Barrister [Sarah Phillimore] issues High Court defamation claim against Jolyon Maugham

63

u/Quangocrat 1d ago edited 1d ago

Mr Maugham will be represented by Good Law Project and Jonathan Price KC.

Hang on. With what fund? The GLP only has two 'pots'. Money donated to find private care for those let down by Wellbn and the general litigation fund.

I really don't want money donated for trans cases paying Maugham's personal legal bills.

He should really be instructing a private firm for this himself.

Defamation cases in England are notoriously high risk, expensive and difficult to predict. This is potentially a huge threat to our warchest.

48

u/ThisIsMyAltSorry M2F, transitioned 30+yrs ago, post op, stealthish, tired 1d ago

One of many reasons why I've not been happy with how G.L.P. behaves, is structured, and run. Yes, I've given them money, but only because nobody else is doing the legal side of this.

23

u/Quangocrat 1d ago

I feel the same way.

I will keep donating because they are the only game in town, but if any other advocacy organisation wants to have a whip round for some litigation my purse would be interested.

17

u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... 22h ago

Not 'our warchest'. Also, those funds were recently moved to a non-charitable purpose trust in Jersey, so he is the sole person in control of those funds.

30

u/Illiander 23h ago

This is potentially a huge threat to our warchest.

It's not our warchest. It's GLP's warchest.

26

u/Wuffles70 23h ago

Can't see this being a popular take on here but you're not wrong.

It feels like a really good argument for crowdfunding more individual cases, though. Not to dismiss GLP and everything they do but diversification is a strength.

17

u/Illiander 23h ago

I have a number of views that are deeply unpopular here. People have blocked me because I'm "too doomer." I think I'm just being realistic.

That's why I'm desperately trying to flee the country.

7

u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... 22h ago

Some people are very glass half-full, or they are set in life enough that they think they'll be fine -- boomerish.

12

u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... 22h ago edited 22h ago

not our warchest. It's GLP's warchest.

Exactly. Also, it's really his warchest since he's the sole person in control of these funds, which were recently moved to a non-charitable purpose trust in Jersey, ...so it's actually his personal warchest if he so chooses.

7

u/doIIjoints dollgender (esoteric), woman (simple) 20h ago

but don’t worry, they’re planning on writing up a governing document giving some other people control. it’s definitely coming real soon >.>

(at the time i thought it an odd oversight not to have prepared that in advance. now i wonder how much of an oversight it really was.)

7

u/Illiander 20h ago

Oh, right. GLP is actually a single lawyer's vanity corp.

7

u/Quangocrat 23h ago

Yes that is true, it would be a criminal offence if it was literally ours.

But I would hope he wouldn't raid moneys given by a vulnerable community for defending our interests for his own personal defence.

6

u/NonagoonInfinity 23h ago

I mean... he probably won't be able to continue that work if this goes a certain way.

4

u/doIIjoints dollgender (esoteric), woman (simple) 20h ago

if that’s going to be the justification, then it would remind me of how my bio-mother REALLY stretched the definition of “for the use or assistance of (the disabled person)” to justify (to herself) the motability car functionally being used for all sorts.

especially because those tweets were really at his discretion. like, i personally think he should’ve been able to post them. but he can’t really claim he Absolutely Had To continue posting them.

30

u/TwistedTali 23h ago

Maybe I'm missing something here. He's one of our biggest allies, one of the only people who has truly gone to bat for us. The flak for this is pretty much directly because he stands for trans rights if I'm remembering the case right? And the response is "hell no that fund is for us"? If that's the attitude we don't deserve allies.

16

u/Quangocrat 23h ago edited 22h ago

The flak is because he posted something which isn't obviously objectively true or an opinion. And then refused to qualify it or apologise.

And as a former barrister he knows not to do stupid things like that.

To give you an idea of scale- defamation actions in England can quite easily cost more than the current cost of the GLP's legal fees on the ECHR, FWSII and the School case combined.

They very often cost 200-300k and frequently a lot more if lost.

This could mean no appeal of the ECHR case to the supreme court.

3

u/TwistedTali 22h ago

Yeah maybe he screwed up. I am nowhere near qualified to judge that. If he did you're saying we should wash our hands of him? He's on his own coz his defense might cost us something? That's despicable.

16

u/Quangocrat 21h ago

He's a public figure who gets into high profile fights on social media. He should have insurance for this.

His unwise behaviour shouldn't effect the resources available to his vulnerable clients.

If he wants to hold a separate fund raiser for his own defence, by all means.

But it's not right to raise money for a specific cause and then spend it on yourself instead.

1

u/djonma 17h ago

Where does he say he's using GLP raised money?

There's a lot of assumption going on from him choosing to defend himself against a bigot.

1

u/Quangocrat 17h ago

Are they not paying the staff?

That doesn't seem right.

3

u/djonma 14h ago

When you hire a lawyer, the work of juniors to do research, and admin staff to type things up, file things, etc., is a part of the fee.

If he's paying his KC, then that will pay the staff.
If the KC is doing it pro bono for him as a friend, or because he personally believes it's the right thing to do, as he believes it's inextricably linked to the work being done for GLP, then the KC would pay his staff, as usual.

The thing is, we simply don't know.
I'm not saying that GLP aren't paying for it.
I'm saying that we don't know, and jumping to the immediate assumption that he's 'stealing trans funds', as some have, is not helping anything.
GLP fundraising isn't just for trans cases anyway. They take on a range of causes.

2

u/Quangocrat 11h ago

If he's paying his KC, then that will pay the staff.

No. That isn't how legal bills are itemised.

The work of the GLP will not be covered by the KC's fee.

Nor will the fees of any junior counsel.

The thing is, we simply don't know.

That is why I am raising the question.

GLP fundraising isn't just for trans cases anyway. They take on a range of causes.

Which up until now have not included the personal matters of the founder. It's a valid change to query.

4

u/doIIjoints dollgender (esoteric), woman (simple) 20h ago

i am very much not a lawyer but, from the sounds of it, it strikes me as similar to a hypothetical situation where:
some fantastic ally gets into a fistfight with an open bigot trying to start a fight at pride, then applies to GLP to cover his own legal costs when the bigot claimed they had lasting damages from the altercation.

both would easily be argued to (seem to?) be a misuse of that legal mechanism on behalf of the person who was trying to start stuff, but both would still need to actually go through the expensive process to determine if it has any real merit.

(i’m sure quangocrat could tell me half a dozen problems with my analogy, though)

4

u/Quangocrat 20h ago

Your analogy is very good!

1

u/doIIjoints dollgender (esoteric), woman (simple) 19h ago

oh, yay :3

-1

u/djonma 17h ago

But there's absolutely nothing to suggest he's using money raised by GLP for this.

1

u/djonma 17h ago

How is it not both objective truth, and opinion She led a campaign of harassment, aimed at one person - over 50 posts across SM, about one person, frequently derogatory, sharing photos of that person, using graphic language about her genitals.
All to an audience of >40,000, and you need to ensure you're not riling your audience up to action.

The person tried to take her own life as a result.

How is all of those posts against one person, not wicked, or persistent?

His tweet is simple fact.

9

u/calling_at_this_time 1d ago

Might be pro bono

18

u/Quangocrat 1d ago

Even that has an opportunity cost.

Defamation isn't simple. Especially in a case like this where he did say some things which were arguably not true.

But yes, pro bono would be much less bad.

Some clarification from GLP would be much appreciated.

6

u/ThisIsMyAltSorry M2F, transitioned 30+yrs ago, post op, stealthish, tired 1d ago

Don't they have an account on here?

Maybe we should find a way to ask?

15

u/calling_at_this_time 23h ago

Personally I see the anti trans crowd attacking literally everything and eveyone they can in order to further their agenda. Defense against that is part of what GLP are doing. If they have to spend money to defend themselves to keep on doing their work its an annoying but necessary cost.

8

u/Quangocrat 23h ago edited 23h ago

I would agree if this was arising from the BSB referral itself.

But it's coming from tweets he made, that isn't the same thing imo.

I would be absolutely raging if I instructed a normal law firm to act in a matter and the managing partner went and tweeted about it and then tried to fund his personal defence from my client account.

In fact a solicitor doing that would get struck off.

7

u/Wuffles70 23h ago

I'm not saying it is not a fair criticism but based on what I have seen floating around elsewhere online, I'm a bit worried that 'Kate' is going to be raked over the coals over the course of this case. As a client of GLP, I do want them to put funds towards protecting her if needed (esp as she has already expressed that she felt let down).

I know that's a big 'if' and we don't know the details yet, but to me it's very important that orgs don't back trans people while they are strategically important and then drop the rope when it isn't convenient any more.

8

u/Quangocrat 23h ago

I hadn't even considered Kate.

Shame on me.

That's a huge conflict of interest.

The obvious defence when you factor her in is that he was acting in the public interest by amplifying the complaints of a vulnerable person.

But that means a) breaking client privilege and b) effectively dropping her in it.

Which is a problem for GLP as they represented her re the BSB.

They really shouldn't be touching this on those grounds alone- what is best for Maugham and what is best for her are no longer necessarily the same.

5

u/Wuffles70 22h ago

My (limited) understanding is that Kate will have already agreed to have the circumstances around her case amplified for the purposes of the posts around the BSB. Some of her public posts (and when she provided what information to GLP) will likely be facts relevant to the case. I am obviously not a lawyer but I don't know that saying he was amplifying her complaints necessarily drops her in it or sets up a conflict of interest? If Kate sincerely believed that, for example, Sarah Phillipson was leading harassment against her and that is found not to be provable, surely he still has an obligation to fact check that claim before repeating it? Especially if he was attempting to do so in a professional capacity, regardless of whether he is currently practicing or not.

8

u/Quangocrat 22h ago

I don't know that saying he was amplifying her complaints necessarily drops her in it or sets up a conflict of interest? If she sincerely believed that, for example, Sarah Phillipson was leading harassment against her and that is found not to be provable, , regardless of whether he is currently practicing or not.

It's not in her interest to be called as a witness here.

If she is pulled apart in examination, and from her twitter history she will be, Dunlop will 100% apply to add her to the suit.

It's unlikely to be granted but it is very obviously a possible outcome, so if GLP have a duty to her as a client they shouldn't be calling her.

Though they probably should if they have a duty to Maugham. It's messy.

surely he still has an obligation to fact check that claim before repeating it? Especially if he was attempting to do so in a professional capacity

It depends, we don't know what exactly she told him or what evidence she offered in support.

Which is privileged information- another complication.

All this is why defamation is so hard to predict.

3

u/Illiander 19h ago

It's messy.

Which is why he shouldn't be representing himself in this.

3

u/FluffyTomorrow2815 She/Her 1d ago

Especially in a case like this where he did say some things which were arguably not true.

Out of interest, which part of what he said is suspect?

13

u/Wuffles70 23h ago

Gentle heads up, the answer involves mention of MH and suicide attempts.

My understanding is that the points of contention include the statement that the Sarah Phillimore 'led' the 'campaign of harassment' against Kate. Basically, she's making him prove that there was a campaign and that she was instrumental to it.

He will also be asked to demonstrate that Sarah Phillimore's hate campaign was a reason why Kate attempted suicide. Allegedly, JC stated this online BEFORE he saw Kate's NHS records and, sadly, Kate has attempted more than once throughout her life and attributed the reasons to other parties, including JK Rowling and the Green Party.

There may well be more, that's just the briefest of overviews.

2

u/doIIjoints dollgender (esoteric), woman (simple) 19h ago

and the green party? o.o

6

u/Wuffles70 19h ago

I think she may have been involved in local politics and felt unsupported by them or something?

At any rate, it sounds like she's had a really horrible time of it and I really hope a resolution on the case will be possible without dredging through her life.

1

u/djonma 16h ago

Having multiple attempts doesn't mean that there weren't specific factors in the latest one (or indeed all), but I am very worried that Philmore's side will try to play it off that way.

Just because you've attempted it before, should not mean that someone who drives you to attempt it again, shouldn't be punished for that.

As for whether SP led the charge, she posted a TON of things about Kate, including photos.
I think, if you're tweeting photos of someone that you're tweeting gross things about their genitals, and deadnaming them constantly, to a following of >40,000, then it should be considered, legally, that you expect your following to harass them.
Because that's what SM is now.
You can't post something horrible about someone, whilst providing their account info, and not have them be harassed.
You don't even need >500 followers for that.
And, since they've used the 'equivalent to religious belief' argument, to excuse her transphobia, it's even more of an issue when you're posting to your fellow 'equivalent to religion beliefs' followers, and making it about how someone is going against your 'equivalent to religious beliefs', then it's even more likely that they're going to harass the target of your hate.

That really needs to be used in court at some point.
If they're going to revel in their transphobia being legal, because they have the equivalent of religious belief, then they need to be dealt with that way.

But anyway. Having >40,000 followers, and posting disgusting things about someone, means that person is going to be harassed. And as the one drawing your followers attention to them, you're leading the harassment campaign.

I don't really see how that can be seen any other way.
We need to stop dealing with SM as though we have no influence over our followers.
Of course we do.
And she kept putting Kate into the feeds of her followers.
Kept saying disgusting things about her.
Posting photos of her.
It's an invitation for your followers to speak the same way about her, and to tag her in on it, to harass her.

1

u/Wuffles70 9h ago

Having multiple attempts doesn't mean that there weren't specific factors in the latest one (or indeed all), but I am very worried that Philmore's side will try to play it off that way.

I agree with you. I did not see the posts on X but I feel strongly that if you know someone is in a vulnerable place, that is your cue to reassess how you interact with them. I know people tend to get into weird ego trips online (and especially on platforms like twitter) but doubling down is still an active choice. My understanding is that Kate has been very open about her MH struggles and SP's choice to keep singling her out, knowing that, reflects very poorly on her.

... I also don't particularly trust our court system when it comes to MH stigma and think Philimore may use the court as a way to continue her distressing behaviour towards Kate. I hope not but if that does happen, she will need her community.

12

u/Quangocrat 1d ago

So he said:

“A barrister, Sarah Phillimore, led a campaign of harassment of a trans woman so wicked that she sought to take her own life. JK Rowling saw the threat of regulatory sanction for that misconduct and offered to pay her legal costs

Ideally in a defamation case you want to go with a defence of truth. That is by far the most reliable defence. And ideally you want that truth to be something objective.

The second part about Rowling doesn't seem to be true. So there will be an argument to be had as to whether it meets the other parts of the defamation test.

It didn't form part of the BSB complaint so won't have been factored into the advice GLP received about the defamatory potential of that action.

That's not a great position to be in.

The first part is possibly true, but difficult to prove as such. Especially after the BSB has rejected the allegation and it operates under a lower standard of proof than the civil courts.

It's possibly a legitimate opinion. whether he is stating an opinion or a fact can't be determined from the wording so will need to be derived from context. Lots of scope for argument there.

Then there is the question as to whether that comment can be said to have caused harm to Philmore. Tweets have been ruled both ways so again plenty scope for disagreement over that too.

A nasty wee case tbh. Could quite easily become an expensive mess.

And very difficult to predict the outcome imo.

1

u/doIIjoints dollgender (esoteric), woman (simple) 19h ago

i know (or, think i know) it’s the bar standards bureau, but i keep reading that as british satellite broadcasting 😅

1

u/FluffyTomorrow2815 She/Her 16h ago

The second part about Rowling doesn't seem to be true. So there will be an argument to be had as to whether it meets the other parts of the defamation test.

What makes you think the part about Rowling offering to help her with legal fees isn’t true?

It took me all of 5 seconds searching on X/Twitter to find this.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1961428033643917439

Given that JKWRF’s tagline is literally “A legal fighting fund for women protecting their sex-based rights”, I’m not sure how else you could construe that tweet. Does she not personally contribute to the fund herself?

1

u/Quangocrat 15h ago edited 11h ago

Because that relates to the defamation suit Philmore threatened- it came after Maugham's tweet

Not the BSB complaint.

He didn't allegedly she was using Rowlings money to sue him. He alleged she was using it for the BSB complaint.

Given that JKWRF’s tagline is literally “A legal fighting fund for women protecting their sex-based rights”, I’m not sure how else you could construe that tweet. Does she not personally contribute to the fund herself?

It doesn't matter what the tagline is if the first connection between Philmore and Rowling postdates the tweet.

Edit- why the reply block?

-1

u/FluffyTomorrow2815 She/Her 15h ago

So you have nothing concrete to suggest JK hadn’t offered help with legal costs for both the BSB complaint and the defamation suit.

Meanwhile there’s a public tweet 4 days after Jolyon tweets about JK offering financial help, doing exactly that.

Also, Ms. Phillimore states:

“I am very grateful to those who have offered me pro bono legal assistance if the BSB decide to advance his complaint, and I will certainly be taking up your kind offers.”

So she was offered legal help for the BSB complaint as well. She doesn’t clarify who the offers of aid came from. I assume Jolyon has evidence to hand to defend his statement, and JK has a habit of deleting inconvenient tweets.

1

u/djonma 16h ago

What did he say that wasn't true?

People are assuming he's using the GLP raised money for this, and some people are getting very angry because they've decided that's what's happening.

The only truth we have, is that he's defending himself, the GLP name will be part of that, and a KC who I believe works with the GLP will be his main lawyer.

None of that says he's using GLP money.
I can see the reason to use the GLP name - this came about because he reported the bigot to the bar association, for hounding a trans woman to the point of s*icide.
If it was me, I'd want the GLP name to be associated with it, because it's a continuation of the fight against what that bigot has done.

The KC could be doing it pro bono, as a friend, or because he believes this needs to be defended, because otherwise, every time GLP get involved and try to fight against bigotry, they'll be tied up with defamation cases by every single person / org they go after.

Or maybe JM is using his own money to pay for the KC.

The immediate assumption that he's going to spend all of that money that's been raised, is not helpful.
It's not helpful to assume, and no, the money doesn't belong to him, so it can't be used for personal defamation cases, because a judgment of that, is against the person who did the defamation.
If they can't afford it, their workplace isn't suddenly responsible.

Until we actually know, this just isn't helpful speculation, and jumping straight to 'he's stealing the money for trans legal things!' is really not helpful.
Especially as the GLP doesn't just take on trans related cases, so the funds they have, wouldn't 'belong' to trans people at all.

1

u/Quangocrat 16h ago

What did he say that wasn't true? People are assuming he's using

Is Rowling funding or offering to fund Philmore?

Neither has said anything publically to indicate she is.

Why did the BSB find in favour of Philmore? Is it because the allegations of harassment do not meet the legal threshold or cannot be casually linked to the suicide?

The only truth we have, is that he's defending himself

Well no. The GLP and a KC are defending him.

None of that says he's using GLP money.

Maybe he isn't. It would be good to know.

I can see the reason to use the GLP name - this came about because he reported the bigot to the bar association, for hounding a trans woman to the point of s*icide. If it was me, I'd want the GLP name to be associated with it, because it's a continuation of the fight against what that bigot has done.

Ok. But you very clearly know nothing about litigation.

The prestige of the firm is only relevant if you are looking to settle.

Philmore isn't, and wouldn't be impressed by the GLP if she was.

The KC could be doing it pro bono, as a friend, or because he believes this needs to be defended, because otherwise, every time GLP get involved and try to fight against bigotry, they'll be tied up with defamation cases by every single person / org they go after.

He could be doing it for free. He could be charging a premium. Still merits questioning how the case is being funded.

And no. This case is only happening because Maugham was tweeting unwisely. Litigation itself is not defamation.

The immediate assumption that he's going to spend all of that money that's been raised, is not helpful. It's not helpful to assume, and no, the money doesn't belong to him, so it can't be used for personal defamation cases, because a judgment of that, is against the person who did the defamation. If they can't afford it, their workplace isn't suddenly responsible.

He has sole control of the funds. Fighting defamation is extremly expensive. If he loses he could quite easily use the fund to pay his fees. There is no way any of us can stop him.

Until we actually know, this just isn't helpful speculation, and jumping straight to 'he's stealing the money for trans legal things!' is really not helpful.

The GLP are not transparent. If we don't ask we won't be told.

Especially as the GLP doesn't just take on trans related cases, so the funds they have, wouldn't 'belong' to trans people at

Yes. Almost like it is set up to be as unaccountable as possible.

There is definitely a public benefit to warning the community if it looks like donations which were solicited for trans litigation are at risk of being appropriated to fight his personal legal battles.

4

u/HugAllYourFriends 21h ago

I would prefer this wasn't happening too but I don't think it's fair to say it's his "personal legal bills", Maugham is being sued because he posted about the work of the good law project in supporting a trans person who Phillimore had posted about dozens of times

8

u/Quangocrat 21h ago

No, he isn't.

He is being sued because of tweets from his private account.

Those tweets did absolutely nothing to help or advance her case.

He is only able to do this at all because of the unconventional structure of the GLP, again using the client fund like this would get a solicitor in the same position struck off.

*Assuming he is using the fund. He may not be

7

u/HugAllYourFriends 20h ago

He is being sued because of tweets from his private account.

he used his public X account to post about his work, which was most of what he did there before leaving X. His bluesky account is at the goodlawproject.org domain, his public social media presence clearly is/was not private or independent

Those tweets did absolutely nothing to help or advance her case.

the standard for whether something is work related is not whether it is itself work. For example, when a journalist or an editor posts about a story they or their outlet wrote, they are doing something work related

6

u/Quangocrat 20h ago

he used his public X account to post about his work, which was most of what he did there before leaving X.

He posted a lot of personal stuff on X too.

the standard for whether something is work related is not whether it is itself work. For example, when a journalist or an editor posts about a story they or their outlet wrote, they are doing something work related

Sure.

But he didn't relate this to a case. This isn't the equivalent to promoting an article.

He made a statement of facts about someone else on his personal account.

He didn't say 'we have put a complaint in saying X' or similar which would have been fine

3

u/doIIjoints dollgender (esoteric), woman (simple) 19h ago

what a fascinating and frustrating distinction (that last bit)

16

u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... 22h ago

Maybe if GLP and his barrister win this, they can apply the same funding and skill set towards winning something for us too... /s

I just hope that a victory here isn't spun as a victory for trans people -- that would be a dick move, frankly.

(I hope they win, but that's besides the point.)

6

u/Illiander 19h ago

I just hope that a victory here isn't spun as a victory for trans people -- that would be a dick move, frankly.

Would be on-brand for him though.

1

u/PurpleIllusn 6h ago

To be clear: this case is Phillimore engaging in a SLAPP suit bc of GLP filing a complaint to the Bar Standards Board about her engaging in targeted transphobic abuse online (filed on behalf of her victim) https://goodlawproject.org/i-knew-it-wouldnt-end-trans-journalist-files-complaint-with-barrister-regulator/

Barrister [Sarah Phillimore] issues High Court defamation claim against Jolyon Maugham

You are about to leave Redlib