Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning; welcome to the morning hearing on 11th May 2022 in the case of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers at the Employment Tribunal.

There is a list of the abbreviations we use (and the tweet threads from this week's hearings to date) at tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

And tweet threads from the first two weeks of the hearing at tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

We expect proceedings to begin at 10.00 am, and for the day to consist of the continued examination of Allison Bailey by Andrew Hochhauser, barrister for Garden Court.

[Court is now in session]

EJ: invite observers to switch off cameras and microphones.
EJ: thanks Doyle Clayton esp Peter Daly for handling press requests for bundle so quickly. Request from Australian journalist outstanding.
IO: We object bcs outside jurisdiction

IO: Tribunal would have no reach in case of mis-use outside of jurisdiction. Purpose of access is re appropriate reporting which this is not.
EJ: I understand all this which is why I raised this
AH: We earlier raised same point with the tribunal

AH: We also not that the name given is a pen name.
EJ: Find AH hard to hear
AH: We have had to change rooms here - we have volume as high as poss
EJ: You will need to project a bit
AH: We also raise the problem of jurisdiction.

EJ: Note re TribunalTweets - people must apply as individuals each making application

EJ: Professor Kathleen Stock has applied, will write for Unherd, there were objections, I do not consider KS an irresponsible person and if she applies in terms of the order made she should be allowed access.
AH [inaudible]
EJ: can't here

AH: we have made position clear re KS
IO: as have we made objections clear - am sure EJ has taken into account.

BC: Can barely hear AH or IO and much feedback
AB: Agree - sound is very problematic
AH: have got IT people here - is this better?
EJ: Yes much
AH: apologise for a minute or so while they are here checking things

AH: Good morning Miss Bailey
AB: Good morning Mr Hochhauser
[AH discussing with IT help]
IT: Think we had covered up microphone

AH: Miss Bailey - we looked at, see p171, I said I saw no possibility of unconscious [?], you disagreed.
AH: Can you look at CT's statement. para 24. Says at no point did any of those individuals tell me to restructure clerking re AB, we have continued to clerk AB as before.

AH: Goes on to say, AB has assumed clerks all took pro-trans view, this not so, we haven't thought about it much but if anything closer to AB position. Am on Twitter but do not follow anyone legal, I follow football

AH: As far as CT concerned, sympathetic to you
AB: Yes good relationship with CT and have discussed matters with him since claim began, have not alleged hostility from CT in this way, I take him at his word there
AH: No complaint re CT?

AB: No. Re CT, what happens was drop of one-to-one clerking, different, that's why not in that section of Claim.

AH: Now Colin Cook's statement, para 39, he says he never had any discussion with anyone at Chambers or in Clerks room re AB belief, gender critical beliefs, transgender issues. Not until claim began. And now that I do know I am sympathetic to AB.

AB: Not so re discussions; I talked to Nicholas Hellen at Times; he contacted Judy Khan of Chambers. Met in Chambers. CC facilitated that and was at meeting.
AH: Point is CC not opposed to your views.
AB: Accept that. But does not mean he was not influenced by barristers esp JK

AH: December 2018 your first protected act. Interview with Sunday Times not until Nov 2019.
AB: Correct
AH: And at that time no complaint about clerking. Full diary, big cases. What point are you making?

AB: JK would not have gone to CC to ask to attend meeting without previous discussion.
AB: And problems with clerking were earlier
AH: You do not think CC telling the truth
AB: I do not.

AH: Looking at provisional statement of loss now.

AH: Loss of income stated: £157236.51. This now changed?
AB: Yes, I accept correction, c£166K.

AH: page 5801: Shall be taking you to "fee income" 2018 being in fact billings.
[interruption to deal with background noise]
AH: You see headings work billed, and payments.
AH: "Payments" 2018 =111641.82
AB: Correct

AH: p6137 is the figure for fee income - should be 111641.82
AB: Agree
AH: But for 2019 you have the right figure for fee income 51682.10
AB: Yes correct figure

AH: So the difference is just less than £60K
AB: yes
AH: In terms of criminal barristers generally - always variations
AB: Agree
AH: One of factors looking at year by year comparison
AB: Agree

AH: Mr Menon's statement page 244.
AH: Says financial year vs calendar year - another relevant factor is difference between those. If figures calculated per tax year not calendar year figs are very different

AB: Agree. Needed to look at calendar years because the protected act was December so the calendar year was chosen, but agree tax year comparison could be useful

AB: Note also we've agreed that me not working Oct-Nov 2018 affects, but, that wouldn't be so if looking at it by tax year.

AH: We have agreed a case only billed when completed
AB: Exceptions for very high paying cases, but in general yes
AH: Your calcs take no account of that, re work done but billed later
AB: Agree

AH: I understood you to be building alternative cases billing vs income
AB: Billing is what barrister is actually earning - payment can be even years later

AH: In 2019 the "DC" case - no billings, no payments?
AB: Agreed
AH: So that big case - one of largest you did that year - doesn't come in until 2020. So to suggest that billings are accurate pic of work that year, that's not right, bc it omits this DC case?

AB: Agree to a point. There is no way to calc barrister income that works in all cases. At other end of the year this way includes income from previous year cases.

AB: Balances out.

AH: But here [other section] you are not working from billings?
AB: No
AH: Billings are unreliable. As well as being in different years, there are often disputes
AB: correct

AH: p263 - a case of "N" - clerks asked for 66K
AB: Not clerks - I billed
AH: And here is the case again - no billing, not paid that year?
AB: correct
AH: So if we add the two sums paid, it comes to c37K, not the 66K billed?
AB: That was 2018 not 2019

AB: Discrepancy btwn amt *billed* and amount *paid* is that legal aid does not want to pay for -
AH: will come to that but am making different point here, that billing and income are not the same
AB: this case was exceptional but agree that's in princple true

AH: Here you billed 12K-odd, but were paid 11K-odd
AB: Yes, I typically gave 10% discount in that client's cases. Constant battle with legal aid agency on fees.

AB: But I take your point that billing <> income - calculating a barristers income is a very complicated exercise
AH: But we agree that using *billings* as a basis has problems?
AB: Yes, but so does using *income*.

AB: There is merit, when considering clerking quality, in using billings even if that ends up scaled down in the end.
AH: And payment can come much later
AB: yes sometimes years

AH: Mr Menon's statement again. He says, some criminal cases can drag on for years; or can collapse suddenly eg guilty plea, resulting in barrister earning much less than expected. Agree?
AB: Yes.

AB: GC constitution commits members to 9 months activity, and allows up to 3 months out for other activities
AH: And when you commit preparation time, Legal Aid does not recognise that time spent
AB: It does sometimes, but basically no

[EJ asks AB to repeat several references to specific points of Legal Aid regulations]

AB: [much detail about how legal aid works re barrister fees]
AH: Was about to look at AB's witness statement on this - it's very clear - written up
EJ: thank you

[everyone is reading]

AH: Cases we are talking about are governed by what described here
AB: yes
AH: and there was a replacement of xx9 by xx10?
AB: superseded yes
AH: yes

AH: And you say that how you billed / paid depended on which legal aid protocol was in effect?
AB: yes
AH: and that 10 was less well paid than 9?
AB: Yes
AH: must also be taken into account. Affected everybody
AB: yes

AH: And we agree that you can't compare billings one year with income next year and vice versa?
AB: Agree. Have to compare like with like.

AH: I suggest therefore that what should be compared is income, and that it should be broken down by, year work was done, not year received.
AB: Can see merit of that, but was setting out to show the impact I perceived from changed clerking.

AH: Would that not be shown by my method? Eg DC case. You got paid all of that in 2020. We should take that and attribute it to 2019 as when done.
AB: But not useful for analysing clerking, as it would exclude cases clerked in 2019 but not heard till 2020 for example

AH: Am making point, can't compare apples and oranges, there should be a common starting point and then apply the considerations we've talked about
AB: We've agreed imperfect but need to be looking at how clerked

AH: Mr Tennents statement. Says there are occasions when you turned down work.
AB: Agree
AH: You can't blame clerks for that
AB: Disagree. Clerking is *about* matching work to barrister. I don't apologise for turning down work too junior for me.

AB: We had been through process at GC that included showing women barristers often underclerked -

AH: Not an answer. Am asking if you agree, to show detriment, you have to show cause and effect
AB: Agree

AH: Good point for a break.
EJ: Agree.
[5 MINUTE BREAK]

AH: Back to Mr Tennent's statement. Example here to make clear our position. He says 3/5/2019 a longstanding solicitor asked re a case, AB initially accepted then said would not advance her career. I said things tough for all of us but picking up, she said that was appreciated.

AH: You email CT thanking him. Shows you not complaining
AB: Shows good relationship
AH: Also shows you are understanding what he says
AB: Solicitor concerned - when I was at Doughty Street had sent substantial drug cases and I'd asked to be added to take a look at the case

AB: But found it was only intent to supply. So I thought I should not take a case better suited to a more junior barrister and also should not take a 3 day case and run risk of blocking a longer case

AH: This is not indicative of you being treated detrimentally bcs of an action Dec 2018
AB: No, this is an example of poor clerking.

AH: Email about you - says after your email of 14/12/18 you were put forward for more work in 2019 than had been in 2018. Lists them all and the reasons they did not happen if they didn't.
AH: Figure of 37 opportunities of new work in 2018 you agree?
AB: No

AH: Increased in 2019 - 42 opportunities
AB: If Garden Court is saying "opportunity" includes being put on a list then I dispute that. I would not even have known in many cases.

AH: If we look at the chart - 37 in 2018 - you turned down x numbers, you must have been aware.
AB: I said not aware of *all*

AH: Are you saying that clerks suggesting you for cases is "not being clerked"?
AB: I am saying that these numbers appear to include ones where I was on a list and might not even have known.

AB: Consider the case extinction rebellion we looked at yesterday. I would expect to be asked to discuss with other counsel -

AH: Not what I am saying. You are saying being put forward as a suggestion for a case is not clerking,

AB: Not *effective* clerking
AH: I would call it clerking personally
AB: You are a white man. We at GC have a problem with women being underclerked.
AH: You are not claiming sex discrimination
AB: I am not.

AB: It is important that tribunal understand that clerking is subject to influencing, sometimes even unconscoiusly.

AH: Mr Menon's statement. Says 2015-2020 your income and new cases were, and there's a table of them. Shall I read out?
EJ: Easier if we all read it.
AH: Observers?
EJ: Can be accessed from link it chat

AH: My point is that this is a much better picture of your income and new cases
AB: Agree it is helpful. You can see that as a barrister builds up practice, cases become fewer but longer, we can see that 2015-2018 - but that it then changes direction.

EJ: I realise that Mr Menon's statement is not yet public. [Reads figures]
IO: It does appear in the main bundle in fact, RW has posted page number
EJ: Very helpful, thank you

AH: Mr Menon is pointing out that 2018 is outlier. You accept?
AB: No, it was a reflection point, I had built relationships with solicitors etc, and was seeing exactly the build in cases and quality that I had been hoping for and expecting. Practice taking off, to be built on.

AH: And you had 5 months absence autumn 2018-Dec 2019.
AB: No, 2 months in 2018, a holiday in 2019. Other than that. No different from others.

AH: We went through this - five months Oct 2018-2019 -
AB: You are mixing and matching now. You are doing so to make it look as if I took more time off. Let's not mix and match.

AH: Don't be angry with me
AB: I am not angry with you; I know you have a job to do.
AH: The reason I pick that period as "book ends", because those 2 months autumn 2018 affect income early 2019, we have agreed
AB: yes

AH: And the big case autumn was *not* billed in 2019. So, oddities both end of the year.
AB: Accept that, but, you still cannot take the time off in 2018 and elide with time in 2019.

AH: So if we look at 2015 list - new cases and existing cases differentiated 1 and 0
AB: Did not know that. Take your word for it
AH: Mr Menon advises that's what this column is

AH: So we see 82 new cases, and if we add existing we end up with 132.
AH: Listed by value. Top one in 2015 was c£5K
AB: Yes prosecution offered no evidence, collapsed early. Does happen - you lose expected money, but, diary opens up and clerks look for fillers

AH: Here we have top case 2016, top value is c10K. 2017 we see 88 cases in total, not all new, includes 2 substantial cases.
AB: Yes agree all this
AH: 2018: we see 19 new cases, plus existing = 51
AB: take your word

AH: And we see 3 substnational cases, over 10K.
AB: 4th one here was nearly that.
AH: 2 of them not new
AB: I do cover in statement I think - give details of the case timings

AH: And this case here - we see same ref in 2017 and 2018 - indicates income, but instruction had been year before?
AB: When this case is listed in 2017 I didn't receive any income from it, it shows 0, billing is in 2018.

AH: My point is, billed following year. It's like this other case.
AB: No, not the same, that was a case of the trial starting then having to re-start much later

AH: And on 2019?
AB: If you look half way down we have a case AA
AH: AZ?
AB: AA - [case number] - you say this was new case. But I have no recollection of that case at all in that year; not in my diary at all. Would have remembered the name.

AB: I say we have to careful viewing this list as if it reflects my diary - and there's another case here ZA which I also don't recall at all as being in that year.
AH: Will take instructions on this.
AB: Another here.

AH: Mr Menon's statement, page 245. Heading why 2019 less lucrative for AB. He says 3 of your more highpaying trials ended up later and not billed till 2020, or adjourned altogether. You accept this?
AB: Yes

AH: We've discussed the murder trial
AB: Indeed
AH: This other case, adjourned which meant you could not do it
AB: correct
AH: and this one, adjournment then scuppered by Covid
AB: yes

AH: Mr Menon says this explains in part differences 2018/2019, you accept
AB: Accept it does in part yes

AH: The sort or cases you do - you don't do sex cases do you
AB: I have done, in pupillage and in training, but not in practice - with the exception of [x] which I ended up recusing myself from. Stayed on periphery, pro bono

AH: And you don't do white collar crime?
AB: I *have* done some good fraud cases, but yes overall, don't do 'white collar' cases of dry numbers cases in Southwark. Do not interest me.

AH: In your statement you say "although I wasn't interested in white collar crime" - not your cup of tea?
AB: It think it's a very important area, but not really interesting to me.

AH: and you don't like small cases.
AB: No - if diary is well clerked I am very happy to fit in small cases - have often done this, including magistrates courts, could be financially rewarding. Any case however small can be interesting.

AB: but, am conscious that junior members of the profession need work, and, that I was looking for cases to bulid own career.

AH: You say in statement you find short trials tiring and were looking for cases to build towards QC.
AH: Have not found you listed as applying for [lawyer stuff] you are not listed here or here
AB: Agree - I did apply to [] but have not reapplied

AH: Barristers building careers have to get themselves out there. Also have to build relations with solicitors
AB: Agree. If things had continued as in 2018 I would have been applying. For example you see here discussion with [solicitor]

AH: Mr Cook's statement. He says AB has not had had large base of requesting solicitors sending repeat instructions, he says he doesn't know why, not for want of trying. He discusses a few solicitors and yr relationship with them.

AH: He says clerks tried to push you when talking to solicitors. That barristers often have to accept less senior work to get solicitors onside for future cases. He says you often turned down. Do you accept that taking work with a view to future, you could have done that?

AB: Disagree. Clerks "sell" their barristers at an appropriate levels. Barristers spend their years *doing cases* to get known, clerks then sell them to solicitors. With a couple of exceptions, this did not happen for me.

AB: Clerking is a skilled job - matching barristers to work and to solicitors.

AH: I suggest there is no evidence of conspiracy to deprive you of work
AB: There is evidence of loss of work. There was interference with work I was offered. I disagree with you.

AH: You accept Mr Harvey joined Aug 2018
AB: agree
AH: and that he ceased to clerk TRWG at that point
AB: there is some later correspondence but I accept formal relationship ended. He wd have built up strong connections with the people in the group.

AH: You turned down cases because you were not interested.
AB: Only ones that should have gone to someone more junior
AH: You were made more offers in 19 than 18
AB: Disagree - put on list is not offer

AH: there is no evidence at all of conspiracy
AB: Disagree.
AH: which document
AB: we have not been taken to these [sound quality very poor]

AH: to be clear. Is there a piece of paper showing anyone trying to influence the clerk
AB: that is usual in conspiracy, no paper
AH: is there a document
AB: No

AH: I have shown you many comms saying clerks value you and were putting your forward
AB: I agree if have seen those yes

AH: The murder case - primary clerking - active - anyone cd have done that case
AB: disagree; judge has to approve your CV for such a case. Doubt there were many barristers that cd have stepped into that case.

AH: I am told you were not the only person considered
AB: No disclosure of that?
AH: Mr Tennet will be giving evidence

AH: We went through many factors, re figures, I asked if they mattered, you agreed they did, I asked if you had taken into account, you said not
AB: Stand by previous answers

BC: Can I intervene to say AH audio very poor AB also - can we do anything about this?
EJ: agree volume is not good
AB: I can dial out and then in again during break?
BC: perhaps we all should

AH: If I can finish Q. You refer to the women's practice report [?] - it talks of problems for women in chambers. But that is not the case you are making here. You are alleging conspiracy Chambers/clerks to deprive you of work. Very different.

AB: Disagree. One end of the scale is direct instruction, other end is the atmosphere of influence, everyone knowing who is in favour, etc

AB: First I could have known of impact of my protected action was at end of trial I was doing in Lewes, which ended mid January - when I found a complete wall of silence.

EJ: [5 MINUTE BREAK]

[We resume]
AH: We have had IT look at sound, is this better?
EJ: yes a bit.

AH: your witness statement, p67, you talk of your security concerns, could you read paras 206-207 ending where you talk of direct comm with Leslie Thomas.
AB: Yes I know those well.

AH: Main bundle p570, emails. This is day after your first protected act, You say, please consider what measures for protection in light of the furore, you suggest that home addresses be removed from intranet

AH: this is a Saturday. Same day, Judy Khan replies hour later, says no problem reminding all staff not to disseminate personal information, but that she's not clear why shd be removed from intranet, she asks if you mean someone wd leak & that list is necessary for chambers work

AH: you reply saying yes you do think access to list shd be limited, you recognise some issues, you mention GDPR also.
AH: At this time JK in middle of big trial
AB: yes she often is.

AH: Am pointing out that slight delay was bcs trial.
AB: I was contacting her re my personal safety, and I had to chase it up
AH: You chase 21/12 she replies 5pm same day. Says the only info she can find on intranet is phone numbers not addresses, and they are very necessary

AH: She suggests you contact IT and get your numbers changed and replaced with trusted proxies. She asks you to let her know where addresses are, because she has checked with DB that they are not accessible.
AB: yes

AH: You reply that you have deliberately not tried to access, but that you are happy to leave it, if JK and DB are happy things are OK. You express that if there is an issue re phone nos applies to everyone not just you

AH: JK replies a bit later that she had meant to offer accommodation to your concerns, not personalise the matter.

AH: in your statement you say, JK asked you for clarification which you supplied, JK did not reply and you had to chase, and that thereafter there was a lack of sympathy from heads of chambers.

AH: Why do you not mention the emails we looked at, esp the one where you say you're happy with things?
AB: There were 2 high profile transactivists in chambers and I was concerned for my safety

AH: my point is that by omitting discussion of the email exchange esp where you say you are happy if JK and DB happy, you are deliberately presenting chambers in bad light

[AB video freezing]

AB: My observation at para 207 is based on the full exchange, I stand by sentiment, and disclosures have made clear there was hostility to me at the time, JK had decided I was transphobic, very clear lack of sympaty

AH: You raised concerns, JK addressed them
AB: she tried to, later

AH: You say JK unwilling to change chambers policies to address concerns - that does not represent the email exchange.
AB: disagree

AH: you do not anywhere in your statement mention your response at page [] how can you leave out that you told JK you were happy to leave matters there? how can you do that?

AB: I can do that because the concern was the address, that someone would turn up at my house. That wsa left unadressed till after new year

AB: I am confident that I have presented my opinions of the lack of sympathy and of JK's actions correctly in my statement.

AH: You say you had direct contact with LT about levels of abuse. LT emails you 22/12 and asks if you've had any threats, says he is asking only out of concern. You say this is hostiity. How??

AB: If you look at that in the context of the other email exchanges that are taking place, it's clear. May I request a 5 minute break please?
EJ: of course

[5 MINUTE BREAK]

[we resume]

AH: the reason I put this to you is because this is you developing the story you want to put forward, and leaving out anything inconvenent
AB: disagree
AH: as you did with CT relationship
AB: disagree

AH: in your statement para418 you say, you had told chambers about abuse on 24/10 and they just said go to police, no support at all, and that comments in press were merely disingenuous

AH: This is email 24/10 from JK, says sorry you have had threats, we do not condone, strongly advise police. Says happy to discuss ways chambers can safeguard your future safely, and they will investigate fairly and impartially.

AH: I reiterate - offers to discuss your safety. You did not revert.
AB: I believe not.

AH: Sunday Times article. Quote from JK at the end.
AB: remember well
AH: She says utterly condemns any threat to anyone, chambers or otherwise. You say not sincere.
AB: correct

AH: Board meeting minutes Oct 2018 - redactions are unrelated to this case. Last lines: LW = Lucy WIbberly who yo uknow?
AB: yes

AH: Minutes say LW suggests olive branch to AB to stop her feeling isolated, you see this?
AB: yes
AH: The board then say - [discussion of board members] - says board agreed that women's officer cd offer this. LW says she will discuss with officer

AB: Yes. Of course I did not see this at the time

AH: On to Stephanie Harrison's statement.
AH: para44 she says there was strong feeling that women's officers should be in touch with you re welfare and that she understands this happened.
AH: Email from Liz Davies, now head of chambers

AB: This is getting long, as a question?

AH: Do you accept that board had women's officers reach out to you?

AB: Accept there was a meeting, that mandated board action was rejected, that contact was made, I did receive it, but assumed it was contact by an *individual* member. Cd not have known board mandate - bcs it explicitly wasn't

AH: you were contact by women's officers.
AB: No, as far as I knew simply by individual members of chambers
AH: This email from Liz Davies -
AB: Yes, I have said that Liz Davies, and her support, stood out. Say so in my statement.

AB: When it became clear that LD was not in agreement with other heads of chambers, she was effectively cut out of email discussions among heads. LD wrote a strong email of support - it's in my statement.

AH: JK made clear statement to Sunday Times condemning threats against you.
AB: No, against *anybody*.

AH: She offers to discuss your safety
AB: Correct
AH: you don't follow up
AB: correct

AH: LD emails you on 28th saying she would like to support you, mentioning free speech.
AB: LD says she has only just caught up with all this, with the complaint -
AH: I know you want to read whole email, but I want to focus on your claim no support offered.

AH: You reply to LD that you are OK and have loads of support.
AB: yes

AH: Here was have contact between you and LW?
AB: there's a convo with LW and others re who should reach out to me, but I wasn't part of that.

AH: I cannot find the references I wanted here - but can I put to you that those individuals made a number of attempts to contact you and you did not respond.
AB: not so - there was a voicemail -
AH: Ah I have the references!

AH: [page x]
AB: yes, this is convo between the 3 women, it doesn't talk of contact in official capacity, and that was my experience - that some individual members of chambers did contact me in personal capacity.

AH: We see them discussing that you must be supported, and mentioning attempts to contact you. Includes mention of leaving a voicemail saying contacting as women's officers.

EJ: [reads the exchange]

AH: Message she left you was clear about role of contact, woman's officer
AB: I don't doubt her, but what I recall is that there was no mention of on behalf of management

AB: I do remember thanking them later, bit of a conversation, and there was no mention of it being something that heads of chambers had thought was a good thing to be done.

AH: JK has contacted you offering to discuss safety. She then goes to board meeting, it's decided women's officers will contact you, they do, they leave a message saying women's officers, then Clare Wade is involved, friend of yours -

AB: Not friend exactly - senior colleague.
AH: CW says she will contact you, the others say great bcs she is so senior. CW did contact you
AB: Yes indeed

AH: conversation continues 30/10, LW we think saying she has spoken to you and you said you were OK, angry but OK.

AH: It is not a fair description to say chambers did not support you, or made disingenous comments

AB: the 3 women reached out to me and I was very grateful, but I experienced as individual not chambers
AH: You are constructing a narrative, statement does not present facts
AB: Am confident it does.

AH: 6 Feb 2020 email saying hello Allison, reminding you about a Chambers social event, asking if you wanted to come. You are not being alienated
AB: I had been there 16 years - of course I had friends there. It is the heads of chambers that I criticise.

AH: They tried to support you, you ignored them. How can you make your claim?
AB: You have not taken us to the comms showing all the other conversations JK was having at that time

AH: I am talking about what you knew at the time. You were asked about your safety at that time
AB: I had had some tense communications with JK at the time which you have not taken us to. What I experienced was a lack of sympathy from heads of chambers

AH: You omitted any mention of what I have taken you to today. Serious omission.
AB: I disagree.

AH: Email 5th March, email from you, to many in chambers, asking for help and advice re a case. SH replies giving you some advice, you respond saying thank you v much, to her team also. Clear that you are not being treated as a pariah

AB: You are confusing two things. This is a professional email to colleagues, setting out specific Qs. SH is an experienced QC who replies, and I was grateful. This is different to the response to my protected act. I made a similar request letter and received abuse from MG -

AH: Will come to Mr Gatley immediately after lunch, so this is a good time to break for lunch.

EJ: We will resume at 2pm

[LUNCH]

@threadreaderapp please unroll