my views out there,” she acknowledges.
“They want me to represent them because of how outspoken I am, and I share similar values and beliefs to them. So yes, to that extent, I think that it’s helped probably carve out a niche practice of violence against women and girls, and family law.”
Indeed, some of her clients and other supporters gathered outside the tribunal ahead of the hearing in a show of support – not something the Bar Tribunal & Adjudication Service often witnesses. This must have been very gratifying: “Yes, it was something else.”
She even received support from special rapporteurs appointed by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, who told the UK government about their concerns over the “ongoing harassment” of Dr Proudman.
But she is keen to highlight one area of discrimination that is not talked about and can be bad for business – the practice of the Chambers & Partners directory taking what she calls “secret soundings” about the lawyers whose entries it is evaluating.
“They will speak to random barristers or solicitors, supposedly as part of their background checks. Even if they’ve never worked with you, never even met you, but have a strong opinion, [the researchers] will take that into account in deciding what ranking you are or even if you’re ranked at all.”
She says she paid Chambers & Partners £650 for a copy of the research on her. “It was just three pages of gratuitous and offensive comments written by other professionals that I apparently work alongside. No idea who they are – I would like to know – but some of the things they wrote about me, I’m shocked they included it in there, let alone took it into account.
“It was the kind of material you would see on Twitter – derogatory, disparaging, personal attacks, not evidence-based, not ‘I worked with her in X case and this happened’. Just general views from people who had heard of me and formed an opinion, which were deeply unpleasant and very upsetting to read.”
Dr Proudman wrote back to express her shock that this feedback was both collected and taken into account, but says she did not receive a substantive response.
“I find it incredible that secret soundings are still going on in our profession because it means that people who are doing good work but are not liked or even abused and attacked, effectively end up blacklisted, which is the antithesis of transparency and a meritocracy. It’s awful.”
For Chambers & Partners’ response, see our news story.
- The second part of this interview, focusing on her dealings with the BSB, will be published tomorrow.
Leave a Comment