Barrister fined for disrespectful courtroom conduct

A barrister who publicly questioned a judge’s impartiality and repeatedly challenged her decisions during a criminal trial has been penalized for professional misconduct. The disciplinary tribunal determined that Chandra Sekar violated ethical boundaries by making derogatory comments, challenging judicial authority, and disrupting proceedings in a manner that damaged public trust in the legal system.

The incidents occurred during a July 2024 trial before Her Honour Judge Elizabeth Smaller, where the case involved complex legal issues, time-sensitive evidence, and shifting prosecution arguments. The Bar Standards Board’s case was based on selected audio recordings and parts of the transcript from a trial that lasted several days – the tribunal acknowledged that it had read and heard only very small parts of it.

-a statement the tribunal classified as disrespectful and disruptive. Mr Sekar informed the jury that HHJ Smaller had made a ruling in its absence requiring him to put a question to a prosecution witness.

The Bar disciplinary tribunal said it had “careful regard to an advocate’s duty to advance their client’s case fearlessly” but Mr Sekar’s approach to the latter had been “unduly rude” and inappropriate. While he acknowledged his remarks may have been inappropriate, he denied his actions constituted misconduct. The tribunal rejected this defense, stating his behavior exploited his role as an advocate and posed a risk to public confidence in the profession.

Related Post: Modest $8,200 Settlement Highlights Legal Profession’s Human Impact

Mr Sekar argued that it was “unfair, if not unheard of, for defence counsel to be interrupted in the closing stages of their cross-examination, particularly where they would ordinarily save certain of their strongest points to last”. However, the tribunal found his methods unacceptable, particularly when he interrupted the judge and aggressively contested her rulings despite being instructed to desist. Another allegation that Mr Sekar had inferred that HHJ Smaller was biased was not proved, and the BSB withdrew further allegations that he had spent an excessive amount of time conducting his examination in chief and cross-examination.

The tribunal accepted that not every heated exchange or ill-chosen remark by a barrister will cross the seriousness threshold.

Although Sekar’s frustration stemmed from perceived unfair rulings, the tribunal’s decision reinforces that even justified challenges must avoid disrespect or procedural interference. The £1,500 fine and £6,100 in costs reflect the seriousness of his violations, though the tribunal avoided more severe measures.

Sekar was ordered to pay £500 for each of the three charges, totaling £1,500, alongside the cost award. Whatever the legal correctness of the respondent’s submissions (and the tribunal was not required to decide the point) the conduct of the respondent was unacceptable and could reasonably be taken to undermine the role of the judge. The decision establishes a standard for advocacy that prevents undermining judicial authority while allowing robust defense representation.