Faculty’s ‘blatant sexism’ ANALYSIS

AS A QC, Brian McConnachie’s behaviour is expected to be exemplary.

As a member of the Faculty of Advocates, he is obliged to meet the standards of its code of conduct – which states his “personal honour, honesty and integrity” must be beyond doubt.

Despite this, he chose to make sexist and degrading comments about Sandy Brindley, the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland.

Brindley’s role sees her work closely with the legal profession and she has a right, as do all women, to be shown respect – especially from a man with such legal standing.

In its report, the Faculty of Advocates found this was not unsatisfactory professional conduct but “concerned only Mr McConnachie’s” feelings and wishes about “hypothetical sexual activity that he might engage in” with the head of Rape Crisis Scotland.

The faculty appears blind to the sexist element of these complaints, in refusing to issue a strong condemnation of their misogynistic and salacious nature.

Yet it does reprimand him over showing “disloyalty” to a fellow criminal defence QC by repeating sexual comments the other leading male lawyer may or may not have made about Brindley.

There is no outrage from the faculty that two QCs may have engaged in a disgusting, sexually explicit exchange about a women’s rights campaigner.

The faculty’s core concern is that McConnachie was potentially throwing a fellow advocate under the bus if his texts ever became public.

The faculty showed no such concern for the professional and personal reputation of Brindley.

Campaigners believe an independent body should handle complaints about faculty members.

In this instance, the body’s failure to call out blatant sexism within its ranks suggests they have a point.