The Bar Standards Board’s independent reviewer has upheld its decision to reject the Good Law Project’s complaint against a barrister over her social media posts about a trans woman. This ruling settles the latest dispute between GLP founder Jolyon Maugham KC and Sarah Phillimore, who is currently suing the high-profile silk for defamation. The GLP had challenged the family law barrister, who practises from St John’s Chambers in Bristol, following a series of online posts regarding a transgender woman.
The GLP submitted over 50 posts to the regulator as evidence that Ms Phillimore had attacked a trans woman online. The material included misgendering and deadnaming the individual, as well as sharing photos and graphic language about her genitals. To protect the person’s identity, the GLP refers to the woman as Kate. The organization believes Ms Phillimore singled Kate out “for cruel treatment.” However, in April, the regulator rejected the complaint, concluding that Ms Phillimore “has the right to manifest her gender critical beliefs.”
Related: Solicitor barred from COFA role for rule breaches
Ms Phillimore stated that she was not singling out this one trans woman to inflict cruelty. The BSB agreed with her assessment. The regulator found that the posts were not “likely to diminish the trust and confidence” placed in her and the profession. It determined that the content was not “either seriously offensive or otherwise a potential breach of CD5” regarding core duty 5. The role of the independent reviewer is to consider challenges to the way the BSB made a decision, but the reviewer found no faults in the process.
The reviewer noted that the exchanges occurred during a “heightened moment in time” for the transgender debate. They observed the online presence of Kate, who has many thousands of followers, and noted that she had used highly insulting words and phrases about people holding a different viewpoint. This context is significant because it was a two-sided interchange where both people felt passionately about their own viewpoints and their comments are highly charged. The reviewer considered the response by Ms Phillimore unpleasant on both sides.
Related: Advocate Nitesh Mehra seeks AI consent clause
Ms Phillimore expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating she was “heartened to see how far the BSB has come.” She was, however, unhappy that the reviewer described ‘Kate’ as a woman. “Mr Weddell is not a woman. That is the entire point of our dispute,” she said. She added that she would have preferred the reviewer to identify them by their names rather than show an “unquestioning support for Mr Weddell’s assertion that he is in fact a woman.”
The Good Law Project criticized the decision, arguing that the independent reviewer failed to appreciate the level of harm caused by Phillimore’s relentless focus on one individual. They stated that Phillimore is entitled to her view on trans rights, but her targeting of Kate in dozens of abusive tweets fell below the behaviour expected of barristers. In a statement, the GLP said: “We believe that the independent reviewer failed, as the regulator did, to take into account that barristers are meant to be held to a high standard of behaviour. And in our view, they did not appreciate the level of harm that can be and was caused by Phillimore’s relentless focus on one individual. Phillimore is entitled to her view – and to express said view – on trans rights. But we continue