The duty in context
No obstruction or victimisation of reporters profession
The lawyer must not prevent or deter anyone from reporting to the regulator, must not incentivise withdrawal of a complaint, and must not victimise a complainant or good-faith whistleblower.
How the codes express this duty
E&W Solicitors SRA Principles & Code CCS 7.5; CCS 7.9 strong 12 cases
7.5 You do not attempt to prevent anyone from providing information to the SRA or any other body exercising regulatory, supervisory, investigatory or prosecutory functions in the public interest. 7.9 You do not subject any person to detrimental treatment for making or proposing to make a report or providing or proposing to provide information based on a reasonably held belief under paragraph 7.7 or 7.8 above ...
SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs · 2019 · archived copy · official source ↗
E&W Barristers BSB Handbook rC69 strong 1 case
rC69 You must not victimise anyone for making in good faith a report under Rule C66.
BSB Handbook Part 2: Code of Conduct · 5.0 · archived copy · official source ↗
Cayman Islands Legal Services Code 2026 R.13.4(a); R.13.4(c); R.13.4(d) strong
attempt to hinder or prevent a person who wishes to report the attorney-at-law's conduct to the Council from doing so... offer any incentive to a complainant to withdraw a complaint... victimise a person for reporting the attorney-at-law's conduct to the Council
Cayman Islands Legal Services Code of Professional Conduct · 2026 · archived copy
AU Solicitors Solicitors' Conduct Rules no clear equivalent
AU Barristers Uniform Barristers Rules no clear equivalent
IE Solicitors Law Society Guide no clear equivalent
IE Barristers Bar Code of Conduct no clear equivalent
JM Attorneys Canons of Professional Ethics no clear equivalent
JE Lawyers Law Society of Jersey Code R.12.4 a)-d) strong
Members must not: a) attempt to hinder or prevent a person who wishes to report their conduct to the Law Society from doing so; b) take any action or enter into an agreement which would attempt to preclude the Law Society from investigating any complaint... c) offer any incentive to a complainant to withdraw a complaint; d) victimise a person for reporting their conduct to the Law Society.
Law Society of Jersey Code of Conduct · 1 January 2017 · archived copy · official source ↗
ON Lawyers LSO Rules of Prof. Conduct r 7.1-4 to 7.1-4.3 partial
7.1-4 In addition to other advice appropriate in the circumstances, a lawyer shall encourage a client who has a claim or complaint against an apparently dishonest licensee to report the facts to the Law Society as soon as reasonably practicable. [7.1-4.2: A lawyer shall inform a client of the provision of the Criminal Code dealing with the concealment of an indictable offence in return for an agreement to obtain valuable consideration (section 141). 7.1-4.3: If the client wishes to pursue a private agreement with the apparently dishonest lawyer, the lawyer shall not continue to act if the agreement constitutes a breach of section 141 of the Criminal Code.]
Law Society of Ontario — Rules of Professional Conduct · current · archived copy · official source ↗
BC Lawyers BC Code r 3.2-6, commentary [1] partial
A lawyer must not: (a) give or offer to give, or advise an accused or any other person to give or offer to give, any valuable consideration to another person in exchange for influencing the Crown or a regulatory authority's conduct of a criminal or quasi-criminal charge or a complaint, unless the lawyer obtains the consent of the Crown or the regulatory authority to enter into such discussions; ... (c) wrongfully influence any person to prevent the Crown or regulatory authority from proceeding with charges or a complaint or to cause the Crown or regulatory authority to withdraw the complaint or stay charges in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding. [Commentary [1]: "Regulatory authority" includes professional and other regulatory bodies.]
Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia (BC Code) · 2017 · archived copy · official source ↗
NZ Lawyers Conduct & Client Care Rules r 2.10.1 strong
A lawyer must not victimise a person who, in good faith,— (a) makes a complaint or a report under rule 2.8 or 2.9; or (b) is otherwise connected with a complaint or a report under rule 2.8 or 2.9.
Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 · SR 2008/214 · archived copy · official source ↗
SCO Solicitors LSS Standards of Conduct no clear equivalent
SG Lawyers Professional Conduct Rules 2015 no clear equivalent
HK Solicitors Solicitors' Guide Principle 5.09 / Commentary 1 / Principle 14.11 partial
A solicitor should not accept instructions which at any stage involve an agreement whereby the Law Society is precluded from investigating the conduct of a solicitor or his employee. ... It is improper for a solicitor to seek to preclude his client or former client from reporting a solicitor's conduct to the Law Society. ... A solicitor must not demand compensation for refraining from reporting an alleged breach of undertaking.
Hong Kong Solicitors' Guide to Professional Conduct (Volume 1) · current · archived copy · official source ↗
HK Barristers Bar Code of Conduct no clear equivalent
Cases dealing with this duty
59 decisions · link basis: found breached = a tribunal finding; rule cited = the mapped provision is cited in the decision; text match = high-precision text pattern
-
W. Anthony Pearson
Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered June 04, 2021. || Guilty of Misconduct in a Professional Respect | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered April 24, 2021. View PDF FORMAL ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY CO…
-
Lauren Marie Boyd
Guilty of Professional Misconduct | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered April 29, 2021. || Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered July 16, 2021. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GE…
-
W. Anthony Pearson
Guilty of Misconduct in a Professional Respect | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered April 24, 2021. || Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered June 04, 2021. View PDF in Full Screen Back to top …
-
-
Maurice Frankson
Guilty of Professional Misconduct | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered July 04, 2020. || Suspended, Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered August 13, 2020. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITT…
-
Muhammad Ifzal
Breaches
-
-
-
-
Terepo, Sesilia Fehoko
1. Misappropriation, caused deficiency in trust funds and breaches of section 255, 264 and 263 LPA 2004 - relating to trust monies 2. Breach of section 255A LPA 2004 - manner of withdrawal of trust money from general tr…
Costs Order recommending removal of lawyer's name from the Roll of Australian Lawyers $0.00 2 PDFs View decision -
-
Paulette Amelia Warren Smith
Guilty of Professional Misconduct | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered April 10, 2018. || Struck off | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered July 27, 2019. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF T…
-
Howard A. Lettman
Struck off | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered February 05, 2018. || Guilty of Professional Misconduct | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered June 24, 2017. View PDF HAZEL HANSON vs HOWARD LETTMAN SANCTIONS…
-
-
Curran, Christopher Francis
1. Misappropriation of trust monies and monies otherwise due to his employer 2. Pressuring complainant to withdraw complaint 3. Practising without a practising certificate 4. Practised as a solicitor in breach of his un…
-
Francisco Xavier Rodriguez-Purcet
Breaches
-
-
Alexis Maitland Hudson
Breaches, Failures
-
-
-
W. Anthony Pearson
Reprimanded | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered January 24, 2015. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL COMPLAINT NO: 231/2005 IN THE MATTER of LEILA VALENTINE and ANTHONY …
-
Peter Rhys Williams
Breaches, Failures
-
-
-
Lynden Wellesley
Fined | Disciplinary Committee decision delivered April 28, 2012. View PDF DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL COMPLAINT NO: 25/2009 BETWEEN LEONARD WELLESLEY COMPLAINANT AND LYNDEN WELLESLEY R…
Duty classification does not yet cover every jurisdiction (Ontario, New Zealand and Singapore decisions are indexed but not yet duty-classified), so counts here understate those corpora.