Barrister’s delight after skilled misconduct cost for saying choose was ‘a part of a boys’ membership’ is thrown out

A barrister who criticised a judge for showing a ‘boys’ club’ attitude has praised the dismissal of a professional misconduct case against her as a victory for free speech.

Dr Charlotte Proudman faced disciplinary action by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) over her posts in April 2022 about Sir Jonathan Cohen’s judgement in a family law case she lost.

But a three-person panel at the disciplinary tribunal in Gray’s Inn Square, London, threw out the case today after ruling her 14-part thread is protected speech under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act which upholds freedom of expression.

The women’s rights campaigner, 36, celebrated the victory and said she is ‘relieved’ it is over ‘after more than two-and-a-half years of this hell’.

‘This ruling is a victory for women’s rights and a right to freedom of speech.

‘I don’t think you can actually explain how overwhelming it’s been emotionally,’ she said. ‘It was the first thing I thought about when I woke up and the last thing I thought about at night.

‘I was personally targeted, particularly by individuals in the BSB who have not cared about the abusive language I’ve faced from male barristers.

‘It’s the first time I started to understand how clients feel when they’re getting emails from their perpetrators.

‘That’s how I felt with this kind of very oppressive litigation conduct with my regulator, who I just don’t trust.’

The case stems from her comments on Mr Justice Cohen about a family law dispute judgement more than two years ago.

‘I lost the case. I do not accept the judge’s reasoning,’ she wrote on social media platform X.

‘This judgment has echoes of the ‘boys’ club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.’

The BSB alleged that Dr Proudman had ‘failed to act with integrity’ with the posts and they amounted to professional misconduct, were ‘misleading’ and ‘inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge’ in the case.

She was 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.’

But Nicholas Ainley, chair of the tribunal panel, said they found Dr Proudman’s posts did not constitute professional misconduct and there was no basis to the claim they lacked integrity.

‘We do not consider she has lost the Article 10 protection by reason as to what she wrote,’ he told the tribunal.

‘They would not have been pleasant for any judge to read. These remarks may be thought to be hurtful but they are not gravely damaging to the judiciary.

‘We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that.’

Dr Proudman was visibly emotional upon hearing the case had been dismissed and celebrated by sharing a warm embrace with her partner and defence team.

‘The case against me brought by my regulatory body, the Bar Standards Board, should never have happened and I said that from day one,’ she said.

‘Daily Mail readers believe in free speech and there is a right to be able to criticise judges and judgments,’ she said.

‘What I said was not grossly offensive, gravely damaging to the judiciary at all. It was comments that I would make in an appeal court.

‘Frankly, we should be talking about domestic abuse in this way and calling our systemic failures in the justice system.

‘Everyone in our country believes in democracy so the establishment should be open to criticism.’

She is planning to take action against the BSB for discrimination and infringing on her human rights and slammed the regulatory body for spending close to £40,000 on barristers in the case.

‘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,’ the high-profile lawyer said.

‘I think it’s absolutely shocking and it’s an indictment of just how poor the regulator is. I have no confidence in them.’

Dr Proudman is also pursuing the BSB for her legal costs in the case brought against her.

She will be celebrating the ruling with champagne and is looking forward to her first worry-free Christmas in two years.

The feminist barrister faced a suspension of up to 12 months or a fine of as much as £50,000 if she was found guilty of professional misconduct.

It is not clear if the BSB is going to appeal the ruling. The regulatory board declined to comment.