§ discipline

No improper questioning of witnesses court

As advocate the lawyer must not ask questions or make statements merely to insult, humiliate, vilify or annoy a witness, and must give a cross-examinable witness the chance to answer serious allegations.

6 cases 17% strike-off 1 with dishonesty finding

How the codes express this duty

E&W Solicitors SRA Principles & Code no clear equivalent
E&W Barristers BSB Handbook rC7.1; rC7.2 strong 2 cases
rC7.1 you must not make statements or ask questions merely to insult, humiliate or annoy a witness or any other person; .2 you must not make a serious allegation against a witness whom you have had an opportunity to cross-examine unless you have given that witness a chance to answer the allegation in cross-examination;
Cayman Islands Legal Services Code 2026 R.2.5(a); R.2.5(b) strong
make statements or ask questions merely to insult, humiliate or annoy a witness or any other person or which exploit, or attempt to exploit, the vulnerability of a witness or any other person; make a serious allegation against a witness whom the attorney-at-law has had an opportunity to cross-examine unless the attorney-at-law has given that witness a chance to answer the allegation in cross-examination
AU Solicitors Solicitors' Conduct Rules Rules 21.2; 21.8.1 partial 3 cases
21.2 A solicitor must take care to ensure that decisions by the solicitor to make allegations or suggestions under privilege against any person: 21.2.1 are reasonably justified by the material then available to the solicitor; 21.2.2 are appropriate for the robust advancement of the client's case on its merits; and 21.2.3 are not made principally in order to harass or embarrass a person. 21.8 Without limiting the generality of Rule 21.2, in proceedings in which an allegation of domestic or family violence, sexual assault, indecent assault or the commission of an act of indecency is made and in which the alleged victim gives evidence: 21.8.1 a solicitor must not ask that witness a question or pursue a line of questioning of that witness which is intended: (i) to mislead or confuse the witness; or (ii) to be unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, humiliating or repetitive.
AU Barristers Uniform Barristers Rules rr60-61 partial
A barrister must take care to ensure that decisions by the barrister to make allegations or suggestions under privilege against any person: (a) are reasonably justified by the material then available to the barrister; (b) are appropriate for the robust advancement of the client's case on its merits; and (c) are not made principally in order to harass or embarrass a person. Without limiting the generality of Rule 60, in proceedings in which an allegation of sexual assault, indecent assault or the commission of an act of indecency is made and in which the alleged victim gives evidence: (a) a barrister must not ask that witness a question or pursue a line of questioning of that witness which is intended: (i) to mislead or confuse the witness; or (ii) to be unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, humiliating or repetitive; and (b) a barrister must take into account any particular vulnerability of the witness in the manner and tone of the questions that the barrister asks.
IE Solicitors Law Society Guide Ch5 — The solicitor advocate, para 4 strong
It is the duty of an advocate to guard against being made the channel of questions that are only intended to degrade the other side, a witness, or any other person. They are under a duty to exercise their own judgement both regarding the substance and the form of a question.
IE Barristers Bar Code of Conduct Rule 5.18 strong
Barristers when conducting a case must not make statements or ask questions which are merely scandalous or are intended only for the purpose of vilifying, insulting or annoying a witness or some other person.
JM Attorneys Canons of Professional Ethics no clear equivalent
JE Lawyers Law Society of Jersey Code R.3.5 a)-b) strong
Members must not: a) make statements or ask questions merely to insult, humiliate or annoy a witness or any other person or which exploit, or attempt to exploit, the vulnerability of a witness or any other person; b) make a serious allegation against a witness whom they have had an opportunity to cross-examine unless they have given that witness a chance to answer the allegation in cross-examination.
ON Lawyers LSO Rules of Prof. Conduct r 5.1-2(m) strong
When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall not ... needlessly abuse, hector, or harass a witness
BC Lawyers BC Code r 5.1-2(m),(o) strong
When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must not: ... (m) abuse, hector or harass a witness; ... (o) needlessly inconvenience a witness;
NZ Lawyers Conduct & Client Care Rules r 13.10.3 / r 13.10.5 strong
A lawyer must not put questions regarding allegations against third parties to a witness when the lawyer knows that the witness does not have the necessary information or knowledge ... A lawyer must not treat a witness or potential witness in an overbearing or misleading way and if asked must inform a witness or potential witness of his or her right to decline to be interviewed.
SCO Solicitors LSS Standards of Conduct no clear equivalent
SG Lawyers Professional Conduct Rules 2015 r 12 (Communications and dealings with witnesses) partial
12 Communications and dealings with witnesses
HK Solicitors Solicitors' Guide Principle 10.07 Commentary 3 strong
A solicitor must not make or instruct a barrister to make an allegation which is intended only to insult, degrade or annoy the other side, a witness or any other person.
HK Barristers Bar Code of Conduct para 10.43 strong
A practising barrister must not make submissions impugning a witness whom he has had an opportunity to cross-examine unless in cross-examination he has given the witness an opportunity to answer the allegation.

Cases dealing with this duty

Clear

6 decisions · link basis: found breached = a tribunal finding; rule cited = the mapped provision is cited in the decision; text match = high-precision text pattern

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.