A district judge has been issued with formal advice for misconduct after an investigation found she behaved rudely when she excluded a barrister from a hearing. District Judge Nicola Murphy, who sits in the family court, denied the allegations but the office ruled her conduct was unjustified.
The lawyer complained that Murphy had acted in a “rude, aggressive and bullying manner.” He said she “unjustifiably criticised his tone, refused to allow him to clarify his role as counsel.”
She denied all claims of rudeness, aggression, bullying, or loss of temper. Murphy argued her conduct was a “direct response to the barrister’s disrespectful and intimidating behaviour.”
A spokesperson for the JCIO said the judge told investigators that “despite repeated warnings… the barrister continued to challenge the court’s authority, which led her to require his removal from the hearing.” She said she was “driven by concerns about safety and maintaining proper standards of conduct in court.”
Audio recording showed confusion over who was who
Investigators reviewed an audio recording of the hearing. They found confusion at the start after the usher introduced everyone simply as “the parties.” The judge initially mistook the barrister for his client.
After the barrister explained he was acting as his client’s representative, the judge “repeatedly criticised his tone,” according to the investigation. The report said the lawyer was “not impolite or discourteous.”
The judge’s criticisms, including her invocation of a zero-tolerance policy, were found to be unjustified. The investigation concluded that Murphy’s conduct was “rude.”
Related: Tribunal moves to curb AI interim relief bids
The case mirrors other disciplinary actions where a judge’s response to a perceived challenge — rather than the behavior of the lawyer — becomes the focus. When a court official mistakes a barrister for a litigant and then reacts harshly, the burden often shifts to whether the judge maintained professional composure, not just courtroom authority.
Formal advice issued despite clean record
Murphy had a previously unblemished disciplinary record.
Nonetheless, the lady chief justice and the lord chancellor issued her with formal advice for misconduct. The sanction is a written warning, not a suspension or removal.
The JCIO did not name the barrister or the specific court where the hearing took place. The report noted that the barrister was excluded from the proceeding, which continued without him, leaving his client effectively unrepresented for part of the hearing.
The investigation found no evidence that the lawyer had been disrespectful or intimidating. His tone and conduct were described as appropriate throughout the exchange. The judge’s decision to remove him was therefore unsupported by the facts on the recording.
Formal advice is one of the least severe outcomes available in judicial misconduct cases.
But it still represents an official finding that a judge failed to meet expected standards. For Murphy, the ruling means her conduct will remain on record but will not prevent her from continuing to sit.
