‘Woke’ lawyers obstructing Victorian Bar’s purpose, silk Gavin Silbert says

Gavin Silbert KC has condemned ‘woke’ agendas driving the legal fraternity, after a lawyer he mentored returned a gift because he criticised Victoria’s first female DPP Kerri Judd.

Barrister Gavin Silbert KC.

Silk Gavin Silbert KC has condemned the “woke” agendas driving the state’s legal fraternity, after a crown prosecutor he mentored as a junior returned a robe bag he had gifted her, saying his criticism of Director of Public Prosecutions Kerri Judd would prevent women from aspiring to senior positions.

Mr Silbert, a former chief crown prosecutor and a barrister of nearly 40 years, was, along with other senior lawyers, openly critical of Ms Judd’s decision not to prosecute Victoria Police officers in the fall-out of the Lawyer X royal commission, saying the matter should have been handled by an out-of-state DPP.

In a letter sent to Mr Silbert, obtained by The Australian, crown prosecutor Jane Warren accused him of discouraging female lawyers from rising to senior positions by launching a “relentless attack on Kerri personally.”

As such, Ms Warren said she could not “in good conscience” hold on to the robe bag he had given her as a junior in recognition of her potential.

“I enjoyed working with you in the past and I was very grateful for the way you encouraged me as a young female barrister, however your attacks on Kerri Judd have, in combination with those of others, been so damaging for women who might have followed in her footsteps that I cannot accept this symbol of encouragement and support from you any longer – it simply feels hypocritical to do so,” Ms Warren wrote.

“As the first ever female DPP, Kerri stands as an important role model for younger women in our profession.”

Ms Warren said Mr Silbert and other senior male lawyers had launched an unfair “attack” on Ms Judd’s performance as a barrister, and sought to undermine her “without any proper basis”.

“It is an all-too common experience for women who take on higher positions. A sad consequence is that many women will think twice about taking on such important roles in the profession, for concern that it simply comes at too high a price,” she wrote.

“You might not intend it but that is the broader impact that your comments contributed to.”

Ms Warren ended her ­letter by saying she hoped her comments would help Mr Silbert “understand the full implications that your words can have, and perhaps cause you to reflect on damage they may do in the future.”

Mr Silbert said Ms Judd’s gender was not relevant to his criticism, and Ms Warren’s letter was the latest indication that the state legal profession was going too far in the way of pushing gender diversity without assessing merit.

“It had nothing to do with the gender at all, but that letter summarises the zeitgeist which is prevailing at the moment,” he said. “I‘ve had plenty of fights with male DPPs in this state.

“I’ve mentored large numbers of female barristers and had large numbers of female juniors, all (chosen) on merit.”

Mr Silbert said the “gender issue is a huge issue at the moment” playing out in a “real division now between male and female lawyers.”

While he was encouraging of getting more women into the profession, Mr Silbert said it was important those women were capable and competent in doing the job.

“I don’t have a problem with government departments having some sort of affirmative action in order to encourage the briefing of women,” he said.

“But once they are encouraged, they need to hold their own on the basis of their ability.”

When approached by The Australian for comment, Ms Warren referred to another letter she had written to Victorian Bar president Sam Hay KC and Women’s Barristers Association convener Elizabeth Ruddle KC, calling on the two organisations to order barristers who were criticising Ms Judd to cease doing so.

“I ask that more be done to redress the damaging personal attacks made on Kerri Judd – which I note have included allegations of corruption, a conflict of interest, and a lack of competency,” she wrote in the second letter.

“The cohesion of the Bar is damaged when such baseless and disparaging remarks designed only to wound the reputation and standing of a fellow member are left unchecked, and certainly so when such remarks are made without reasonable grounds or a proper basis to do so.

“Second to the personal toll it can only be assumed to have taken on Kerri Judd, I can say from personal experience that this conduct, and the lack of response to it, is extremely disheartening for a female member of the Bar to see.”

Next week, the Victorian Bar will vote on a ”diversity clause” to be embedded in its constitution which would make it a purpose of the bar to “actively promote and foster a diverse and inclusive membership that reflects the society it serves”.

Mr Silbert, who opposes the changes, said: “The purpose of the bar is to look after the interests of barristers and alert the population when governments are out of control and need to be brought into control.”

“(The Bar has) strayed from that and they have other issues on the agenda,” he said. Mr Silbert praised some individual “sensible” female women on the Victorian Bar council, saying without them the Bar “would not only be woke but we would have every social issue” included in the constitution.

The Victorian Bar will vote on the proposed amendments at an annual meeting on October 23.