Independent review into culture at the Bar
Behind the Gown has coauthored this response with Her Bar and Right to Equality. Behind the Gown is immensely grateful to Rachel Bale and Dr Charlotte Proudman for their time and considered reflections of these issues.
1. Reasons for bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment
a. In your view, why is bullying, harassment and sexual harassment a persistent problem at the Bar?
The first issue relates to the difficulty of speaking up / complaining, (especially against those more senior). The backlash can be inhibiting. Because of this, those who act in a belittling, demeaning way are not made to understand how their behaviour amounts to bullying or harassment and such behaviour is normalised. This creates a polarising culture where people who do speak out are punished more severely, and othered. We have seen this play out online. We have written about the explicit abuse towards female barristers who speak up on women’s rights. It is astounding that barristers feel able to abuse members of the Bar. This speaks to a permissive culture and how those with most power (white, male barristers) have not been held to account. This links with the second issue: when little to nothing is done in response to this behaviour it sends a public message about what is acceptable. An effective way of stopping this behaviour is to expose it. This causes people to reflect through the eyes of others. Bullying and harassment persist because it has been minimised. When those on the receiving end of this behaviour have less power to challenge it, it becomes woven into our culture. The same may be said for sexual harassment. When it is not dealt with properly and recognised for the harmful conduct it is, it persists.
Additionally, there are power differentials which manifest across gender, ethnicity and disability. It is unsurprising that white, male barristers were the least likely to have experienced bullying, harassment or discrimination in person or online (Working Lives Survey, 2021). When those with less power assume the rights of those with more power, they subvert the status quo which can lead to bullying and harassment. This is (at least part of the reason) why women who speak up on women’s rights have been abused online; they disrupt the hierarchy. Power imbalances play out at the Bar and on the Bench. More could be done to implore those in positions of authority (whether by role, gender or ethnicity) to recognise when their biases and prejudices manifest as discriminatory conduct. Obviously, this should be disincentivised. Questions such as “are you trial counsel” or “who is trial counsel” belie stereotypical attitudes around the kinds of barristers undertaking ‘complex’ work. Judges, especially, occupy positions of power. They can empower advocates and bridge inequalities, particularly in court.
b. Are there particular dynamics or working practices at the Bar which allow for bullying, harassment and sexual harassment to persist?
Yes, the adversarial nature of the work, particularly in crime and family law, can lend itself to bullying and harassment. We work in competitive forums assuming opposing positions. The way we do this should not be a gateway to bullying and harassment. Barristers should be afforded the latitude to represent their clients how they wish, yet women endure differential treatment in and out of court and withstand closer scrutiny compared with men. We shouldn’t have to exercise resilience in the face of sexism or other discrimination.
Barristers occasionally work on trials away from home. This might involve staying in the same hotels as others on the case, or at least nearby. It may oblige socialising after court. Away from chambers and a support network, this working dynamic renders junior barristers potentially vulnerable to sexual harassment by increasing the opportunities for it to occur.
The criminal Bar is operating under significant strain. The backlog, excessive caseloads and shortage of advocates often means cases are not prepared as well as they should be. Drafting and disclosure is done at short notice at court. This impacts morale, tolerance and greatly increases the pressures under which we work.
There is no HR or independent complaints body at the Bar. Working as a barrister is often solitary / isolating. A complaint to chambers may involve someone in chambers. Having an external, independent body could offer more support and increase numbers of complaints.
The Bar is predicated on patronage: pupils rely on members of chambers to pay pupillage awards, juniors on senior barristers for junior briefs. Concerns over progression together with a negative complaint culture (though this is shifting) reduces the likelihood of complaints.
c. Are the relevant standards of behaviour relating to bullying, harassment and sexual harassment known, clear, accessible, and sufficiently robust?
No. Only discrimination is referred to in the Core Duties in the BSB Handbook, CD 8. Harassment is referred to in guidance as ‘serious misconduct’ and a breach of CD 3 / 5 / 8. Bullying does not feature in the Handbook.
The Equality Rules require chambers to have in place anti-harassment policies among others. In 2016, only a small percentage of chambers were fully compliant (Women at the Bar). It is not known how the Rules are enforced.
Standards of behaviour relating to bullying, harassment and sexual harassment are not widely known, or accessible, which affects how robust they can be. It is unclear whether all chambers have in place policies on bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. There is, perhaps, a need to introduce a cohesive behavioural code that applies across the Bar e.g. Statement of Expected Behaviour - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary and Conduct in Parliament - UK Parliament
d. Are the relevant standards of behaviour relating to bullying, harassment and sexual harassment sufficiently mainstreamed within barristers’ professional obligations? Should they, for example, be included within the Core Duties set out in the BSB Code of Conduct
For the reasons outlined above: no, standards of behaviour are not sufficiently mainstreamed within our obligations. In 2022, the BSB committed to updating the Handbook guidance to include bullying as an example of serious misconduct, but this didn’t happen Bullying-and-harassment-report.pdf (barstandardsboard.org.uk), para 20. We think this should happen.
2. Impact of bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment
a. What is the impact of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment on those who are subject to such misconduct?
The impact of bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment within the legal profession is profound, extending beyond immediate harm, to long-term damage. Those affected can experience physical and mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Career progression is jeopardised for victims who often feel they have to avoid certain spaces or people to safeguard their own health and well-being. The hierarchical nature of chambers exacerbates this issue- as will be noted in section 3- with junior barristers, women, minority groups, and other marginalised individuals feeling trapped in a toxic environment due to fear of retaliation or reputational harm.
Bullying from senior colleagues or even judges leads to widespread mistrust within affected groups and reinforces the notion that not only is bullying and harassment a concern with co-workers but also with those in power representing the institution itself. Institutionalised bullying is corrosive and lets the bullied know that misconduct is normalised and minimised.
When barristers seek to address the issue, particularly female or barristers of colour, they are viewed as trouble-makers, damaging their careers rather than seeking justice.
Until the institution changes and refuses to tolerate abuse from an intersectional standpoint and truly takes the issue seriously, there will be little change in the practices of individuals at the Bar.
There is a serious double standard and gendered inconsistency in how misconduct like bullying and harassment is currently addressed. For example, there is a female barrister who expressed concerns about a male judge’s language about an alleged victim of domestic abuse- she is facing prosecution, and her language was called ‘seriously offensive, derogatory language which was designed to demean and/or insult the judge.’ Meanwhile, several male barristers who publicly criticised a judge have faced no repercussions. In one instance, a male barrister’s Article 10 rights to express his views were upheld. The Bar Standards Board said, “...the comments, whatever the merits of the reasoning or conclusion, represented your sincerely held view and did not amount to gratuitous abuse. For these reasons, the Panel was satisfied that you were entitled to make those comments.’ This double standard, where women face professional consequences for speaking out while men are shielded, further alienates women from both the profession and from holding trust in the institution to protect them.
Further, the same female barrister had previously reported bullying and harassment from male barristers but was told their actions didn’t meet a ‘threshold’. Male barristers had verbally abused her, including calling her a c*nt. Where, then, does the line lie for male abuse if slurs and gendered verbal abuse do not meet the Bar Standards Board ‘threshold’?
In cases like these, the institution itself becomes an enabler of harassment and reinforces norms that discourage reporting, ultimately perpetuating bullying and harassment.
b. Is there a wider impact upon barristers’ staff, clients (professional and law), or the justice system more broadly?
Beyond individual victims, bullying and harassment damage the function of the justice system on the whole. Barristers are forced to balance protecting and advocating for their clients while also being forced to protect and advocate for themselves to (or against) the very institution they represent.
When complaints about bullying and/or harassment, especially those involving gender-based slurs, are dismissed (such as not meeting the ‘threshold,’ which lacks definition itself), it sends a clear message to victims and perpetrators that certain forms of abuse are acceptable and tolerable in the legal profession. Diversity and inclusion are inherently discouraged: ‘You’re welcome in, as long as you accept that abusing you is tolerated here.’
Clients and individuals within the legal system, including clerks and administrative teams, can lose trust in the system as they observe this tolerance of misconduct. Those responsible for upholding justice are facing systemic abuse, and ultimately, this will continue to undermine public trust in the legal system’s integrity.
There is a serious inconsistency in the enforcement of misconduct regulations, and the different application of rules based on the gender or status of the complainant/victim makes it clear that the profession is not safe.
3. Reporting mechanisms, resources, and sanctions
a. What are the barriers to reporting incidents of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment?
The bar is prefaced on systems of hierarchy and secrecy with new pupils and juniors quickly understanding that one has to be careful what they say and who they say it to. This has a fundamental impact on a victim’s confidence and trust in reporting as they fear any complaints made will impact them and their own career negatively – even if the perpetrator is sanctioned.
Within Chambers
From our community we understand issues begin on entering the Bar as a Pupil as you don’t want to be seen as a ‘troublemaker’ or someone who’s making noise unnecessarily as it jeopardises your chances of getting tenancy. This is the worst-case scenario for many pupils and, this is a prime time for exploitation, as they will not feel comfortable nor encouraged to speak up – so this affects junior barristers’ confidence nor motivation to speak
As for the policies themselves, each chamber will operate on their own systems, some more transparent than others e.g. clear routes of reporting to head of chambers. However, there are fundamental issues in these routes:
Lack of transparency, many pupils / lateral hires will not know where to go/ how to complain. Most chambers will have a constitution, but often it is not clear where to find this – nor is there a consistent clear route of complaints
Often the route is simply to go to head of chambers, but what if the issue stems from this individual – or someone very close to this individual
With the greatest respect to Head of Chambers, it is a thankless job often not remunerated and dealt with by a busy practitioner/ silk who already has a high caseload. Often these individuals so not have the time nor proper resources to deal with delicate complaints of harassment/; bullying and poor decisions are made. There needs to be stronger checks and balances within the system so all decision making is not left at the hands of one individual – however best intended.
Perhaps through a subcommittee within chambers e.g. complaints
Chambers provides fertile ground for gossip and if issues are not dealt with swiftly nor impartially, often issues can seep into chambers environment causing hostility to the workplace (for either the accused or accuser).
There just simply is not a coherent approach mandated from the Bar Council or BSB or otherwise as to how to approach issues within Chambers (or not one that is adopted anyway).
From the Bar
A real issue is bullying, comments and aggression faced from opponents – often to be perfectly frank, older male practitioners to young female practitioners. Examples go beyond that expected of ‘robust debate’ and can result in personal digs about intelligence, shouting and aggressive stances. Our community have discussed this and I personally as a practising barrister have been on the receiving end and witnessed incidents. It tends to leave the receiver having to “put on a brave face” but feel very demoralised when the day is finished and sometimes fearful.
Often people do not intervene on the day and there simply isn’t the process to do anything in that moment – who can one turn to?
It appears the best route would be Talk to Spot following an incident, writing the name of the perpetrator anonymously. Another option is to write to the head of chambers of that individual who caused harm
Fundamentally, our community discuss simply reducing down the incident after it has finished as a ‘bad day’ or ‘part of the job’ choosing to swallow a deeply unpleasant experience rather than having faith in a system of redressing the issue. This no doubt has an impact long term on their own wellbeing and desire to stay at the Bar, but also allows said individuals to continue acting in this manner
Often, we find women barristers will turn to other women barristers to discuss the incident, which in turn leads to a conversation of “me too” and sense of it affecting a large membership of the Bar who are currently suffering in silence
Confidentially, I personally have a blacklist of known unpleasant opponents who go beyond the reach of acceptable practice, which I often consult before a hearing so I can be prepared – not to be shared publicly. I am aware other colleagues do the same and many women barristers give the ‘heads up’ to one another of potential perpetrators.
Talk to Spot has had mixed reviews amongst our community - often saying it’s not user friendly and crashes. There is also an element of distrust that (a) reporting will actually do anything and (b) how confidential the details actually are.
One also needs to be aware of the risks of cyber-attacks from those so minded to exploit such a mechanism, with the fear being that the technology just isn’t as sophisticated as it needs to be to protect confidentiality.
From the Bench
Frankly, this is completely unchecked, and barristers often find no recourse or appropriate routes of complaining about a judge – outside of the route of appeal for bias.
The utility of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office is not widely publicised or known amongst Barristers - although a simple google search does bring this up.
Anecdotally any members who have explored complaining about a judge have been concerned about the ramifications on practice and lack of trust in the impartiality of the process, concerned, especially in the High Court – that “they all know each other” and there will be an element of “closing ranks”.
Further, when analysing the procedure, complaints can be dismissed in the first instance following a preliminary investigation notably if found to be ‘vexatious or misconceived’ without an understanding of how this is assessed. It provides an early dismissal of complaints without much stress testing, when one would normally assume some sort of procedure or thorough investigation to take place before this occurs.
It seems as though the test/ standard for misconduct and investigating this is not widely publicised or available and one has to search through the various rules/ legislation to find this, before deciding to complain.
b. What mechanisms could be put in place to mitigate any repercussions against a complainant who has reported bullying, harassment or sexual harassment?
Anonymity unless waived with strict sanctions if this is abused/ published on blogs/ social media/ discussed
Mandated support by chambers/ senior members of the Bar to stand with them
A coherent Bar-Wide process of investigation with strict time scales to prevent gossip/ elongated procedure
c. The Bar Standards Board (BSB) rules place a duty on barristers to report to the BSB in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been serious misconduct (with an exception set out in guidance for victims). Is this duty to report known, understood and implemented in practice?
Fair to say it is known by practitioners, but often not implemented
Lack of courage and tendency to put head in the sand and ‘focus on own practice’ – especially with male practitioners who do not seem to be calling out bad behaviour
Culture issue
d. Is there sufficient support in place both for complainants and persons accused of bullying, harassment, or sexual harassment? Do the existing mechanisms appropriately balance the need for confidentiality and transparency?
· Timescales are too long and too arbitrary leading to gossip/ momentum spreading
Anonymity ought to be provided for both, until decision reached
Not sufficient support or transparency as to who to turn to in each of the three incidents raised above (chambers/ from the bar/ from the bench)
More must be done to raise awareness as to complaints against judicial bullying as it is often done on such a public platform e.g. recorded hearing
e. Should there be interim measures which permit a person accused of bullying, harassment, or sexual harassment to be subject to a precautionary exclusion from Chambers, their employer, or from practice during the adjudication of a complaint?
Highest complaints ought to attract higher sanctions e.g. rape/ attempted rape/ sexual assault and/or multiple complaints from different victims = immediate suspension from Practice whilst investigation takes place
Can still receive aged debt
f. Are investigations into complaints (by the BSB, Chambers or any other relevant body) concerning bullying, harassment or sexual harassment sufficiently independent, prompt, robust, and fair?
Unable to substantively comment on the independence, robustness, promptness and fairness of chambers investigations.
The Independent Decision-Making Panel - which decides whether to refer cases to Disciplinary Tribunals - is comprised of barristers as well as lay members. Barristers also sit on Disciplinary Tribunals. There is a risk that barristers involved in the regulatory process know the barrister accused of misconduct. Even if they don’t know them, they may work in the same area of law; they may be familiar with the pressure points and hold some sympathy for the circumstances of the case. Either way, this affects impartiality, and fairness to complainants and witnesses. By way of comparison, an Independent Expert Panel determines sanctions and appeals in respect of complaints against MPs for bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. MPs play no part in this process.
g. Following an upheld complaint of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment, are the sanctions imposed appropriate and fair? Is enforcement action sufficiently robust to act as a deterrent?
The sanctions guidance for bullying, harassment and sexual harassment was introduced in January 2022. The minimum sanction for bullying, harassment and sexual harassment is 12 months’ suspension. We campaigned in favour of these sanctions and believe they remain appropriate. Prior to the current sanctions guidance, the fines imposed were considered derisory.
Given that the new sanctions guidance is only 2 years old, it is difficult to say whether it deters bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. It is unclear how familiar barristers are with the guidance.
One concern is whether, given the severity of a suspension, the sanctions are - or might be - deterring the IDB or Tribunals from making referrals for disciplinary action or findings of harassment. Clearly, suspension is a severe sanction and might be tantamount to ending a barrister’s career. It would be perverse if the sanctions were having this effect.
4. Potential reforms to tackle bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment
a. Are there any preventative steps which can be taken to tackle bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment? In particular, what could be done in the court room, in Chambers, and at the Bar more widely, to assist in preventing such misconduct?
• Encouragement of more courage / assertiveness especially from male opponents/ colleagues. Too often they stand by and say nothing
• Needs to be an effective form or reporting an incident at court in real time e.g. an appointed complaints officer at ALL court (perhaps the senior usher)
o Takes names/ time/ date/ incident which can be filtered through wider process of investigation
Address the institutional culture head-on. Have clear guidelines about acceptable behaviour, and truly implement a zero-tolerance policy for bullying and harassment from any actor- including judges.
Mandatory training on bystander intervention and professional conduct should be implemented.
Employ external oversight for misconduct investigations to ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. The fact that male barristers can use misogynistic slurs like c*nt against female barristers without repercussion shows a profound flaw in the system.
Specific training on gender-based harassment is needed, along with sanctions for such behaviour.
Make safer, anonymous ways of reporting (like independent officers), as the current Talk to Spot technology still leaves victims fearful.
b. What improvements could be made to existing reporting mechanisms and support services?
Higher tech with more protection against cyber attacks
Make tech like Talk to Spot actually effective. Currently no change is immediately effected through the app as it is simple a diary log. An anonymous app, which can filter through to the appropriate body of investigation
Bar Council E&D (to flag to individual chambers and oversee)
Judicial Complaints Authority
Or BSB
Reporting needs to be clearer - more accessible, transparent, and consistent. As noted, there’s a fear of gossip and mishandling of complaints, which prevents many from speaking out.
Independent, trained professionals should handle complaints with strict anonymity, clear timelines for resolution, and interim protections that are effected immediately (such as temporary suspension of the accused when serious allegations are made).
c. In what ways could the judiciary, clerks, chambers professionals, and others work together with the Bar to bring about change?
It seems as though this needs to be outsourced to professionals who have the time and resources to deal with this
Same for recruitment, too much is left to the ‘goodwill’ of volunteer barristers/ judges who already have too much on their plate. This also lacks impartiality.
Education on misconduct needs to be mandatory and consistent.
Judiciary training on identifying and addressing their own biases and behaviours is needed. Judges can be perpetrators and gatekeepers of norms in institutions, and there is minimal redress for individuals with less power to address judicial misconduct.
Judges who exhibit inappropriate behaviour towards victims or barristers should not be shielded, and those raising valid concerns should be protected from retaliation. Holding all members of the profession accountable to the same standards, regardless of gender or status, would increase trust and equality.
Specific protocols should be developed for the JCIO to handle complaints against senior judges without retaliation or scapegoating complainants.
Barrister reform:
We are concerned about the trenchant sexist views some barristers hold, and we would encourage the implementation of mandatory conscious and unconscious bias training that specifically addresses gendered biases.
BSB Reforms:
All BSB staff need basic training in appropriately handling sexual harassment complaints. For example, it is not acceptable – and indeed, we would argue unlawful – for the BSB to coerce victims/complainants into signing NDAs before releasing information about their own complaints. This is deeply harmful and is contrary to government guidance on the silencing of victims.
In addition to basic training for all staff, there must be a dedicated and small BSB team is required to handle sexual harassment complaints. They need staff trained in sexual harassment and its consequent trauma if they are to investigate claims of such abuse. They need to be trained in trauma, how to sensitively handle complaints and must show empathy when communicating with victims. Currently, staff do not have such training, and it’s ‘luck’ of the draw as to who is allocated. When the BSB write back to complainants of sexual harassment or abuse, the letters read as pointed and abrupt, failing to recognise the impact of either (a) refusing to investigate; or (b) deciding to prosecute the individual. They are rarely walked through the process of an investigation / prosecution.
BSB need guidance and to introduce into their code of conduct that sexist and/or misogynistic behaviour and/or racism will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. However, we are concerned that the BSB is not competent to handle such complaints and fails to understand the gravity of such abuse and its impact on victims.
For example, the BSB accused a barrister of holding ‘gender critical’ views when they do not, and the complaint was not even about ‘gender critical’ issues. No apology was made by the BSB. This demonstrates the BSB’s lack of understanding about gendered issues and raises real concerns about their aim to widen the handbook's scope to include equality and inclusion duties when they are not competent to handle them.
At present, the BSB appears complicit in the harassment of female barristers because it fails to take action against barristers for their wrongdoing. We are aware of incidences on social media where female barristers have been called c*** by other barristers. The BSB has said this does not breach their code of conduct, and no action has been taken, which gives license to further bullying and misogyny against female barristers. In one such complaint, it took 9 months to respond to a complaint by a female barrister, and the BSB only responded after a statement by the Bar Council Chair which criticised the BSB. Victims who also use social media see the comments of largely male barristers harassing and bullying women, and it results in victims having less, or even no, confidence in them as advocates.
The BSB told a female barrister to “refrain” from sending evidence of harassment, bullying and abuse from male barristers on social media. This shows a lack of insight into the seriousness of the complaint.
When a female barrister wrote about the silencing of women for Counsel magazine, the BSB director’s internal response to its staff was to write, “We can’t just let X have the last word”. Aside from this appearing threatening, it shows the personal grievances the BSB holds against individual barristers. This is far from acting neutrally and objectively, as they hold prejudices.
Barristers who engaged in collective bullying and harassment of other barristers and/or solicitors on social media need to be immediately held accountable and sent a warning notice by the BSB. There needs to be a clear zero-tolerance approach to bullying. It causes significant mental health problems and further entrenches a culture of hostility and male dominance.
BSB needs greater scrutiny, oversight and intervention from the Legal Services Board (LSB), which is the regulator for the BSB. In 2023, the BSB failed its regulatory inspection, and in 2024, the LSB noted that their threshold for what constitutes harassing behaviour is too high, meaning that the BSB is not taking action against a barrister for their harassment, bullying and abusive comments.
We are alarmed by the use of anonymous barrister accounts on social media, some of whom have a significant following, such as ‘the Secret Barrister.’ It is not acceptable that barristers are able to offer advice, communicate about the law generally, and bully and harass other barristers using a cloak of anonymity. If they were identified, it is likely their behaviour would breach the code of conduct (if harassment and bullying were taken seriously).
For example, the Secret Barrister has over 400K followers, and we have seen them take aim at Baroness Harriet Harman KC, Dame Vera Baird KC, Dr Charlotte Proudman, Claire Waxman (Victims’ Commissioner for London) and survivors of rape – Jess XXX. This behaviour includes calling a woman a narcissist, attention seeker, and spouting errant nonsense. They further encouraged a targeted ‘pile on’ by other barristers, resulting in women being attacked on social media.
Better recognition of the harm caused by social media bullying: it can cause intrusive thoughts and fear of being around colleagues who have abused them online, singles them out as outsiders, and results in career consequences. Moreover, some of the barristers who bully on social media actively threaten women with complaints to their regulator, saying they should be sanctioned or disbarred. This behaviour is threatening.
BSB should not be comprised of barristers (and also solicitors) assessing complaints against other barristers. Even allowing solicitors to assess complaints is a conflict of interest when many of them will work closely with barristers. There needs to be independence and accountability. As in Parliament, when an MP is complained about, MPs or their staff no longer investigate the individual. There must be a separation of powers in order to ensure confidence in the system.
The complaints process must be tightened up. BSB is used as a mechanism to further the harassment and bullying of barristers, especially women. For individuals (whether barristers, solicitors, or lay people) who have an ‘axe to grind’ against a particular barrister, they can quickly send a complaint about them to the BSB, which could result in that barrister being wrapped up in an investigation for years.
For example, Jolyon Maugham KC and Dr Charlotte Proudman are both barristers and activists in their fields and have suffered over 200 complaints to the BSB. Dr Charlotte Proudman has received complaints calling her a ‘misandrist,’ referring to her as ‘dangerous’ and making serious accusations about her mental health. In each case, the BSB write back to the individuals who submitted offensive and groundless complaints, thanking them for their complaints and telling them they will be kept on the barrister’s record. Instead, the BSB should dismiss the complaint and write a stern letter to the individual stating that their complaint is offensive and groundless and that such language won’t be tolerated. If a further complaint is repeated, it could constitute harassment. It is important to understand the impact of such complaints on the mental health of barristers who receive baseless and malicious complaints – they have the potential to impact on their livelihood. Dr Charlotte Proudman has received complaints from rapists in cases in which she is instructed and has had to draw those to the attention of the judge; along with the BSB response, thanking the rapist and informing them it will be kept on Dr Proudman’s record. We recognise that a similar issue arose for Stella Creasy MP who was subject to malicious complaints to social services for her ‘feminist’ views.
The BSB struggle to understand the purpose and extent of Article 10 – right to freedom of speech – which they apply selectively and in a gendered manner. For example, the BSB asserts that male barristers have a right to free speech to call a female barrister a wanker, c***, refer to her as a b**** using song lyrics, say she should be locked up in a mental health institution – and male barristers have a right to criticise a judge – either accusing them of rolling back trans rights or calling a judge stupid/idiot/acting illegally – but a female barrister does not have the right to respond to content by harassing male barristers or criticise a domestic abuse judgment by a judge who was a member of the all-male Garrick club. The BSB’s approach to male and female barristers is divergent and discriminatory.
If the BSB’s position is that barristers should not be allowed to criticise judges and/or judgments and/or judgments in their own cases, then the BSB must publish explicit guidance, or barristers will have no knowledge of the boundaries of criticism. However, the enforcement of such guidance must then be implemented for all barristers and not selectively based on gender.
We understand the Legal Services Board has also expressed concerns about the time that it takes for the BSB to process and conclude complaints. Many exceed two years. This is plainly unacceptable and must be streamlined to ensure a conclusion within a 6-12 month timeframe, including any prosecution.
The Independent Decision-making Panel – which decides whether a case is prosecuted and acts as an arm of the BSB, appears to have no training in sexual harassment/misconduct or sexism and/or misogyny and yet is responsible for making decisions about such complaints. This is unacceptable and lowers confidence in the process.
In summary, the BSB is not holding perpetrator barristers accountable for harassment and bullying of women, and as a result of their failure to act, there is a perception that they are complicit and ill-equipped to handle such complaints.
We submit that there needs to be a change in leadership, including the Chair and Director, who appear to have lost sight of the role of the BSB and its public duties.
BTAS Reforms:
BTAS – The Bar Tribunal Adjudication Service. Major reform is needed in respect of BTAS. The procedure and process of BTAS are contrary to Article 6 and prevent barristers from having a fair hearing.
When a barrister is ‘prosecuted’ by the BSB, their case goes to BTAS. The people that sit on the BTAS panel and decide whether a barrister has breached the code of conduct are comprised of barristers and part-time or full-time members of the judiciary (and often one lay person). It is wholly wrong that barristers sit as tribunal judges and decide whether another barrister has breached the code of conduct for two reasons:
(a) The tribunal judge is a barrister and therefore regulated by the BSB – meaning they are regulated by the prosecutor in the tribunal. There is a direct vested interest in the tribunal judge not criticising the BSB and their conduct/handling of the cases when they are scrutinised by the prosecutor in their capacity as a barristers. In no other area is the judge in a case also regulated and held accountable by the prosecutor. Even in criminal courts, the judge is not regulated by the Crown Prosecution Service (the prosecutor).
(b) There are real concerns that quite often the tribunal judge will know some of the individuals who are named in the case. For example, Dr Charlotte Proudman, named over 30 male barristers in her case where she also provided evidence that the barristers had sent her harassing/bullying/offensive/abusive tweets; the tribunal judge said he knew of many of those barristers and had spoken to one of the offending male barristers in the past. It would be almost impossible to find a tribunal judge (who is a barrister and / or full-time member of the judiciary) who does not know one of named barristers, after all the bar is a small world.
BTAS sits in Gray’s Inn, which is one of the four Inns of Courts. This is inappropriate. There should be a separation between barrister institutions and holding them accountable.
When a barrister is charged with sexual abuse/harassment allegations, they should be named publicly, as this may encourage other victims to come forward. We are aware of a high profile male barrister who has been accused of sexual misconduct towards at least four women. We also understand that he sought anonymity. There must be transparency and open justice of serious complaints of sexual impropriety after the barrister is charged. Failing to do so, means other victims might not come forward.