UN concerned about disciplinary action against British lawyer over ‘boys’ club’ remarks | Law

Four UN special rapporteurs have warned that disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer who accused a judge of having a “human club attitude” could send a “worrying message” to lawyers fighting gender discrimination in custody and domestic violence cases.

Charlotte Proudman is accused by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) of tweeting misleading information in comments she made about Jonathan Cohen, a member of the Garrick Club, which recently lifted its ban on female members after 193 years, following remarks Cohen made in a family law judgment two years ago.

In 2022, Proudman wrote on X that she was disturbed that in a ruling, Cohen described the relationship between a woman and her former husband, who was a part-time judge and lawyer, as “stormy” and that he used the word “reckless” to describe the alleged domestic violence.

Proudman, whose legal team has asked for the BSB lawsuit to be dismissed, wrote of Cohen’s ruling: “I do not accept the judge’s reasoning. This ruling is reminiscent of the ‘boys’ club’ that still exists among men in positions of power.”

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

They said: “While we do not wish to prejudge the veracity of the above allegations, we are concerned that the ongoing harassment of Dr Proudman, coupled with the BSB’s decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, may send a disturbing message that legal professionals who dare to challenge alleged systematic gender discrimination against mothers in custody cases and against women who are victims of domestic violence will be punished.

“This could also raise fears within the community of human rights activists, academics and practising lawyers working to promote women’s rights in the UK that such decisions will further deter victims from reporting and/or speaking out about their abuse, thereby putting women and children at even greater risk of significant harm.”

The letter, which was sent in May but only published on Mondayhighlighted “misogynistic and sexist” alleged online attacks against Proudman, saying these had been facilitated by gaps in the BSB’s code of conduct and social media policies relating to this specific threat.

The Special Rapporteurs also expressed concern “about reports that disciplinary proceedings against Dr Proudman are directly related to her professional activities as a lawyer”. The letter said that if this were the case, it would breach the conditions afforded to lawyers to carry out their professional duties and reminded the government that “lawyers, like all other people living in the United Kingdom, are entitled to freedom of expression”.

They called on the government to comment on a number of issues, including the alleged online abuse against Proudman – and against women in general – and the BSB investigation.

In its response dated 4 July, 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 takes a decisive approach and has taken numerous measures to tackle violence against women and girls, including online crime.”

Proudman could face a 12-month license suspension or a fine if she violates the standards. Cohen has not responded to Proudman’s comments because judges are not allowed to comment on cases outside of court, according to protocol.

A BSB spokesperson said: “We do not believe there are any gaps in our handbook and social media policies relating to misogyny and sexism. However, we keep our rules under review and will be consulting on changes to our equality rules shortly. We are not prepared to comment on the specific case you are referring to.”