Naomi Cunnigham resigns from Sex Matters

[similarminimer]

Am sure there's a sensible reason- too busy or appears to compromise her neutrality as a barrister. Or something I cant grasp. But nevertheless it makes me feel very sad.

Where did you see this???

I’m off to X…

She needs to concentrate on the court cases which she excels at. She also must need the occasional holiday . I'm sure sex matters will find another brilliant woman to be their chair.

If you donate to sex matters it was in the weekly newsletter

Apologies- have reported as duplicate thread

.

How cool does NC look in that photo? A level of uber-coolness that most of us could only aspire to
As I said on another thread - she'll now have more time to make her terrifying questions even more terrifying!

Sounds like a conflict of interest issue

Which means she’ll be continuing to take on the cases we know and love her for

👏👏👏

(yes I’ve kept my professorship 🤣)

Wasn't it brought up as a possible conflict of interest by one of the opposing barristers in a case recently?

I was under the impression that barristers had to take whatever case was given to them?

Is that right? Because it would look very strange, from every possible angle, to be honest, if Naomi Cunningham had to take on a case for the opposing side in this issue.

I think it was explained that they have to offer but the client doesn’t have to accept. Though that doesn’t sound quite right, either.

It was brought up as a potential bias issue which seemed unreasonable at the time. Perhaps it’s the difference between and expert witness and an intervenor and a barrister.

The phrase that sprang to mind was 'Caesar's wife must be above suspicion', and I googled it because I realised I didn't know the full context.

Classicists who already know all this may look away now, but for anybody else who doesn't know the whole story, there's a trans twist:

Publius Clodius Pulcher [it looks like it really was 'Clodius' not Claudius - 'Pub Clod' to his mates no doubt] had designs on Pompeia who knew nothing about it, and.. guess what?
he disguised himself as a woman to attend the women-only Bona Dea festival to get access to her..

Plus ça change, eh?

She's cleverly avoiding any further accusations of conflict of interest.

Clodius was an odious little toad, but he did get Cicero sent into exile, so he wasn't all bad.

'Clodius the Odious' aka 'Pub Clod'😃

NC is being replaced as ( Interim) Chair by Emma Hilton.

In the past we've done 'synchronised donations' to SM as a way of expressing gratitude and admiration for the work of NC and the team.

Over on the SP thread I suggested we do it again to say thank you to Naomi, and as I've done in the past I've emailed SM to let them know that if there's a uptick in donations, that's us saying thank you to Naomi and best wishes to Emma.

There's a donate button on SM's webpage.
Sex Matters - It shouldn’t take courage to say so

There are derails, and there are derails, so I'm not going to ask you to explain here why sending Cicero into exile was a good thing?

But thank you for the big sign saying
CLASSICS INTERNET RABBIT HOLE - THIS WAY⤵
I'm going to make myself a cuppa and sit down to read all about Cicero v Pub Clod😁

End to the derail, honest, bar one thing. It was a good thing, the caveat being that it resulted in generations of school pupils having to read the most self pitying letters ever written. So I have mixed feelings.

In addition to the points about conflict of interest, and that Naomi is clearly in lots of demand as a barrister, I imagine that being chair of Sex Matters is gradually becoming a bigger job as the organisation gets more established and its remit shows no sign of fading away.

I think it is a good move to keep the legal and SM side apart.

Seems sensible!

well done to Naomi on her growing practice and well done to Sex Matters on collating together all the bits and pieces of various legal cases to one website and then sending their representatives to discuss the cases and issues on social media.

We were very fortunate that someone as sensible and tenacious as Maya was treated so badly by an employer - the Forstater case was the spark that lit all the kindling that terfs on MN and beyond had been collecting up for years.

I got an email back from Sex Matters acknowledging our 'synchronised donations':
Dear Marie
Thank you so much and apologies for the slow reply. I'm in a constant state of catching up with the inbox!
Wishing you a very happy Christmas and thank you for your support
Emma

I see they have a new campaign, if anyone has any spare cash left!

Today we are launching a special appeal for our work in 2026. Donate to this appeal and we will send you our new “The law is clear” campaign pack in the new year. It includes our new Sex and the law booklet, a set of our brand-new postcards and a covetable Sex Matters “X” pin. (Already have a pin? This one will make a perfect gift for someone else!)
Help us make the law work in 2026! - Sex Matters

That's prompted me to make a modest donation.

It's the "cab rank rule" - if you're a barrister, you can't pick and choose your cases. You can't refuse work if instructed in an area of your competence if adequate renumeration offered. So yes, Naomi absolutely could be instructed on the opposing side, and she wouldn't be able to refuse nor would she be able to do anything other than her best job for them. There are numerous examples of barristers who are known to be good on a particular "side" being instructed by the other - it can be a good strategic option as the barrister knows the arguments inside out, is compelled to do the best s/he can by the client whether s/he agrees with them or not, and is then ruled out of acting for the client for whom you fear they might be otherwise instructed.

Presumably what you do if you are initiating the action is approach your preferred barrister as soon as, or even before, you let the other side know the action is afoot... Wouldn't it be interesting to see, say, Naomi on one side and Ben on the other, though?