An unregistered barrister has been fined £500 after he swore while sitting the professional ethics assessment remotely. Jack Henry Sadler was found to have ‘acted in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or the profession’, the Bar Standards Board said.

Justice scales on a file next to a laptop

Source: iStock

In July last year, Sadler, called in March 2023, made a number of comments during an exam which was also proctored remotely and formed part of his bar training as a pupil.

During the exam, which was recorded, Sadler is heard to make a number of comments including: ‘This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really p**s me off’, ‘I’m so f*****g bored of this’ and ‘f*****g finally, a criminal question. This civil s**t…how can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly.’

Sadler was in the second part of his pupillage, in the practising period. Barristers are required to pass the professional ethics assessment before they can complete their pupillage. It forms part of lawyers’ training for the bar.

At the conclusion of the recording and the exam, Sadler can be seen to hold up his middle finger to the camera, a determination-by-consent report from the BSB said.

A second charge found Sadler had ‘failed to keep the affairs of each client confidential and/or failed to protect the confidentiality of each client’s affairs’ after he accessed his work email during the recorded exam and clicked into two work emails from solicitors’ firms in which client information was displayed.

The emails related to matters in which Sadler was instructed and contained client names.

Sadler accepted the two professional misconduct charges against him. In mitigation he said ‘he did not realise that his words and actions could be heard and were being recorded’.

The report added: ‘Mr Sadler honestly believed he was in private, and behaved as such, voicing opinions that he thought no one else would hear.’

Referring to the second charge in assessing his emails, Sadler said he did not think at the time assessing his email would risk a GDPR breach. Necessary steps were taken by him and his chambers to address any potential breach.

The report said: ‘Mr Sadler invites that his behaviour is viewed as a catastrophic lapse in judgment, for which he is deeply ashamed and deeply sorry, and not as anything more insidious.’

Both charges were found proved. The panel agreed Sadler, who was noted to have left the bar, had ‘shown contrition and remorse’.