BSB Rejects Good Law Project Complaint Against Gender Critical Barrister
Summary
The Bar Standards Board has rejected a complaint by the Good Law Project against barrister Sarah Phillimore over social media posts referring to a trans woman complainant. The BSB determined that Phillimore 'has the right to manifest her gender critical beliefs' and that her posts did not constitute harassment or breach of Core Duty 5 requiring investigation. The GLP stated it will request an independent review and may pursue judicial review proceedings.
What changed
The Bar Standards Board issued a decision rejecting a complaint against barrister Sarah Phillimore filed by the Good Law Project on behalf of a trans woman. The GLP alleged harassment based on over 50 social media posts including misgendering, deadnaming, and sharing photos. The BSB concluded that while deadnaming 'may be unpleasant', it did not cross the investigation threshold, and that taken cumulatively, Phillimore's comments did not amount to harassment sufficient to engage Core Duty 5. The BSB also noted that even if harassment were established, Phillimore's comments would be protected by Article 10 rights.
For barristers regulated by the BSB, this decision clarifies that expressing gender-critical views on social media does not automatically constitute professional misconduct. However, the GLP has indicated it will challenge the decision through the independent reviewer process and potentially judicial review, meaning the matter may not be concluded. Legal professionals should monitor this case as it may set precedent for how the BSB balances competing rights regarding gender identity beliefs against professional conduct obligations.
What to do next
- Monitor for independent reviewer decision on GLP's request
- Monitor for potential judicial review proceedings if BSB continues to refuse investigation
Archived snapshot
Apr 8, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
BSB rejects Good Law Project complaint over gender critical barrister
7 April 2026 Posted by Neil Rose
Phillimore: Not entirely expected outcome
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has rejected a complaint made against a barrister by the Good Law Project (GLP) on behalf of a trans woman over multiple social media posts.
The regulator said Sarah Phillimore (SP) “has the right to manifest her gender critical beliefs”.
It said it did not believe that her references to the complainant’s gender, by use of pronouns or saying she was a man, was “either seriously offensive or otherwise a potential breach of CD5 [core duty 5 – upholding public trust] by being harassing, bullying, victimising or discriminating”.
It went on: “Whilst we note the number of times that this occurred over this period, this was a particularly turbulent time for trans people and for people holding gender critical beliefs, and both [the complainant] and SP frequently use the public arena to express their views”.
GLP said it made the complaint last August over more than 50 posts across multiple social media platforms that referred to the complainant “frequently in derogatory terms”.
It accused Ms Phillimore of misgendering, deadnaming and sharing photos of her, and using “graphic language about her genitals”.
The BSB said that, while deadnaming “may be unpleasant” for the complainant, here it did not cross the threshold for investigation; a simple online search would show the complainant’s previous identity and so Ms Phillimore’s actions did not have a “significant impact” on the public’s knowledge.
The BSB concluded that the barrister did not single out the complainant for “cruel treatment”, while “given the heightened background tension between the competing rights of the two individuals involved, we do not consider that SP’s comments, even taken cumulatively, amount to harassment such as to engage CD5.
“Even if we were wrong on this, we take the view that the comments would be protected by SP’s article 10 rights, such as that it would not be proportionate for the BSB to investigate”.
GLP said: “We made our complaint to the BSB after taking advice from counsel, including King’s Counsel, and we stand by our view that Phillimore’s awful conduct is harassment.
“We will be asking the BSB to refer its decision not to investigate Phillimore to an independent reviewer – the next step in taking the complaint forward – and, should the BSB continue to refuse to investigate, we expect to bring judicial review proceedings against it.”
Writing on her blog, Ms Phillimore – a family law barrister at St John’s Chambers in Bristol – described the decision as “welcome and to be honest not entirely expected”.
She explained that “despite the contemptible risibility of this complaint, I was not entirely confident that the Bar Standards Board would reject it”.
This was because of what she described as “an immovable belief in our elite professional classes that any attempt to challenge, criticise or mock the nonsense that is gender identity ideology is a moral outrage” .
But the BSB’s decision represented “a very clear rejection” of this position.
Had there been a genuine case of harassment, Ms Phillimore went on, the primary remedy was a civil injunction and/or a criminal prosecution.
“The weaponization of the regulatory process was to cause me maximum embarrassment and reputational harm and establish some watered down notion of ‘harassment’ with no risk of legal costs to the Good Law Project.”
Ms Phillimore is in the process of raising money to sue GLP founder Jolyon Maugham KC for defamation over a social media post last August accusing her of leading “a campaign of harassment of a trans woman so wicked that she sought to take her own life”.
This related to the same complainant. Ms Phillimore said it was not true and that Mr Maugham “has no reasonable grounds to believe it is true”.
She has raised nearly £45,000 through CrowdJustice to bring the action, with her original £50,000 target now stretched to £100,000. GLP said Mr Maugham would fight any claim.
We reported in 2024 that the BSB decided not to investigate Ms Phillimore over accusations that she was transphobic after she misgendered two trans lawyers.
Sign up to our free e-newsletter
Leave a Comment
By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.
Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published. Name *
Email *
Comment *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Blog
8 April 2026
Client accounts: Opportunity, obligation and the risks in between
The profitability gap between well-run firms and the rest is not primarily a function of size, location or practice area – it is a function of financial management.
Read More More Blogs 7 April 2026
Motor finance – the FCA is more worried about banks than consumers
The Financial Conduct Authority’s motor finance redress scheme announced last week amounts to one of the largest ever consumer failures by the regulator.
Read More More Blogs 2 April 2026
Mazur: a symptom not a cause?
If Mazur is a symptom, what does it mean for the underlying health of our civil justice system: the ‘finest legal system in the world’?
Upcoming Webinars
- 09/04/2026 ### Providing for pets in wills
- 14/04/2026 ### The court’s case management powers in practice
15/04/2026
Placement orders, adoption and associated contact- key legal issues for 2026
Conferences
- ### Housing Condition Conference 2026
Claims Futures Conference 2026
Related News
Judge: Unqualified agency advocates “risk undermining legal system”
“Deplorable” vaginal mesh solicitor put money before clients
Return to normality – Court of Appeal overturns Mazur ruling
Mazur reaction: A victory for all, says CILEX
Solicitor labelled “dishonest fraudster” by court struck off
Features
Flat roof developments: legal disputes and strategic representation
- ### Mazur – a problem 300 years in the making
- ### When the dust doesn’t settle: Enforcement in housing disrepair claims
Associate News
- ### Nearly one in eight employers does not provide sexual harassment training, as key Employment Rights Act deadline arrives
- ### 7 practical tips for planning your digital legacy
- ### HMRC property transaction reaction: “Ominous tone for the housing market”
- ### From helpdesk to Head of Product: Why the best product leaders start by listening
- ### Why transparency is the new currency in personal injury law
- ### Verisk Claims data bites: Personal injury psychological injury trends
- ### Why client onboarding still frustrates both clients and law firms More Stories ## Associates
#### Allianz Legal Protection #### Valid8 IP #### Linetime #### Acquira Professional Services #### Miller Insurance Services LLP #### R&R Solutions #### Osprey Approach #### Legal intelligence from LexisNexis® #### LEAP Legal Software #### DR Solicitors #### National Accident Helpline #### Checkboard #### Bundledocs #### InfoTrack #### Ignite Specialty Risk #### Stridon #### AxiaFunder #### Conscious Solutions #### Qanooni #### Lockton Companies LLP #### Legmark #### CEL Solicitors #### Auto Claims Assist #### Search Acumen #### Internet Erasure Ltd #### Express Solicitors #### Brabners #### iCOFA #### Landmark Information Group #### Recovery First Limited #### LexisNexis®InterAction® #### National Claims #### OneAdvanced #### Perfect Portal #### Clio #### SOS Legal #### Document Direct #### Dye & Durham #### Temple Legal Protection #### VinciWorks #### Nexa Law #### SearchFlow #### Litera #### Fenchurch Legal #### OneSearch Direct #### LPG #### LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions #### Fraser and Fraser #### O'Connors #### Sentry Funding #### Actionstep #### National Accident Law #### DG Legal #### Financial & Legal #### BigHand #### ARAG #### Verisk #### Finders International #### Access Legal #### tmGroup
Sign-up for our e‑newsletter
Get our news roundup every Friday.
Email * Sign-up here Services Directory Advertise Become an Associate
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Inner Temple Library Current Awareness
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Legal Futures.
The plain-English summary, classification, and "what to do next" steps are AI-generated from the original text. Cite the source document, not the AI analysis.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Inner Temple Library Current Awareness publishes new changes.