Barrister claiming sexism after Linked-In message

[Flashbangandgone]

AIBU to think she's overreacting somewhat... I'm not sure so I thought I'd check out views on here:

www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34206080/linkedin-sexism-row-charlotte-proudman-says-lawyer-used-site-like-tinder

She is clearly very attractive, and she has clearly gone to some trouble to post a photo that emphasises that. If a man compliments her for that, albeit rather clumsily, but nonetheless not in any lewd or crude manner, is that sexist or just a man gently flirting in the hope of a positive response?

If something as relatively innocuous as this appears to be is vilified as sexism, what are the boundaries for men flirting in a work-place environment without risking being charged with sexism? I wonder if her response would have been different if she had been single and she happenned to be attracted to the man making those remarks...

I've a feeling this might be controversial....

It is hard to say whether she has destroyed her career. She may have enhanced it in respect of dealing with issues which affect women or if she wants to be a "campaigning" lawyer. My guess from the way she describes herself is that is what she wants to do and that what she did was at least in part to make a name for herself in that area. But I agree with Weary that if she wants to practice in other areas, she will have damaged her career. Discretion, trust, good judgment, proportionality and fairness are key in almost all other areas of the law. Given that at least as many people will disagree with what she did as agree, she will have damaged her prospects in any other field of law. How will a client know that she won't distribute e mails she disagrees with on Twitter?

Sorry but it's ridiculous to suggest she might tweet client emails! She is not an idiot.

U2hastheEdge - beautifully put. Completely agree. Thank you.

Why would she want publicity? She's currently on a sabbatical to do her PhD and it looks as if she was concentrating on that and contacts for the mentoring scheme. It would be ridiculous to try to drum up publicity as a barrister at a time when she isn't actually available to accept instructions.

The e mail he sent her was private too.

Charlotte Proudman's career is not going to be remotely hurt by this.

Whether that be in academia, in the judiciary, or in practice at the bar.

ACS on the other hand ...

Right-wing journalists and some posters here seem desparately eager for Charlotte to have her career ruined.

Otherwise - horror - professional men might find it too risky to continue making sexist remarks.

foam they have no formal relationship. She can do as she pleases with his email.

Perhaps all sexist fools will now be a little more circumspect with their casual lack of propriety.

Sorry Shegot, what is ACS? (i am overseas and I only get "acute coronary syndrome" when I look it up. I'm not being "funny") Thanks.

Publicity will be useful in her future career though.

Naturally bigchoc but they tend to know little about the legal world. Though that doesn't stop them opining of course.

BigChoc. I don't think people WANT her career ruined, I think a lot of people do assume she may have done her career some serious damage though.

She has a duty of confidentiality to clients, but no such duty to a creep on LinkedIn

weary ACS is Alex Carter Silk sender of inappropriate emails.

I think some do want her career ruined, because they are outraged a woman dare expose a creep.
Many men behave like this, so they - and their handmaidens - are worried about suffering consequences.

True bigchoc

But they're going to be very disappointed.

Client's in CP's area of specialism won't be put off. Indeed if she specialises further into the area her PHD seems to be taking her, then her actions will only help.

There seems no evidence to suggest she may wish to change specialism ( and indeed this is neither common nor easy).

SheGot - there is no need for a relationship for a duty of confidence to exist.

The client e mail is an extreme example and you are right, she probably wouldn't do that. But nevertheless, this will cause some people to choose not to use her and to be wary. Most senior solicitors who would be her primary sources if work are men after all and middle aged ones at that.

I agree though SheGot that in human rights/women's right, what she has done may well be a positive for her.

foam there are plenty of senior women solicitors in the area she works.

Plus this will not put off that many middle aged men. Most in the profession know perfectly well how to behave.

DH's is a middle aged, very senior lawyer and his view on ACS - TWAT!

Thank you Shegot, for the abbreviation explanation.

I don't know the percentages of senior females in human rights law though overall the ratio of women to men at senior levels is low.You are right of course that many men will disagree with what ACS did. But that won't necessarily mean they agree with her response.

I particularly dislike the sort of person who disapproves of other people's inappropriate behaviour yet also disapproves of the victim of the inappropriate behaviour exposing the perpetrator.

What I have always admired about my lawyer friends and acquaintances, (Barristers / Solicitors, US defense attorneys and prosecutors) is their judgment.

They know how to say what they need to say for the maximum impact. They don't have knee-jerk reactions in the work place, they don't "over-react" to anything, they are measured, thoughtful, considered.

I still think that the reaction to the Linkedin comment was WAAAY overboard, lacked serious consideration and showed the barrister in question to be hot-headed, lacking in judgment, not measured, considered or thoughtful. Regardless of the question about the content of what she was sent.