NAMED: The Bar Graduate, 27, Who Anthony Arlidge QC Has Dumped Constance Briscoe For

On Tuesday, we relayed the extraordinary news that 18 Red Lion Court veteran Anthony Arlidge QC, 75, had left his partner of 12 years, judge and barrister Constance Briscoe, for a 27 year-old wannabe barrister called ‘Heather’.

We can reveal the identity of Heather below…

Bar Vocational Course (BVC) graduate Heather Lockwood [picture removed for copyright reasons], who was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 2009, got together with Arlidge in September 2010.

They’re currently living together near the Inns of Court – not far from Lockwood’s workplace at a central London law firm [firm name removed for legal reasons], where she’s a paralegal.

Yesterday Arlidge’s “astonished” ex-partner Briscoe, 55, who is known for her 2008 memoir Ugly, told The Telegraph that she thought “the whole thing was a bit ridiculous”.

She added: “Tony is too old for a midlife crisis. It is hilarious. I don’t know what she wants or what she is trying to do but good luck to them. Tony was giving a speech at my daughter’s birthday party. He told me just before we left to go there that he had fallen in love with this girl. I was very upset … but that’s life.”

46 Responses to “NAMED: The Bar Graduate, 27, Who Anthony Arlidge QC Has Dumped Constance Briscoe For”

  1. D_T_T

    I’m sure it will not be a surprise to receive a comment asking why you felt the need to investigate this and “reveal” the full name of this woman and other details here. Are we meant to be impressed? Do you consider this to be cutting-edge legal journalism? Or just after more website hits? This kind of piece is unnecessary and does you no credit.

  2. A barrister

    Why is this on your site? It’s hardly legal news, it’s purely salacious gossip. And unfair to reveal her name.

    • Qwerty

      Why? If I did research into you and published whatever I found about your relationships, would that be fare game?

      • CurtisMayfield

        I wouldn’t like it, but yes, it would be fair game. You mix with a high profile married men, which on the surface appears to be for dubious reasons, then expect a backlash luv.

        This site does produce some decent articles, but let us not pretend that it is also unapologetically tabloid as well.

        • Anon

          What do you mean, “dubious reasons”? Nobody has yet come up with any valid public interest defence to justify journalists peddling this mindless gossip. Constance Briscoe is very upset about being dumped, apparently. I reckon she is trying to promote her own career as a wannabe pundit and panel show guest. She’s the story. But hey, we get the journalists we deserve.

          • CurtisMayfield

            This article, and gossip like it, has nothing whatsoever to do with requiring a public interest defence. It has to do with taste. Personally, I like my journalists to provide me with tat to read on occasion. If you don’t think it tasteful, then don’t read it and don’t provide the author with further oxygen of publicity by commenting.

          • CurtisMayfield

            I would have thought that the only one who believed that their career was going to be progressed by this whole sorry saga was the young blond who had failed to secure pupillage…but hey, perhaps it is love! lol

  3. Dr Rita Pal

    Gosh. Got as radical as the “Chilli Hot Stuff” case. You should write that one up. Love your website.

    • Anon

      You clots. The mystery blonde in the picture kissing that chap is not the same person as the one in the black and white picture. And you nicked the black and white picture from a website, which must be breach of copyright. Amateurs, the lot of you. Whom did you sleep with to get a job on legalcheek.com?

  4. Jonny Cotton

    She definitely could have got an injunction to prevent you posting this – zero public interest.

    Please remove it.

  5. The Ferret

    The blonde in the photo is not Heather. Nor is it the same lady in the accompanying head-shot photo. Poor form.

    • CurtisMayfield

      Looks like her…just go to the solicitor’s profile page on Watmore’s website….

    • Anon

      Well, as this is a “legal blog” perhaps we should open up the discussion and ask whether you’re entitled to claim an indemnity for the damages and costs from the two sources who have erroneously ID’d the woman in the photo. But that would be a discussion about law. I think you’d rather read about tits and bums.

  6. Inside Scout!

    I’d like you to all know the girl he is hugging in the picture (top left)….is not the girl he has been dating! i know this because she is my friend and I have asked her!….therefore you should be embarrassed to say the least at you lack of journalistic skills and for wasting all our time

    • Anon

      The girl in the colour photo (wrongly named as HL) has a clear entitlement to damages for defamation. I daresay the Evening Standard has the money to pay the damages and costs. Does this naff Legalcheek website have any assets? I expect the bailiffs will find out in due course.

  7. Jonny Cotton

    This article has made me really angry.

    Who on earth do you think you are posting up the details of this relationship? It may give this website a few more hits, but it pays no attention to the people involved and the damage it may do to this young lawyer’s career.

    It shows a complete lack of professional judgement to post this sort of content.

    • Raven

      By being involved with this kind of person, she opened herself up to the controversy – it’s a bit like dating a very famous film star. It comes with the territory and I see nothing wrong with this article

      • AppleMax

        No. There is a sharp distinction between film stars who use their private lives to promote themselves – and everyone else who quietly gets on with life.

        These film stars invite the media to disclose the details of their private lives. The latter do not. This relationship is in this second category – which is why there is such strength of feeling on this page.

  8. It's a secret

    Please take this post down.

    The only reason this story is deemed “news” is because the majority will deem it “shocking” – that is not a good enough reason to hurt this young girl. It is hardly shocking that two people are in love. It is their ages that present the shock. It should not. People should be free to meet, fall in love, irrespective of their ages. In fact, how absolutely wonderful for them both. We don’t all find love.

    This story has been spread by an ex-girlfriend. As such, it should not be given much, if any weight. Moreover, let’s not forget that Anthony Arlidge QC is one of the greatest advocates of our time and he should be afforded greater respect by both his ex-girlfriend and this “legal” blog. It should also be noted that this girl has done absolutely nothing wrong, gained absolutely nothing – she is having a relationship with someone, that is all. Why on earth would you feature her photo, where she works, where they met – to what end? Only she will be hurt by all this – she is very young and does not deserve the attention this post will create.

    Please take this post down.

    • Gemma

      I find this comment a bit surprising.

      If the man in this story was a Hollywood star and the young woman in question (I would consider her a woman, rather than being a girl) was an actress (or really any other profession), would you really take the same view or would you say “there is no fool like an old fool”? I get the impression there is a sort of double standard at play here, as if being a QC and a newly qualified barrister means that their relationship is more “respectable” than any other with the same age gap.

      I am not making a comment on the morality of the relationship or whether this story should have been published on this blog. I do however wonder whether you would be making the same sympathetic comments if these two people were in an entirely different profession altogether?

      • AppleMax

        Gemma, see my reply to Raven’s comment above.

        It is a false analogy to say “if they were film stars it would be ok”. They aren’t. So it isn’t.

        I don’t understand your second point – if they were in another profession such as accountancy, architecture, medicine, teaching – and this had been posted on an equivalent blog, there would be the same reaction.

        • PerthLawyer

          More to the point, why on Earth do you assume this sort of probing would be OK if they were film stars? In Australia we don’t have the same level of sleazy tabloids as you do, so we’re not quite as desensitised (although I’m not claiming any moral high ground here – I daresay the story would run here too, be it legal people or movie folk). But why should it be run, in either case? It’s salacious. It sells advertising space. Etc. But it’s not news and there’s no public interest, in either case. Just vicarious tittilation.

          • Applemax

            Hi Perth,

            The point I made above was that the press can legitimately publish stories about film stars where those film stars have essentially consented to sharing these details with the rest of the world. We could discuss what ‘consent’ means (in the UK the tabloid press interpret it quite widely!) but I think the point still stands. What do you think?

  9. Submarine

    Alex, I am astonished that you think this is worthy of Legal Cheek. It’s just nasty.

    I come to this website to catch-up on legal news or read opinion pieces, not this vicious garbage. I expect you think this it is a scoop to “name” a female who happens to be in relationship with a male.

    This is a case study of poor journalism, which the Leveson Inquiry has exposed so thoroughly. At times there may be legitimate reasons for highlighting the behaviour of junior lawyers – the Henry Mosytn case is a good example – but this is not one of those cases.

    Please do the decent thing Alex.

    • Richard

      Are you really astonished? LegalCheek isn’t exactly high-brow stuff. We have sub-RoF tittle tattle, rehashed stories from the papers and figments of Alex’s imagination like OccupyTheInns.

      No way this article is coming down – it’s done exactly what was intended – it’s attracted more comments than everything else on this site added together…

      • Submarine

        Richard, I agree that most of the pieces on Legal Cheek are pretty low rent. And OccupyTheInns is just embarrassing (Jan Moir / Richard Littlejohn for lawyers).

        But this crosses a line – all of the other junk on here is harmless and quickly forgotten about. This is just needlessly hurtful.

        What’s particularly galling is that Alex then took to twitter asking things like “was it wrong to name the girl? Have your say” making further mileage out of this ill-judged story.

        You’re also right that this has served its purpose – Alex has some more hits. The cost? Who cares!

  10. Clock-watcher

    If this is the sort of thing that Legal Cheek is posting now you may be interested to know that someone on my BPTC broke up with their girlfriend last week, but apparently he’d already slept with a GDL student.

    Let me know if you’re interested.

  11. Alan Carthage

    Just read this and all the comments. Agree entirely with those who are critical.

    The reason this has struck a chord is because it seems that Legal Cheek thinks it’s fair game to publicise gossip about lawyers. I think we feel like this could have been us – I know of barristers and solicitors who have might have had affairs and so on. To think that such gossip might end up on a website like this beggars belief – do I now have to coyly walk down Chancery Lane two steps behind my girlfriend just in case a Legal Cheek paparazzo catches me with a girl a few years my junior?

    Grow up Alex – you bang on about how you didn’t want to be a lawyer but wanted to be a journalist and then come up with stuff like this. Sometimes you do good pieces but something is going wrong if you think this is acceptable.

  12. Disgusted

    Are we all forgetting that there are families involved? This is not the first time this QC has just dumped a woman to move on to the next.
    I hate the fact that affairs appear to be te order of the day in and around the Inns.
    Thank you for printing this Alex. If Mr Arlidge didn’t see anything wrong with his actions before maybe he will certainly think carefully before dumping Heather for a toddler!

  13. Legally Ginger

    I need a pupillage, hook me up with a QC somebody… anybody…

    I’m ginger, busty, leggy and working as a paralegal ( a job I hate). Are the dining sessions at the Inns really good for meeting potential partners? I guess I should wear something a bit more revealing next time, eh? I don’t care whether the QC is old enough to be my grandfather. I can teach him about twitter, and he can teach me about WW2!

  14. A Lawyer

    Seriously, though, because I really can’t understand the ethics of journalism or whether indeed journalists recognise the concept of ethics, on what basis does the Press think it is right to give this vengeful woman, Briscoe, the platform to comprehensively assassinate the reputation of her former lover and his new girlfriend? Is it because Briscoe is a victim of abuse? They do say that sometimes victims can perpetuate a cycle of abuse, but that doesn’t usually involve the active co-operation of the Press. She has been variously described as a QC (which she isn’t) and one of Britain’s most successful judges (which of course she isn’t) and I begin to wonder whether there is a Diversity And Inclusion agenda in all this. There are valid ethical and legal issues worthy of debate, but where do we see the debate?

  15. Sandman

    Thanks for revealing her name. I do see the public interest. I was called to the bar the same time as ms lockwood. I’ve been lucky enough to have had a pupillage and am now practising as a barrister. Most of my fellow Bvc graduates were not so lucky. The number of pupillages is very limited and we’re entitled to know if somebody applying for pupillage is getting boned by an eminently connected 75 year old QC old enough to be her great great grandfather. Alarm bells are ringing!!

    Will be very interested to see whether she obtains pupillage in the next year or so. If she does some questions should be asked. but I suspect that the QC is just having some fun and is stunningly incosiderate of how this will affect ms lockwood’s future. Or maybe he thinks if she’s indiscreet enough to go with him publicly then it’s her own fault

    A lesson for anybody who plans on sleeping with a senior lawyer to get pupillage (and I’m not saying that is necessarily what ms Lockwood has done) – is be discrete – keep it as a business transaction and don’t make the mistake of being seen publicly with them.

    And of course if they’re living together then they are publicly a couple. It’s not like they only meet at a hotel using false names!

    • Concerned

      Well said. Personally my view is that if you play with fire you get burnt.

      BVC/BPTC students are often told to have something on their CV to make them stand out. Some decide to go through less than scrupulous avenues to get the edge. But let’s not kid ourselves that it doesn’t go both ways.

  16. Not a lawyer

    I just stumbled across this, have never been to this site before and likely never will again.

    Which is sad, because you lawyers seem like such a fun and cheery bunch.

    Toodles.

  17. Jonathan Lea (@jonathanlea)

    If any paralegal types (who have done the LPC) happen to be reading this then City law firm Bargate Murray are looking again for a paralegal. Please email your CV and covering email/letter to [email protected]

    Sleeping with our boss Quentin is certainly not required! If you impress (with your work) as a paralegal then a training contract is on offer to the right person…

  18. Anon

    Other press stories have filled in the gaps in the story. Constance B. admits that the breakup of her relationship with A. was in 2010. She admits that she arranged to leak the story for revenge. She doesn’t want to be pitied. She is now in a new relationship. The phrase “bunny-boiler” comes to mind. Is she behaving with the dignity that one would expect of a senior barrister? Would anyone, whether a client or a solicitor, have confidence in a barrister who spills the details of his/her private life in order to belittle a former lover? And if she sits as a judge, would she be able to give an unbiased decision in a bullying or harassment case? The press isn’t interested in these issues. The legal profession might be.

  19. Anon

    The relationship ended in September 2010. This is not a story. Ms Briscoe has been in a new relationship for some time and thinks her x is bonkers. According to the papers over the weekend she has been very generous to her x. She has not slagged Arlidge or his new squeeze off. She describes them as bonkers which is accurate.