I think it's a matter of style. Let's see if anyone would include the comma. What's important is to separate "sir" from "my friend".Oh, so if David Pitter is the friend, there should be no comma at all - not even after "friend"? Within the context, it's clear who the friend is, though. I just don't want to be grammatically incorrect.
I would still assume that "Your highness" was your brother.I could think of another example off the top of my head that would be synonymous with the example that I gave but without the use of "my friend":
"Your Highness, my brother, Terry Black is asking only for justice and nothing more."
Just as we may or may not know the name of your husband, you may or may not know the name of my one particular friend who is in the room with us or has already been mentioned so I might add his name as an appositive just in case, parenthetically, as an aside.So for example, in "my husband, David Pitter," the commas are customary because one (usually ) has just one husband at a time and so therefore "David Pitter" isn't essential. The meaning of a sentence would be the same even if "David Pitter" were left out, so often in such cases, the nonessential phrase is set off with commas.
They could both be correct. In this case, the second is more likely as the judge sees the one client (of the many clients you have) who is in the room and has a piece of paper with his name on it in front of him. I'm sure the bailiff announced his name at the beginning of the proceedings and it's probably been mentioned several times. (Let the record show that the defendant is pointing at my client, Mr. David Pitter.)"Your Honour, my client Mr. David Pitter is asking for compensation for financial losses."
"Your Honour, my client, Mr. David Pitter, is asking for compensation for financial losses."
Yes. As is:And is it just as fine without "my client" at all?
"Your Honour, Mr. David Pitter is asking for compensation for financial losses."