Barrister who swore during compulsory online ethics exam because he didn't realise he was being recorded is fined £500
A pupil barrister has been fined £500 after he said he was 'so f****** bored' with this during a compulsory online ethics exam.
Jack Henry Sadler did not realise he was being recorded when he told the online chatbot: 'F****** p*** off, I don't need to start a f****** chat … This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really p*** me off.'
He also made a comment during the exam where he suggested he was more interested in pursuing a criminal rather than civil law career.
'F****** finally, a criminal question,' Mr Sadler said, adding: 'This civil s*** … How can you have any ethics if you're a civil practitioner, honestly.'
He was also reported to have held his middle finger up to camera at the end of the recorded exam.
Mr Sadler was sitting an exam required by all those aiming to qualify as fully practising barristers in England and Wales when the incident took place (stock photo)
Mr Sadler was sitting an exam required by all those aiming to qualify as fully practising barristers in England and Wales when the incident took place.
The Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers, ruled that the pupil barrister's behaviour was 'likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places' in their profession.
The watchdog also found that Mr Sadler had opened work emails during the exam which revealed confidential client information.
The Bar Standards Board noted that at the start of the exam, the invigilator had asked Mr Sadler to show his desk area to prove that his phone was not with him.
He was also told to demonstrate he was not wearing any kind of watch to which Mr Sadler replied: 'What is a watch going to do, how the f*** am I going to cheat with a watch, come on.'
A pupil barrister has been fined £500 after he said he was 'so f****** bored' with this during a compulsory online ethics exam (stock photo)
Mr Sadler - who was called to the Bar last year at Middle Temple in London - accepted the misconduct charges but insisted he was not aware he was being recorded.
He admitted he had not read the exam briefing material which clearly stated that candidates would be monitored remotely.
Mr Sadler insisted that none of his comments were 'personal' towards the exam invigilator in particular and that he genuinely believed he was in private.
He also said that accessing his work email during the assessment was 'a catastrophic lapse in judgment' which he apologised for.
The Bar Standards Bar reiterated in its report that it was standard procedure for Mr Sadler's computer screen to have been recorded during the online ethics exam.
It fined Mr Sadler - who has since left the bar - £500 on the basis his behaviour 'fell within the lower range of culpability and harm'.
