UN concerned over disciplinary proceedings against British lawyer over ‘boys’ club’ comments | Law

Four UN special rapporteurs have warned that disciplinary proceedings against a female lawyer for saying a judge had displayed a “boys’ club attitude” could send “a disconcerting message” to lawyers who challenge gender bias in child custody and domestic violence cases.

Charlotte Proudman is accused by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) of tweeting misleading information about comments she made about Jonathan Cohen – a member of the Garrick Club, which recently ended its ban on women joining after 193 years – over remarks he made in a family case heard two years ago.

In 2022, Proudman wrote on X that she was troubled by Cohen’s characterization in a judgment of a woman’s relationship with her ex-husband, a judge and part-time lawyer, as “tumultuous,” and by his use of the word “reckless” to describe alleged domestic violence.

Proudman, whose legal team has asked for the BSB charges to be struck out, wrote of Cohen’s decision: “I do not accept the judge’s reasoning. This judgment echoes the ‘boys’ club’ that still exists among men in positions of power.”

In a letter to the UK government, the Special Rapporteurs on violence against women and girls, freedom of opinion and expression, human rights defenders and discrimination against women and girls expressed concern about both the BSB investigation into Proudman and the online abuse of Proudman by people unconnected with the proceedings or the family law case.

They said: “While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of the allegations set out above, we are concerned that the continued harassment of Dr Proudman, combined with the BSB’s decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, may send a disconcerting message that legal professionals who dare to challenge alleged systemic gender bias against mothers in custody cases and women who have survived domestic violence will be punished.

“It may also raise concerns among the community of women human rights defenders, academics and practising lawyers working to defend women’s rights in the UK that such decisions will significantly deter victims from reporting and/or speaking out about their abuse, putting women and children at increased risk of significant harm.”

The letter, sent in May but before published on Mondayhighlighted alleged “misogynistic and sexist” online attacks on Proudman and said this had been facilitated by gaps in the BSB’s code of conduct and social media guidelines relating to this specific threat.

The Special Rapporteurs also expressed concern at reports that the disciplinary proceedings against Ms Proudman were directly linked to her professional activities as a lawyer. The letter stated that if this were the case, it would constitute a breach of the conditions to which lawyers are entitled to exercise their professional functions and reminded the Government that “lawyers, like all other people living in the United Kingdom, have the right to freedom of expression”.

They called on the government to address a number of issues, including allegations of online abuse against Proudman – and women more broadly – ​​and investigations by the BSB.

In its response, dated July 4 and also published on Monday, the government said: “It would be inappropriate for ministers or government officials to comment on or intervene in individual cases, complaints or disciplinary proceedings, such as that of Dr Proudman… The government has taken a strong approach and multiple measures to tackle violence against women and girls, including crimes committed online.”

Ms Proudman could face a 12-month driving ban or a fine if she is found guilty of breaching the standards. Cohen did not respond to Ms Proudman’s remarks, in line with protocol that judges cannot comment on cases outside of court.

A BSB spokesperson said: “We do not consider there to be any gaps in our handbook and social media guidelines in relation to misogyny and sexism. We do, however, keep our rules under regular review and will shortly be consulting on revisions to our equality rules. We are not prepared to comment on the individual case to which you refer.”