Barrister Code of Conduct: CD1 to CD10 Explained

QUICK ANSWER

The barrister code of conduct is the set of professional rules governing barristers in England and Wales. It sits in Part 2 of the Bar Standards Board Handbook and rests on ten Core Duties, CD1 to CD10, supported by conduct rules, outcomes and guidance.

• CD1 duty to the court
• CD2 best interests of each client
• CD3 honesty and integrity
• CD4 independence
• CD5 public trust and confidence
• CD6 client confidentiality
• CD7 competent work and service
• CD8 no unlawful discrimination
• CD9 co-operation with regulators
• CD10 competent management of practice

The Code is regulation made under the Legal Services Act 2007, not statute. The BSB investigates and brings charges; independent BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal panels decide them and set sanction.

Most practitioners can recite the substance of the Core Duties. Fewer can put the right number to the right duty, and that matters more than it sounds: enforcement correspondence, tribunal charges and Handbook guidance all cite by designation, not by paraphrase.

What the code of conduct actually is

The barrister code of conduct is regulation, not statute. It is made under the Legal Services Act 2007 and approved by the Legal Services Board. The Bar Standards Board is the regulator that makes and enforces it. The Bar Council is the representative body for the profession, and its ethical guidance carries different weight from BSB regulation.

Within the Handbook itself there is a further hierarchy. Core Duties and rules are mandatory. Outcomes describe what the rules are meant to achieve. Guidance explains how the BSB expects the rules to be applied, and a barrister must have regard to it, but guidance is not a rule and a breach of guidance is not in itself a breach of the Code.

The ten Core Duties in full

These are the Core Duties as published by the BSB. The wording and the numbering are both operative.

Duty	Wording
CD1	You must observe your duty to the court in the administration of justice.
CD2	You must act in the best interests of each client.
CD3	You must act with honesty and integrity.
CD4	You must maintain your independence.
CD5	You must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession.
CD6	You must keep the affairs of each client confidential.
CD7	You must provide a competent standard of work and service to each client.
CD8	You must not discriminate unlawfully against any person.
CD9	You must be open and co-operative with your regulators.
CD10	You must take reasonable steps to manage your practice, or carry out your role within your practice, competently and in such a way as to achieve compliance with your legal and regulatory obligations.

Source: Bar Standards Board, The Core Duties.

How the Core Duties resolve against each other

They are not a flat list. Rule rC16 provides that the duty to act in the client’s best interests under CD2 is subject to the duty to the court under CD1, and also to your obligations under CD3, CD4 and CD8. In practical terms, a client’s instructions cannot require you to mislead the court, to abandon your independence, to act dishonestly, or to discriminate.

The application of the duties also varies. The Handbook specifies at rC1 and rC2 when each part of the Code applies. CD5 in particular reaches conduct outside professional practice, which is why non-professional behaviour can attract regulatory interest at all.

The cab rank rule: what rC29 requires and what it does not

The cab rank rule obliges a barrister to accept instructions irrespective of the client’s identity, the nature of the case, the source of funding, and any view the barrister holds about the client’s character, cause, conduct or guilt. It is at rule rC29, with the exceptions at rC30 and the guidance now consolidated at gC91B.

The conditions are narrower than the shorthand suggests. rC29 bites where instructions come from a professional client and you are a self-employed barrister, or an authorised individual or entity in the specified circumstances. It also requires that the instructions are appropriate given your experience, seniority and field of practice. Public access instructions from a lay client do not engage the rule.

When the rule does not apply

rC30 sets out the exceptions. Broadly, they cover: insufficient time to prepare properly; a conflict of interest or a real risk of one; lack of the necessary authorisation, competence or experience; a proper professional fee not being offered; and instructions on terms other than the standard contractual terms. The rule also does not oblige anyone to work unpaid.

rC29 should be read alongside rC28, the broader requirement not to withhold services because the nature of the case or the client’s opinions are objectionable. rC28 carries no exceptions.

Confidentiality sits at CD6

The duty to keep each client’s affairs confidential is Core Duty 6. It survives the end of the retainer and it survives the end of the professional relationship.

It is not absolute. Disclosure may be required by law or by order of the court, and the Handbook contemplates limited further circumstances. What the barrister code of conduct does not do is give a general discretion to disclose because disclosure seems reasonable. Where confidentiality collides with the duty to the court, rC16 and the guidance to Section C1 govern the resolution, and the answer is fact-specific rather than formulaic.

Competence, CPD and AI-assisted work

CD7 requires a competent standard of work and service. CD10 requires you to manage your practice competently enough to comply with your legal and regulatory obligations. Continuing Professional Development obligations sit under the BSB’s CPD scheme, which distinguishes the New Practitioners Programme from the Established Practitioners Programme and applies different requirements to each.

The live issue in this area is verification of AI-assisted research. In R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), handed down on 6 June 2025, a Divisional Court of Dame Victoria Sharp P and Johnson J considered two referrals under the Hamid jurisdiction where fictitious authorities and misstated legislation had been put before the court.

The court declined to bring contempt proceedings in either case, and made referrals to the relevant regulators instead. The judgment is a statement of what the court expects of practitioners in verifying authority, not a finding of professional misconduct against anyone.

Handbook version 4.9, in force from 5 May 2026, amended gC5 and gC23 to clarify disclosure responsibilities and the handling of expert witnesses. Both sit in the same territory: the court’s reliance on what advocates put in front of it.

How the barrister code of conduct is enforced

Enforcement is split across more than one body, and the distinction is not cosmetic.

The BSB receives reports, investigates, and decides whether to bring charges of professional misconduct. Decisions within that process are taken by BSB staff in the Investigations and Enforcement Team, by the Commissioner, or by a panel of the Independent Decision-making Body, depending on the matter. Where a barrister agrees, does not dispute the facts, and the conduct is not serious, the Determination by Consent procedure is available.

Charges of professional misconduct are adjudicated by Disciplinary Tribunal panels convened by the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service. BTAS is independent of the BSB. The BSB brings the charge; BTAS decides it and decides sanction, having regard to the BTAS Sanctions Guidance.

Administrative sanctions are not disciplinary sanctions

This is the distinction most often lost in reporting. An administrative sanction imposed by BSB staff, typically a written warning or a fine, is not a disciplinary sanction. It does not give the barrister a disciplinary record. Describing one as the other is inaccurate, and for a publication it carries defamation risk.

Equally, a report, an investigation, a charge or a listed hearing is not a finding. Only a tribunal makes findings, and a finding under appeal is not final.

What a Disciplinary Tribunal can impose

The range runs from a reprimand and a fine through conditions on practice and suspension to disbarment. Disbarment is available only to a five-person Disciplinary Tribunal. Since version 4.8 of the Handbook, tribunals have also had power under rE202A to rE202F to impose interim restrictions on practice where there is a finding of professional misconduct and sanction is to be decided later.

The standard of proof is the civil standard for conduct occurring on or after 1 April 2019. The criminal standard continues to apply to conduct before that date.

Findings, where they exist, are published on the BTAS record of past disciplinary findings. A press report is not the record.

What to watch this Handbook cycle

Version 5.0 came into force on 15 June 2026 and is the operative text of the barrister code of conduct. The BSB has announced a review of the Handbook as a whole, on the stated basis that it has become harder to use as it has grown. Anyone citing the Code in submissions, chambers policies or training materials should be checking the version in force at the relevant date rather than the version they last read.

Two practical points follow. The HTML Handbook on the BSB website is the definitive version, and the BSB says so explicitly; PDF copies can lag. And for media work, the substantive provisions on media comment now sit at gC22, following the removal of the standalone guidance document.

Frequently asked questions

Related reading

• The cab rank rule and the pressures on legal representation
• What is a skeleton argument? Written advocacy explained