This digest relates to cases published by the respective regulators during week ending 18 September 2026 which have sufficient detail to allow us to comment.
One finding of a BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal (BTASDT) was published this week, together with one regulatory decision from the SRA. No SDT judgment was published.
The BSB register records a finding of a three person BTASDT against Chandra Sekar, for professional misconduct contrary to Core Duty 1 and Core Duty 5 of the Code of Conduct and rule C3.2 of that Code. The BTASDT heard three charges on the same three particulars, concerning the barrister’s conduct towards the judge over the course of a trial in July 2024.
On 3 July 2024 the barrister informed the jury of a ruling the judge had made in the jury’s absence, about whether he could ask a prosecution witness if they were lying, saying “I was not going to ask you this question, but the judge has insisted” or words to that effect. Between 4 and 9 July he repeatedly sought to re-argue a point on which the judge had already ruled, concerning further questions of a witness in the case. On 10 July, making submissions on a point of law, he raised his voice to and/or was argumentative with the judge: “Is there any point your honour? Because you’re going to rule against me anyway aren’t you…”, or words to that effect.
These particulars were charged three ways: as a failure to observe the duty to the court in the administration of justice, as behaviour likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession, and as an abuse of his role as an advocate. He was fined £1,500, with costs of £6,188.40, which is more than four times the fine. The finding is open to appeal, and neither the BSB register nor BTAS has published reasons for the finding or sanction.
Competence mapping (BSB Professional Statement for Barristers)
Competence 1.1 requires barristers to uphold the reputation of the Bar and observe their duty to the court in the administration of justice, and it says that this duty is paramount and must be abided by including where that requires them to act against their own or their client’s best interests. Sub point 1.1(b)(i) requires conduct which consistently justifies the trust of clients, colleagues and the public by applying the Core Duties, and in particular that paramount duty. What happened on 3 July illustrates this most clearly. A ruling made in the jury’s absence is kept from the jury for a reason, and telling the jury about it, with the question attributed to the judge’s insistence, put it before them.
Competence 1.15 concerns persuasive oral advocacy. Sub point 1.15(f) requires a reasoned argument to be presented orally in a clear, logical, succinct and persuasive way, sub point 1.15(j) requires barristers to listen and respond effectively to questions and opposing arguments, and sub point 1.15(k) requires advocacy skills to be deployed efficiently and effectively, in compliance with the Core Duties, so far as possible, notwithstanding that a barrister may be acting at short notice or under other legitimate pressure. Returning to a point which has already been decided is not legitimate persuasion.
What I find worth noticing is what competence 1.15 includes. Alongside preparation, structure and the citation of authority, it requires advocates to engage appropriately with others in any forum and to listen and respond effectively to opposing arguments. Knowing when the argument is over is part of being good at it.
The exchange on 10 July engages sub point 3.4(a), which requires suitable professional practice, politeness and respect in communications and personal interactions with others.
SRA regulatory disposals
The SRA published one decision during the week, a regulatory settlement agreement with Gandecha & Pau, a recognised body. The firm agreed a fine of £6,180 and costs of £600. The investigation followed a desk based review by the SRA’s own anti money laundering proactive supervision team rather than a complaint. Between June 2017 and March 2026 the firm had no documented assessment of the money laundering and terrorist financing risks to which its business was subject, and in three of six files reviewed it had not kept records of its client and matter risk assessment.
The SRA assessed the nature of the conduct as more serious, because the absence of that documentation for almost nine years showed a pattern, and assessed the risk of harm as low, which together produced a band B penalty set at the higher end of the band. The mitigation recorded is worth setting out: a documented firm wide risk assessment is now in place, every in scope file has been reviewed, fee earners have been trained, the firm cooperated with both SRA teams, and there is no evidence of harm to clients.
The competences engaged are competence A1c, which requires solicitors (including those who own or manage a firm) to identify the relevant SRA principles and rules of professional conduct and to follow them; competence A5a, which requires information to be assessed so as to identify key issues and risks; competence D2, which requires records to be kept, used and maintained which are accurate, complete and clear; and competence D3a, which requires an adequate understanding of the commercial, organisational and financial context in which a solicitor works and their role in it.
Closing thoughts
Neither decision this week records a client who lost anything, and both still produced a sanction. That is not new. It has been true of decisions in four of the last five editions of this digest. Last week, neither tribunal decision involved a client who lost money, and what each was found to have put at risk was public trust in the profession. In the edition for week ending 28 August, a COFA’s retention of residual balances, with no misappropriation, loss or personal gain, was still assessed as causing harm. The plainest statement came in the edition for week ending 21 August, where the SDT rejected the submission that the absence of financial loss meant no harm had been done, and treated the time and resource a false account used in other people’s hands as harm in its own right. This week, what was put at risk was, respectively, the administration of justice and the profession’s ability to show that its economic crime controls work. These reports show that client loss is not the only measure of harm, and a practitioner who judges their own exposure by it is looking in too narrow a place. The better measure is the whole framework read together: the Core Duties and the SRA Principles, the Codes of Conduct, and the competence statements alongside them.
Advocacy is conducted under pressure and in public, and a regulatory investigation into the way it was conducted brings a pressure of its own. Where practitioners are carrying that, LawCare‘s free and confidential helpline, 0800 279 6888, remains available to anyone in the legal sector.
A lesson this week’s decisions teach: one raised voice and one missing document are both survivable, and it was the repetition which brought the sanction in each case.
Beyond Competence Limited, for information and educational purposes only. This digest does not constitute legal advice.
