This is the second and final part of our interview with barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman. Read the first here.
Charlotte Proudman speaking to the media after being clear by the Bar tribunal
There is no doubt that Charlotte Proudman attracts more online ire than pretty much any other lawyer, and this often turns into complaints to her chambers – she expresses gratitude for its steadfast support – and to the Bar Standards Board (BSB).
“Some of the complaints were just outright shocking, calling me dangerous, a radical misandrist, referring to my supposed sexuality. The language was awful. And the BSB would write back to them and thank them for their complaint. They’d apologise for not taking it any further but say it would be kept on my record and invite them to send any more evidence if they had it available. And also give them a right of review.”
There were “abusive” complaints that she contends the BSB should not have tolerated. “They should have just said, ‘How dare you even write this about an officer of the court’. Instead, the BSB wrote back and said, ‘We understand that Dr Proudman’s views are controversial or are seen by some as controversial’. It is absolutely outrageous.”
A common criticism is that she comments on areas she does not practise in, such as criminal law – but, even if true, that hardly makes her unique among lawyers.
“Certain individuals who have said that about me opine on all sorts of legal matters, particularly immigration and international human rights law, outside of their specific expertise. And it’s perfectly acceptable for them to have an opinion, but I’m not allowed to, particularly when it comes to violence against women and girls. I’m entitled to my views and that’s that. But obviously the same is not said about men.”
As for the suggestion that she is obsessed with ‘white male privilege’. That does sometimes play a part, she accepts, but there are also “brilliant white men who do excellent work, especially for victims of domestic violence, and have been champions of women and some have mentored me”.
She is equally confounded by the BSB’s refusal to take action on her complaints about barristers who have sent abuse her way. She rejects the notion that the regulator is being even-handed, denying any equivalence between the feminist views she expresses online and the crude abuse barristers direct at her. And the latter complaints are not kept on their records either, she says.
More to the point, given what she was on trial for at the Bar disciplinary tribunal last year, the BSB decided not to investigate nine male barristers who criticised a judge on Twitter – and did not tell complainants that their complaints would nonetheless stay on the barristers’ records.
So to the tribunal, which hung over her head for approaching three years. It concerned nine tweets within a 14-part thread about a high-profile case where she argued unsuccessfully that her client was coerced into signing a post-nuptial agreement by her husband.
The BSB alleged that, in explaining why she disagreed with the decision of Mr Justice Jonathan Cohen the tweets were misleading and insulting to the judge. One said: “This judgment has echoes of the ‘boys club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.”
In finding she had no case to answer, the tribunal upheld Dr Proudman’s right to freedom of expression, saying the tweets may not have been pleasant for a judge to read, but were “not gravely damaging” to the judiciary.
During the hearing, the BSB sought to distinguish her tweets from those of the male barristers on the basis that, unlike in her case, they were not acting in those matters.
She can’t say much at this stage – the written decision has yet to be published and the BSB will have 21 days from then to decide whether to appeal, while a hearing on her application for costs is still to be held.
But Dr Proudman has been outspoken in her condemnation of the BSB, claiming it wanted to silence her. She has called for director-general Mark Neale to resign – “He has wasted a huge amount of resources on persecuting me through this” – and chair Kathryn Stone too as the figurehead of the whole organisation.
But can this really be true? It seems difficult to believe that the regulator would act in such bad faith, especially given what a high-profile matter this would inevitably be.
She describes some of the internal BSB documents disclosed as part of her case, revealing what was passing back and forth between senior BSB officials, as “shocking” and she is considering her position about making them public.
About half an hour after the tribunal gave its decision, she recounts, the BSB emailed her a reminder of “an implied undertaking that I have apparently given not to disclose anything from the proceedings. This is obviously wrong in law because the bundle was before the tribunal and once you put it before a public tribunal, it opens it up to the public”.
She adds: “It was designed, in my view, to try to intimidate and bully me – even after they lost their case.”
She hints at the strain the proceedings have had on her and says it has had a “chilling effect” on what she is prepared to write online.
But Dr Proudman says she has also had “quite a lot of support” – albeit privately. “Most of those people either don’t have public profiles on X or, if they do, they are worried about the backlash that they might suffer if they speak out or say things in support.”
She describes as “very important” the statement made by in 2023 by then Bar Council chair Nick Vineall calling out the abuse she has faced from other barristers. “I really felt it was leading the way and saying ‘Enough is enough’.”
Dr Proudman has spoken a little about her direct experience of sexual harassment – the barrister who rubbed her thigh on the way to court, the solicitor who asked for a bikini picture instead of a CV – and the ‘micro-aggressions’ of patronising comments in court, such as calling her ‘young lady’.
And also the male mentor who groped her while supposedly offering consolation when the battle was getting her down.
“I made a decision not to report that to the BSB as I had no confidence that they would deal with that appropriately, if at all,” she adds.
The same goes for the furore caused in recent months by the BSB’s proposed changes to its equality rules. “I think it’s well intentioned. Improving equality, diversity and inclusion in the profession is an admirable goal but I don’t think they are the right people to be judging whether someone has breached this duty.
“I think it’s actually quite dangerous for them to start dealing with these issues because they don’t understand misogyny. Another barrister can call you the C word and they say, ‘It’s a one-off inflammatory comment that doesn’t breach the code’.”
There are plenty of battles still to fight within the profession – she has in the past called for a 50% target of women in all chambers – and even more so without. The barrister founded Right To Equality, a non-profit organisation committed to creating “tangible change” on gender equality and the rights of women and girls through legal reform.
“I will always keep speaking out for victims of abuse, it runs in my veins, it’s who I am, and I am very much looking forward to the publication of my book. There are more changes to come but for now, I will keep plugging away – one case at a time.”
An article in The Critic magazine about last month’s London Women’s March noted sniffily that “barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman (she/her) found a window in her schedule of self-promotion to address the crowd”.
There is no doubt that Charlotte Proudman is going to keep on speaking her mind in the public sphere. And the criticism and, worse, the abuse will keep coming too.
Leave a Comment