Categories
Legal Professionals

Barristers Behaving Badly

Barristers Behaving Badly
Barristers Behaving Badly

The Bar Standards Board publish Past disciplinary findings on their website in accordance with their Publication Policy. The Bar Standards Board regulate the Bar in England & Wales in the public interest.

The Bar Standards Board post new findings within seven days of a decision, but it can take up to 24 hours after this for the finding to appear on their website (or for a finding to disappear from there after it has been removed).

The Secret Barrister was reported to the Bar Standards Board on the 8th August 2024.

Before instructing a Barrister it is worth checking if they have any past disciplinary findings and if they are registered as a Barrister of England of Wales.

Here is a list of the Bar Standards Board Disciplinary Findings for the last 3 months (as of 13th August 2024). Click Sanction to see the full Disciplinary Statement or Barrister to see their full details.

Lincoln’s Inn has the most badly behaved barristers (disciplined in the last 3 months by the Bar Standards Board) !

Fines, sanctions and costs from Bar Standards Board disciplinary findings against Barristers are normally pitiful. Almost pointless !

i. made comments during the exam as set out in Schedule 1,
ii. used language during the exam as set out in i, ii, iv, and vii of Schedule 1 which was directed towards the proctor,
iii. made an offensive hand gesture by holding up his middle finger to the camera at the conclusion of the exam.

i. What is a watch going to do, how the fuck am I going to cheat with a watch, come on.

ii. What? Fucking piss off, I don’t need to start a fucking chat.

iii. This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really piss me off.

iv. Right, go away now, fine, just going to sit there fucking flashing and be annoying.

v. Fucking finally, a criminal question… This civil shit… How can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly.

vi. I’m so fucking bored of this.

vii. You’re going to kick up a fuss about me having a fucking ibuprofen aren’t you.

Barrister Mr Jack Henry Sadler of Middle Temple DBC-ReportDownload
Barrister Mr Jack Henry Sadler fined just £500 by the Bar Standards Board
BarristerSanctionCostsDecision DateInn of CourtYear of Call
Mr Ikeni John Mbako-AllisonSuspended from practice for 9 months (Sentence still to take effect)£120025/07/2024Gray’s Inn2009
Mr Jack Henry SadlerFined in the sum of £500N/A03/07/2024Middle TempleMar 2023
Mr Henry Joseph Christopher HendronDisbarred (sentence effective from 31 July 2024) and prohibited from being issued with a practising certificate, pending any appeal.£267003/07/2024Middle TempleNov 2006
Mr Matthew Adam FeargrieveProhibited from being issued a practising certificate for 12 months (Sentence effective from 19 June 2024)£156019/06/2024Lincoln’s InnOct 1998
Mr James Patrick DeanDisbarred (Sentence still to take effect)£50006/06/2024Lincoln’s InnNov 1977
Mr Amjad HussainReprimanded and fined in the sum of £5000 (sentence effective from 15 July 2024£267029/05/2024Lincoln’s InnNov 1999
Miss Mary Laureen PokuProhibited from being issued a practising certificate for 24 months (Sentence effective from 7 June 2024) and prohibited from being issued with a practising certificate, pending any appeal, under rE227.3 (as an unregistered barrister)£3251.3508/05/2024Lincoln’s InnNov 1993
Barrister Disciplinary Findings – England and Wales

Barrister Mr Thomas David Davidson used a German accent during a hearing and said “Jawohl” at the same time as raising a hand in a Nazi salute. He was reprimanded by the Bar Standards Board and was fined £250 with costs of £1,750.

This is hardly a punishment or deterrent by the Bar Standards Board. Where is the justice in this pathetic reprimand ?

Check out our related articles on Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, The Secret Barrister, Bar Standards Board, Bar Council, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Read the reviews of Junior Sussex Barrister Gavin Howe and Legal 500 Junior Barrister Eleanor Battie

“He is awful, underhanded and should not be practising law!”

“She is a one-woman legal A Team”

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 23rd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent