Charlotte Proudman

[JeanSeberg]

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/08/charlotte-proudman-alexander-carter-silk-linkedin-photo-comment-law-firms

Good for her.

So why am I doing it?. I want to look attractive but I don't want to be told I am. Can anyone offer an insight?

You want to present the best side of you publicly. That's why we dress a certain way for interviews and another way for weddings.

What you don't want is to be judged purely on your looks. You friends know you and will know which are good pics but are your friends for other reasons, strangers are just saying, "I have a right to judge you on your appearance"

If he wanted to pay her a compliment he could have mentioned something about her accomplishments, such as being a barrister at the age of 27

There's nothing particularly noteworthy about being a barrister at the age of 27. Choosing to go to the Bar is just another career path in law. Her career path was to choose to go straight to the Bar after her degree.

It's a tragedy; she'll live to regret this and may well end up in a bin next to Cherie Blair. It'll be long remembered by those with clout and influence, that she's trouble. The adage 'it's not what you know but who you know' is at the centre of the legal profession.

I'm in a similar area of law. She won't. This won't do her any harm at all in the circles she moves in. If she were just a run of the mill family law barrister (I don't mean to minimise that job) then she might well suffer because of speaking out. But she isn't and she won't.

I agree.

If she were just one of the many ordinary, run of the mill barristers (again no disrespect at all, they do the work they are instructed to do) dependent on getting instructions on ordinary , run of the mill, commercial or matrimonial work from solicitors then probably yes.

As she is in Michael Mansfield's chambers, has already built up a media profile with journalism and radio appearances , then no.

Appearances are very important and her image is exactly what I would expect from someone with her background. I deal with image issue all the time because where I work (NYC) appearance matter. It isn't enough that you are excellent at your job. You need to look the part too.

Alass I hear you. My point is that he could have paid her a career related compliment or just said nothing at all.

She is neither in my jurisdiction or line of work but I would not instruct her. Her complaint is valid but I think her way of dealing with it isn't.

She is considering reporting him to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. This incident might have merited a report on the basis of failure to consider equality/diversity had she gone to them first. Having once had a (utterly spurious) complaint made by an aggrieved client against me and my then boss I can tell you it's a very unpleasant situation to be in. I remember being physically sick the day the letter appeared unannounced on my desk. Waiting for their decision, despite reassurance from my much older and experienced boss that the complaint would be rejected, was awful.

Now what are they going to do? Suggest diversity training? The shock of having a complaint made won't exist.

If he were a partner in my firm we would not be happy with him at all and he would probably be hauled over the coals by the management and be sent on compulsory diversity and equality training. I don't think it would be a resigning issue if this were a one-off incident (although for any firm which provides advice to public sector/ government agencies there is likely to be a need to do some explaining and confirming to such clients that the firm understands diversity and equality and has a policy which they apply. This incident would count against a firm in a public sector tender)

If he were an employee it would be a disciplinary and training issue but not a dismissal , unless there were previous warnings.

If she were an solicitor, rather than a barrister, whether partner or employee I would not be happy with the way she handled this. I discussed this with 2 of my female partners and a female employee all of whom thought he was out of order but so was her response. However she is self-employed and it's up to her.

Wanttobe I hear you. My point is that he could have paid her a career related compliment or just said nothing at all.

Yes agreed. Sorry, there is sometimed an assumption that barristers (advocates in Scotland ) are some higher life form in the legal profession. They aren't- being a barrister at 27 is no more or less remarkable than being a solicitor, a doctor or an accountant at 27. Being a partner, a consultant or a QC at 27 would be remarkable.

She is neither in my jurisdiction or line of work but I would not instruct her. Her complaint is valid but I think her way of dealing with it isn't.

In what sense? Do you think she's obliged to cover up for these silly old goats?

I can't help but think of those women as being SAHPs or working very PT so they can 'be there for their children' rather than having their OH find their balls and coparent.

Why?

In what sense? Do you think she's obliged to cover up for these silly old goats?

That is not what I said. She did not have to publicise this to the world. She could have rebuked him privately; she could have corresponded with the senior partner/managing partner/ chairperson of his firm; she could have submitted a complaint to the SRA. They have to deal with it- it's terrifying when it happens. They will still have to deal with it if she does but it's now just part of the storm as far as he is concerned.

That's my take on it too Lass( it might not be helpful me agreeing with you )

A lot of companies have a social media policy now a days. I wonder if both sets of employers have one and how this all fits in if they do.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist
"But their thoughts might be pure, how can you know?"

Because the sexism is in the consequences for the women. Women exist outside men's thoughts JAPAB. Take a moment to let that sink in.

What isn't outside of the thoughts of men are the thoughts, attitudes and agendas that have been imputed to this specific man, both by posters here and by Ms Proudman herself. So these do matter when these (assumed) thoughts/attitudes are used to support the claim of sexist/misogynist.

If instead you wish to argue against the complimenting of a woman's appearance as you believe that in a roundabout manner this action leads to bad consequences for women, you are free to make that case against this action.

But then you might wish to avoid describing an individual with specific words such as sexist and misogynist as most common definitions of these do take in beliefs and attitudes and do require some sort of internal criteria to be met in the putative sexist/misogynistic person. Or perhaps at least be clear you are not doing this 'look I am not saying you think such and such but your compliment causally links to such and such'. But again, this is not the sort of thing that has been going on here in this case. Here the supposed thoughts have been made part of it.

Buffy, as barristers are self employed, I don't think there is anyone for them to appeal to if they don't get briefs as they have no way of knowing why the solicitor has picked another barrister.

If she hadn't posted the exchange, just sent her reply, she would probably never have been briefed by him and had no recourse to say why (as their professional interests are different, it wouldn't be too surprising) or to respond to him telling others she'd been rude or whatever.

If someone's thoughts are pure, they don't preface their remarks with "I know this is politically incorrect, but ..."

He's obviously been allowed to get away with remarks before, so he keeps on making them.

His remark under his DD's photo was so inappropriate too.
Saying that someone is hot carries the element of lust.
e.g. if a friend said "that's a beautiful Labrador", you'd be pleased your hound was complimented.
In contrast, if they said "Ye Gods, that Labrador is HOT!", you'd fight them off with the floormop if they tried to take it out walkies.

So, if I complained publicly about a racist remark I'd deserve career damage for embarassing the racist ? I think not.
Sexism needs to be treated as seriously, not as the silly woman misunderstanding a joke

Buffy there are more solicitors, barristers, advocates and law graduates than there are jobs for.

If one is hiring the questions are (a) can they do the job they going to be hired for and (b) if yes, what will they be like to work with? Will they be easy to get along with?

You (general you, not "you") may see that as silencing her. I've said I think there were other ways of addressing the issue without silencing her.

It wouldn't in any way, shape or form put me off instructing her.

To me personally, it's not the speaking out that I disagree with and don't understand. It's the way she's has done it.

IMO going to a professional body or employer( sorry I don't understand this line of work particularly) is the right way to do it. Using social media to discuss work stuff is very thin ice.

The last couple of companies I have worked for have had strict social media policies.