A high-profile barrister who was cleared of misconduct over social media posts has called on the head of the Bar Standards Board to resign.

Dr Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in family law, had faced a Bar Standards Board (BSB) disciplinary tribunal over a 14-part Twitter thread criticising a judge’s ruling over a domestic abuse case, saying it echoed a “boys’ club”.

However, the five charges against the 36-year-old were dropped on Thursday.

In an interview with The Times, Dr Proudman described the position of Mark Neale, the board’s director-general, as “untenable” and said its chairwoman, Kathryn Stone, should also stand down.

“They need a change, not just in those two individuals, though, because, of course, it seeps down to the rest of the organisation,” she said.

She told the paper she “genuinely” wanted to work with the Bar Standards Board in helping them to understand how misogyny and sexism have impacted women at the bar.

However, she said that “under the current leadership, it’s just not going to be possible”.

The charges alleged Dr Proudman had “failed to act with integrity” in posting the tweets, that they amounted to professional misconduct, were “misleading” and “inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge” in the case.

The women’s rights campaigner was also accused of behaving in a way “which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public placed in her and in the profession”, and that she “knowingly or recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the public” by making the posts.

But panel chairman Nicholas Ainley found her tweets are protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right of freedom of expression.

He said her tweets did not “gravely damage” the judiciary, which would “put them outside” of Article 10 protection, even if they “might not have been pleasant for any judge to read” or even “hurtful”.

“We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that,” he said.

The panel also concluded that some of the tweets were only inaccurate “to a minor degree” and not to the extent necessary for a charge of a lack of integrity.

Speaking after the hearing, Dr Proudman told the PA news agency: “This ruling is a victory for women’s rights and a right to freedom of speech.

“The prosecution against me brought by my regulatory body, the Bar Standards Board, should never have happened and I said that from day one.

“I criticised a domestic abuse judgment. Everyone should have the right to do that, whether you’re a barrister or not. Our justice system, which I strongly believe in, is robust enough to withstand criticism from me.”

She believes her tweets help “foster confidence” in the justice system, adding: “Only that way can we go about building change and a better treatment for all victims, women and children and men who are affected by domestic abuse.”

Explaining that the BSB appears to have spent almost £40,000 “of barristers’ money” on instructing counsel in her case, she added: “I think it’s shameful that they’re using our money to pay for, in my view, malicious, vexatious prosecutions which I have no doubt was a personal attack against me as a woman and as a feminist, as an outspoken critic and advocate for women’s rights.”

Dr Proudman called for “systemic change” within the board.

“They don’t understand gender, they don’t understand diversity, I don’t think they’ve ever heard of the concept misogyny and certainly not institutional misogyny,” she said.

“Until they recognise the deeply rooted, entrenched issue of bullying, harassment, sexism at the bar, for which I have suffered relentlessly… and own up to it I don’t think we’re going to see any change and I have no confidence in them.”

She told of how male barristers have called her insulting names on social media and made derogatory comments about her.

In the posts on April 6 2022, Dr Proudman referenced a case in which her client alleged she had been subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour by her husband, a part-time judge, meaning she had been “unable to freely enter” the couple’s “post-nuptial” financial agreement.

Commenting on the ruling by Family Court judge Sir Jonathan Cohen, Dr Proudman wrote: “I represented Amanda Traharne.
“She said she was coerced into signing a post-nuptial agreement by her husband (who is a part-time judge). I lost the case.

“I do not accept the Judge’s reasoning. I will never accept the minimisation of domestic abuse.”
She continued: “Demeaning the significance of domestic abuse has the affect of silencing victims and rendering perpetrators invisible.

“This judgement has echoes of (t)he ‘boys club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.”
In the thread, Dr Proudman wrote that the judge had described the relationship of the couple as “tempestuous”, which she argued was a “trivialisation” of domestic abuse.

“Tempestuous? Lose his temper? Isn’t this the trivialisation of domestic abuse & gendered language. This is not normal married life,” she wrote.