Firms backtrack over Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling missteps

Lewis Silkin has removed a legal briefing from its website following criticism over its interpretation of last week’s Supreme Court ruling that the legal definition of "sex" in the Equality Act refers to biological sex.

The original briefing, which focused on the implications of the ruling for employers, was taken down earlier this week, according to Legal Futures, after campaign group For Women Scotland - which brought the successful case - publicly criticised the firm on X/Twitter, calling the analysis "rubbish" and warning it "will end up costing clients if they push this line."

Social media users accused the firm of misrepresenting the ruling, with one writing: "170 lawyers and Lewis Silkin has already had to withdraw its advice to break the law and discriminate against women."

In response to the backlash, the firm replaced the post with a longer, more caveated version saying "We have updated this article since it was first published in light of developments in the last few days around the provision of single-sex services", and stressing "This article does not attempt to definitively state the law."

Lewis Silkin told Legal Futures the briefing was not wrong, but had been "expanded" due to "heated debate" and confusion between workplace and service provider law.

Brabners gets it wrong too

Elsewhere, regional firm Brabners also came under fire this week for publishing a completely inaccurate summary of the case, according to RollOnFriday.

Its since-removed post claimed the case was brought by "a transgender woman seeking to compete in elite-level women’s sport".

RoF said that "Brabners' contribution will be news to the feminist campaigners of For Women Scotland, who brought the case in a challenge to the Scottish government’s determination that 'sex' meant ‘certificated sex’ for the purposes of gender representation on public boards."