Student lawyer fined for swearing during online ethics exam

Student lawyer fined for swearing during online ethics exam

‘I’m so f*****g bored’

Student lawyer fined for swearing during online ethics exam
A former trainee lawyer has been fined £500 after repeatedly swearing during an online ethics exam and at one point flipping the middle finger at the camera.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) said that Jack Henry Sadler had “acted in a way that was likely to undermine the trust placed in him by the public”.

The published findings show that Sadler completed a professional ethics assessment remotely last summer as part of his mandatory training during his second six years as a trainee lawyer.

During the exam, Sadler made statements such as, “I’m so fucking bored of this,” “This is annoying, oh my god, this is really going to piss me off,” and “Fucking finally a criminal law question… This civil nonsense… How can you have ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly.”

The BSB further noted that at the end of the recorded exam, the then trainee lawyer was seen raising his middle finger at the camera.

The 2024 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

A second complaint alleged that Sadler “failed to maintain the confidentiality of each client’s affairs and/or failed to protect the confidentiality of each client’s affairs” after he opened his work email during the recorded exam and clicked on two law firm emails containing client information.

In mitigation, Sadler stated that he was not aware that his words and actions could be heard and recorded, and that nothing he said or did was directed at anyone, especially not the invigilator.

Regarding the second charge, Sadler said he did not realise at the time that opening his Outlook could risk a GDPR breach, attributing this to both a lack of knowledge and a lack of forethought on his part. The necessary steps were taken by him and the chambers to address a potential breach.

The panel agreed that Sadler, who is an unregistered lawyer and has since left the bar, showed genuine remorse and regret.

The case was heard through a procedure known as determination by consent, an alternative method for handling cases that would otherwise be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.