Barrister relieved after professional misconduct case ‘hell’ dismissed
Dr Charlotte Proudman had faced a Bar Standards Board disciplinary tribunal.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A high-profile barrister has told of her relief as “more than two-and-a-half years of hell” came to an end after a professional misconduct case against her was dismissed.
Women’s rights campaigner Dr Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in family law, had faced a Bar Standards Board disciplinary tribunal over a 14-part Twitter thread criticising a judge’s ruling over a domestic abuse case, saying it echoed a “boys’ club”.
The five charges against her were dropped on Thursday. They alleged Dr Proudman had “failed to act with integrity” in posting the tweets, that they amounted to professional misconduct, were “misleading” and “inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge” in the case.
I'm relieved. Relieved after more than two-and-a-half years of this hell
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” by making the posts.
Speaking to media after the hearing, Dr Proudman said: “I’m relieved. Relieved after more than two-and-a-half years of this hell.”
Panel chairman Nicholas Ainley found her tweets are protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right of freedom of expression.
He said her tweets did not “gravely damage” the judiciary, which would “put them outside” of Article 10 protection.
“We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that,” he said.