A Pocket Manual of Courtroom Etiquette (February 25, 2016 Draft)

2016 William H. Burgess, III. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.
Table of Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter 1. Revolution and Reprofessionalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2. Law and the Civil Society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter 3. Organization and Purpose of a Courtroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 4. Courtroom Rituals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Generally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Formal Opening Ceremony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Oath-Taking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Recesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Receiving and Publishing a Verdict.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Adjournment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Investiture.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Chapter 5. Authority and Obligation to Regulate Courtroom Order and Decorum. . . . . . . . . . . 27
Chapter 6. Courtroom Attire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Basic Clothes Etiquette. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Judges.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Courthouse Employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Attorneys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Parties, Witnesses, Spectators, Law Enforcement Officers, Jurors, and Others. . . . . . . . 36
Chapter 7. Judges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Punctuality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Preparedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Demeanor.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Rules of Order for the Courtroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Written Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Scheduling Court Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Leaving the Bench. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Conduct Toward Other Judges.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Chapter 8. Attorneys at Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Preserving the Right to Fair Trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Behavior Towards Others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Preparedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Written Submissions to the Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Entering the Courtroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Reporting to the Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
While Waiting to Appear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
In the Bar Seating Area and at Counsel Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
When to Stand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Where to Speak From. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
How to Speak.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Proper Forms of Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Interaction With Courtroom Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Interaction With Other Counsel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Interaction With the Judge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Pretrial Motions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
When Counsel Has Concluded His or Her Business Before the Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Leaving the Courtroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Chapter 9. Jury Trial Etiquette. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Preparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Where to Sit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Where to Speak From. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Recesses and Absences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Exhibits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Interaction With the Judge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Interaction With the Clerk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Interaction With Adversary Counsel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Interaction With the Court Reporter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Traversing the Well. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Interaction With the Jury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Opening Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Examination of Witnesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Objections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Speaking Objections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Bench Conferences and Requests to Excuse the Jury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Upon Completion of Witness testimony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Closing Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
During Jury Deliberations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Upon Receiving the Verdict.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Upon Adjournment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
ii
Appendix A: Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Appendix B: Creed of Professionalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix C: General Principles, Guidelines for Professional Conduct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Appendic D: Notes On the English and American Bars and Benches.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Bibliography.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (omitted)
iii
iv
PREFACE
Law is a deep science. Its boundaries, like space, seem to recede as we advance; and though
there be as much of certainty in it as in any other science, it is fit we should be modest in our
opinions, and ever willing to be further instructed. Its acquisition is more than the labor of a life,
and after all can be with none the subject of an unshaken confidence. In the language, then of a
late beautiful writer, I am resolved to consider my own acquired knowledge but as a torch flung
into an abyss, making the darkness visible, and showing me the extent of my own ignorance.1
The richness of civilized society depends on the ability of its citizens to understand the
subtleties of social context, to manage more than one type of behavior, and to have a high sense
of occasion. Knowing how, when, and where to behave properly is a critical social skill, and is
why etiquette plays an important role in the courtroom.
Social etiquette comprises standards of outward behavior based on normative rules for
social conduct that are generally accepted among members of society. Courtroom etiquette is a
subset of social etiquette and is more narrowly defined as a code of behavior for attorneys and
judges. Courtroom etiquette incorporates overall concerns for good manners and politeness, but
also extends to the human interaction within the confines of the courtroom setting and focuses on
professionalism2 as a positive goal to be achieved when attorneys conform to etiquette.3
The core of American courtroom culture at the state and federal levels descends from our
nations English heritage. One of the dominant characteristics of Americas inherited culture is
procedural formalism. Procedural formalism recognizes inequality and attempts to compensate
for it by making all parties conform to the same standards, which is integral to impartiality.
Procedural formalism is not, however, the same as procedural rigidity. Procedural formalism is a
tool, not a rule, and is focused on operational effectiveness and not on power and control. It
displaces informal, often politicized, good old boy practices that are especially
disadvantageous to women, minorities, and outsiders.4 Such formalism protects everyone by
Resolution 34, David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional Deportment, A COURSE OF
LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY, Vol. II (Baltimore: Joseph Neal 1836),
quoting from Anna Jameson, VISITS AND SKETCHES AT HOME AND ABROAD WITH TALES AND MISCELLANIES NOW
FIRST COLLECTED, Vol. I (London: Saunders & Otley 1834).
2
The Florida Bars Standing Committee on Professionalism defines professionalism as follows:

Professionalism is the pursuit and practice of the highest ideals and tenets of the legal profession. It embraces far
more than simply complying with the minimal standards of professional conduct. The essential ingredients of
professionalism are character, competence, civility, and commitment.
3
Catherine Thrse Clarke, Missed Manners in Courtroom Decorum, 50 MD. L. REV. 945 (1991) at 959.
See, e.g., Claude I. Depew, President, The Bar Association of the State of Kansas, Progress in Public
Relations, KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL BULLETIN (October 1954), p. 17 (Laymen who go into the courts, either as
litigants or witnesses, are usually in a serious mood and look upon the proceeding as serious business. A court where
imposing uniform standards of conduct and works as a prophylaxis against more serious
deliberate misconduct by providing clear behavioral expectations and boundaries. Proper
courtroom etiquette furthers the positive effects of procedural formalism by attaching a common
standard to individual behavior.
Procedural formalism in the courts and the sense of proper etiquette among attorneys and
judges has declined over the past half century, and is approaching the point of being a lost art in
some courtrooms. As one author has observed, The decay of etiquette results at least in part
from ignorance, which is attributable to the absence of written rules or even orally expressed
expectations outlining commonly accepted standards of courtroom behavior.5 For the
betterment of the legal profession and the society it serves, the trend must be reversed.
This book is, in a significant way, the product of cultural-social archaeology utilizing a
variety of American and foreign sources spanning over 200 years of courtroom tradition and
custom. An attempt has been made to attribute every contribution from every source utilized,
and the author takes full responsibility for any that have been overlooked. It may surprise some
that the basic good manners expected of everyone, and the challenges to maintaining proper
decorum, have remained remarkably similar over the years in the state and federal courtrooms of
the United States and in the courtrooms of England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other
countries sharing English heritage. As a result, very little of what appears on the pages of this
book is unique or original and, although written primarily for use in Florida state courts, many of
the manners and rules of courtroom etiquette outlined in the text are to one degree or another
followed in other jurisdictions.
There are several sources of inspiration for this book. Foremost is my observation from
many years as a trial attorney and judge that politeness and good manners in the courtroom not
only make the process of justice run more smoothly, efficiently, and effectively, but also serve to
greatly reduce the emotional and physical stresses that ordinarily accompany our adversarial legal
process. Inspiration for this book also comes from many of those who have written incisively on
how people ought to behave in court, including David C. Hoffman,6 Lynda K. Hopewell,7
Catherine Thrse Clarke8 and many others whose works are cited throughout the text.
lives, fortunes, or liberties and rights are at stake should bear a dignified atmosphere, and formality makes for
dignity.).
5
Catherine Thrse Clarke, Missed Manners in Courtroom Decorum, 50 MD. L. REV. 945 (1991), p. 948.
David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional Deportment, A COURSE OF LEGAL STUDY,
ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY, Vol. II (Baltimore: Joseph Neal 1836).
7
Lynda K. Hopewell, Appropriate Attire and Conduct for an Attorney in the Court Room, JOURNAL OF
12, 187-199 (1987).
THE LEGAL PROFESSION

8
Catherine Thrse Clarke, Missed Manners in Courtroom Decorum, 50 MD. L. REV. 945 (1991), pp. 945-
1026.
vi
The primary purpose of this book is to inform attorneys and judges of the courtroom
manners proven over time to be the most effective in conveying the right message and avoiding
inadvertent slight or insult that might inhibit otherwise effective communication, with the caveat
that each courtroom runs a little bit differently from the others. The book is, thus, not a dictation
of what is universally right or proper in court, but merely a torch thrown into an abyss
intended to inspire further professional consideration, discussion and debate. The answer to the
challenges of courtroom behavior can, in the last analysis, come only from the culture, and not
from the government, and the underlying message of this book is simply that judges and
attorneys can have a better courtroom culture if they want it and are willing to practice it.
William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

March 1, 2016
vii
viii
Chapter 1
Revolution and Reprofessionalization

The American legal system has inherited a great many things from the English in addition
to a tradition of good manners in court. It is from England that America inherited a theory of the
social contract, the concept of individual liberty, a constitutional tradition dating back to the
Magna Carta, divided government (comprising separate executive, legislative, and judicial
branches) with various checks and balances, permanent courts, the adversary trial system, trial by
jury, and the notion that no one, not even the king, was above the law. Specific legal concepts
and doctrines, such as the rule against perpetuities and the statute of frauds also came from
England. It should surprise no one that many, if not most, of the customs and traditions of the
American courtroom were inherited from the English.
Roscoe Pound estimated that between 140 and 165 colonial lawyers studied at the
English inns of court9, most of them after 1760.10 Thirty-five of the fifty-six signers of the
Declaration of Independence were lawyers or benefitted from legal training; nine of those thirtyfive received their legal training through the inns of court.11 By the time of the American War of
Independence, as a result of the scarcity of trained professionals and the high cost of their
services (and some popular antipathy toward lawyers in general), the American colonies
presented a mixed picture of amateur and professional advocacy. As the war loomed, the courts
became increasingly politicized as the populace polarized between revolutionary and loyalist
factions. Open rebellion finally severed the ties to the British legal system, including its inns of
court. As a result, many American lawyers had to retire from the practice of law out of fear for
their safety as to one side or the other, and perhaps one-third of the American legal profession
became refugees. Many of Americas most outstanding lawyers were forced to find refuge in
Canada, Bermuda, and other royalist safe havens, at significant loss to the American legal
profession. A bitter antipathy toward lawyers as a result of post-war economic collapse, a strong
dislike of everything English including the English common law (although many pre-war laws
9
Every English barrister must be trained and schooled in one of four inns of court (Lincolns Inn, which
traces its records to 1422; Inner Temple and Middle Temple, which were recorded as separate societies in 1388; and
Grays Inn, which may have begun operations as early as the late 14th century.), which are located near one another
in London and which have created a unique professional community. After instruction in an inn of court, each
barrister must spend a period of pupillage, or apprenticeship, with an established barrister. The respective governing
bodies of the four inns of court, the benches, exercise the exclusive right of admitting persons to practice by a formal
call to the bar. The inn system has for centuries comprised Englands great legal university, training barristers for
the English and colonial bars, including the colonial bars of the American colonies.
10
Roscoe Pound, THE LAWYER FROM ANTIQUITY TO MODERN TIMES 157-58 (West Publishing Co. 1953).
11
See Signers of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. National Archives & Record Administration
(Washington DC), at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_signers_gallery_facts.pdf; Robert F.
Boden, The Colonial Bar and the American Revolution, 60 MARQUETTE L. REV. 1 (1976).
and customs were retained), and the lack of a distinct body of American law combined with the
exodus to produce disastrous results.12
America experienced a long post-war period of deprofessionalization of legal advocacy,
which included universal lowering of educational requirements, indiscriminate admission to
practice (which destroyed the bar associations), and elected judgeships for which there was no or
scant requirement to know the law. Some states did not require any legal education, or any
education at all, to practice law.13 With virtually no regulation, corruption became rampant, with
much of the work which should have been done by responsible and experienced professionals
coming to be done by men who could not meet the minimum standards required of an honorable
profession.
There were many in the legal community who believed that the practice of law was an
honorable profession, and who fought against the popular tide and for proper standards of
competence, character, and conduct. As the nation expanded and industrialized, the need for
trained, competent, professional lawyers and judges became manifest. The turnabout began in
the middle of the nineteenth century, signaled by such occurrences as the rise of law schools with
standardized curricula, the institution by the states of formal requirements for the admission to
practice law, and national standardized written bar examinations. In 1855, Massachusetts gave
the first written bar examination. As national reprofessionalization of the law took hold, local
and state bar associations were rejuvenated. In 1870, Harvard Law School Dean Christopher
Columbus Langdells revolutionary innovations in legal education, including the Darwinian
case law method of study (as opposed to the Blackstonian method of lectures on English
common law and treatises), taught by the Socratic method,14 allowed law schools to supplant the
law office apprenticeship method as the primary source of members of the bar. In 1878, the
American Bar Association (ABA) was created. In 1880, New Hampshire established the first
statewide board of bar examiners. By 1914 most states had adopted some form of written bar
examination.
Reprofessionalization also extended to ethics. The ABA adopted standardized canons of
professional ethics, and in 1908 created a Standing Committe on Professional Ethics. In the
early twentieth century, law schools began to teach ethics, and by 1980 ethics were being
12
See Anton-Hermann Chroust, Dilemma of the American Lawyer in the Post-Revolutionary Era, 35 NOTRE
DAME L. REV. 48 (1959); Arman Sarvarian, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AT THE INTERNATIONAL BAR (Oxford University
Press 2013).
13
Hon. Randall T. Shepard, On Licensing Lawyers: Why Uniformity is Good and Nationalization Is Bad, 60
N.Y.U. ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW 453-462 (2004); Arman Sarvarian, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AT THE
INTERNATIONAL BAR (Oxford University Press 2013).
14
There are many who would say that the Langdellian Revolution and the Socratic method are dead. See
Robin West, Socratic Teaching Is a Thing of the Past, NEW YORK TIMES, December 15, 2011.
universally taught in all ABA-approved law schools.15 In the course of the twentieth century, the
focus of the ABA, bar associations, and others in the legal community broadened from ethics to a
focus on professionalism in general.
What constitutes improper attorney or judicial conduct has, at this point, been clarified by
various formal rules and codes of conduct that mandate certain behavior. A clear, articulated
consensus within the legal community as to the standards of everyday courtroom etiquette and
decorum remains lacking, and this development appears to be a logical and necessary next step in
the ongoing professionalization process.
While blatant acts of courtroom misconduct are in most cases dealt with swiftly and
firmly because the rules are clear and the immediate need to maintain proper order is commonly
understood, breaches of courtroom etiquette16 are often harder to recognize. Common breaches
of courtroom etiquette nonetheless have a corrosive effect over time on the court process, and
work to reduce the prestige of the courts, effectiveness of attorneys and judges, and respect for
the law in a society driven by mass media that tend to treat courtroom misbehavior as a form of
popular entertainment.
15
See James E. Moliterno, An Analysis of Ethics Teaching in Law Schools: Replacing Lost Benefits of the
Apprentice System in the Academic Atmosphere, Faculty Publications Paper 1011, William & Mary Law School
Scholarship Repository (1991).
16
A breach of etiquette is conduct that does not rise to the level of contempt of court. Only a thin line may
separate the two. Catherine Thrse Clarke, Missed Manners in Courtroom Decorum, 50 MD. L. REV. 945 (1991)
at 977.
Chapter 2
Law and the Civil Society

Our system of justice rests upon the mutual regard of the bench and bar. Each branch of the
profession traditionally accords the other the courteous behavior and ordinary civility which
stems, not from any need or inclination of submissiveness of one branch for the other, but from the
high demands and lofty purpose of the system itself.17
One of the major benefits of human progress is the privilege to live in the civil society.
The civil society is a social order of human interrelationships bound in consensus over the rules
of living together and the ways in which those rules are made and applied to resolve conflicts
among and between individuals and associations of individuals. It is the sum of a social compact
in which human beings surrender their natural liberty in exchange for civil liberty to live at peace
with one another with the freedom to do whatever the laws of the state do not prohibit. These
rules of living together form a cultural identity comprising traditions, values, customs, morals,
and beliefs tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next. Social
institutions such as the court system are the products of this complex historical trial-and-error
experimental process.
In America, order in the civil society is maintained on the basis of the rule of law. The
rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed
by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. The rule of law is based on the
principles of responsibility of the individual, rationality, and civility.18
Freedom presupposes responsibility, and personal responsibility is essential to defining
individuality. This principle of individual responsibility applies to the formal law and in the
whole sphere of private relations beyond the formal scope of the law.
Rationality is the coming together of a group of citizens united in the law, examining a
problem with adequate information, and coming to a reasoned, common conclusion. This is the
way jury trials proceed.
Civility is courteous social interaction characterized by sober and reasoned debate on
matters of mutual interest. Civility is a learned and practiced trait. It requires self-control, social
awareness, empathy, gratitude, and respect. It allows disagreement with other opinions without
disparagement of other people, derision of other peoples opinions, or denigration in discussion
with other people. It has deep roots in the notion of respect for the individual, premised on the
belief that all human beings are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain
17
In re Frerichs, 238 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 1976) (Opinion by Harris, J., with all justices concurring).
18
See Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Law and Belief, Address to the American Bar Associations
Annual Convention (August 2, 1997).
unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.19 Civility
obligates people to treat one another with respect and decency, regardless of the differences
between them. People who are civil to each other respect one anothers human aspirations and
equal standing in a democratic society and in advancing the rule of law.20 Without civility
disagreements become open hostilities leading to unnecessary delays and costs, and no
discussion, debate, hearing or trial in any case can serve its purpose or achieve its objective.21
Civility is required to make the adversary legal system work.22
A critical component of civility is etiquette, which is a code of honor and correctness that
delineates expectations of social behavior according to tacitly accepted norms within a society,
social class, group, or profession. It is a voluntary system for restraining the social behavior
inspired by selfish or offensive impulse in order to maintain communal harmony and the dignity
of the person, promote cultural coherence, and to satisfy an aesthetic sense of shared correctness.
Etiquette is not fixed, varies from one situation to another, and can change and evolve over time.
Etiquette can be quite complex, and has to be learned and practiced. The unwavering purpose of
etiquette is to soften personal antagonisms and create formal boundaries and limits on behavior
in order to avert or minimize conflicts and create and maintain an orderly, disciplined, efficient
and respectful environment in which legal disputes can be peacefully resolved. Law may be said
to exist to compensate for the failure of etiquette.23 Etiquette is in turn a prerequisite for law, and
law cannot be justly administered without etiquette.24
An essential part of etiquette is politeness, the dextrous management of words and
actions whereby we make other people have a better opinion of us and of themselves.25
Politeness assumes the equality of participants in a social interaction and insists on a reciprocity
19
This belief is enshrined in the second paragraph of The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United
States of America, In Congress, July 4, 1776, more commonly known as Americas Declaration of Independence.
20
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Law and Belief, Address to the American Bar Associations Annual
Convention (August 2, 1997).
21
Hon. Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States, The Necessity for Civility, Address at the
opening session of the American Law Institute, 52 FED. RULES DECISIONS 211 (May 18, 1971)
22
Thomas Gibbs Gee, The Uncivil Lawyer, 15 REV. LITIG. 177 (1996).
23
See Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, eds., ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ETHICS (New York: Rutledge,
2001), p. 487.
24
See Judith Martin, A Philosophy of Etiquette, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
137:3, 350-356 (September 1993); Diane Coutu, In Praise of Boundaries: A Conversation With Miss Manners,
HARVARD BUS. REV. (December 2003); Judith Martin, Speech at Harvard Law School, (Cambridge April 22, 1987).
25
Lawrence E. Klein, SHAFTESBURY AND THE CULTURE OF POLITENESS (Cambridge University Press, 1994),
quoting Lord Shaftesbury, from Abel Boyer, THE ENGLISH THEOPHRASTUS (1702), pp. 106, 108.
in which participants are sometimes talkers and sometimes listeners in an exchange of

disciplined and peaceful self-expression.
Another essential part of etiquette is good manners. A manner is a way of doing
something, and can be classified as being good or bad. Good manners manifest courtesy and
respect for other people and significant institutions, and signal sophistication and tolerance.26
They are a way for someone to show others that he or she cares about him or her. Good manners
make it easier to feel comfortable in social situations, and they make it so people can avoid
unpleasantness in human interaction.27 As Edmund Burke observed:
Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend. The
law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex or sooth, corrupt or
purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation,
like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and colour to our lives. According to
their quality, they aid morals, they supply them, or they totally destroy them.28
A broad-based knowledge of proper courtroom etiquette is necessary for attorneys to be

more effective advocates and for judges to be better judges.29 Justice moves more efficiently and
effectively when parties are cooperative and the surroundings are orderly. Rules of etiquette and
good manners keep the focus of the courtroom contest on issues and facts and away from
distracting personal clashes and irrelevancies. The display of manners in the courtroom affects
how justice and the integrity of the law are perceived by the public.
The importance to effective advocacy of proper courtroom etiquette and good manners
was spelled out by Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1973, who said in relevant part:
A truly qualified advocatelike every genuine professionalresembles a seamless garment in
the sense that legal knowledge, forensic skills, professional ethics, courtroom etiquette and
manners are blended in the total person as their use is blended in the performance of the function.
There are some few lawyers who scoff at the idea that manners and etiquette form any part of the
necessary equipment of the courtroom advocate. Yet, if one were to undertake a list of the truly
great advocates of the past one hundred years, I suggest we would find a common denominator:
they were all intensely individualistic, but each was a lawyer for whom courtroom manners were a
key weapon in his arsenal. Whether engaged in the destruction of adverse witnesses or
undermining damaging evidence or final argument, the performance was characterized by
coolness, poise and graphic clarity, without shouting or ranting, and without baiting witnesses,
26
Travis Pickens, Why Manners Matter, 81 OKLA. B.J. 33 (December 11, 2010).
27
Margaret Webb Pressler, The Reasons for Good Manners, WASHINGTON POST, February 10, 2011.
28
Letters on a Regicide Peace, SELECT WORKS OF EDMUND BURKE, Vol. 3 (1795), (Indianapolis: Liberty
Fund, 1999), p. 72.
29
Catherine Thrse Clarke, Missed Manners in Courtroom Decorum, 50 MD. L. REV. 945 (1991), pp. 961.
opponents, or the judge. We cannot all be great advocates, but as every lawyer seeks to emulate
such tactics, he can approach, if not achieve, superior skill as an advocate.30
Standards of courtroom civility and etiquette have evolved considerably over the past few
centuries from mostly personal, aspirational standards within a relatively small and homogenous
community of practitioners to increasingly mandatory standards within a large, diverse, mass
community. Whereas in the past rude and uncivil attorneys risked little more than being shunned
and losing business that might otherwise come through referrals from their peers, modern badlymannered attorneys can risk being sanctioned by the state bar or even being found in contempt of
court for incivility and rudeness in the courtroom. Those who regulate attorney conduct are for a
variety of reasons seemingly becoming increasingly strict with, and intolerant of, misbehaving
attorneys. The same appears to be true for those who regulate the conduct of judges.
Bad manners and incivility can be blatant or subtle, but all of it produces stress in the
courtroom environment. Stress in this sense is anything that knocks people out of
homoeostatic balance. When a person feels stress, self-awareness is diminished, disillusionment
is increased, and he or she is more likely to behave rudely toward others, which causes stress on
those people and increases the stress felt by him or her. Most of the time, the stress passes and
people are able to regain their balance. When, however, stress is chronic it can lead to chronic
anxiety, a sense of helplessness, and depression.31 Courtroom stress is particularly damaging
where judges frequently bully attorneys who appear before them, which tends to create an
abusive and dysfunctional environment that can spread well beyond the courtroom.32 Few
judges, attorneys, or other professionals deliberately engage in rudeness or incivility, however,
and courtroom misbehavior is more often caused by thoughtlessness than by actual malice.
Practicing proper etiquette breaks the stress-rudeness/incivility cycle by causing people to
instinctively stop and think before they speak or act, and to be polite when they do. Where
rudeness and incivility adds stress to a courtroom environment, good manners and proper
etiquette decreases stress.33
30
Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States, The Special Skills of Advocacy: Are Specialized
Training and Certification of Advocates Essential to Our System of Justice?, 42 FORDHAM L. REV. 235-36 (1973).
The article in its entirety was delivered as the Fourth Annual John F. Sonnett Memorial Lecture on November 26,
1973, at Fordham Law School in New York. The text of the law review remains substantially as the speech was
delivered.
31
See Daniel T. Lukasik, How Stress and Anxiety Become Depression, TRIAL, December 2008, at 32-33;
Elizabeth Trenary, Lawyers and Depression: Understanding the Connection, U. MIAMI L. REV. (February 17, 2014),
http://lawreview.law.miami.edu/lawyers-depression-understanding-connection/; Rosa Flores and Marie Arce, Why
Are Lawyers Killing Themselves? CNN, January 20, 2014.
32
See Jane Lee, Bullying Judges Breed Stressful System: Kirby, THE AGE, February 22, 2013.
33
See The Stress/Rudeness Vicious Circle, THE JOB DOC BLOG, December 19, 2013; Christine Porath and
Christine Pearson, The Price of Incivility, HARVARD BUS. REV., January-February 2013; Peter Post, Stop. Think. It
May Ease Stress in the Office, BOSTON GLOBE, December 22, 2013; see also Richard Gray, Best way to beat stress?
Help others with everyday tasks, DAILY MAIL, December 14, 2015.
Unfortunately, most of the finer standards of courtroom civility and etiquette are
unwritten, and those that are in writing normally are in the form of brief admonishments or
didactic lists with no or very little accompanying explanation of why certain behavior is or is not
correct. Civility and etiquette are not generally the subjects of formal instruction in law school.
With the exception of large law firms, it is uncommon for a legal organization or association to
incorporate more than the most rudimentary of courtroom manners in instructions for attorneys.
While the overwhelming majority of attorneys who come to court have a strong sense of
propriety and professionalism, the rules of courtroom etiquette and their application can vary
widely from one courtroom to another, giving practitioners an uneasy sense of exactly what is
expected in terms of manners in their interactions with others in court. With the decline of the
level of knowledge within the community of courtroom civility and etiquette, effective
courtroom manners is becoming a lost art. The following text attempts to reverse that trend by
laying out the more common manners and rules of etiquette expected of those who come to court.
10
Chapter 3.
Organization and Purpose of a Courtroom

A courtroom exists for the purpose of conducting the judicial business of the public in a
dignified, orderly, and professional manner. The courtroom provides a locus in which the judge,
attorneys for the parties, the clerk, court officers, and other participants in the justice system can
resolve criminal or civil disputes in an atmosphere of reverence and respect for the law.
Figure 1 Example of a classic courtroom arrangement for a federal courthouse.

Source: U.S. Courts Design Guide, General Services Administration (2007).
Decorum is especially important when members of the public are engaged in litigation, or
when they are spectators before the court. Judges, attorneys, clerks, court reporters, security
personnel, witnesses, spectators, representatives of the media, and all others who enter the
courtroom are expected to behave at court in a manner supportive of the solemnity of the Courts
position and of the occasion of the partys hearing. Behavior, conditions, or attire not conducive
to the dignified and orderly operation of official court business may be prohibited in order to
maintain the dignity of the courtroom and its facilities and the integrity of the legal processes
taking place therein.
11
The courtroom should be clean, orderly, well-lit, quiet, and in good repair. Walls and
floors should be clean and clear of dust, trash, and graffiti. Carpets and curtains should not be
stained, have holes in them, or otherwise be in obvious disrepair. Furnishings should be
undamaged and fully functional. The walls of the courtroom should not be decorated with
anything that detracts from a neat and businesslike decor.34
Figure 2 Example of a corner bench courtroom arrangement for a federal courthouse.

Source: U.S. Courts Design Guide, General Services Administration (2007).
The classic arrangement of a courtroom is a long rectangle with the public entrance at one
end facing the judges raised bench at the other. An alternative model is the corner-bench design,
which relocates the judge to the corner of the room and places the witness stand closest to the
center, facing the public entrance. This allows the jury box, counsel tables, and spectator rail to
move forward, making better use of courtroom space and creating an impression of a courtroom
34
See, e.g., Minimum Courtroom Standards in the State of Illinois, SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS (January
2011), paragraph 3.6, p. 4 (No personal items of decoration shall be affixed to courtroom walls or in public view.);
also, Joseph H. Hinshaw, Court Room Decorum, 37 J. AM. JUD. SOC. 44 (1953-54).
12
in the round with the well of the courtroom at its center.35 Both designs incorporate the
following features:
The public gallery is the area of the courtroom where the public and persons who are not
members of the bar are seated. The public gallery is separated from the rest of the courtroom by
the bar.
The bar or bar rail is a dividing rail in a court of law that separates the area of the
courtroom reserved for the judge, prosecution, defense, and jury from the gallery area occupied
by the general public. The bar is why organizations that regulate attorneys are called bar
associations. Passing the licensing examination to practice law is called passing the bar
because one who passed was no longer one of the lay people forced to sit behind the bar in the
gallery, but could join the professional attorneys sitting in the area of the well by passing the bar
dividing the two sections of the courtroom.
A judge is an elected or appointed representative of the government charged with being
fair and impartial in matters brought before the court. A judge is responsible for presiding over
court proceedings and seeing that order is maintained, ruling on the admissibility of evidence
sought to be admitted at trial or hearing and on other matters brought before the court by motion
of a party, instructing juries on the law, and deciding sanctions to be imposed upon
determinations of guilt or liability.
The judges bench is a large desk behind which a judge sits at the front of the courtroom.
The bench normally rests on an elevated platform, giving the judge a view of the entire
courtroom and what is going on within it. The judge can see much more than the attorneys can,
and this view tends to magnify and exaggerate some of the things judges see. The empty space
between the bench, jury box and counsel tables is called the well of the court.36 The bench also
is a metaphor for the judges role in the proceedings. It is extremely disrespectful to the Court
for persons who are not court employees to directly traverse the well and walk directly to the
bench or to the witness stand without Court permission.
A bench trial is a trial with a judge and no jury. A bench warrant is a warrant issued
by a judge on his or her own initiative. When one asks to approach the bench one is asking
both for a bench conference (also known as a sidebar conference) to speak privately with the
judge outside the hearing of the jury or others in the courtroom and to actually step closer to the
35
See Frank Greene, FAIA, Seat at the table: Hierarchy, Iconography, Anachronism, THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS (2015).
36
Note that some references erroneously refer to the entire area beyond the bar separating the gallery from
the rest of the courtroom as the well.
13
judges desk. Traditionally, it is considered disrespectful for anyone to place a hand or document
on the bench without express permission from the judge.37
Behind where the judge sits in a state courtroom there normally is a backdrop comprising
a set of flags, one the American national flag and the other the state flag, standing astride the seal
of the specific jurisdiction the court is sitting in. In federal courtrooms, only the American
national flag is displayed. The American flag should be positioned to the judges right as he or
she faces the courtroom, and if there is an eagle atop the flagstaff it should be facing toward the
courtroom. In state court, the state flag should be placed on the judges left as he or she faces the
courtroom, in the same manner as the American flag.38 This backdrop symbolizes the power and
authority of the court to command the respect of those who are in attendance.
The clerk of the court attends court meetings and is responsible for keeping paperwork
and exhibits filed with the court, and for administering the oath to testifying witnesses. The clerk
sits in a fixed stand near the judge in the courtroom, normally in close enough proximity to be
able to directly exchange documents by hand with the judge.
The court reporter or stenographer is the person who records everything that is said or
introduced into evidence in the courtroom for later transcription. The reporter is the only person
authorized to make the official record of the proceedings. When physically present, the reporter
positions himself or herself where he or she can best hear the speakers. In some types of
proceedings, the court reporter may be reporting the proceedings through the sound system of the
courtroom from a remote location, or there may be just recording devices and no court reporter at
all.
A court deputy or bailiff is a law enforcement officer or court employee who assists the
judge in maintaining order in the courtroom, and who is responsible for the custody of a jury.
One or more deputies or bailiffs may work in a courtroom. They will station themselves as
necessary to perform their duties. One of their responsibilities is to guard in-custody defendants
who are in the courtroom. In most courtrooms, there will be a fixed security post where a court
deputy or bailiff will sit and, in criminal cases, where they can take fingerprints from a defendant
who has been convicted.
37
See Whos Who and Whats What in the Courtroom, HG.ORG.
38
See 4 U.S.C. 7(k) When used on a speakers platform, the flag, if displayed flat, should be displayed
above and behind the speaker. When displayed from a staff in a church or public auditorium, the flag of the United
States of America should hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of the audience, and in the position of
honor at the clergymans or speakers right as he faces the audience. Any other flag so displayed should be placed
on the left of the clergyman or speaker or to the right of the audience.
14
In criminal cases, the party39 bringing the charges before the court is the government.
Prosecutors who prosecute criminal cases against defendants on behalf of the government, and
civil attorneys who represent plaintiffs, in county and circuit courts, sit at the counsel table
closest to the jury.
A defendant is a party who is defending or denying a formal accusation made by a
prosecutor in a criminal case or by a plaintiff in a civil case. Attorneys charged to represent the
best interest of the defendants in criminal or civil cases sit with their clients at the defense table
during trial or evidentiary hearings. When trial is not being held, and there is insufficient seating
at the table for all attending defense attorneys, the jury box can be used as a bar seating area to
seat attorneys waiting to have their cases called, with any out of custody clients, if present,
waiting in the gallery. Attorney seating in the jury box is, however, a privilege extended by the
Court and is not a right: The Court can revoke the privilege and require one or all attorneys to sit
in the gallery. When the case of a client is called, the attorney normally will move from the
counsel table or bar seating area to the lectern to address the court on the matter. Defendants
typically stand at arraignment and sentencing, but are allowed to sit at defense counsel table
during hearings of motions and during trials.
The lectern40 is the stand where attorneys address issues before the court and question
witnesses regarding matters of fact. In some courtrooms the lectern is fixed; more commonly the
lectern is moveable. It is improper for an attorney to move the lectern without the judges
permission.
A witness is a person who testifies under oath about facts in a case that are being
disputed. Expert witnesses may, with court permission, offer their opinions on matters in
dispute. The chair where witnesses sit to testify under oath to facts relating to the case before the
judge is the witness stand. The name stand is a legacy of former times when witnesses were
required to stand while testifying, on a small raised platform near the jury box, surrounded by a
railing that the testifying witness could hold onto or lean on during his or her testimony. Once
called to the stand, an attorney may not approach the witness, and the witness may not leave the
stand, without the Judges permission.
39
A party is a person concerned or having taken part in any affair, matter, transaction, or proceeding,
considered individually. BLACKS L. DICT. 1278 (4th ed. 1974).
40
In some American courtrooms, the lectern is erroneously referred to as the podium. A lectern and a
podium are, in fact, two very different things. A podium is a raised platform on which a speaker stands to deliver a
speech. A lectern is a slanted stand on which a speaker can place his or her notes. Lecterns come in tabletop and
stand-alone varieties. A speaker mounts a podium and stands behind a lectern.
15
The jury box is the fixed section of the courtroom where jurors and alternate jurors
chosen from the venire41 during voir dire42 are seated to hear evidence presented at a jury trial.
The jury box serves to prevent jurors from mingling with attorneys, litigants, or witnesses during
a trial. When a jury is seated, attorneys are not allowed to approach the jury box, address the
members of the jury, or have any other direct or indirect contact with any of the jurors without
the express permission of the judge. The jury box may remain empty during non-jury
proceedings, or when a jury is deliberating, or the judge may use it to seat attorneys or in-custody
defendants during arraignments, pretrials, or motion hearings.
The jury box is separated from the well of the court by the jury rail. The jury rail is a low
barrier, approximately waist-high, running in front of the jury box. In older courtrooms the rail is
often narrow and has the appearance a fence, while in modern courtrooms the rail often is solid
with a flat top that gives it the appearance of a long low wall or narrow table. The rail is
intended to separate the jury from the attorneys. It is improper for an attorney to come close to
the rail, touch the rail, rest anything on the rail, or reach over the rail.
A judges chambers is the judges private office, where the judges judicial assistant is
located and which normally includes an area or room for that can be used for conferences or
hearings. The chambers are usually located behind the courtroom and are either adjacent to the
courtroom or very near. In some cases, a judge may have to share a separate specially-equipped
room for conferences and hearings. To see a judge in chambers is to see the judge in his or her
private office, while to hear a matter in chambers usually means that the judge will be using a
conference room and not his or her assigned courtroom.
The judge is supported by his or her judicial assistant, or JA, who rarely comes to the
courtroom. The JA is a trusted employee working directly for the judge and is responsible for the
administration of the judges office. The JA handles telephone calls, mail, and email
communications with the judge, schedules matters on the judges calendars, and helps the judge
prepare for court. JAs are among the most important people in a courthouse because of their
unique role with judges. The judge also is supported by staff attorneys. Staff attorneys are court
employees who assist judges with legal research, the preparation of orders, and with other
administrative responsibilities. They may be recent law school graduates or career attorneys.
Note that one of the prominent characteristics of modern courtrooms is that they are much
more noisier than courtrooms of old. Courtrooms of old refers to the time before the
proliferation of central heating and air conditioning, computers, and cellular telephones. The
rushing sound of the ventilation system, the buzz of the overhead fluorescent lights, the hum of
the computers being used by the judge and the clerk (to which the noise of computers in use by
41
The group of citizens from whom a jury is chosen in a given case. BLACKS L. DICT. 1556 (6th ed. 1990).
42
Voir dire is the preliminary examination which the court and attorneys make of prospective jurors to
determine their qualification and suitability to serve as jurors. BLACKS L. DICT. 1575 (6th ed. 1990).
16
prosecutors and defense attorneys is often added), the sound of doors being opened and closed,
the ring of a cell phone, talking among courtroom attendees, the clerk running his or her desktop
printer, and a system of courtroom microphones and speakers that amplifies all of these sounds
has the effect of surrounding the judge with a cloud of unwanted background noises that during
crowded court dockets can become so loud and distracting as to cause delay or interruption of
arraignments, changes of plea, and other important courtroom business. All of this has had a
corrosive effect on courtroom decorum and etiquette.
17
18
Chapter 4
Courtroom Rituals
Generally
The primary function of the law is the orderly, peaceful and just resolution of disputes.
Court sessions are business meetings for the purpose of accomplishing this primary function.
Courtroom procedures are used to organize and facilitate these meetings.
Modern courtroom procedures are a mix of custom, tradition, ritual, and ceremony.
Although these words often are used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings in the
courtroom context. In combination, they comprise the major part of courtroom procedures.
Custom is a habit or practice followed as a matter of course among a people. It is a
frequent or common mode or form of action performed in accordance with social conventions.
Social conventions are arbitrary rules and norms governing the countless behaviors persons
engage in regularly without necessarily thinking about them. Shaking hands when meeting
another attorney, standing when the judge enters or leaves the courtroom, and addressing the
Court as Your Honor are examples of courtroom customs.
Tradition is the passing down of elements of culture from generation to generation. A
custom becomes a tradition when it is passed on to, and accepted by, a succeeding generation. It
is, for example, a courtroom tradition that the party bearing the burden takes the counsel table
closest to the jury.
Ritual is the prescribed form or order of conducting a solemn act, observance or
procedure done in accordance with prescribed rule or custom. Examples of courtroom rituals
include change-of-plea colloquies, swearing in witnesses (including the portion of a witness oath
that states so help me God), and giving final instructions to juries.
Ceremony is an event of ritual significance, performed on a special occasion. A
ceremony may be performed ad hoc, or performed as prescribed by ritual, custom, or etiquette.
Examples of courtroom ceremony include the manner in which a court session is opened,
investitures43 of new judges, and the swearing-in of new attorneys.
43
Investiture comes from the Latin phrase for dress in robe. In academic circles, the term has come to
mean one who will literally don the university's insignia and regalia. in feudalism, ceremony by which an overlord
transferred a fief to a vassal or by which, in ecclesiastical law, an elected cleric received the pastoral ring and staff
(the symbols of spiritual office) signifying the transfer of the office. After the oath of fealty, the lord invested the
vassal with the fief, usually by giving him some symbol of the land or office transferred.
19
Courtroom procedures can be ceremonial, instrumental, or a blend of both. They also can
be formal or informal. The published rules of procedure, for example, are a set of formal rules
that are intended to be instrumental in the conduct of the business of the Court. Examples of the
more conspicuous traditional courtroom procedures include formal opening ceremonies, oathtaking rituals, recess ceremonies, receiving and publishing a verdict rituals, adjournment
ceremonies and investiture ceremonies.
Formal Opening Ceremony
It is customary for the bailiff or court deputy, after checking the security of the courtroom,
to open its doors to the public 15 minutes or so before the scheduled start of the session. The
amount of time given is designed to give people enough time to take their places in the
courtroom, but not enough time for long conversation, during the formal opening of court.
The formal opening of a session of court has a long history and is intended to give an
unmistakable message of dignity, respect, and control.44 The opening ceremony also serves to
create the silence in the courtroom necessary for proper order and decorum.
Morning sessions of court in America have traditionally been opened in a simple
ceremony that may be approximated as follows: One minute or so before the scheduled start of a
court session, the judge signals or otherwise notifies the court bailiff or other court officer to
ready the courtroom for the judges arrival. In some cases, it has been by a bell, buzzer, or a
knock or knocks on the other side of the courtroom door leading to the judges chambers. This
action signals those in the courtroom to end all conversation, go to their respective positions, put
all papers away, and ready themselves for the arrival of the judge. If the signal is not audible to
all in the courtroom, the bailiff and other court officers inform all to get ready and be quiet. As
the judge enters the courtroom a minute or so after the warning, the bailiff or court officer
commands All rise! and requires all to rise and stand.45 The bailiff or court officer pauses until
the judge is on the bench and seated or ready to be seated, and announces The [type of court]
Court for the [name of jurisdiction] is now in session, the Honorable [name of the judge]
presiding! followed by a brief pause and then Please be seated!46 If there are persons in
attendance who need to be sworn by the clerk, as with members of a venire or defendants facing
44
David M. Rothman, Exercising Judicial Control Without Contempt, JUDICIAL CONDUCT REPORTER (Fall
1999).
45
In former times, the judge would enter, stand by the bench, face the America flag, wait until all was quiet
in the courtroom, and lead all assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance. In earlier times, the opening of a session of
court would include a prayer. The judge would then take a seat at the bench. It is now extremely rare for an
American trial or appellate court session to begin in this fashion. In modern times, it is the common custom for a
judge to simply enter and sit down at the bench.
46
In some versions of this ceremony, the bailiff will rap one time after announcing that the court is in session
and before commanding all to be seated. In other versions, it is the clerk in the court who makes all of the in-court
announcements.
20
arraignment, the bailiffs or court officers last command is changed to Those appearing [for
arraignment/as potential jurors] please remain standing to receive the oath! All others please be
seated! After the oath is administered, the bailiff commands those sworn, Please be seated! It
is improper for anyone in the courtroom to talk or sit down during this ceremony.
Oath-Taking
The requirement in judicial proceedings that witnesses swear an oath to tell the truth
before giving testimony is a centuries-old tradition going back to at least Roman times. The
purposes of the oath are to bind the witnesss conscience to tell the truth, and to subject the
witness to penalties for contempt of court or the crime of perjury if the testimony given is
untruthful. Traditional oaths ended with the phrase so help me God or similar language to
invoke the fear of divine retribution for lying, but such language has been omitted from the
secular oaths of modern times.
The rhythmic, repetitious whole oath form calls for the witness to raise his or her right
hand and solemnly swear, affirm, or attest to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. The whole oath is likely of Anglo-Saxon origin, as all of the words in it are Anglo-Saxon
and none are of Latin or French origin. This form of oath existed since at least the 13th century
and was part of English legal tradition at the time of the founding of the American colonies. The
colonies independently adopted the whole oath into their own legal traditions before the
American revolution.47 This form of oath is preferred in judicial proceedings because it
emphasizes the absolute veracity of a statement and is comprehensive: The triple phrasing aims
to keep a witness ... from misleading a jury with lies instead of the truth; half-truths instead of the
whole truth; or truths submerged in untrue, misleading or distracting filler rather than the
unclouded truth.48
Sometimes the words so help me are added to the end of the oath, as a way of warning
the witness of potential consequences for untruthfulness. Although the requirement to swear to
God (or other deity) has been omitted, it is permissible for a witness to end his or her oath with
so help me God, or reference to another deity. It also is permissible, if a witness desires it, for
the witness to place his or her hand on a Bible, Koran, or other sacred religious text, or even the
U.S. Constitution when reciting the oath, but this is rarely practiced in American courts. In the
end, oath-taking in court serves the purpose of making a record of the witnesss obligation to tell
the truth and understanding that there may be severe consequences for failing to meet this
obligation.
47
See James E. Clapp, Elizabeth G. Thornburg, Marc Galanter, and Fred R. Shapiro, LAWTALK: THE
UNKNOWN STORIES BEHIND LEGAL EXPRESSIONS (New Haven: Yale University Press 2011), p. 288.
48
See Thomas G. Gutheil, M.D., Mark Hauser, M.D., Myra S. White, Ph.D., J.D., Graham Spruiell, M.D.,
and Larry H. Strasburger, M.D., The Whole Truth Versus The Admissible Truth: An Ethics Dilemma for Expert
Witnesses, J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY LAW 31(4): 422-427 (2003).
21
Recesses
A judge may call a recess in different ways. One way is for the judge to strike a gavel to
punctuate the moment and get everyones attention, and then announce the recess and its duration
in terms of the time when Court will reconvene, e.g., The Court will be in recess until [time] by
the courtroom clock. The bailiff will then command, All rise! and, when all in the courtroom
are standing, the judge will leave the bench for the recess. The command to rise is also a
command to stop talking, put all papers aside, and pay attention, so that everyone in the
courtroom understands that there is a break in the proceedings. It is desirable that the time of
return to session be stated in exact terms of the time on the courtroom clock, as opposed to more
ambiguous statements such as ten minutes, about a quarter after, or the like, without
reference to the courtroom clock. If the judge does not know how long the recess will last, as
when there is an urgent matter the judge must address in chambers, it is appropriate to announce
recess pending the call of the Court.
Another way is for the judge to tell the bailiff or court officer to call the recess, informing
the bailiff or court officer of the duration and time of return. In such cases, the bailiff or court
officer will command All rise! The Court will be in recess until __________ on the courtroom
clock.
When there is an afternoon session, the noontime recess is normally an hour to an hourand-a-half. After a noontime recess, American courts are traditionally reopened for the afternoon
session in the same fashion as for the morning session. It is proper for the afternoon session for
the bailiff or court officer to say after the judge is seated, The __________ Court for the
_______________ is again in session. Please be seated. After short recesses during a session,
it is permissible for the bailiff or court officer to say Court is again in session. Please be
seated.
In recent years, many American judges have relaxed their courtroom procedures, some to
where the judge enters the courtroom with little or no advance warning, takes a seat at the bench,
and starts calling cases. The reasons for such relaxation are varied, and range from the judges
dislike of or embarrassment at49 formality, to the time pressures of overloaded dockets. It is,
however, properly expected by those who come to court that the session starts with a public
recognition that it is a court of law and not a fast-food restaurant.50
49
Many judges have an unreasonable fear that enforcing traditional courtroom formalities and customs will
cause them to be perceived publicly as tyrannical egomaniacs.
50
1999).
22
Receiving and Publishing a Verdict

One of the most solemn (and dramatic) courtroom rituals is the receiving and publishing
of the verdict in a trial after the jury has completed deliberations. The usual procedure is as
follows:
The jury signals or indicates to the court deputy of bailiff that it is ready to return verdict.
In most cases, this is done by the foreperson of the jury, who tells the deputy or bailiff on guard
outside of the jury room, who in turn notifies the judge.
Counsel and the parties, the clerk and (if one is being used) the court reporter return to
their seats in the courtroom. All rise as the judge enters the courtroom, and the judge takes his or
her seat at the bench. The deputy or bailiff announces on the record that the jury has indicated
that they have reached a verdict. The judge tells the deputy or bailiff to return the jury to the
courtroom.
No one will be allowed to enter or leave the courtroom at this point, and everyone in the
courtroom must remain silent. All must stand while the jury enters the courtroom. A deputy or
bailiff remains standing next to the jury box. The foreperson remains standing, holding the
completed verdict form folded in half so that the verdict cannot be seen, while the remaining
jurors take their seats.51 The judge takes his or her seat and orders all others except the jury
foreperson to take their seats. The judge then asks the foreperson, Mr./Ms. Foreperson, has the
jury reached a verdict? The foreperson then responds to the judge, Yes it has. The judge then
tells the foreperson, Please hand the completed verdict form to the deputy/bailiff. The judge
may ask the foreperson to take his or her seat.
The deputy/bailiff then takes the completed verdict form from the foreperson and delivers
it to the judge. The judge checks the verdict form for completeness. If the verdict form is not
completed properly, the judge returns it to the jury for further deliberation. If the verdict form
properly completed, the judge will state The Court accepts the verdict, and order, The
Defendant will rise and face the jury, and, once the defendant is standing and facing the jury, the
judge will do one of two things:
a. The judge will hand the verdict form to the clerk (or other court officer) and ask that
person, Please rise and publish the jurys verdict, or
51
Note that if the jury is hopelessly hung after receiving proper instruction, the Court will discharge the jury
after an abbreviated proceeding and set a new trial date.
23
b. The judge will ask the jury foreperson to stand, tell the deputy/bailiff to return the
completed verdict form to the foreperson, and ask the foreperson to read the jurys verdict out
loud.52
The person publishing the verdict, while standing, will state In the case of [State of
Florida] versus [Defendant], case number __________, as to the charge of [offense], we the jury
find as follows: The defendant is [guilty of (offense) as charged/guilty of (offense) as
included/not guilty]. So say we all. The person publishing the verdict repeats this procedure for
all counts tried before the jury. When this task is completed, the person publishing the verdict
will take his or her seat. After the verdict is published, the judge will ask the parties if any party
wants the jury polled. If any party wants the jury polled, the judge, or the clerk or court officer
while standing, will separately ask each juror, Is this your verdict? and each juror will respond
with a Yes or a No. If any juror says no, the jury will be returned to deliberations to come
to a unanimous verdict. If all jurors answer Yes, the judge will then discharge the jury with an
expression of gratitude for their service to the community, and the jury will be escorted from the
courtroom. Everyone in the courtroom will stand as the jurors exit the courtroom.
Once the jurors have left, the judge will ask, Will the defendant [and his or her counsel]
please approach the lectern? and either will impose sentence or set off sentencing if the
defendant is found guilty, or discharge the defendant if the defendant is found not guilty. No one
will be allowed to enter or leave the courtroom until all of the jurors have left, and no one but the
parties and their counsel, and any witnesses called to testify by a party, will be allowed to speak
during sentencing.
When all business has been completed, the Court will adjourn and all present will stand
as the judge leaves the courtroom.
Adjournment
At the conclusion of all matters pending before the Court, the judge will adjourn the
court. This can be accomplished several ways. One way is for the judge to strike a gavel and
announce Court now stands adjourned. The bailiff or court officer will command, All rise!
and the judge will leave the bench. Everybody in the courtroom should remain standing until the
judge leaves and the bailiff or court officer announces, The Court stands adjourned! If a matter
before the Court is to be continued on another day, as when a trial goes into another day, the
judges announcement should be Court now stands adjourned until __________, or This case
now stands adjourned until __________, giving the date or day of that week on which
proceedings will be resumed.
52
Having the foreperson read the verdict reinforces the image that the verdict is the jurys verdict, and not
the judges.
24
Another way the Court can be adjourned is by the judge informing the bailiff or court
officer and the bailiff or court officer making the announcements, with or without the bailiffs or
court officers use of a gavel.
Investiture
The investiture ceremony is perhaps the oldest tradition of the judiciary. It traces its
origins to ancient times, when such ceremonies and symbolic actions were used by kings to assert
the assumption of rulership and to elicit affirmation of it. The modern American judicial
investiture ceremony serves the similar purpose of publicly marking the beginning of a judges
assumption of his or her judgship by the new judge taking his or her oath to uphold the
Constitution and the laws, and his or her being presented with a robe, a gavel, and other symbols
of judicial power and authority. New bishops and college presidents also share the investiture
tradition in comparable ceremonies.
The modern form of the judicial investiture ceremony is derived from feudal conventions.
During the flourishing period of feudalism, the relationship between lord and vassal was
important and dignified, and was established by traditional formalities. These were divided into
homage and fealty, on the part of the person receiving the fief, and investiture, on the part of the
person bestowing it. The two acts of homage and fealty were normally performed at the same
time. The person who was to become the vassal would kneel before the lord and place his hands
pressed together in those of the lord, who then raised him from his kneeling position and gave
him the kiss of peace. Following this, the oath of fealty was taken upon the gospels or some relic
deemed sacred by the contracting parties. The performance of these two solemn acts transformed
the person performing them into the lords vassal. At the same time that the lord received the
homage of the man, he handed him some material object that represented the fief. This part of
the ceremony was known as investiture.53
The investiture of a field was represented by a clod, of a forest by a branch. A prelate
was given gloves, a crosier, and a pastoral ring. The vassal was expected to pay for his holding
with services, consisting chiefly of military services and judicial services. If he withheld his
services he forfeited his fief. Military service was on demand of the lord and at the expense of
the vassal, but was normally limited to not more than forty days once a year. When the lord
administered justice, he called his vassals to his court where they helped in the administration of
justice and also for themselves to be judged, as necessary.54
53
Andrew Stephenson, A.M., Ph.D., THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, Vol. II (Boston: Richard D. Badger,
The Gorham Press 1919), pp. 185-87; see also William Cruise, Esq., TREATISE ON THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF
DIGNITIES OR TITLES OF HONOR, 2d ed. (London: Joseph Butterworth & Son 1823), pp. 9, 32.
54
25
In the twelfth century the investiture was put in written form, and comprised two
documents: An affidavit of a notary, witnessing the oath of fealty and homage, and a written
description of all that the fief comprised. During the growth of feudalism, the Christian church
became feudalized and investiture ceremonies became an established part of ecclesiastical law
and procedure.55
55
26
Chapter 5.
Authority and Obligation to Regulate Courtroom Order and

Decorum
Courts have the inherent power to preserve order and decorum in the courtroom, to
protect the rights of the parties and witnesses, and generally to further the administration of
justice. This power exists apart from any statute or specific constitutional provision and springs
from the creation of the very court itself; it is essential to the existence and meaningful
functioning of the judicial tribunal.56 This inherent power extends to regulation of the
professional conduct and attire of attorneys appearing before the court, even in matters so
personal as the growth of their beard or the cut of their dress.57 A basis for a courts authority to
prohibit inappropriate conduct or attire that jeopardizes the dignity of judicial proceedings is also
found in Judicial Canon 3B(3): a Judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before
the judge.58
Decorum has been defined by one jurist as:
[T]he manifestation in court of high standards of tradition, taste, efficacy, order, appropriateness,
consideration and integrity, above the usual exercise of free agency to be expected under different
circumstances and beyond the requirements of court rule or statute. Courtroom decorum could be
considered as a kind of higher law for court proceedings which trial counsel should impose upon
themselves, as good manners would be voluntarily observed in formal social intercourse by a lady
or a gentleman.59
Judges have an obligation to maintain the dignity of judicial proceedings and to oversee
courtrooms in a manner that promotes their dignity. It is appropriate for a court to expect
litigants to appear in attire that is suitable for the dignity of the courtroom. The reasonable
admonishment of litigants who wear casual or inappropriate attire promotes legitimate ends by
reminding them that the judicial process deserves to be approached with respect. A courtroom is
not a public forum for the expression of ideas, and the United States Constitution does not give
litigants the right to dress and act as they please within a courthouse. Instead, a courthouse and
especially a courtroom is a nonpublic forum. Restrictions on free expression need only be
reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Such a restriction is reasonable if it is wholly consistent with
56
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982), and cases cited therein.
57
Sandstrom v. State, 309 So. 2d 17, 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (defense attorney refusal to wear tie in court
may be punished by contempt), and cases cited therein.
58
Canon 3B(3), FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. See also Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory
Committee Opinion 83-12, November 7, 1983, 1983 WL 857452 (Fl. Jud. Eth. Adv. Comm.) (unanimous opinion).
59
A. Sherman Christenson, Courtroom Decorum As An Aid to Proper Judicial Administration, 27 FED.

RULES DECISIONS 445 (1961).
27
the governments legitimate interest in preserving the property of the courthouse and the
courtroom for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated. In addition, whatever liberty interest
exists as to ones personal appearance, it is not a fundamental interest and restrictions on it are
reviewed under a rational basis test.60
This power, however, is not limitless. Although when acting officially judges of
necessity have inherent power to control the decorum (including the conduct and physical
appearance) of those who come before the court, this does not mean that counsel or anyone else
can be subjected to the unbridled idiosyncrasies of individual judges. A courts action must
always bear a reasonable relation to a justifiable end or purpose, and judges should refrain from
imposing their personal preferences upon others when it is not necessary to the proper
administration of justice.61 When addressing courtroom decorum and etiquette, judges also
must give great weight to the publics right of access to the courts. Judges should be particularly
careful with the promulgation and enforcement of rules regulating attire or conduct that might be
subject to constitutional protections or which, in any event, is not intentionally disrespectful or
actually disruptive of the court process. In any event, a court-imposed standard of personal
appearance or attire should be defined with sufficient specificity that it may be clearly
understood, to the end that compliance with the standard may not be thwarted because of
inexactitude or misunderstanding.62
The responsibility to uphold the order and dignity of the court is not, in any event, the
judges alone.63 When attorneys display reverence for the law, the judicial system, and the legal
profession by acting with respect, decorum, and courtesy, they earn the trust of the public and
60
Bank v. Katz, et al., 2009 WL 3077147 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), affirmed 424 Fed. Appx. 67 (2nd Circuit 2011)
(defense attorney could be directed not to wear baseball cap and jeans to court, even as a pro se litigant).
61
Sandstrom v. State, 309 So. 2d 17, 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also, Friedman v. District Court, 611 P.
2d 77 (Alaska 1980) ([A] court may impose minimum standards of dress for the attorneys who appear before it.
While a court cannot adopt a dress code which is unduly rigid or which attempts to dictate matters of taste and
esthetic preference, the requirement of merely wearing a coat and tie is a reasonable one.).
62
73 A.L.R.3d 353, Power of court to impose standard of personal appearance or attire, citing Peck v. Stone,
304 N.Y.S.2d 881, 32 A.D.2d 506 (1969) (courts order gave no indication of what mode or type of dress would
meet the requirement of suitable, conventional, and appropriate); In re De Carlo, 141 N.J. Super. 42, 357 A. 2d
273 (Sup. Ct. N.J. 1976) (order that female attorney wear appropriate courtroom attire was too vague to be basis of
contempt conviction, and attire of female attorney who wore wool gray slacks, matching gray sweater and green
open-collared blouse was suitable and could not be labeled disruptive, distractive, or depreciative of the judicial
process so as to foreclose her courtroom appearance).
63
In my view, it is now well-understood that the objectives of good decision-making achieved

expeditiously and as inexpensively as possible will only be realised if all those involved in the administration of
justice share the responsibility to achieve them. Hon. Justice Michael Barker, The Duties of Parties and Their
Lawyers to Co-Operate and Act in Good Faith in Civil Proceedings, SEMINAR TO CELEBRATE AND REFLECT ON THE
10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSIONS FINAL REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF
THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA (October 13, 2009).
28
help preserve faith in the operation of a fair judicial system.64 Membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions, and compliance with regulations concerning courtroom
conduct and attire is one of those conditions.65 Florida attorneys are, in fact, required from the
moment of their bar admission to maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial
officers.66 They also are expected to abstain from rude, disruptive, and disrespectful behavior,
and to encourage clients and support personnel to do the same.67 Furthermore, the guidelines
for attorneys in Florida provide that, as both an officer of the court and an advocate, the attorney
always should strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession, avoid disorder and
disruption in the courtroom, and maintain a respectful attitude toward the court, interact with
parties, counsel, witnesses, jurors or prospective jurors, court personnel, and judges with courtesy
and civility, and avoid undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to the court or the
proceedings.68
The maintenance of dignity, order, and decorum is required even when the judge is not
present in the courtroom. Chaos in the courtroom when the judge is not present creates a
strongly negative impression, and undermines the ability of the judge to control the courtroom
when the judge is present. Order in the courtroom should begin when the doors are opened and
last until the doors are closed. Disorderliness, improper comments or joking, rudeness and
impatience are wholly unacceptable courtroom behavior before the judge enters the courtroom,
while the judge is in the courtroom, and after the judge has left it.69
64
Professionalism Expectation No. 5, (approved by the Board of Governors, The Florida Bar, on January
30, 2015).
65
Sandstrom v. State, 309 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
66
Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar.
67
Professionalism Expectation No. 5.1, (approved by the Board of Governors, The Florida Bar, on January
30, 2015); see also, Creed of Professionalism, THE FLORIDA BAR.
68
See, General Principles and Trial Conduct and Courtroom Decorum, Guidelines for Professional
Conduct, THE FLORIDA BAR, September 8, 2011.
69
1999).
29
30
Chapter 6.
Courtroom Attire
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
Mark Twain70
Basic Clothes Etiquette

All etiquette is meant to help people know what to do to help everyone feel more
comfortable in various situations. It is all about being respectful to others and sensitive to how
ones actions affect others in the particular environment one is in. Proper etiquette applies to
clothing, as an expression of consideration and respect toward others, as well as to conduct. The
basic rule of courtroom attire is that whatever is worn should be appropriate for an indoor formal
business meeting. This is why clothing designed to be worn outside, such as jackets, hats,
sunglasses, sandals, shorts, bathing suits and other recreational attire should not be worn inside
the courtroom.71
Unfortunately, in a society where some value the supposed right of individualism over
respect toward others, the lowest common denominator often prevails because others stay silent
about what is acceptable. With a hyper-inflated sense of entitlement and self-importance, there
are those who do not feel bound to follow a rule they do not agree with unless they are given a
reason that they alone judge to be sufficient cause to comply with the rule. If a given custom or
tradition is something they do not want to follow, these self-centered individuals tend to call it
pretentious or make fun of it. Others are simply ignorant of the rules of courtroom etiquette.
This has led to a near-circus-like atmosphere in some courtrooms where many of those in
attendance look and act as they would on a public street, in a saloon, or at an outdoor sporting
event, to the detriment of our system of justice and the rule of law.
Judges
The 1635 Judges Rules provided that the correctly dressed English judge would have
worn a black robe faced with miniver in winter, and violet or scarlet robes faced with shot-pink
taffeta in summer. A black girdle, or cincture, was worn with all robes. By the mid-eighteenth
century, a less formal version of the robes a scarlet robe, black scarf and scarlet casting hood
was used for criminal trials and for civil trials some judges had begun to wear a black silk gown.
By the 1680s, linen bands appearing as two rectangles of linen began to be worn at the neck in
place of the ruffs associated with Queen Elizabeth I. Wigs were not adopted wholesale for
70
More Maxims of Mark, compiled by Merle Johnson (New York: 1927).
71
See Syndi Seid, The Etiquette of Wearing a Hat, ADVANCED ETIQUETTE, at

http://www.advancedetiquette.com/2010/04/hat-etiquette/.
31
judges until 1685. English Judges wore only full-bottomed wigs until the 1780s, when the less
formal and smaller bob-wig, with frizzed sides rather than curls, and a short tail or queue at the
back, was adopted for civil trials. The full-bottomed wig continued to be used for criminal trials
until the 1840s.72
American judges traditionally wear simple black robes in deference to the notion of
modest republican citizenship that marks a judge as a servant and not a ruler, in contrast to
what many Americans see as the unnecessary pomp of the colorful robes and ornate wigs of the
British judiciary which Thomas Jefferson supposedly said to be monstrous and made English
judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum.73 Florida judges historically wore
business suits on the bench, and it did not become traditional in state court for judges to wear
robes until after World War II. Even then, many state judges chose to wear robes of different
colors and embellishments and some even refused to wear the black robe.74 On September 10,
2015, the Florida Supreme Court settled and formalized the tradition in the states courts with the
adoption on its own motion of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.340, which states
During any judicial proceeding, robes worn by a judge must be solid black with no
embellishments.75
In addition to the robe, judges should wear business attire of the same type and style
expected of attorneys who appear in court. For male judges, this has traditionally meant dress
shoes, dress pants, and collared dress shirt and tie under the robe, the robe taking the place of a
suit jacket, with the robe fastened and not left open. The top button of the shirt should be
fastened and the tie properly knotted and slid up for a snug fit that covers the top button of the
shirt. For female judges, this has traditionally meant comparable business formal attire. Track
shoes, blue jeans, polo shirts, novelty ties, social awareness buttons and embellishments, and the
like are not appropriate judicial attire for the courtroom.
72
History of Court Dress, About the Judiciary, COURTS AND TRIBUNALS JUDICIARY, at
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/history/
73
See Benjamin Harrison, The Constitution and Administration of the United States of America, p. 319-20
(London 1897). See also, Sandra Day OConnor, Sandra Day OConnor on Why Judges Wear Black Robes,
Smithsonian Magazine, November 2013.
74
See, e.g., Broward Judge plans colorful break with tradition, LAKELAND LEDGER, August 22, 1982;
Roger Roy, Judge Makes Plum Choice, Orders Black Robe to Closet, ORLANDO SENTINEL, July 2, 1987; Colleen
Jenkins, Cant robe a judge in one color: Citrus judges branch out from black for good news or their own
appointments, ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, October 21, 2003 (describing judges happy robes); Janet Begley, This
robe of many colors tells some Indian River history, TCPALM, January 12, 2011; also Justice Richard W. Ervin,
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PORTRAIT GALLERY.
75
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial AdministrationNew Rule 2.340, 2015 WL 5254248
(Fla. Sept. 10, 2015).
32
Courthouse Employees
Courthouse employees are expected to dress in a professional, business-like manner and
present a neat and well-groomed appearance whenever they are in a courtroom.
Attorneys
We lawyers should maintain a conservative style of dress, not because we are stubbornly
old-fashioned or prudes, but because the process and institution of justice benefits from a visible
reminder that this is serious business that has deep and lasting consequences on people, their
property and yes, our state and nation. These uniforms we wear, often in shades of blue, black and
gray, remind each of us, our clients and the general public, that we play a role in something
larger than our contract negotiation or lawsuit. Conservative dress puts the emphasis where it
should be, on the proceedings, not the individual. Flashy, sloppy or provocative dress undermines
this.
Travis Pickens76
Attorneys, in particular, are expected to be attired professionally when they are in a

courtroom, judges chambers, or judicial corridor, without regard to whether they are planning to
see a judge, or whether they were not planning to come to court today.77 This expectation is
based upon well-established standards of professional attire that apply to attorneys appearing in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.78 Dressed professionally means business
attire not business casual but something closer to business formal. For a man, this
means a suit or sport coat (one that he is actually wearing), belted dress pants, a collared shirt
(one that actually has the collar buttoned), a conventional tie (one that has a simple,
complimentary pattern that is not morbid79 or comedic or an advertisement for his favorite sports
team, pastime, cartoon characters, or personality, that is actually tied around his neck with the
knot slid all the way up in a customary manner for a snug fit that covers the top button of his
shirt, and hanging low enough for the tip to cover his belt),80 and remaining attire of comparable
business formality. For a woman, the expectation is comparable for example, a suit (skirt or
pants and a jacket, either with a top, shirt, blouse or buttoned jacket), or an appropriately
76
77
Attorneys should require their clients, witnesses and others they bring to court to dress properly as well.
78
E.g., the Guide for Counsel In Cases to be Argued Before the Supreme Court of the United States,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (October Term 2014) provides on page 3 that Appropriate attire for
counsel is conservative business dress in traditional dark colors (e.g., navy blue or charcoal gray).
79
Jeffrey Gettleman, Prosecutors Morbid Neckties Stir Criticism, NEW YORK TIMES, January 5, 2003.
80
A bowtie can have a very professional look, if it is tied properly, is of appropriate size and color, and does
not make the wearer look like a waiter or the master of ceremonies at a telethon.
33
businesslike dress, with or without a jacket. Attorneys should not address the Court while
wearing outerwear, such as parkas or rain boots.81
Appropriate dress and dignified bearing will make a good first impression on the Court
and others present: Before an attorney utters a word, by his or her dress and bearing, he or she
will convey to the Court that he or she considers (or does not consider) that coming into the
courtroom is a serious occasion and that he or she entertains (or does not entertain) respect for
the dignity of the tribunal.82 Professional clothing conveys respect for the forum, for the cause or
client who the attorney represents, and for the rule of law.83 Most courts in the United States, and
a large number of judges and bar associations, have published rules for courtroom decorum and
attire that may be generally summarized as follows:84
1. Male attorneys are expected to wear professional business attire, i.e., dress pants, coat
and tie. The wearing of a coat and necktie in open court has been a long honored tradition. It has
always been considered a contribution to the seriousness and solemnity of the occasion and the
81
See Joseph H. Hinshaw, Court Room Decorum, 37 J. AM. JUD. SOC. 44 (1953-54).
82
See Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, MAKING YOUR CASE: THE ART OF PERSUADING JUDGES (St.
Paul Minn.: Thomson West 2008); Senior Judge Gerald W. Hardcastle, Civility In the Courtroom: A Judges
Perspective, NEVADA LAWYER (December 2009), p. 112.
83
See John Remsen, Jr., Enough Is Enough: Lawyers Should Look Like Lawyers, THE REMSEN GROUP
(2010); John Remsen, Jr., Lawyers Should Look Like Lawyers, Part II, THE REMSEN GROUP (2010); John G.
Browning, Do Clothes Make the Lawyer? TEXAS B.J., November 2014; Brett Snider, Guy Court Attire, STRATEGIST:
THE FINDLAW LAW FIRM BUSINESS BLOG, January 7, 2014; Clifford R. Weckstein, Ad-dress-ing Counsel, VIRGINIA
LAWYER, Vol. 58 (December 2009). See also Lynda K. Hopewell, Appropriate Attire and Conduct for an Attorney
in the Court Room, JOURNAL OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION 12, 187-199 (1987); Thomas R. Trenker, Power of court to
impose standard of personal appearance or attire, 73 A.L.R. 3d 353 (Originally published in 1976); also Purpura v.
Purpura, 115 N.M. 80 (Ct. App. N.M. 1980) (attorneys undoing of his shirt collar and loosening his tie during court
proceedings, then refusing to adhere to courts order to fix his tie because the proceeding was not over, will support
judges finding of direct criminal contempt on the part of attorney); State v. Cherryhomes, 840 P. 2d 1261, 114 N.M.
495 (Ct. App. N.M. 1992) (trial courts interpretation of local rule requiring male attorneys to wear ties while
attending before court, as requiring traditional tie and not including bandana, was reasonable).
84
This general summary was compiled after review of several American and foreign courtroom decorum and
attire policies, listed in the bibliography, as well as many more articles by individual attorneys, law firms and other
organizations, several of which are cited in the main text of this book. Although there are differences in detail and
focus, all of these sources are remarkably consistent with one another as to appropriateness or inappropriateness of
both attire and conduct in the courtroom.
34
proceedings. It is a sign of respect.85 Absent sufficient cause, the wearing of athletic type shoes
or shoes without socks violates this expectation.86
2. Female attorneys are expected wear professional business attire with a degree of
modesty, i.e., dresses, skirts, or pantsuits with appropriate tops and footwear. Attorneys should
dress in a way that shows respect for the court and does not give the wrong impression to a jury,
and have a sense of the fine line between what is fashionable and what is inappropriate.87
Clothing is an important means of communication and a source of information about an
individual, and so attorneys should edit their outfits as carefully as their briefs.88 Female
attorneys also should not wear shoes they do not know how to walk in.89 Absent sufficient cause,
the wearing of athletic type shoes is a violation of this expectation.
3. All attorneys (and all other court officers) should be dressed in a dignified manner at
all times in court. Attire or dress so flamboyant, disheveled or revealing as to create a distraction
to the orderly conduct of court proceedings contravenes this expectation.
An unusual, immodest, and exaggerated mode of dress, including hairstyle, that is a
conspicuous departure from courtroom custom could result in the distraction of others and could
disrupt or impede the maintenance of a proper courtroom atmosphere and decorum does not meet
this expectation.90 Improper attire annoys judges.
85
A courts order requiring appellant to wear a tie in court is a simple requirement bearing a reasonable
relationship to the proper administration of justice in that court. See Sandstrom v. State, 309 So. 2d 17, 22 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1975).
86
See Order Directing Proper Attire Be Worn by Todd A. Glickfield, In re Proper Courtroom Attire, Case
No. 05C01-1408-CB-000005, August 26, 2014. See also Tim Evans, Matthew McConaughey of Indiana Bar needs
to put on socks, law professor says, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, September 4, 2014.
87
See Anayat Durrani, The Verdict On Courtroom Fashion, PLAINTIFF (October 2011), pp. 1-4; Ann
Farmer, Order in the Closet: Why Attire for Women Lawyers Is Still An Issue, PERSPECTIVES (Fall 2010).
88
Susan Scafidi, quoted in See Anayat Durrani, The Verdict On Courtroom Fashion, PLAINTIFF (October
2011), p. 2.
89
Comment by Atty. Robin L. Haynes in Aaron Vehling, 5 Tips to Avoid a Fashion Faux Pas in Court,
LAW360, April 10, 2015, at http://www.law360.com/articles/639265/5-tips-to-avoid-a-fashion-faux-pas-in-court
90
See the dissent of Justice Del Vecchio in Peck v. Stone, 304 N.Y.S.2d 881, 32 A.D.2d 506 (1969), citing
Leonard v. School Committee of Attleboro, 349 Mass. 704, 709-710, 212 N.E.2d 468, 14 A.L.R.3d 1192 (Mass.
1965).
35
Parties, Witnesses, Spectators, Law Enforcement Officers, Jurors, and Others

Despite a trend toward dressing casually in public,91 the common expectation of how
parties,92 witnesses,93 spectators, law enforcement officers, jurors, and other persons (not
including persons in custody), are expected to dress in the courtroom may be generally
summarized as follows:
1. All males should wear trousers, collared shirts, shoes, and socks and present a
business-like appearance. Jeans or other denim clothing that do not meet these requirements
violate this rule. Sandals or flip-flops should not be permitted. No clothing should be worn that
reveals undergarments. Hats or headgear worn as apparel or accessory should remain removed
while the individual remains in the courtroom. Sunglasses should be removed while in the
courtroom and not left resting on the top of the head.
2. All females should wear slacks, dresses, or skirts no more than two inches above the
knee94 and appropriate footwear. Sweaters, jackets, and shirts should have at least quartersleeves and have a business-like appearance. Shirts and blouses should not reveal any
undergarments or bare mid-section. Jeans or other denim clothing that do not meet these
requirements should not be permitted. Headgear of any kind should be removed and remain
removed while the individual remains in the courtroom. However, tasteful formal hats, scarves,
or shawls can be worn unless likely to obstruct the vision of others. Sunglasses should be
removed while in the courtroom and not left resting on the top of the head.
3. Any member of the Armed Services of the United States whose presence within the
courtroom is necessary or desirable should be allowed to wear a uniform approved by that
members command and consonant with the needs of the service. The same applies to law
91
See Deirdre Clemente, Why and When Did Americans Begin to Dress So Casually? TIME, August 5, 2015;
Roberto A. Ferdman, Why Americans dress so casually, WASHINGTON POST, September 8, 2015; Liza Corsillo,
Dressing Casually Has Nothing to Do With Laziness, GQ, September 9, 2015.
92
Note that celebrities who show up in court have reliably good taste: Nearly all who appear as defendants
seem to agree that proper courtroom dress consists of suits with ties for gentlemen, and with knee-length skirts for
ladies, and little jewelry, none of it attached to unusual parts of the body. Judith Martin, Miss Manners: A
conservative verdict for courtroom attire, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 31, 2002.
93
See Merrie Jo Pitera, Ph.D., Courtroom Attire: Ensuring Witness Attire Makes the Right Statement,
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRIAL CONSULTANTS, Vol. 24, July 31, 2012.
94
E.g., the North Las Vegas, Nevada, Municipal Court dress code policy states that casual business attire is
preferred and includes in that category Dresses or skirts no shorter than two inches above the knee.
36
enforcement personnel, firefighters, members of the clergy and others who wear a uniform in a
manner ordinary to him or her and whose presence is necessary.95
All persons entering an active courtroom should adhere to the following guidelines and
prohibitions with regards to appearance and attire:
1. Bare feet, shorts, cut-offs, muscle shirts, sleeveless shirts, halter tops, tank tops,
undershirts, see-through blouses, swimsuits, lingerie, athletic uniforms, helmets, theatrical
costumes, face paint, any arrangement of clothing which reveals undergarments or a bare midsection, and clothing emblazoned with obscene words, images, or messages contemptuous or
disrespectful of the criminal justice process96 should be prohibited. Sunglasses and hats97 should
be removed before entering the courtroom. Shorts should be permitted for juveniles or if part of
a companys dress code.
95
If the person is a witness testifying in a jury trial, the jury should be cautioned that no undue weight should
be given to the testimony of the particular witness by reason of a profession. Ryslik v. Krass, N.J.Super. 293, 298,
652 A. 2d 767 (App. Div. 1995).
96
See, for example, Greg Kocher, Judge Jails Woman for Wearing Short Shorts, LANCASTER HERALDLEADER, August 1, 2008 (defendant ordered to serve three days in jail after judge found her in contempt of court for
inappropriate dress for wearing short shorts in violation of court order); Have the Gavel, Make the Rules, THE
SMOKING GUN, May 5, 2010 (spectator held in contempt for wearing a T-shirt bearing the explicit message I Have
the P----y, So I Make the Rules); Kristin Tillotson, What Not to Wear for Your Day in Court, MINNEAPOLIS STAR
TRIBUNE, March 11, 2011; Laura Italiano, Alternate Juror Booted for Naughty T-Shirt, New York Post, June 24,
2010 (alternate juror removed for wearing T-shirt bearing the explicit message, Who the F--k is Kanye West? on
it); J.L. Miller, Judges crack down on inappropriate clothes in court, USA TODAY, August 17, 2010; Christina
Binkley, Opening Statements: What to Wear to Court, WALL STREET JOURNAL, September 2, 2010.
97
Requiring litigants to remove their hats out of respect for the judicial process is reasonably calculated to
advance the valid interests of maintaining the dignity and integrity of judicial proceedings. Bank v. Katz, et al., 2009
WL 3077147 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), affirmed 424 Fed. Appx. 67 (2nd Circuit 2011) (defense attorney could be directed
not to wear baseball cap and jeans to court, even as a pro se litigant). It formerly was the custom that women should
have their heads covered in court, as in the case of women going to church, whether she had duties in connection
with the proceedings or was present only as a member of the public, but that custom was abandoned at about the time
of World War II. Today the custom is the opposite. In response to one woman attorneys assertion of the right of
women lawyers to wear hats of whatever size and style they choose, free from any control by the court, a California
appellate court observed: A womans hat, when worn indoors, serves no utilitarian purpose and its virtue as a
protection against the elements went out with the sunbonnet. It is purely an article of adornment, worn to attract
attention, to enhance the appearance of the wearer and earn admiration. However, the artistic creation that would
add to the beauty of a garden party would be, in most cases, entirely out of place in a courtroom. Parading a freakish
hat before a jury could only be characterized as pure exhibitionism; and courtroom exhibitionism indulged in by
other men or women lawyers is a type of aberration which merits only disapproval. People v. Rainey, 38 Cal. Rptr.
291, 224 Cal. App. 2d 93 (2d Dist. Cal.).
37
2. Clothing or body parts that are dirty, malodorous, greasy, potentially injurious,
offensive, or which otherwise adversely affect the orderly conduct of business should not be
permitted.98
3. Pickets, signs, or any clothing which attempts to display any message relating to any
pending case or class of cases should be prohibited.
4. All clothing, accessories, or tattoos which display writing, script, or images of a
profane, sexual, blasphemous, offensive, or infamous nature should be concealed.
5. Weapons of any kind other than those in the authorized possession of court security
personnel should be prohibited.99
Persons who are unable to comply with the norms of courtroom decorum and conduct
because of religious reasons, indigence, or some mental or physical impairment100 ought to be
granted an exception to specific requirements upon a satisfactory showing to the presiding judge.
Where, for example, a defendant appears in court wearing a head cover which the defendant
asserts his or her religious beliefs compel him or her to wear, it would be error for the court to
order the defendant to remove his or her head cover without giving the defendant an opportunity
to explain the nature of his or her religious beliefs and the sanctions they imposed on him or her
with regard to the wearing of the head cover. It must be understood, however, that although
freedom of religion is a sacred right protected by the First Amendment, the courts are not to be
put upon by a defendant insinuating into a serious matter, such as court proceedings, some
frivolous custom or farcical gimmick under the guise of a religious practice.101
98
See The Honourable Mr. Justice W. Quinn, A Judges View: Things That Lawyers Do That Annoy Judges;
Things They Do That Impress Judges, Presentation to the Ontario Bar Association at the Family Law Institute in
Toronto, Canada (February 10, 2012) (It is disrespectful to attend court dressed as if you have just rotated the tires
on your automobile.).
99
This rule does not apply to law enforcement witnesses who by statute or local courthouse rule are allowed
or required to remain armed at all times.
100
A Court can excuse a person from having to take off his or her head cover if doing do would likely result
in embarrassment or ridicule, such as where that person has alopecia or scars and deformities of the skull from brain
surgery, but can require the person to wear unobtrusive head cover such as a skull cap.
101
McMillan v. State, 258 Md. 147, 265 A.2d 453 (Ct. App. Md. 1970); see also Tyson v. Damore, 2004
WL 1837033 (E.D. Penn. 2004) (Accepted standards of courtroom etiquette do not necessarily prevail over an
individuals exercise of his religion, if the latter does not impact courtroom security or interfere with courtroom
procedures.).
38
Chapter 7.
Judges
Patience and gravity of hearing, is an essential part of justice; and an overspeaking judge is no
well-tuned cymbal. It is no grace to a judge, first to find that, which he might have heard in due
time from the bar; or to show quickness of conceit, in cutting off evidence or counsel too short; or
to prevent information by questions, though pertinent.102
Competence, fairness, and respect for judicial office are the three major themes of judicial
conduct.103 A judges appearance, demeanor, and statements should always reflect the dignity of
the judicial office and enhance public confidence in the administration of justice.104 A judge
should set the example for all others in the courtroom.105
A judges job is to decipher rambling, irrational, disjointed and incoherent thoughts,
unearth the buried argument, fathom the unfathomable, comprehend the incomprehensible, and
clarify the opaque while being at all times polite, respectful, and attentive and treating all
litigants fairly.106 Judges have to maintain standards of professional and personal conduct which
will maintain public confidence in the courts and ensure judicial impartiality and judicial
independence.107 A judges professionalism and propriety are at the core of what a judge does.108
A judge must require order and decorum in all proceedings over which he or she
presides.109 Order and decorum are maintained through the enforcement of rules of procedure
and requiring observance of the traditions and customs of the court by all in attendance.
102
Francis Bacon, Of Judicature, THE ESSAYS OF COUNSEL CIVIL AND MORAL (1597 AND 1625), transcribed
by Judy Boss (Renascence Editions 1968).
103
For a detailed discussion of these themes, see David Wood, Judicial Ethics, THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE
(July 1996), pp. 10-12.
OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION INCORPORATED

104
See Standard 6-1.4, ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE: SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE
(American Bar Association 3d ed. 2000).
105
Example remains the best teacher and a judge who is moderate, disciplined and courteous in his
intercourse with advocates, litigants and witnesses is fr less likely to be exposed to any immoderate conduct on their
part. Hon. J.O. Wilson, A Book for Judges, CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL 39-40 (Canada 1980).
106
See Gerald Lebovits, Ethical Judicial Writing Part II, 79 N.Y. ST .B.J. 64 (January 2007).
107
Shimon Shetreet, Introduction to Shetreet, ed., THE ROLE OF COURTS IN SOCIETY, (Martinus Nijhoff,
Dordrecht, 1988), p. 3.
108
See Gerald Lebovits, Ethical Judicial Writing Part II, 79 N.Y. ST .B.J. 64 (January 2007), citing Joyce
J. George, JUDICIAL OPINION WRITING HANDBOOK 334 (4th ed. 2000).
109
Canon 3B(3), FLA. CODE OF JUD. CONDUCT.
39
Punctuality
A judge must always be on time for court and, if ever late, must politely apologize to all
who were kept waiting. It is rude and disrespectful toward all in attendance when a judge is
chronically late for court, especially to attorneys who have to be in several courtrooms, and even
multiple courthouses, in a single morning or afternoon. It is arrogant for a judge to demand
punctuality of attorneys and other attendees while failing to practice punctuality on his or her
part. A judges lack of punctuality also lessens respect for the courts and degrades courtroom
decorum.
Preparedness
A judge must always arrive at the bench prepared for the business coming before the
court. This includes reading the timely submissions or the parties and being ready to engage the
attorneys on all relevant issues. It is inconsiderate to have not read a submission before trial or
hearing when the judge had proper time to prepare. It is rude, intellectually dishonest, and
usually quite obvious to counsel, when a judge who has failed to have read a submission pretends
that he or she has read it.
Demeanor
Lord Bacon once observed that Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more
reverend than plausible, and more advised than confident.110
A judge must be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, attorneys,
and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and must require similar conduct of
attorneys, and of staff, court officials, and others subject to the judges direction and control. A
judge must perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge also must require attorneys
in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words, gestures, or other conduct,
bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual
orientation, or socioeconomic status against parties, witnesses, counsel, or others. A judge must
accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that persons attorney, the
right to be heard according to law.111
Judges should at all times use proper and courteous speech when addressing those who
appear in court, and set that as the standard for the attorneys who appear before him or her. As
one author has observed:
110
Francis Bacon, Of Judicature, THE ESSAYS OF COUNSEL CIVIL AND MORAL (1597 AND 1625), transcribed
by Judy Boss (Renascence Editions 1968).
111
Canon 3B(4)-(7), FLA. CODE OF JUD. CONDUCT.
40
Proper and courteous speech benefits the legal system and is a benchmark of respect, security and
a dignified process. Flip, slang and raggedly informal words do not help. The words we use with
each other and in court represents the esteem we hold for not just those immediately present, but
the entire justice system. The words should reflect the respect, dignity and value of the court, and
each other as officers of it.112
It generally is improper for the judge to use I in the courtroom; he or she should instead
refer to the Court. This custom of depersonalization emphasizes that whatever power resides
on the bench belongs to the Court and is not personal to the individual wearing the robe, and that
rulings from the bench must be in accord with the neutral law. This is especially important when
the judge issues a formal finding, ruling, order or opinion. A judge is not permitted to express
personal opinions in court, and the custom of referring to the Court advances this goal.
A judge should not engage in conduct that shows approval, disapproval, impatience,
boredom or any other emotion.113 A robed judge also should maintain the same degree of facial
and bodily serenity required of attorneys, especially during a jury trial, and not engage in eyerolling, eyebrow-dancing, grimacing, head-shaking, finger-rapping, staring at the ceiling or other
displays of disapproval. A judge should not stare at his or her watch or at the courtroom clock
while an attorney is addressing the Court, as it can be construed as an outward sign of
indifference, impatience, or hostility toward the attorney.
A judge should always speak clearly and enunciate, and never raise his or her voice above
the level necessary to be heard by the attorneys, courtroom personnel and, if present, the court
reporter and jury. If people talking or making other noise in the courtroom become a distraction
to the business of the court, the judge properly may directly or with the assistance of court
security personnel order the offender or offenders to be quiet. A judge must never yell or shout
at anyone.
In very rare cases, a judge presiding over a noisy courtroom will strike a gavel to restore
order by getting the attention of those present in the court.114 Use of a gavel to restore order must
be sparing, however, and a judge should never use a gavel to express anger or drown out (gavel
down) a speaker whom the judge deems to be out of order.
112
113
See State v. Larmond, 244 N.W. 2d 233 (Iowa 1976) (a trial court may not telegraph to a jury, by
purposeful exclamations, gestures or facial expressions, his approval or disapproval, belief or disbelief, in the
testimony of witnesses or arguments of counsel).
114
Gavels are prominent in courtroom dramas in America and Britain; the gavel has become a common
symbol of the judiciary throughout the world; and small demonstrative gavels are commonly given as gifts to
American judges. The fact is, however, that the gavel has never been used in the criminal courts of England or
Wales, and very few trial judges in America actually have one with them in court. Regarding England and Wales,
see Traditions of the Courts, at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/court-traditions/
and COURTS AND TRIBUNALS JUDICIARY, at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/.
41
A judge should not abruptly cut off an attorney who is addressing the court, but may
politely interrupt him or her when asking a pertinent question or clarifying a prior ruling, or when
necessary to expedite the proceedings. Sometimes, however, an attorney who in order to
discourage interruptions has perfected the art of catching his or her breath in mid-sentence so that
there is no pause between sentences must be interrupted in mid-sentence if he or she is to be
questioned at all.115
Judges are enjoined from the use of humor at the expense of litigants, attorneys,
witnesses, court officers or anyone else who appears before them. While well-conceived judicial
humor can be a welcome relief during a long, tense trial,116 judicial humor is in general neither
judicial nor humorous. Attempts at judicial humor can offend by exclusion and false notions of
superiority, and can deflect from accountable decision making and judicial responsibility.117 A
judges taking advantage of his or her criticism-insulated and criticism-proof position to display
his or her wit has been likened by one author to hitting a person when he or she is down.118
Judges should not make gratuitous comments at the expense of anyone connected with a
judicial proceeding who is not in a position to reply. Such conduct can intimidate and set the
stage for confrontation that damages respect for the administration of justice. Such improprieties
can have further damaging effects out of proportion with the actual seriousness of the comments
made. A judge is expected always to act in a manner inspiring confidence that even-handed
treatment is afforded to everyone coming into contact with the judicial system.119
A judges holding a litigant, attorney, witness, juror, or other person up to public ridicule
or scorn cannot be said to be an exercise of judicial discretion that is correctable only on appeal,
and a judicial utterance having the effect of holding a person out to public ridicule or scorn
warrants censure.120 When the judge acts in a rude, demeaning or abusive way, the hope for
civility in the courtroom is lost. If, for example, a judge takes aim at an attorney, the judge may
reduce or eliminate any incentive for the other attorneys in the courtroom to treat the victim of
115
Paul Minn.: Thomson West 2008), p. 148.
116
See People v. Melton, 44 Cal.3d 713 (Cal. 1988) (well-conceived judicial humor can be a welcome relief
during a long, tense trial, however, the court should refrain from joking remarks which the jury might interpret as
denigrating a particular party or his attorney).
117
Gerald Lebovits, Judicial Jesting: Judicious? 75 N.Y. ST. B.J. 64 (September 2003).
118
George Rose Smith, A Primer of Opinion Writing, For Four New Judges, 21 ARK. L. REV. 197 (1967-
1968).
119
In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198, 542 P. 2d 676 (Kansas 1975); see In re Shapiro, 845 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2003)
(judges conduct in belittling, embarrassing, and screaming at attorneys who appeared before him and exhibiting a
pattern of rude and intemperate behavior over a long period of time warranted public reprimand).
120
In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198, 542 P. 2d 676 (Kansas 1975).
42
abuse any better. The attorney at the brunt of the judges scorn has scant choice but to take the
abuse in silence, but silence in the face of invective encourages more of the same. A judge so
contemptuous of attorneys that he or she is willing to insult them in public may be showing bias
meriting disqualification. Such conduct also may have a chilling effect on the vigorous advocacy
that lies at the heart of the adversary system, especially in cases where counsel seeks to advance a
novel or innovative position which is supported by a good faith argument for an extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law.121 A bully on the bench, possessing a large ego or poor
judgment, and mistaking judicial independence and discretion for a license to abuse, is more
dangerous to our system of justice than an incompetent attorney.122
Rules for Order In the Courtroom
Judges should, preferably before or at the beginning of a proceeding, prescribe and make
known the ground rules relating to attire and conduct which the attorneys, parties, witnesses, and
others will be expected to follow in the courtroom, and which are not set forth in the rules of
criminal procedure or the published rules of the court.123
Whatever rules are prescribed should be consistent. If attorneys are required to remain at
the lectern for opening statement, they should be required to remain at the lectern for closing
argument, and vice versa. If so required to remain at the lectern for opening statement and
closing argument, the attorneys should be required to do the same during the examination of
witnesses. Conversely, if the Court permits attorneys free rein of the well of the court, free rein
should be allowed for all three activities of counsel. The reason for this rule is that the jury
expects consistency and could be distracted if the Court restricts attorneys to the lectern for one
activity but allows them to roam the courtroom during another activity.124
Written Orders
Judges should avoid using formats foreign to order or opinion writing, such as poetry,
prose, animal references, folksy language, parody, or popular references. Judges who use such
formats send a message that they take lightly their orders or opinions and their role as judges.
121
See Steven Lubet, Bullying From the Bench, 5 GREEN BAG 2D 11 (2001).
122
For a short catalogue of judicial bullying see Douglas R. Richmond, Bullies on the Bench, 72 LA. L. REV.
(2012).
123
124
Most judges see roaming as problematic to maintaining proper decorum, in part because of the
temptation of attorneys to intrude on the jurys personal and collective space, and so have a consistent rule restricting
attorneys to counsel table and the lectern absent special permission secured from the Court in advance of any foray
into the well.
43
Using prose or poetry forecloses the best and clearest language and creates the appearance that
the attempt to be clever had priority over clarity and candor.125
The judge also must avoid pompous writing in his or her order, such as arcane or florid
language, use of the imperial we by a single judge, or expressions of irrelevant erudition.
Humor, although often rationalized as an antidote to pomposity, may be viewed as judicial
arrogance or insensitivity and is a risk that ought not be taken.126 The only possible exception to
the prohibition on judicial humor is where the humor pokes fun at law or society, is in good taste,
does not belittle the litigants, demean the judiciary or make future litigants apprehensive, and is
brief. Judicial humor has no place, in any event, in important orders.127
Scheduling Court Time
A judge also should avoid delays, continuances, and extended recesses, except for good
cause shown. In the matter of punctuality, observance of scheduled court hours, and the use of
working time, the judge should set the example for all others. A judge should, at the same time,
respect the personal and professional demands on the lives of attorneys, litigants, victims,
witnesses, jurors and others and should schedule and utilize court time being sensitive to those
needs.128
Leaving the Bench
A judge always should exit the courtroom gracefully. If pausing for a recess, the judge
should announce the recess and state the duration or the time of return on the courtroom clock. If
adjourning for the day, the judge should announce adjournment. A judge should always
announce if the court session is finished before turning off the audio system, for the sake of a
complete audio record. A judge may briefly pause before leaving and acknowledge those
remaining in the courtroom, as a show of courtesy to those present. It is proper for a judge to call
the court to order with a rap of a gavel before announcing recess or adjournment, which serves as
a signal for all to rise as the judge exits the courtroom. A judge never should leave abruptly
without excuse, storm off the bench, or otherwise show anger, frustration, intemperance, or
displeasure at the proceedings.
125
See Gerald Lebovits, Ethical Judicial Writing Part II, 79 N.Y. ST .B.J. 64 (January 2007) and cases
cited therein.
126
See Judicial Writing Manual: A Pocket Guide for Judges, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER (2d ed. 2013), p.
22.
127
See Gerald Lebovits, Judicial Jesting: Judicious? 75 N.Y. ST. B.J. 64 (September 2003).
128
44
Conduct Toward Other Judges

A judges duties to other judges includes being courteous, respectful, and civil at all
times. In all written and oral communications, a judge should abstain from disparaging personal
remarks or criticisms, or sarcastic or demeaning comments about another judge.129 A judge
should endeavor to work with other judges in an effort to foster a spirit of cooperation in the
mutual goal of enhancing the administration of justice.130
129
See In re Allen, 998 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2008) (judges personal attack against fellow appellate judge
violated professional rules).
130
See U.S. v. Lopez, 799 F. Supp. 922 (C.D. Ill. 1992), quoting from Final Report of the Committee on
Civility, 7TH FED. JUD. CIRCUIT (June 1992), at 7A.
45
46
Chapter 8.
Attorneys at Law
The words attorney and lawyer although used interchangeably in popular American
culture, have different meanings. In the American tradition, a lawyer is a person who has
graduated from law school but is not licensed to practice law. An attorney at law is a lawyer
who has graduated from law school and is licensed by the state to practice law in the licensing
state. The American practice is also to use lawyer as a profession, and attorney to designate
the status of a person in the legal profession representing another person in a legal proceeding.
The word attorney derives from the Old French atorn which translates to one
appointed to represent anothers interest. An attorney at law is, therefore, an attorney who is
appointed to represent the interests of another in a court of law. An attorney in fact is, by
comparison, an individual who by virtue of the execution of a sworn affidavit of a person giving
the individual power of attorney is lawfully authorized to perform business-related transactions
as an agent acting on behalf of that person. An attorney in fact can be a lawyer or an attorney at
law, but an attorney in fact who is not licensed to practice law may not practice law solely by
virtue of a power of attorney. In common practice in America, the term attorney at law is
normally abbreviated to attorney in speech and correspondence. In regular usage the term
attorney or attorney at law is more formal than lawyer, and is a more polite and
professional term to use in speech and correspondence.131
An attorney at law belongs to a profession with inherited standards of propriety and
honor, which experience has shown necessary in a calling dedicated to the accomplishment of
justice. He or she who would follow that calling must conform to those standards.132 An
attorneys behavior in the courtroom speaks volumes about his or her professionalism or lack
thereof.133
131
See, e.g., Julie Q. Brush, Is it better to use the term lawyer or attorney on a LinkedIn profile and
other social media to maximize searchability? Do employers make a distinction? THE LAWYER WHISPERER, April 7,
2015.
132
In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 79 S. Ct. 1376, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1473 (1959) (Stewart, J., concurring in the
result).
133
For guidance on professional advocacy see, e.g., Guidelines for Effective and Professional Advocacy,
SAN DIEGO BAR ASSOCIATION; Judge Adrienne Nelson, What Lawyers Should And Should Not Do In the Courtroom,
21 PROF. LAW. 2 (2011), at 23; Judge John P. Erlick, Professionalism in the Courtroom, WASHINGTON STATE BAR
NEWS (August 2008); Judge Michael D. Lyon, Practices of Successful Lawyers Appreciated by Trial Judges, 16
UTAH B.J. 28 (April 2003); Judge William R. Sawyer, Top 10 Things Never to Say to a Judge (And Three Things
You Should Always Do), 72 ALA. LAW. 476.
47
Preserving the Right to Fair Trial

An attorney should conduct himself or herself so as to preserve the right to a fair trial,
which underlies and conditions all other legal rights. In administering justice, attorneys should
assist the courts in discovering where the truth lies between conflicting versions of the facts, and
applying to the facts as found the relevant legal principles. These tasks require the maintenance
of order in the courtroom and the avoidance of disruption in order for reason to prevail and for
the protection of constitutional rights to liberty, freedom, and equality under the law. Every
attorney must recognize that the dignity, decorum, and courtesy that have traditionally
characterized the courts of civilized nations are not empty formalities, but are essential to an
atmosphere in which justice can be done.134
Behavior Toward Others
An attorney should abstain from rude, disruptive, and disrespectful behavior. The
attorney should encourage clients and support personnel to do the same.135 An attorney should be
civil and courteous in all situations, both professional and personal, and avoid conduct that is
degrading to the legal profession.136 An attorney must avoid disparaging personal remarks or
acrimony toward opposing parties, opposing counsel, third parties or the Court.137 An attorney
must not criticize or denigrate opposing parties, witnesses, or the court to clients, media, or
members of the public.138 An attorneys communications in connection with the practice of law,
including communications on social media, must not disparage anothers character or
competence or be used to inappropriately influence or contact others.139
Counsel should not use swear words in addressing the Court or jury. They may of course
refer to swear words that are part of the evidence, but at risk if done without prior Court
approval, and in no event should counsel use swear words as tools of advocacy. If using slang,
counsel should do so with caution and for a particular purpose, bearing in mind always the need
to show respect for the court process. In general, counsel should not use slang or swear words
unless it is a direct quote from the evidence and necessary for counsels submission.
134
See Code of Trial Conduct, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS (2005), pp. 32-33.
135
Professional Expectations 5.1, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015; see also The Florida Bars Ideals
and Goals of Professionalism, Creed of Professionalism, and Guidelines for Professional Conduct.
136
Professional Expectations 5.2, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015; see R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-4.3.
137
Professional Expectations 2.3, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015; see R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d).
138
Professional Expectations 4.20, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015; see R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.2(a)
and 4-8.4(d).
139
Professional Expectations 2.5, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015; see R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d).
48
An important part of attorney professionalism is ensuring that concern for a clients

desired result does not subvert the attorneys fairness, honesty, civility, respect, and courtesy
during interactions with fellow professionals, clients, opponents, public officials, members of the
judiciary, or the public.140 An attorney should not permit a clients ill will toward an adversary,
witness, or tribunal to become that of the attorney.141
Preparedness
Preparedness for the court appearance is of the highest importance.142 Preparedness is
also proper etiquette in motion.143 In addition to knowledge of the particulars of the matter for
which the attorney is appearing, it also is a necessity that the attorney have appropriate
knowledge of the rules of court procedure and the customs and practices of the particular court he
or she is appearing before.144 Preparation extends to attire, and counsel is expected to dress
appropriately and to inform the parties and any prospective witness that appropriate dress is
required. Lack of preparedness is disrespectful of the Court and opposing counsel.
Being unprepared slows the justice process, wastes time, and is one of the surest ways to
annoy the presiding judge.145 Chronic unpreparedness can severely damage an attorneys
reputation among the legal community and, if the attorney is in private practice, hurt the
attorneys business.
Written Submissions to the Court
The two ways to make ones case before the court are oral submissions and written
submissions. A submission summarizes the relevant facts, states the applicable law, and
articulates a proposed analysis between the two.146 Copies of any submissions to the court
140
Professional Expectations Preamble 4, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.
141
Professional Expectations 7.4, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015; see Resolution 2, David C.
Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional Deportment, A COURSE OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO
STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY, Vol. II (Baltimore: Joseph Neal 1836) (I will espouse no mans cause
out of envy, hatred, or malice toward his antagonist.).
142
A lawyer should be fully prepared when appearing in court or at hearings. Professional Expectations
4.13, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.
143
See Leonard I. Frieling, Courtroom Etiquette: How to Set Yourself Apart, COLO. LAW. (December 1998),
at 77.
144
A lawyer should be familiar with the courts administrative orders, local rules, and the judges published
standing orders, practices, and procedures. Professional Expectations 4.1, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.
145
See, e.g., Richard B. Klein, A Dozen Ways to Anger a Judge, LITIGATION (Winter 1987), at 5.
146
See Lloyd Duhaime, Written Submissions The Art of It, DUHAIME.ORG, September 28, 2013.
49
(correspondence, memoranda of law, case law, and so forth) should be provided simultaneously
to opposing counsel by substantially the same method of delivery by which they are provided to
the court. For example, if a memorandum of law is hand-delivered to the court, a copy should be
hand-delivered or faxed to opposing counsel at the same time. If asked by the court to prepare an
order, counsel should furnish a copy of the order, and any transmitted letter, to opposing counsel
when the material is submitted to the court. Sending an additional copy by electronic mail also is
encouraged, if possible.147
Papers, including memoranda of law, should not be served at court appearances unless the
proponent agrees to give opposing counsel reasonable time following the court appearance in
which to respond to the papers. If papers, including memoranda of law, are served before a court
appearance, those papers should not be served so close in time to the court appearance as to
inhibit the ability of opposing counsel to prepare for that appearance or to respond to the
papers.148
Neither written nor oral submissions should disparage the intelligence, ethics, morals,
integrity, or personal behavior of ones adversary, unless those characteristics or actions are
directly and necessarily in issue.149
Unless specifically permitted or invited by the Court, letters and electronic mail between
counsel should not be sent to judges.150
Entering the Courtroom
When entering the courtroom, all attorneys (and other persons) are expected to do so as
noiselessly as possible, and then to sit in the body of the courtroom in a manner which minimizes
disruption. This means making sure that doors are opened quietly and are not allowed to slam
shut afterward, not being engaged in conversation with other persons, not wearing or carrying
objects that make unnecessary amounts of noise, and refraining from making any noise that could
disturb the proceedings.
Reporting to the Court
A large part of proper preparedness is strict punctuality. It is important to procedural
orderliness that all attorneys appearing for a matter arrive on time and are seated before the
147
Guidelines for Professional Conduct D1, THE FLORIDA BAR, September 8, 2011.
148
149
150
Guidelines for Professional Conduct E3, THE FLORIDA BAR, September 8, 2011.
50
commencement of the calendar for which they will be appearing.151 Just as judges should always
take the bench on time, attorneys should get to the courthouse early enough to find a parking
space (if he or she is driving or being driven there), to get through courthouse security screening,
and to be seated in the correct courtroom before court starts. The attorney also should walk into
the courtroom with everything he or she needs for the proceeding he or she is appearing for.
While it can be difficult, efforts should be made by the attorneys to not keep the presiding
judge and others waiting while occupied in other courts for other matters. Where this cannot be
avoided, it is important that the attorneys who will be late to ensure that court staff (such as court
deputies, clerks, or judicial assistant) are aware of their whereabouts. Where a Court has been
waiting for an appearance, it is important for the tardy attorney to apologize to the Court for the
delay and provide the reason for the delay at the outset. Unexcused lateness annoys the judge,
adversary counsel, and anyone else forced to wait for a tardy attorney to show up.
Some courtrooms use a sign-up sheet for attorneys. The sign up sheet is normally a form
with places for the attorney to write in his or her name, the name of his or her client, and the
name of the court calendar152 and page number of that calendar where the judge can find the case.
The sign-up sheet usually is located on or near the lectern, and is taken to the presiding judge by
a courtroom deputy or bailiff as soon as the judge takes a seat on the bench. Attorneys appearing
before the Court should fill out the form completely, and not make the judge waste valuable time
finding out who the attorney is, why the attorney is appearing before the court, or where the
attorneys case appears in the multitude of calendars the judge may be dealing with at that
moment. Failure to completely fill out the sign-in sheet indicates laziness and lack of respect for
the court, and costs everyone appearing afterwards the additional and otherwise unnecessary time
the Court has to spend figuring out these matters.
While Waiting to Appear
While the Court is sitting, counsel are expected to show respect for the Court process at
all times, but sometimes waiting for a court appearance can be frustrating for counsel because of
the order in which cases are called. It is important to remain patient and courteous when waiting
for a matter to be called on.
Attorneys should not talk on the telephone, play games or read newspapers while
waiting.153 While the Court is in progress, counsel should not without permission, discuss with
151
See, e.g., Judge Victoria Gerrard Chaney, Pet Peeves from the Bench, 8 LOS ANGELES LAWYER (Fall
2005), p. 55, found at https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtetq2.pdf; Richard B. Klein, A Dozen Ways to
Anger a Judge, LITIGATION (Winter 1987), at 5.
152
E.g., Trials, Pretrials, Motions, Arraignments, Add-On, etc.
153
51
other counsel matters not connected with business before the court. Cameras, computers, tablets,
and communications and/or other electronic devices (such as pagers, cellular telephones, PDAs,
and recording devices) should be turned off and secured while in the courtroom, unless the Court
has given prior approval for the use of such devices. If the attorney desires to carry out an
electronic search or exchange for the purposes of a trial or other matter he or she is appearing
before the Court on, the Court should be advised of this. Attorneys appearing before the Court
on official business are normally exempt from the requirement of prior approval for electronic
devices used for purposes of scheduling trials, motions, and other appearances before the Court.
Computers belonging to the prosecutor and the public defender that are kept in the courtroom for
their official business normally are exempt from this requirement as a matter of course.
The people in the courtroom must be silent and still when the court is being opened or
closed, when a person is taking an oath or affirmation, when a defendant is being sentenced,
when a judgment is being delivered, or when a defendant is being arraigned. It is considered
inappropriate for attorneys to talk loudly inside the courtroom (and outside the courtroom where
they can be heard by those inside) while awaiting their turn, or to move around the courtroom in
a disruptive manner.
Attorneys should always respect public property and avoid damaging or defacing it by
spilling liquids on carpets, sitting on counsel tables, propping feet on the furniture, using file
carts as rams to push open doors and swing the gate between the gallery and counsel tables, and
the like. Water bottles,154 soft drinks, coffee, tea, or food, should not be brought into the
courtroom. Attorneys should not use chewing gum, breath mints, cough drops, toothpicks, or
tobacco products or the like inside the courtroom.155
In the Bar Seating Area and at the Counsel Table
When seated at counsel table for hearing or trial, the senior or primary counsel for each
side should sit in the seat at their respective counsel tables that is closest to the lectern. When
seating is too limited to accommodate all in the bar seating area, attorneys will customarily offer
their seats to senior attorneys or to attorneys who are physically infirm. It formerly was the
predominant custom in such circumstances for male attorneys to offer their seats to female
attorneys. It also is customary among attorneys waiting in the bar seating area to give preference
in addressing the Court to senior counsel, and then to counsel whose business will take the least
154
In some courtrooms in the past, counsel tables were equipped with a water pitcher and drinking glasses.
Due to modern security concerns that such items could be used as weapons, few courtrooms have such features. In
those situations, it is appropriate for counsel to ask the Court for permission to bring in clear plastic water bottles if
that issue is not addressed in published courtroom procedures.
155
It is particularly disrespectful of the Court and disgusting to the judge and others present to be forced to
watch anyone, including an attorney, chewing or sucking on something while the Court is conducting business. See
Judge Victoria Gerrard Chaney, Pet Peeves from the Bench, 8 LOS ANGELES LAWYER (Fall 2005), p. 55, found at
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtetq2.pdf
52
time, notwithstanding the order of appearance on the Courts sign-up sheet. With the exception
of the parties to a hearing or trial, it is improper for an attorney to invite non-attorneys to sit at
counsel table without first asking permission of the Court.156
Collegiality among attorneys is essential to the smooth functioning of the court system.
When counsel meet for the first time, it is customary that they pleasantly greet one another, shake
hands, and exchange business cards. Each should endeavor to remember the name, and the
proper pronunciation of the name, of the other so that at any subsequent meetings they can
properly greet one another by name. It is impolite to mispronounce another attorneys name after
having met that attorney previously, and such mistakes can inhibit effective communication. It is
rude to deliberately mispronounce another attorneys name, especially in open court.
When to Stand
Everyone in court should stand and be silent when the judge enters the courtroom, and
acknowledge the judges presence; the judge, in turn, may acknowledge those present in the
courtroom upon entry. Counsel also should stand when addressing, or being addressed by, the
judge. Counsel should stand if he or she wishes to address a witness or to object.157 The custom
of standing to speak is a traditional sign of respect to the Court, but it also has the practical effect
of signaling everyone else in the courtroom to be still and it allows the speakers voice to be
more audible. If counsel is not speaking to the judge or being spoken to, counsel should sit
down. No more than one counsel should be standing at any time. Counsel should remain seated
after an adjournment158 until invited by the judge to address or resume. Everyone in the
courtroom also should stand when the judge leaves the courtroom.
Attorneys must always stand up straight and look the judge in the eye when addressing
him or her. It is impolite and distracting for an attorney to lean against, sit on, or drape himself
or herself over, the bar rail, counsel table, lectern, jury rail, or the judges bench.159 Not rising,
only partially rising, or doing a quick up-and-down when the judge enters the courtroom or
leaves it, or not standing when addressing the court or being addressed by the court is rude,
disrespectful, and annoying to judges.
156
See The Honourable Mr. Justice W. Quinn, A Judges View: Things That Lawyers Do That Annoy
Judges; Things They Do That Impress Judges, Presentation to the Ontario Bar Association at the Family Law
Institute in Toronto, Canada (February 10, 2012).
157
[T]he court should not be addressed nor a witness asked a single question while you are seated. Failure
to onberve this rule is a cardinal sin. Hon. S. Tupper Bigelow, Legal Etiquette and Court Room Decorum 68
(Toronto: Carswell 1955).
158
Adjournment is the putting off, deferment, or postponement of an action (such as a hearing) of a

convened court until later the same day, to another date, or indefinitely. See BLACKS L. DICT. 62 (4th ed. 1974).
159
53
Where to Speak From

It is important to always speak from the area specifically designated for bar seating,
counsel table, or the lectern and not from elsewhere in the body of the courtroom. This is
especially important in consideration of the positioning of the microphones in the courtroom
used in the making of a record of the proceedings.
Some courtrooms have counsel tables arranged so that the attorney stands to the side of
the table while addressing the Court. It generally is inappropriate for the Court to require
attorneys to make submissions to the court from the side of counsel table where the attorney must
rely on notes or other documents in addressing the Court. This is because such a procedure
makes attorneys look and feel awkward and uncomfortable, and makes it difficult for the attorney
to consult his or her notes or other documents without leaning over the table or slouching.
Most courtrooms have a lectern that an attorney may stand behind and place his or her
notes or other documents on while addressing the Court. An attorney should be aware of the
appropriateand inappropriateuses of the lectern. It should not be leaned on or against,
forcefully clenched with the hands, or pushed around. Attorneys should not drape their
documents over it, or drum their fingers on it.160 A lectern normally is large enough for the
placement of written notes, index cards, or a small laptop (notebook) computer on its shelf. It
can be very challenging for an attorney to hold and view full-size laptops, books, or oversize ring
binders, due to the limited size and sloping surface of the lecterns shelf.
How to Speak
Trial courts are courts of record and so upon reaching the lectern, or when speaking from
counsel table, when his or her case is called the attorney should begin his or her submission with
the customary respectful opening of May it please the Court. This should be followed by a
statement of the attorneys name, spelling the name if it is one that could cause difficulty for a
court reporter, and if senior or primary counsel the name of junior or secondary counsel, with
spelling of the name or names, followed by the style of the case for which the attorney is
appearing, including the names of the parties and the complete case number, spelling out the
name of any party if there is a chance of spelling error on the record. All of this should be
accomplished before the attorney begins to talk about the cse, to ensure accuracy in the record,
whether or not the case appears on the Courts calendar or is an off-calendar matter. If witnesses,
including parties, are introduced during the submission or presentation, the attorney should
properly introduce them and each witness should be required to completely state and spell out his
or her name, for accuracy of the record. At all times, the attorney and any witnesses he or she
presents should speak into the microphone provided at the lectern, counsel table, or witness
160
There also are hygienic reasons for not touching the lectern any more than is necessary, as it often
becomes the most germ-laden piece of furniture in the courtroom as a result of all the people who touch it in the
normal course of business.
54
stand, to ensure audibility of all statements made. If the same case is readdressed in the same
session, the attorney should again state his or her name and the style of the case, to ensure
continuity of the record. If the same attorney has multiple cases to address in the same session,
the same procedure should be followed for each case.
Counsel should always speak clearly and slowly, and enunciate. Counsel should not raise
their voice any higher than is necessary to be clearly heard by the judge, court reporter, witnesses,
and the jury. An attorney should never speak when someone else is speaking (especially the
judge). It also is very important for counsel to use correct and proper terms when speaking in
court, as when addressing the Court or other persons, for the sake of good manners, a clear
record, and counsels credibility.161 Most importantly, attorneys should display graciousness,
especially in defeat, and respond with As Your Honor pleases, or May it please Your Honor.
Proper Forms of Address
The art of effective speaking in a courtroom, and a fair start to good fortune in any walk
of life, begins with making others pleased with themselves by good address. Good address can
be summed up as a pleasant smile, an agreeable manner, and showing proper respect when
speaking to other persons.162 Even the most cautious and discriminating minds, the wisest
judges, and the most dispassionate juries are not exempt from its influence. An attorneys
fortune is frequently decided by his or her first address. Good address is respectful without
meanness, easy without too much familiarity, genteel without affection, and insinuating without
any seeming art or design.163
Attorneys should introduce themselves by their surname, but should not refer to
themselves as Mister, Ms., Miss, Mrs., when addressing the Court. Counsel should use
the indirect form of speech when addressing the Court and other counsel. For example, an
attorney might say, If Your Honor pleases164 [surname] for the defendant who is [or is not]
161
Using the wrong term displays an ignorance of legal practice, which makes you less credible. See
Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, MAKING YOUR CASE: THE ART OF PERSUADING JUDGES (St. Paul Minn.:
Thomson West 2008), p. 181.
162
J.C. Stubbs, The Publics Good Will, 46 LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS MONTHLY JOURNAL (January 1912),
at 977 (It has come to pass that a pleasant smile, agreeable manner, the things that are summed up in the term good
address afford a fair start to fortune in any walk of life.).
163
See Philip Dorner Stanhope, Lord Chesterfields Advice to his Son on Men and Manners, (London:
William Tegg 1861), pp. 44-45; see also David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional
Deportment, A COURSE OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY, Vol. II
(Baltimore: Joseph Neal 1836).
164
If Your Honor pleases is courtroom shorthand for If it pleases you to hear this, I want to tell you the
following. It is quaint, appreciated by the judge, and part of the greater traditional expectation of politeness judges
have of attorneys.
55
present, Does Your Honor wish me to proceed? or Does counsel for the
[State/Plaintiff/Defendant] agree? When addressing the Court, Your Honor is the appropriate
way to address men and women of the judiciary.165 Judge (or Justice) alone without stating
the his or her name is a slightly inferior substitute; Sir or Maam is much inferior, and many
judges find it too familiar and demeaning.166 Many female members of the judiciary see this
form of address of Maam as offensive.167 Judge is never an appropriate form of address for
a robed judge, and is considered to be pejorative.
When attorneys are introducing others, adult men are normally addressed as Mr., and
women are normally addressed in court as Ms. Women should introduce themselves as Miss
or Mrs. if preferred. Children under the age of 14 years normally may be introduced by their
first and last names. Persons with professional titles such as Dr., Sergeant, or
Ambassador, should be introduced by his or her title and surname.
Note that Florida uses appointed general and special magistrates, formerly known as
masters, to assist the circuit court in various types of proceedings, including juvenile
proceedings. These magistrates are judicial officers who have powers and authority similar to
that of judges, but are not considered judges, unlike in the federal system where the proper title
of a magistrate is Magistrate Judge. The proper in-court form of address for a sitting Florida
magistrate is Your Honor, although Magistrate may be acceptable in responsive
conversation. It is improper to address a magistrate as Judge and impolite to use familiar terms
such as Mr., Mrs., or Ms.
Counsel should observe a formal standard of language and courtesy when addressing each
other, including referring to adversary counsel as my friend. If it is necessary to refer to an
adversary counsel by name, counsel should use Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms. First names
should not be used. If the other party is acting as a litigant in person (pro se), he or she should be
referred to as the defendant or Dr./Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms./etc. [surname]. First names should
not be used.
Former and retired judges appearing in court as practicing attorneys should be addressed
in the same manner as any other practitioner, and should not be addressed as Judge or Your
165
See Catherine Thrse Clarke, Missed Manners in Courtroom Decorum, 50 MD. L. REV. 945 (1991), pp.
994-95; The Honourable Mr. Justice W. Quinn, A Judges View: Things That Lawyers Do That Annoy Judges;
Things They Do That Impress Judges, Presentation to the Ontario Bar Association at the Family Law Institute in
Toronto, Canada (February 10, 2012).
166
Paul Minn.: Thomson West 2008), p. 180; Senior Judge Gerald W. Hardcastle, Civility In the Courtroom: A Judges
Perspective, NEVADA LAWYER (December 2009), p. 9.
167
Some female members of the judiciary (and other professions) are offended when addressed as Maam
because they feel it is a way of calling them old, or because it is a form of address that is less respectful than Your
Honor, or both.
56
Honor by the Court or by fellow counsel. Referring to a former or retired judge by such an
honorific during a proceeding creates the appearance of impropriety or favoritism, especially for
lay persons who may feel disadvantaged if their attorney is not also a retired judge.168
An attorney should refer to all parties, witnesses, and other counsel by their last names
during legal proceedings.169 The use of first names should be avoided. Counsel should not
exhibit familiarity with the parties, witnesses, jurors, adversary counsel, or the court.
When addressing the Court in the first instance, the attorney should begin with May it
please the Court, and not If the Court pleases.170 Under no circumstances should an attorneys
opening address to the Court be Good morning, How are you doing, judge? or any other
familiar salutation. If, however, the judge addresses the attorney by saying Good morning, it is
appropriate for an attorney to begin an address or submission to the Court by responding in
kind.171
Interaction with Courtroom Staff
It is important that attorneys are courteous to the Court and to courtroom staff, which
includes clerks, courtroom deputies, interpreters, representatives of the Department of
Corrections, and all other personnel who contribute directly to the smooth functioning of the
court.172 Every staff member at court has a job to do and it is important that each attorney is
respectful to all members of the Court as a matter of professional courtesy.
Court clerks perform a critical function in the courtroom and are entitled to the same
respect as any other professional. It is improper while the Court is in session for an attorney to
interrupt or distract the clerk from his or her duties, as by having loud conversation near the
clerks station, asking the clerk to look up case information, or engaging the clerk in a personal
conversation unrelated to Court business. It also is annoying to clerks when attorneys do not
speak into the microphone at the lectern or at counsel table (making it difficult if not impossible
for the clerk to hear what the attorney is saying), or when attorneys start addressing the Court
168
See A Presiding Judge Should Not Address a Retired Judge, Who is Appearing in Court as a Practicing
Attorney, as Judge or Your Honor, NY Jud. Adv. Op. 90-60 (N.Y.Adv.Comm.Jud.Eth.), 1990 WL 678726.
169
Professional Expectations 5.4, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.
170
Joseph H. Hinshaw, Court Room Decorum, 37 J. AM. JUD. SOC. 44 (1953-54).
171
See Robert W. Thompson, Q.C., Barristers Etiquette and Ethical Duties, 13 ARCTIC OBITER (May 2009),
p. 14.
172
See David C. Hoffman, Resolution 6, David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional
Deportment, A COURSE OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY, Vol. II
(Baltimore: Joseph Neal 1836) (To the various officers of the court I will be studiously respectful, and specially
regardful of their rights and privileges.).
57
without completely addressing who they are, who they are representing, reciting the case number
or numbers, or citing the complete number of the statute or statutes at issue (as when the
defendant is appearing for a change of plea to a lesser-included offense).
Bailiffs or deputies provide security and ensure order in the courtroom. They are entitled
to full respect and cooperation as they perform their duties. It is highly improper to distract them
from their lawful duties or to in any fashion interfere. It is, for example, inappropriate for an
attorney to attempt to order a bailiff or deputy to do anything, or to treat them as a personal
servant or errand-runner. It is rude to a bailiff or deputy, and annoying to the judge, for an
attorney to ask the bailiff or deputy to bring the attorney some water, or to hand a document to
the bench for the attorney. It is improper and inconsiderate for an attorney to step between a
bailiff or deputy and an in-custody defendant the bailiff or deputy is guarding, or to do anything
that might adversely affect courtroom security.
Interaction With Other Counsel
An attorney must always be courteous in all interactions with other attorneys, not be
intimidated by the passion of counsel, and not take advantage of counsels ignorance or folly. As
David C. Hoffman said nearly two centuries ago, an attorney should always deal with all fellow
counsel as honorable men and women before the Court. An act of unequivocal meanness or
dishonesty, although it will wholly sever any personal relationship between the attorney and the
offender, should result in no change in deportment in any professional connection, and the
clients rights, and not the offended attorneys own feelings, are alone to be consulted.173
A senior attorney should never be inconsiderate, rude or arrogant when interacting with a
junior attorney, lest the vital spark of early ambition in the junior attorney be wholly extinguished
and his or her hopes be forever ruined.174 A senior attorney should always be kind and
encouraging of junior attorneys, and never too proud to recognize distinctly that, on occasions it
is quite probable that their knowledge of the law may be more accurate than his or her own, and
that they, with their limited reading and experience, may actually see a matter more soundly than
he or she with his or her much reading and long experience.175 An attorney should not hold
grudges against other attorneys who impeded him or her in the past, but should instead practice
173

LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY, Vol. II (Baltimore: Joseph Neal 1836).
174
Resolution 17, David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional Deportment, A COURSE
Vol. II (Baltimore: Joseph Neal
OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY,
1836).
175
1836).
58
forgiveness. At the same time, the attorney should remain always grateful to those who aided
him or her when young.176
An attorney must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.177
An attorney should, however, accede to reasonable requests for waivers of procedural formalities
at trial or hearing when the clients legitimate interests are not affected adversely.178 This means
that the clients interests come first, but an attorney should not force the other side in a dispute to
undertake wasteful, time-consuming procedural formalities by refusing to agree to the other
sides request to waive them when the clients interests would not be harmed by dispensing with
such formalities.179
Counsel always should be civil and courteous in communicating with an adversary,
whether in writing or orally.180 Letters or electronic mail should not be written to ascribe to one's
adversary a position that the adversary has not taken or to create a record of events that have
not occurred.181
An attorney should not enter into any conversation with an opponents client relative to
his or her claim or defense except with and in the presence of his or her counsel.182 Should that
person be unrepresented by counsel and the clients interest demand that the attorney should still
communicate with him or her, it should be done in writing and the attorney should not accept a
verbal response from the person. If that person is unable to communicate in writing, the attorney
should either delay the matter until the person employs counsel, or take down in writing his or
her reply in the presence of others, so that if occasion should make it essential for the attorney to
176
1836).
177
Rule 4-1.3, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
178
Guidelines for Professional Conduct L11, THE FLORIDA BAR, September 8, 2011; Professional
Expectations 4.5, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.
179
The lawyer, and not the client, has the sole discretion to determine the accommodations to be granted
opposing counsel in all matters not directly affecting the merits of the cause or prejudicing the clients rights, such as
extensions of time, continuances, adjournments, and admission of facts. Consequently, the lawyer need not accede
to a clients demand that the lawyer act in a discourteous or uncooperative manner toward opposing counsel. Code
of Trial Conduct, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS (2005), p. 26.
180
181
182
1836).
59
avail himself or herself of the persons answer it may be done through the testimony of others
and not by the attorney. Such cases should be regarded as the result of unavoidable necessity,
and are to be resorted to only to guard against great risk, the artifices of fraud, or with the hope of
obviating litigation.183
When at hearing or trial, attorneys should never argue directly with or interrupt each
other, but should address all remarks to the Court. Counsel should never act or speak
disrespectfully to adversary counsel in any manner. Counsel should not approach the table of
adversary counsel without adversary counsels or the Courts permission. During trial, colloquy
between counsel is permitted only to expedite the trial and should always be avoided in the
presence of the jury.
Interaction With the Judge
When appearing before the Court, an attorney (and the judge) should seek to establish a
relationship of respectful intellectual equality in which the attorney strives to be so helpful to
the Court as to be a colleague of sorts, albeit a junior one.184 This is not the same thing as the
relationship of teacher to student, nor of supplicant to benefactor. Rather than seeking to get a
favor out of the Court, the attorney should work to assist the Court in understanding what justice
demands, on the basis of the attorneys knowledge of the facts and the law.185
An attorney must always be respectful to all judges when in court, especially during
trial.186 An attorney must always respect the judicial office, even if the attorney does not
particularly respect the person underneath the judicial robe. As David C. Hoffman once
observed:
Judges represent the sovereign law, and whatever may be the character and deportment of the
individual should be lost in the greatness of the office.187
183
1836).
184
185
186
Annotated Code of Trial Conduct, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS, October 2005, paragraph
17(b).
187

60
The only proper address for a robed judge is Your Honor. It is improper, and it can be
quite annoying, for an attorney to address the judge as Judge, Sir, or Maam rather than
Your Honor. An attorney should always request permission from the Court before
approaching the bench or witness stand, or before submitting any document to the Court.188 An
attorney should never lean on, or reach across, the judges bench during sidebars. The judge will
try not to tolerate personalities, and the attorney should aid this effort to be abstract and
impersonal by addressing the Court in the third person, such as The Court will remember the
testimony of ... and not You will remember ... A robed judge should never be addressed as
You.189 The Courts attention may be invited, but never directed.190
In court, an attorney never should say, I think . . . or In my opinion . . . It is better
when presenting arguments to use phrases such as, I submit . . ., It is my submission that . . .,
or I suggest . . . Whether agreeing or disagreeing with the judge, it always should be With
respect . . . or Respectfully . . .191
The attorney should avoid saying things to the Court that may appear insincere,
disrespectful, or misleading, such as:192
C
Prefacing an oral submission with Ill be brief before giving a long-winded

soliloquy. Such conduct is suggestive that the attorney is engaging in pro forma
civility and does not respect the Courts time, and it could cause the attorney to
lose credibility in front of a jury.193
Responding to a question from the bench during a hearing on the attorneys
motion saying either Its in the motion, or Ill get to that later. The signal this
sends is that the attorney does not think the judge to be respectable enough to
merit an answer from the attorney.
Responding to a question from the bench during a hearing with Its
complicated. With such a response the attorney is telling the judge that either the
188
Professional Expectations 5.5, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015; see also The Honourable Mr.
Justice W. Quinn, A Judges View: Things That Lawyers Do That Annoy Judges; Things They Do That Impress
Judges, Presentation to the Ontario Bar Association at the Family Law Institute in Toronto, Canada (February 10,
2012).
189
Joseph H. Hinshaw, Court Room Decorum, 37 J. AM. JUD. SOC. 44 (1953-54).
190
See Vincent S. Dalsimer, Emily Post Goes to Court, 18 CLEV.-MARSHALL L. REV. 248 (1969).
191
See Robert W. Thompson, Q.C., Barristers Etiquette and Ethical Duties, 13 ARCTIC OBITER (May 2009),
p. 13.
192
See Judge William R. Sawyer, Top 10 Things Never to Say to a Judge (And Three Things You Should
Always Do), 72 ALA. LAW. 476 (November 2011).
193
See Judge Judge John P. Erlick, Professionalism in the Courtroom, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NEWS
(August 2008), p. 16.
61
attorney does not know the answer or that the attorney does not think the judge
intelligent enough to understand the answer.
Telling the Court My secretary forgot to ... or This is not my case instead of
taking personal responsibility for unpreparedness, lateness, or absence before the
Court.
Prefacing a response to a question with To tell you the truth ... Judges expect,
and bar rules require, that an attorney will always be truthful when addressing the
Court.
Prefacing a disagreement with the Courts finding or ruling with With all due
respect. The attorney who employs this phrase is using it as a rhetorical fig leaf
to mask what is in fact a lack of respect for the Court, and most judges intensely
dislike this phrase.
An attorney always should stand up straight when speaking to, or being spoken to by, a
judge, and look the judge in the eye. While a judge should not interrupt an attorney unless
necessary to do so, if a judge starts talking while an attorney is speaking, the attorney should stop
speaking even if in mid-sentence.194 By stopping, in mid-sentence if necessary and even for a
rude interruption, the attorney displays appropriate respect for the Court.195 It is extremely rude
and disrespectful of the Courts authority when an attorney shows insolence toward, talks back
to, interrupts, or argues with a judge, especially if done in the presence of the jury.196
An attorney should always practice facial and bodily serenity when before the Court,
especially when addressing, or being addressed, by the Court. It is rude and disrespectful for an
attorney to turn his or her back to the bench while addressing or being addressed by the Court,
even if the attorney is turning to confer with co-counsel or a client.197 It is similarly rude for an
attorney to enter the courtroom and deliberately avoid making eye contact with the Court while
the attorney goes about his or her business in order to avoid having to acknowledge he Court, or
to carry on a conversation in the courtroom with another person while the attorney has his or her
back to the bench.
An attorney should not put his or her hand in his or her pants or suit jacket pocket while
addressing the Court or a jury, as this is too casual for a courtroom. Placing both hands in ones
pants or suit jacket pocket is even more inappropriate. Shoving ones balled fists into ones
194
195
196
See Thaxton v. State, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), citing Ex rel. Earman, 85 Fla. 295, 95 So.
755 (Fla. 1923).
197
See Smith v. State, 954 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Ronnie K. Boodoosingh, THE COMPLETE
ADVOCATE (Xlibris 2013), pp. 427, et seq.
62
pants or suit jacket pockets conveys an impression of impatience or anger that is extremely
inappropriate in a courtroom. Similarly, an attorney should not cross his or her arms across his
or her chest, or place his or her hands on his or her hips while addressing the Court or a jury, as
such gestures can convey apprehension or anger toward the court or the jury. If an attorney must
do something with his or her hands when addressing the Court or a jury, it usually is the better
practice to rest one hand on the lectern and let the other hang by his or her side, or clasp both
hands behind his or her back.198
Other exhibits of rude and disrespectful behavior include rolling eyes, dancing eyebrows,
grimacing, pouting, pulling faces, shrugging, foot-stomping, slumping somnolently in a chair,
finger-pointing, or shaking ones head side-to-side when disagreeing with the Court while
addressing or being addressed by the Court is also very rude and disrespectful.199 It also is rude
and improper for an attorney to tell the Court that if the Court rules against the position taken by
the attorney, the Court will be committing reversible error.200 Such a comment will be viewed as
an attempt to intimidate the Court with a threat of embarrassment in the appeals process and
shows a lack of respect for the Court, no matter how prescient the comment turns out to be.
An attorney should never be sarcastic toward the Court, as sarcasm is per se extremely
rude and disrespectful and has no place in a courtroom. Attorneys whose intonation drip with
sarcasm while saying Thank you, Your Honor, after a ruling goes against them, or who cannot
resist making a snide remark after such a ruling, do not go unnoticed by the Court.201
An attorney is expected to be polite and respectful in everything he or she says or does in
the courtroom. The gratuitous use of foul or obscene language, such as when quoting another
person, without first getting the Courts permission is extremely rude and can greatly offend the
judge and others present in the courtroom. If the stating of such language is necessary to the
presentation of evidence, the attorney or witness should seek the permission of the Court before
proceeding with the statement.
It also is impolite and annoying to the judge and others present in the courtroom for an
attorney to engage in distracting mannerisms, such as clicking ballpoint pens, shuffling papers,
jiggling change in his or her pocket, swaying back and forth, walking around the courtroom when
198
See Dent Gitchel and Molly Townes OBrien, TRIAL ADVOCACY BASICS (National Institute for Trial
Advocacy 2006) at 43-44.
199
Institute in Toronto, Canada (February 10, 2012); Richard B. Klein, A Dozen Ways to Anger a Judge, LITIGATION
(Winter 1987), at 5.
200
See, e.g., Professionalism In the Courtroom, Commission on Professionalism, OHIO SUPREME COURT.
201
See Vincent S. Dalsimer, Emily Post Goes to Court, 18 CLEV.-MARSHALL L. REV. 248 (1969); Richard
B. Klein, A Dozen Ways to Anger a Judge, LITIGATION (Winter 1987), at 5.
63
addressing the Court, looking at the jury when asking a question of a witness (or when the
witness answers), bad habit loops such as beginning every question of a witness with the word
And or So, immediately repeating the answer a witness gives, and repeating the same
question to a witness in the apparent hope that the witness will give the desired answer when the
original answer was not the one the attorney was hoping for.202
To the opposite extreme, an attorney should never engage in bobbing or nodding his or
her head in agreement or verbally thanking the Court when the Court grants a motion, rules on an
objection, or makes a point that meets with approval. An attorney should never show marked
attention or unusual hospitality to a judge, uncalled for by their personal relations, and an
attorney should avoid anything calculated to gain or having the appearance of gaining special
personal consideration or favor from a judge.203
An attorney must always be candid with the Court. An attorney should not knowingly
misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion nor permit the attorneys silence or
inaction to mislead anyone.204 If at any stage it appears that the time allocated for trial may be
inaccurate, the Court and adversary counsel should be informed immediately. An attorneys lack
of candor with the court is usually apparent to the Court and is always extremely annoying to a
judge.
The duty to be courteous and respectful to the Court does not mean that an attorney
should be subservient or obsequious.205 Should a judge, while on the bench, forget that, as an
officer of their court, the attorney has rights, and treat the attorney with disrespect, the attorney
should value himself or herself too highly to deal with the judge in like manner. A firm and
temperate remonstrance is all that an attorney should ever allow himself or herself.206
202
See, for example, Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, MAKING YOUR CASE: THE ART OF PERSUADING
JUDGES (St. Paul Minn.: Thomson West 2008), p. 183; The Honourable Mr. Justice W. Quinn, A Judges View:
Things That Lawyers Do That Annoy Judges; Things They Do That Impress Judges, Presentation to the Ontario Bar
Association at the Family Law Institute in Toronto, Canada (February 10, 2012).
203
16(b).
204
Guidelines for Professional Conduct L5, THE FLORIDA BAR, September 8, 2011.
205
Robert W. Thompson, Q.C., Barristers Etiquette and Ethical Duties, 13 ARCTIC OBITER (May 2009), p.
11.
206

What exactly a firm and temperate remonstrance is, however, has not been the subject of litigation, but one former
High Court judge in Australia has commented that an attorney should properly pull up a judge who has been rude in
court, for example, by saying, Your Honour might reconsider the way that matter was put last. See Jane Lee,
Bullying Judges Breed Stressful System: Kirby, THE AGE, February 22, 2013; see also Linda Loyd, D.A. Scolds
Judge for Being Rude After Prosecutor Gets in Hot Water, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, September 10, 1999.
64
When dealing with a difficult, hostile, or unreasonable judge, an attorney should look the
judge in the eye and continue to respond in a professional, firm manner. An attorney should not
show his or her discomfort by looking down, fidgeting, or doing anything that would encourage
further misbehavior by the judge. When an attorney is unable to say anything more to the judge,
the attorney should politely tell the judge, Your Honor, I cannot respond with anything other
than what I have already said, or words of similar effect. An attorney should never reply in kind
to the judge.207 If an attorney allows his or her lack of respect for the individual to govern his or
her mental attitude toward the occupant of the bench, it must necessarily affect his or her conduct
to some degree: Sharp retorts to the court, or attempts to provoke a laugh at the judges expense
are dangerous practices and clearly unprofessional.208
Upon the conclusion of a submission to the Court, as when presenting a detailed motion,
it is appropriate for the attorney to ask the Court if there are any further questions by saying,
Unless I can assist the Court further, this concludes my submission, or words of similar
effect.209
A judge may invite the attorneys into his or her chambers. When this is done, the
attorneys should always allow the judge to enter chambers first. Inside chambers, the attorneys
are permitted to be less formal than in the courtroom, but are still required to be polite, courteous,
and civil to each other and to the judge. The proper way to address a judge in chambers, as on
the street is Judge, not Your Honor.210 If this visit to chambers is done while a matter is
pending in the courtroom, the visit should be as brief as is necessary, lest clients and others left in
the courtroom come to suspect irregularity. An attorney in attendance should not use such a visit
as an opportunity for ex parte communication or inappropriate off-the-record discussion, even if
that is what the judge appears to be seeking. On returning to the courtroom, the attorneys should
allow the judge to enter first.211
As a general rule, what has been said in the judges chambers should not be revealed, in
furtherance of promoting candor among the attorneys and the Court. An exception to this rule is
that attorneys usually are allowed to state, as a factual matter, any decision the judge reached in
chambers. An attorney cannot, however, criticize the decision or comment on whether the
decision was, or was not, the correct decision.212
207
Paul Minn.: Thomson West 2008), pp. 196-98.
208
Gleason L. Archer, LL.B, Ethical Obligations of the Lawyer (Boston: Little Brown Co., 1910) p. 171.
209
See Robert W. Thompson, Q.C., Barristers Etiquette and Ethical Duties, 13 ARCTIC OBITER (May 2009).
210
211
212
Ronnie K. Boodoosingh, THE COMPLETE ADVOCATE (Xlibris 2013).
65
Pretrial Motions
An attorney must always behave in a courteous and formal manner in hearings and should
refrain from seeking special consideration from a judge.213 As has already been stated, an
attorney should accede to reasonable requests for waivers of procedural formalities when the
clients legitimate interests are not adversely affected.214 Attorneys should avoid unnecessary
motion practice or other judicial intervention by negotiating and agreeing with other counsel
whenever practicable. For example, before setting for hearing a non-dispositive motion, counsel
shall make a reasonable effort to resolve the issue.215 An attorney should not unreasonably
oppose an adversarys motion.216 An attorney should not force an adversary to make a motion
and then not oppose it.217
Counsel should begin any argument on the record before the judge by saying May it
please the Court. When addressing the court, attorneys stand and only one argument is heard
from each side, except that the counsel first raising the point has the right to close by answering
the argument of his or her adversary. It is improper for an attorney to use strong or derisive
language when referring to submissions of adversary counsel, e.g., by referring to an adversarys
motion or argument as absurd, ridiculous, weird, etc. Attorneys are expected to always be
prepared to cite proper authority for their positions, and to have provided opposing counsel with
this authority a reasonable time prior to the hearing.218 When the judge is listening to argument,
the judge is entitled to the arguing attorneys full attention, and the judge should not have to be
annoyed by the attorney turning away from the judge and toward the rear of the courtroom or to
anyone else the attorney thinks is part of his or her audience.219
Counsel should remain silent during a ruling or judgment from the bench, and at its
conclusion say As Your Honor pleases or courteous words to that effect. Expressions of
displeasure or disagreement with a ruling or judgment are not appropriate. It is, however,
permissible at the conclusion to refer to any outstanding matter that has still to be dealt with or to
seek clarification of a ruling by the Court. It is rude and unprofessional for an attorney to
213
214
Professionalism Expectations 4.5, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.
215
Guidelines for Professional Conduct I1, THE FLORIDA BAR, September 8, 2011.
216
217
218
One way for an attorney to annoy a judge and opposing counsel is to indignantly, emphatically, and
dogmatically state a legal proposition, while claiming I know there is a case out there on this, or words to that
effect, but not being able to produce or cite any legal authority when asked by the Court to do so.
219
66
continue to argue after the Court has ruled. It is a further insult to the Court for the attorney to
attempt to excuse his or her arguing as making the record, when making the record always
should occur before the Court begins to rule, and not afterward. If the attorney believes that the
Court has ruled too hastily, the proper approach is for the attorney to politely ask May counsel
be heard further?220 If the Court allows it, the attorney may then go on with whatever relevant
submission he or she feels obligated to make. Sometimes, the attorney will also ask the Court to
reconsider its ruling, but in most cases this will be obvious and implied by the granting of the
request to be heard further. If the Court does not grant the attorney permission to be heard
further, the matter is closed, the Courts ruling stands, and the attorney should say nothing further
about it.
After a hearing, the attorney charged with preparing the proposed order should prepare it
promptly, generally no later than the following business day, unless it should be submitted
immediately to the Court. The order fairly and accurately must represent the ruling of the
Court.221 Before submitting a proposed order to the Court, attorneys should provide the order to
opposing counsel for approval, either orally or in writing. Opposing counsel then promptly
should communicate any objections. As soon as objections are made, the drafting attorney
immediately should submit a copy of the proposed order to the Court and advise the court
whether the proposed order has been approved by opposing counsel.222 An attorney should not
use the post-hearing submission of proposed orders as an opportunity to argue or reargue a
matters merits.223
When Counsel has Concluded His or Her Business Before the Court
It is customary when counsel has concluded his or her business before the Court to ask
the judge, May I be excused? or words to that effect. This custom is followed to ensure that
counsel does not leave the courtroom before the Court has addressed all matters it needs to with
counsel. The reason for this practice is that judges often forget to ask counsel something which
they recall after counsel has sat down or left the courtroom.224
The courts of England and Wales have a similar, but more articulated custom:
There is a courtesy known as dressing the judge which should be observed. A judge in robes
should never be left without a member of the Bar being in court, unless the judge has indicated that
220
221
222
223
224
See George Kairinos, Manners maketh the advocate, ADVOCATE (South Africa) (Fourth Term 2000), pp.
29-30.
67
he or she can leave. If your case is over, and you are the only barrister in court, do not leave
unless the judge has given such an indication. In virtually every case, the judge will so
indicate.225
Leaving the Courtroom

When leaving the courtroom, all attorneys (and all other persons) are expected to do so as
noiselessly as possible and in a manner that minimizes disruptions. Special care not to make any
noise that could disturb the proceedings should be taken when opening or closing doors.
Everyone in court should stand and be silent when the judge leaves the courtroom. The
judge, before leaving the courtroom, should always announce recess or adjournment and state
when the business of the court will resume.
225
Susan Blake and Ros Carne, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (Oxford University Press, 15th ed. 2010), p. 71.
68
Chapter 9.
Trial Etiquette
[T]he discreet practitioner will station himself on the lawyers side of the counsel table, closest to
the jury box if he is plaintiff, or on the other side, if for the defendsnt. He will never approach the
witness nor the bench without first obtaining the permission of the court. He will rise when
addressing, or addressed by, the court unless he is saying only a few words or is invited to be
seated by the court. If addressing the jury, he will also rise, and he will refrain from joining them
in the jury box. He will further resist the temptation to perform acts of gymnastics on the jury box
railing.226
Preparation
Thoughtful, complete and meticulous preparation is the best way for an attorney to
minimize the chances of breaches of etiquette during a trial. A prepared attorney has mastered
the facts and the law, has a clear theory of his or her case, and can avoid the temptation to dump
a jumble of facts on the judges bench with the expectation that the Court will sort it all out and
fashion an appropriate remedy. A well-prepared attorney knows what he or she needs to
accomplish, communicates with opposing counsel a sufficient time before trial in an effort to
resolve the case or to narrow the issues, has a pragmatic focus on the real issues in the trial, and
avoids fights over inconsequential or irrelevant matters. The well-prepared attorney does not
annoy the Court and opposing counsel by making last-minute motions on the day of trial, causing
annoying delays during the trial due to late witnesses or inability to operate audio-visual
equipment, using meandering examination in an effort to discover what a witness is testifying to,
or attempting to introduce heretofore undiscovered exhibits. A well-prepared attorney knows the
applicable rules and procedures and practices proper etiquette throughout the trial.227
Where to Sit
At trial, the party with the burden of proof sits closest to the jury.228 Thus, the prosecutor
in a criminal trial sits closest to the jury; plaintiffs counsel in a civil case sits closest to the jury.
The defendant in a criminal case, and either partys client in a civil case, may join counsel at the
table without seeking prior leave of the court. When seated at counsel table for hearing or trial,
the senior or primary counsel for each side should sit in the seat at their respective counsel tables
that is closest to the lectern.
226
Vincent S. Dalsimer, Emily Post Goes to Court, 18 CLEV.-MARSHALL L. REV. 248 (1969).
227
See Judge Michael D. Lyon, Practices of Successful Lawyers Appreciated by Trial Judges, 16 UTAH B.J.
28 (April 2003).
228
See, e.g., U.S. v. Nava-Salazar, 735 F. Supp 274 (N.D. Ill. 1990) ([T]he government has traditionally
been given the option of sitting closest to the jury because it bears the burden of proof.).
69
Counsel should admonish all persons at counsel table, and all clients and witnesses, that
approving or disapproving gestures, facial expressions, audible comments, or the like during the
testimony of witnesses or at any other time, absolutely are prohibited in legal proceedings.229
Where to Speak From
An attorney always should address the Court, witnesses, and the jury from the lectern or
from counsel table, absent permission from the judge to speak from a different location in the
courtroom. This will minimize unnecessary movement and distraction of the jury, judge, and
court reporter. Counsel table and the lectern normally are equipped with microphones connected
to the courtrooms sound system, and so remaining near a microphone will help to ensure audio
intelligibility and an accurate record of the proceedings.
Recesses and Absences
An attorney should seek permission from the Court if he or she intends to take time out
during the trial to speak privately to his or her client or adversary counsel. If during the trial
counsel is to be absent from Court at any stage, counsel should advise the Court of this.
Exhibits
All exhibits should be properly marked for identification before the trial. Fairness
requires that opposing counsel see an exhibit before it is introduced so that he or she knows what
kind of exhibit it is and what a proper foundation for that exhibit is, and so that he or she can
make a timely objection if the foundation is not properly established or another evidentiary
problem exists.230
An attorney should not position charts and other exhibits so as to block the views of the
judge or adversary counsel of the exhibits themselves or their view of the jury. An attorney can
request, and the Court can allow, adversary counsel to move about the courtroom to get a clear
view of what is being presented to the jury.
An attorney should not mark on or alter exhibits, charts, graphs, and diagrams without
opposing counsels permission or leave of court.231 Gratuitously marking on, defacing, or
destroying an adversarys exhibits or charts for dramatic effect is rude and unacceptable conduct
in a court of law, as any act of courtroom vandalism would be.
229
230
Thomas A. Mauet, TRIAL TECHNIQUES, 5th ed. (New York: Aspen Law & Business 2000), p. 169.
231
70
Interaction With the Judge

While in trial, an attorney always should demonstrate courtesy, dignity, and respect
toward the presiding judge. This is done not for the sake of the judges person, but for the
purpose of maintaining respect and confidence in the judicial office occupied by the judge. The
judge, in turn, has reciprocal responsibilities of courtesy to and respect for the attorney who is, in
any event, an officer of the court.232
Interaction With the Clerk
As stated above, an attorney should not order the clerk to do anything or otherwise treat
the clerk as a personal servant, or to otherwise divert or distract the clerk from his or her assigned
courtroom duties. In addition to all of the things previously stated regarding an attorneys
interaction with the clerk, it is, for example, inconsiderate for an attorney not to pre-mark
exhibits before trial and expect the clerk to mark them on the fly as the trial progresses. It also is
very rude and annoying to the judge for an attorney to attempt to introduce an exhibit that has not
been pre-marked for identification. It is inconsiderate for an attorney to keep an exhibit that has
been entered into evidence at the lectern or at counsel table, to be so inattentive as to mix up an
admitted exhibit with one that has not been admitted into evidence, or to expect that the clerk
will keep track of an attorneys exhibits for him or her.
Interaction With Adversary Counsel
Counsel must always be civil, courteous and respectful in all dealings with adversary
counsel. This does not equate to a duty to be friendly. In any event, overly familiar
communication among and between opposing counsel in the presence of clients (to include
family members), witnesses, and victims can be misinterpreted as indifference toward the case,
or worse. Proper etiquette in the presence of clients, witnesses, and victims is that counsel
should maintain a courteous and professional line of communications with all other attorneys,
but it should fall short of friendly bantering, joking and other lighthearted communications that
could be misinterpreted.233 This does not preclude counsel who are on friendly terms from
resuming their relationships outside the courtroom and outside the presence of clients, witnesses
or victims.
Interaction With the Court Reporter
During the course of the trial, the court reporter is responsible to the Court. There is no
interaction with the court reporter in open court, except when he or she might ask for the spelling
232
17(b).
233
Robert W. Thompson, Q.C., Barristers Etiquette and Ethical Duties, 13 ARCTIC OBITER (May 2009).
71
of a name or place, or when he or she asks speakers to slow down or not talk over each other.
Counsel should not issue instructions to or make requirements of the reporter. Counsel should
direct their requests to the court and, if appropriate, the court will issue instructions to the
reporter. Counsel should, however, before trial give the court reporter a business card, a list of
all witnesses with names spelled properly, along with a list of any unusual words, place names,
scientific names, statute numbers, case law citations, or like matter that the attorney knows will
be used in testimony.234
It is important to the creation of an accurate record that attorneys and witnesses speak
clearly, without interrupting or talking over one another, and at a rate that does not exceed the
court reporters ability to record. An attorney should never have his or her back to the court
reporter when addressing the Court, questioning a witness, or making an opening statement or a
closing argument to the jury.235 Where reporting is being done remotely, it also is important that
the presiding judge makes sure that the courtroom sound system is on, and that attorneys do not
stray far from the microphones used to capture their words. It also is critically important that
persons do not interrupt one another or talk over one another.
Traversing the Well
Except with approval of the Court, persons in the courtroom may not traverse the area
between the bench and counsel table, known as the well of the courtroom. Counsel are
expected to so instruct the parties they represent, witnesses they call, and persons accompanying
them.
Interaction With the Jury
An attorney (as well as the attorneys client and everyone else in the courtroom) should
stand whenever the venire or the selected jury enter or exit the courtroom. This is done out of
respect for the important role of the jury as the finder of fact. It is very rude to remain seated
while the jury or venire enter or leave the courtroom, and even more rude to not even
acknowledge their presence as they come and go.
An attorney must always be considerate of the jurys time, comfort, and endurance. An
attorney always should be realistic about the length of his or her case, so that jurors can arrange
their lives accordingly.236 Punctuality in returning from recesses on time, and having witnesses
234
Leonard I. Frieling, Courtroom Etiquette: How to Set Yourself Apart, COLO. LAW. (December 1998).
235
236
72
waiting and ready to be called, are two ways an attorney can ensure that jurors, counsel, the
judge, and court staff are not held up waiting for the attorney or a witness to arrive.237
An attorney also should respect the jurors privacy by not asking unnecessarily invasive
personal questions during voir dire that are irrelevant to seating a proper jury in the case. The
basic test is whether the information sought during jury selection is truly necessary for the case
and can be properly used by the attorney. If it is necessary to elicit information from a member
of the venire that is too personal for open discussion among the others in the courtroom, most
judges will accommodate counsel questioning of the prospective juror at the bench outside the
hearing of the venire, or with the remainder of the venire excused from the courtroom.238
From the time the jury is selected until it is discharged, counsel must avoid any and all
forms of contact with the individual jurors, and are required to advise their parties and witnesses
to do the same. It is highly improper and annoying to the judge for an attorney to address jurors
individually or by name. An attorney must not seek special consideration from a judge or
juror.239 An attorney should not use voir dire to extract promises from or to suggest desired
verdicts to jurors.240
An attorney also must respect the jurys space. This means that an attorney must be
conscious of the proxemics within the courtroom. According to the research of Edward T. Hall
and others, people generally do not mind sitting within 6 to 18 inches of each other at a sporting
event, in a concert hall, or in a jury box, but each person has a sense of personal distance
extending out as far as 4 feet, a sense of social distance extending out as far as 12 feet, and a
sense of public distance extending out to 25 feet.241 A bar is placed in front of the jury box to
prevent attorneys, witnesses and others in the courtroom from getting too close to, and possibly
improperly influencing, the jurors. An attorney should not go right up to the jury box, or lean or
reach into it.242
Throughout the trial, an attorney should abstain from conduct that diverts the fact-finders
attention from the relevant facts or causes a fact-finder to make a legally impermissible
237
See Judge John P. Erlick, Professionalism in the Courtroom, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NEWS (August
2008), p. 16.
238
Judge John P. Erlick, Professionalism in the Courtroom, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NEWS (August 2008),
p. 16.
239
240
241
See Edward T. Hall, THE HIDDEN DIMENSION (Anchor Books 1969).
242
Judge Judge John P. Erlick, Professionalism in the Courtroom, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NEWS (August
2008), p. 16.
73
decision.243 In the courtroom, an attorney should scrupulously abstain from all acts, comments
and attitudes calculated to curry favor with any juror, such as by fawning, flattery, actual or
pretended solicitude for the jurors comfort or convenience or the like.244
An attorney never should say I think . . ., I believe . . ., I know . . ., or use
equivalent words in the course of addressing, making submissions to, or being in the presence of
the jury. An attorney also never should vouch for the credibility of a witness or evidence
received.
When a judge already has made a ruling about the inadmissibility of certain evidence, an
attorney should not seek to circumvent the effect of that ruling and get the evidence before the
jury by repeated questions relating to the evidence in question, although the attorney may make a
record for later proceedings of the ground for urging the admissibility of the evidence in
question. This does not preclude efforts by the attorney to have the evidence admitted through
other, proper means.245 An attorney should not make offers or requests for a stipulation in front
of the jury.246
Opening Statements
Prior to opening statement, and as early as is practicable, counsel should advise adversary
counsel of any exhibits counsel expects to be using in opening statement. This is done in order
for adversary counsel to have a fair chance to ask the Court to consider any objections to the use
of exhibits adversary counsel has.247
The purpose of an opening statement is to allow counsel to concisely state what evidence
counsel expects will be presented at trial, to make it easier for jurors to understand what is to
follow, and to relate parts of the evidence and testimony as a whole.248 Brief reference to the law
is ordinarily permitted, but only to the extent that it aids the jury in understanding what counsel
243
Professional Expectations 5.8, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015; see also Guidelines for Professional
Conduct L4, THE FLORIDA BAR, September 8, 2011.
244
See Guidelines for Professional Conduct L9, THE FLORIDA BAR, September 8, 2011; Annotated Code of
Trial Conduct, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS, October 2005, paragraph 19(I).
245
246
247
See, e.g., Jury Trial Procedures of Judge Robert J. Colville, ALLEGHENY CO. PENN. CT. OF COMMON
PLEAS.
248
Stein Closing Arguments 1:3 (2015-2016 ed.), citing Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 98 S. Ct.
824, 54 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1978).
74
expects the relevant evidence will establish. To preclude counsel misleading the jury as to the
law, many judges will instruct the jury prior to opening statements on what the judge anticipates
will be the law relevant to the trial. Opening statements should be factual and not argumentative,
and it is improper for counsel to use opening statement to argue the case to the jury.249 Upon
violation of these rules, the Court may, sua sponte, interrupt the opening statement and admonish
counsel.250
An attorney should not express bias or personal opinion concerning any matter at issue in
opening statements to the jury.251
Examination of Witnesses
In the examination of witnesses, I shall not forget that perhaps circumstances and not choice have
placed them somewhat in my power. Whether so or not, I shall never esteem it my privilege to
disregard their feelings, or to extort from their evidence what, in moments free from
embarrassment, they would not testify. Nor will I conclude that they have no regard for truth and
even the sanctity of an oath, because they use the privilege accorded to others, of changing their
language and of explaining their previous declarations. Such captious dealing with the words and
syllables of a witness ought to produce in the mind of an intelligent jury only a reverse effect from
that designed by those who practice such poor devices.252
During trials and evidentiary hearings, the attorneys mutually should agree to disclose the
identities and duration of witnesses anticipated to be called that day and the following day,
including depositions to be read, and should cooperate in sharing with adversary counsel all
visual aid equipment.253 In criminal cases with more than one defendant represented by different
counsel, the order of examination is determined by the judge presiding at the trial.
Every person in the courtroom should not move or speak while a witness is being sworn,
and should remain completely still and quiet while this is being done, even if the person is not
involved in the case.254 This is done out of respect for the Court, the person administering the
oath, and the witness, and helps to ensure that the oath is properly witnessed by all in the
courtroom.
249
Thomas A. Mauet, TRIAL TECHNIQUES, 5th ed. (New York: Aspen Law & Business 2000), 4.
250
See, e.g., Jury Trial Procedures of Judge Robert J. Colville, Allegheny Co. Penn. Ct. of Common Pleas.
251
252
1836).
253
254
See Susan Blake and Ros Carne, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (Oxford University Press, 15th ed. 2010), p. 70.
75
While examining a witness, counsel stands at counsel table or at the lectern in such a
manner that all attorneys engaged in the trial as well as the Court and the jury have a full view of
the witness. The normal custom in America is to require counsel to remain at the lectern, and not
to allow counsel to move freely about the courtroom as they question a witness. The reason is
that unnecessary movement can be disruptive or cause a distraction to jurors trying to listen to
what the witness says by unnecessarily drawing attention to the attorney. Some judges take a
more relaxed approach to witness questioning and allow free movement on the part of attorneys.
Counsel should, in any event, request permission to approach a witness for the purpose of
handing or presenting to the witness an exhibit for identification but should not stand over or
hover near the witness during questioning. Opposing counsel may, likewise, request and
receive the Courts permission to move about the courtroom if necessary to see an exhibit or
otherwise adequately observe testimony. Opposing counsels movement, however, should be
conducted, in all respects, to minimize disruption or distraction from the proceedings. Where
more than one counsel are representing a party, it is improper for multiple counsel to take turns
examining or cross-examining the same witness (or taking turns arguing the same point when
addressing the Court).
Adult witnesses should be addressed directly and with respect, using the appropriate
honorific and their surname, e.g., as Dr./Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms./etc. [surname]. If the witness is a
child, he or she may be addressed by his or her forename. Counsel should never refer to his or
her client or an adult witness by the clients or witnesss first name. Counsel should not
approach the witness box without first obtaining permission from the judge. Counsel should not
ask the witness to leave the stand or engage in any demonstration off the stand without court
permission. If putting a statement to a witness or quoting part of a transcript to a jury, counsel
should identify the nature of the material and ensure that the whole relevant part of the statement
is read exactly, without omission or addition. Counsel should ensure that the judge has a copy.
As has been previously stated, counsel should not use swear words in addressing the
Court or jury. Counsel may of course refer to swear words that are part of the evidence, but at
their peril if done without prior Court approval, and in no case should counsel use swear words
as tools of advocacy. If using slang, counsel should do so with caution and for a particular
purpose, bearing in mind always the need to show respect for the Court process.
An attorney should not interrupt a witness (or opposing counsel), cut off the answer of a
witness, hover over a witness or add gratuitous editorial comments after a witness has
answered.255 An attorney may interrupt a witness who is going into incompetent or prejudicial
discourse, but the interruption should be done without a show of anger or other emotion on the
part of the attorney.256
255
Judge Judge John P. Erlick, Professionalism in the Courtroom, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NEWS (August
2008), p. 17.
256
76
Witnesses should be treated with fairness and consideration; they should not be shouted
at, ridiculed, argued with, or abused in any manner. Improper questioning also includes sarcasm,
derision and verbal abuse directed toward witnesses, whom the misbehaving attorney seeks to
intimidate or provoke the witness. In such circumstances, the presiding judge is obliged to
intervene, because the court has a duty to maintain the dignity of the law in the courtroom which
also includes the protection of witnesses under examination.257 The reasons for this are quite
simple and readily apparent:
Except in the case of a few privileged relationships, there is a compelling social interest that both
the state and the accused shall have the power to require anyone in possession of knowledge
relevant to the subject matter of a criminal trial to give testimony. But an unwonted appearance in
court is a terrifying experience to many persons, even if their apprehensions are exaggerated.
Besides detracting from the court's dignity, unnecessary browbeating and humiliation of witnesses
can, by interfering with their recollection and articulation, defeat the purpose of their presence at
the trialto divulge their information to the jury. And more generally, the dread of testifying can
result in a crime going unreported. The protection of witnesses from the attacks of attorneys is
therefore recognized as a part of the duties of the judge, and he has everywhere all needed
authority to see that their visits to court are as little harrowing as may be.
But posed against this is one of the cornerstones of our legal system, the right to scrutinize and
sift testimony by cross-examination.
The loose, cloudy, and hard-to-apply principle that emerges is that the judge, so long as he does
not hobble fair and effective examination, may take all needed measures against an attorney to
insulate a witness from discourtesy and embarrassment. The nicest sort of judgment is required to
distinguish between the need to spare a timid witness, such as the prosecutrix in a case involving a
sexual offense, from wanton mortification, and the basic requirement that the accused shall have
opportunity to save himself from unmerited punishment by bringing out inconsistency, bad repute,
and all the other painful indicia of lying.258
Upon completion of the examination of a witness, it is polite to pass, or tender

(unconditionally offer), the witness to opposing counsel for questioning, by stating to the Court
Your Honor, I have no further questions and now tender the witness to the
[defense/prosecution/plaintiff].
Objections
An attorney should address objections, requests, and observations to the judge.259 A
question should not be interrupted by an objection unless the question is patently objectionable or
257
Baisden v. State, 203 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967).
258
Baisden v. State, 203 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1997), quoting R.F. Martin, Remarks or acts of trial
judge criticizing, rebuking, or punishing defense counsel in criminal case, as requiring new trial or reversal, 62
AL.R.2d 170, 244.
259
77
there is a reasonable ground to believe that information is being included that should not be
disclosed to the jury.260 An objection should be voiced in a calm and professional manner, and
never be voiced in a tone of righteous indignation.261 Objections should not be made from a
seated or squatting position, but from a fully standing position that shows genuine commitment
to the objection.262
In making objections within the hearing of the jury, an attorney raising the objection
should say only objection, and then state the legal basis for the objection as briefly as possible
and should withhold all further comment or argument unless elaboration is requested by the
Court.263 The usual practice is for the objecting party to simply say Objection, which leaves no
doubt as to why the attorney has risen to speak,264 and then to state a one- to three-word basis for
the objection, e.g., relevance, improper form, asked and answered, beyond the scope,
and so on. The party objected to then is given the opportunity to give a brief reply in almost as
few words, e.g., state of mind, prior inconsistent statement, and the like. Typically, the
Court rules on the objection after this exchange. If the Court overrules the objection the
examining attorney is allowed to continue without change. If the Court sustains the objection,
the examining attorney will be required to change the form of the question, or be prohibited from
inquiring further about the matter objected to. Whenever the Court rules on an objection,
etiquette requires that the objecting counsel subside unless he or she first asks for, and receives
from the Court permission to be heard further.265 Where the Court is not satisfied with the
exchange, or where counsel is permitted to argue matters that should not be raised in the presence
of the jury, counsel may then be asked (or either counsel may ask) to approach the bench for a
fuller discussion. In any event, By keeping such matters brief, the interruption of the otherwise
orderly process of the trial is minimized.
Counsel for both sides of a case should never, except very briefly, be standing at the same
time unless being directly addressed by the Court. If an attorneys opponent rises to object, it is
proper for the attorney to sit down and remain silent while the objecting attorney submits the
260
261
See D. Brooks Smith, The Art and Etiquette of Stating Object, 16 PA. LAW. 18 (May 1994).
262
263
264
See D. Brooks Smith, The Art and Etiquette of Stating Object, 16 PA. LAW. 18 (May 1994).
265
78
grounds for the objection.266 Where the attorney is at the lectern, away from counsel table, and
the objection and grounds therefor are brief, the attorney can remain at the lectern, albeit in
silence and looking at the judge for the ruling on the objection. It is rude, disrespectful and
improper for counsel to have a back-and-forth conversation about the objection between the
attorneys, especially in the presence of the jury. The Court will invariably look with favor on the
attorney who allows the interjection or objection to be made without interruption, and will then
give the attorney whose questioning a witness or submission was interrupted to respond fully to
the objection or interruption.267
Some attorneys persist in objecting to a question after the witness has answered. To the
objection the Court may properly reply There is nothing pending. It is proper where the
witness has answered the question and the question asked is objectionable to move to strike the
answer for the purpose of objecting to the question.268
Speaking Objections
It is rude for an attorney to make a speaking objection during courtroom proceedings,
and extremely rude to do so in the presence of a jury. A speaking objection does not simply state
the basis for the objection, but also sets forth the thoughts of the objecting attorney regarding the
matter at issue. As a matter of practice, speaking objections are an abuse of process, and they
serve no legitimate purpose. They also invite retaliation.269 Speaking objections are disfavored
by practitioners and their excessive use, without more, may be cause for judicial control.270 As
one appellate court has succinctly observed:
[A]ll trial lawyers know that so-called speaking objections are improper, as they constitute
nothing less than unauthorized communications with the jury. Such objections characteristically
consist of impermissible editorials or comments, strategically made by unscrupulous lawyers to
influence the jury. They are distinguishable from legitimate objections which simply state legal
grounds that arguably preclude the introduction of the evidence at issue. Where an objection
requires more than a simple statement of such legal grounds, experienced trial lawyers know they
266
See Susan Blake and Ros Carne, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (Oxford University Press, 15th ed. 2010), p. 70;
The Honourable Mr. Justice W. Quinn, A Judges View: Things That Lawyers Do That Annoy Judges; Things They
Do That Impress Judges, Presentation to the Ontario Bar Association at the Family Law Institute in Toronto, Canada
(February 10, 2012).
267
See Robert W. Thompson, Q.C., Barristers Etiquette and Ethical Duties, 13 ARCTIC OBITER (May 2009).
268
269
See, e.g., Hill v. State, 549 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1989).
270
See, e.g., Gainer v. Koewler, 200 Wis.2d 113, 123-24,546 N.W.2d 474,479 (Ct. App. 1996).
79
need to seek a side bar conference or ask the court to excuse the jury so that more thorough
arguments can be made.271
Stated plainly, the speaking objection contravenes the notion, fundamental to a fair
trial, that in all jury cases proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to
prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making
statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury. Such objections also
undermine the courts ability to obtain an accurate record of the witnesss testimony.
Bench Conferences and Requests to Excuse the Jury
Bench conferences, also known as sidebar discussions, should be kept to a minimum in
terms of frequency and duration. Repeated sidebars disrupt the trial process and the attention and
focus of the jury, and can be very annoying to jurors. Such conferences are expected to be
conducted in a professional and dignified manner. Counsel should not approach the bench
without permission from the judge. Counsel should not touch, lean on, or reach across the
judges bench during bench conferences.
Bench conferences should be a balance of acoustic privacy and acoustic intelligibility.
The conversation between the Court and counsel should at all times be maintained at a volume
that does not permit the jury to hear counsels or the Courts comments but that does permit the
court reporter or remote recording system to clearly record the conversation. Where microphones
are present, the judge must ensure that they are set on sidebar mode, so that the bench conference
is not broadcast to the entire courtroom. Counsel should position themselves so that their voices
are heard by the reporter or recorder, being careful not to crowd out opposing counsel. Counsel
should speak clearly into the microphone, and not whisper, to ensure that a complete and
accurate audible record is made. At the conclusion of the bench conference, the judge must
ensure that the microphones in the courtroom are set to full activation of all channels to ensure
that nothing in the subsequent record is lost.
Counsels satisfaction or dissatisfaction with adversary counsels argument or the Courts
rulings at sidebar should not, in any manner, be conveyed to the jury by any conduct or comment
of counsel. Thanking the Court in a voice loud enough for the jury to hear while walking back to
counsel table after a bench conference is improper and will annoy the judge, and could be
construed as an unauthorized attempt to communicate with jurors in violation of rules of
professional conduct.272
271
Michaels v. State, 773 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (attorney held in contempt for making speaking
objections after being told not to do so).
272
See Rule 4-3.5(d)(2), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (A lawyer shall not ... during the trial of a case
with which the lawyer is connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with any member of the jury.).
80
Requests to excuse the jury, like bench conferences, can be a necessary part of trial, but
should be kept to an absolute minimum. Repeated excusing of the jury from the courtroom
disrupts the trial and greatly annoys the jurors.
An attorney considering requesting a bench conference or an excusing of the jury should
first consider the necessity of such a request, especially where the contemplated purpose is to
make an objection that could be made for the record in open court while the jury is present and it
is possible to delay or reserve supplementation of the record or further argument until the jury is
excused for a normal recess.273
Upon Completion of Witness Testimony
Upon completion of the testimony of a witness, the attorney calling the witness should
ask the Court, May the witness be excused? Excused means excused from the subpoena or
other court order that compelled the witness to attend and give testimony. If excused by the
Court, the witness is no longer under subpoena and is not subject to being recalled to the witness
stand. The Court will normally grant the request, unless opposing counsel requests that the
witness remain on standby and subject to recall. If the attorney does not ask the question, the
Court should inquire of counsel calling the witness if that counsel would like the witness to be
excused. If neither the attorney calling the witness nor the Court inquires, the witness may
properly ask the Court, May I be excused, Your Honor? The Court should then determine
whether counsel have any further need of the witness and, if not, the Court should release the
witness. If the witness is still needed for testimony and is not released, the Court should, after
consultation with counsel, inform the witness as to whether the witness will be on telephone
standby or be required to return to the courthouse at a specific time on a certain date. It is
improper and inconsiderate, absent good cause, to not release a witness who has completed his or
her testimony.
Closing Arguments
The primary purpose of closing argument at the end of the trial is to give the parties an
opportunity to summarize the evidence and explain how the law as instructed by the trial court
should be applied to the facts derived from the evidence so that the fact finder may make a proper
decision.274
273
See Judge Judge John P. Erlick, Professionalism in the Courtroom, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NEWS
(August 2008) p. 16.
274
See McArthur v. State, 801 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
81
Counsel should begin any argument in the presence of the judge before the jury by saying
May it please the Court. An attorney should not express bias or personal opinion concerning
any matter at issue in opening statements and in arguments to the jury.275
Strong conviction concerning the merits of ones case is not justification for losing ones
composure at oral argument and making pointed accusations at adversary counsel. Opposing
attorneys are expected to disagree concerning the merits of their cases. However, the essence of
legal process is rational and civil advocacy of ones position. Angry, intemperate verbal attacks
have no place in a courtroom. Such improper conduct in the courtroom may be sanctionable.276
During Jury Deliberations
During jury deliberations, counsel should let the court clerk or deputy know where they
are. Counsel should be available with their clients to return to the court as quickly as practicable,
and preferably within 5 minutes notice.
Upon Receiving the Verdict
No one should enter or leave the courtroom while a verdict is being taken, or when a
defendant is being sentenced. An attorney should not stare at members of the jury when they
come into the courtroom to deliver their verdict; at this stage the jury has reached a decision and
cannot be influenced further, and there is no reason to make them feel uncomfortable by trying to
guess what their verdict is.277 Upon receiving the jurys verdict, attorneys and their clients,
spectators and all others in the courtroom should remain expressionless out of respect for the
Court, the jurors, and the rule of law. Emotional outbursts, open displays, and in-court
demonstrations of approval or disapproval of the jurys verdict show disrespect towards the
Court and are disruptive of the proceedings.
Upon Adjournment
The results of trial should be accepted graciously and civilly by both sides. It is
customary that, upon adjournment, opposing counsel will shake hands, exchange pleasantries,
and bid one another farewell. Each side should accept the results of trial graciously and with
good manners. Refusing to shake hands, storming out of the courtroom, kicking things, and
other demonstrations of anger or displeasure with the result by the losing party within the
courtroom are extremely impolite and demean the court process. Laughing, cheering, backslapping, high-fiving, gloating, and other such signs of approval of the result within the
courtroom are equally rude and unacceptable conduct for a courtroom.
275
276
See, Nordberg, Inc. v. Telsmith, Inc., 82 F.3d 394 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
277
See Susan Blake and Ros Carne, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (Oxford University Press, 15th ed. 2010), p. 70.
82
Appendix A:
Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar
The general principles which should ever control the lawyer in the practice of the legal profession
are clearly set forth in the following oath of admission to the Bar, which the lawyer is sworn on
admission to obey and for the willful violation to which disbarment may be had.
I do solemnly swear:
I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
Florida;
I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;
I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be
unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the
land;
I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only
as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any
artifice or false statement of fact or law;
I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will
accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their
knowledge and approval;
*To opposing parties and their counsel, I pledge fairness, integrity, and civility, not only
in court, but also in all written and oral communications;
I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor
or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am
charged;
I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God.
*Amended September 12, 2011 to add civility pledge.
83
Appendix B:
Creed Of Professionalism, The Florida Bar
(Revised June 25, 2013)
I revere the law, the judicial system, and the legal profession and will at all times in my
professional and private lives uphold the dignity and esteem of each.
I will further my professions devotion to public service and to the public good.
I will strictly adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of my profession's code of ethics, to
the extent that the law permits and will at all times be guided by a fundamental sense of honor,
integrity, and fair play.
I will not knowingly misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion and
will not improperly permit my silence or inaction to mislead anyone.
I will conduct myself to assure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
action and resolution of every controversy.
I will abstain from all rude, disruptive, disrespectful, and abusive behavior and will at all
times act with dignity, decency, and courtesy.
I will respect the time and commitments of others.
I will be diligent and punctual in communicating with others and in fulfilling
commitments.
I will exercise independent judgment and will not be governed by a client's ill will or
deceit.
My word is my bond.
84
Appendix C:
General Principles, Guidelines for Professional Conduct, The Florida Bar
(Revised September 8, 2011)
1. A lawyer is both an officer of the court and an advocate. As such, the lawyer always
should strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession, avoid disorder and disruption in
the courtroom, and maintain a respectful attitude toward the court.
2. A lawyers word should be his or her bond.
3. A lawyer should adhere strictly to all express promises and agreements with other
counsel, whether oral or in writing.
4. A lawyer should be courteous and civil in all professional dealings with other persons.
Lawyers should act in a civil manner regardless of the ill feelings that their clients may have
toward others. Lawyers can disagree without being disagreeable. Effective and zealous
representation does not require antagonistic or acrimonious behavior. Whether orally or in
writing, lawyers should avoid vulgar language, disparaging personal remarks, or acrimony
toward other counsel, parties, or witnesses.
5. Lawyers should require that persons under their supervision conduct themselves with
courtesy and civility.
6. When consistent with their clients interests, lawyers should cooperate with adversary
counsel to avoid litigation and to resolve litigation that already has commenced.
7. A lawyer must not use any aspect of the litigation process, including discovery and
motion practice, as a means of harassment or to unnecessarily prolong litigation or increase
litigation expenses.
85
86
Appendix D:
Notes On the English and American Bars and Benches
Englands relatively small and homogenous legal community has, over the centuries, lent
itself to the development of a common set of strong and stable customs and traditions, and a
refined sense of courtroom etiquette.
The English separate their attorneys into solicitorsthose who prepare cases and have a
right of audience only in the lower courts, and barristersthose who try cases in court. In
England and Wales, there are slightly more than 170,000 solicitors278 and approximately 15,700
barristers.279
A limited number of senior barristers at the self-employed and employed Bar are made
Queen's Counsel (QC) as a mark of outstanding ability. QCs are considered as experts in their
field, and generally have a minimum of 15 years practice. The responsibility for management of
the appointment of QCs rests with the independent and self-funding Queens Counsel Selection
Panel, who submit a list of appointees to the Lord Chancellor, who advises the Queen. The Lord
Chancellor has no veto authority and must act on the advice of the panel. When a barrister is
appointed as a QC this is known informally as "taking silk" because of their entitlement to wear
black silk gowns in court instead of standard court dress.280 QCs are also known as silks. Silks
are entitled to preferential treatment in court, such as being allowed to sit in the front row, within
the bar, putting him or her ahead of the junior barristers in court. A silk also is allowed to use a
lectern, while barristers are not, and silks generally charge much more for their services than
barristers. According to the Bar Council, most senior judges once practiced as QCs.
In England and Wales there are about 3,200 judges in the courts, and about 2,000 judges
in the tribunals.281 No judges are elected: All judges in England and Wales are appointed by
Royal Warrant upon recommendation by the Lord Chancellor from a list of candidates
recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). There is no upper age limit for
judges other than the mandatory retirement age of 70 years, but applicants should be able to offer
a reasonable length of serviceusually at least five years. Most judicial posts require a
278
At the end of December 2015 there were 172,033 solicitors on the rolls of the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. See Population of practising solicitors, from July 2009 to December 2015, Solicitors Regulation
Authority, http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/reports/data/population_solicitors.page
279
In 2014 there were 15,716 practicing barristers in England and Wales, according to statistics published by
the Bar Standards Board.
280
See Queens Counsel statistics, Bar Standards Board.
281
As of April 1, 2015, in England and Wales there were 3,238 judges in the courts and 2,004 judges in the
tribunals. See Judicial Diversity Statistics 2015, Judicial Office Statistics Bulletin (July 30, 2015).
87
relevant legal qualification that has been held for either five or seven years.282 There is, as a
result, very little on-the-job training for judges in England and Wales.
History and geography have dictated that the vast, heterogenous and turbulent American
legal system develop very differently from the English system.283 The United States has over 1.3
million lawyers,284 and over 200 ABA-approved law schools.285 Licensing of American lawyers
is done at the state level by the respective state bar organizations and requires passage of a
general law and procedure examination and a determination of fitness to practice. American
lawyers are not divided between solicitors and barristers as they are in England and Wales, with
the result that any properly licensed lawyer in America can be a solicitor or a barrister, or both.
Some practitioners and law firms do, in fact, concentrate their practices in certain areas of the
law, and formal recognition of specialization in a designated area of the law may be achieved
through state286 or national287 board certification. There are nearly 900 judges in the American
federal jurisdiction,288 and over 31,000 state court judges in fifty separate state jurisdictions.289
All federal judgeships are by life appointment and are held during good behavior, while state
court judgeships are by life or term appointment, election, or a combination thereof. As one
author has described the state of affairs:
282
See Becoming a Judge, COURTS AND TRIBUNALS JUDICIARY, at

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-career-paths/becoming-a-judge/.
283
See Anton-Hermann Chroust, Dilemma of the American Lawyer in the Post-Revolutionary Era, 35
NOTRE DAME L. REV. 48 (1959); Arman Sarvarian, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AT THE INTERNATIONAL BAR (Oxford
University Press 2013).
284
According to statistics of the American Bar Association, the lawyer population in the United States was
1,300,705 in 2015. ABA National Lawyer Population Survey Historical Trend in Total National Lawyer Population
1878 - 2015 (American Bar Association 2015).
285
See ABA-Approved Law Schools.
286
E.g., The Florida Bar administers its own board certification programs for its members.
287
The National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA) is a non-profit board certification organization in the
United States which administers five national board certification programs for attorneys in civil trial law, civil
pretrial practice, criminal trial law, family trial law and Social Security disability law. To become board-certified, an
attorney must meet substantial professional requirements, pass an examination, and undergo a peer review process.
288
According to government statistics, at the federal level as of 2014 there were 870 authorized Article III
judgeships and 20 authorized Article I judgeships. See Authorized Judgeships From 1789 to Present, at
www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/authorized-judgeships
289
Number of Authorized Justices/Judges in State Courts (2010), Court Statistics Project (National Center
for State Courts 2012).
88
Lawyers, like judges, come in assorted sizes, shapes, and sexes. Like judges, lawyers have
varying techniques, tempos, and temperaments. Still paralleling their judicial brethren, lawyers
differ in mental equipment, legal knowledge and courtroom etiquette.290
In contrast to the English experience, there is a lot of on-the job training for the American
bar and judiciary because of the diverse backgrounds and levels of experience American
attorneys and judges bring to the courtroom. This means that Englands court system cannot be
transplanted to America, but this does not mean that Americans cannot learn much from the
manner of operation of the English courts.291
290
Vincent S. Dalsimer, Emily Post Goes to Court, 18 CLEV.-MARSHALL L. REV. 248 (1969).
291
See Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States, The Special Skills of Advocacy: Are Specialized
Training and Certification of Advocates Essential to Our System of Justice?, 42 FORDHAM L. REV. 235-36 (1973).
89
90
__________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
__________
Orders, Rules, Codes, and Guides
Arkansas
Proper Conduct and Appearance, 1ST JUD. CIR. ARK.,
https://courts.arkansas.gov/circuit/?q=node/2
California
Guidelines for Effective and Professional Advocacy, SAN DIEGO BAR ASSOCIATION
Civil Division Rule 3.43, CAL. SUPER. CT., COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (January 1, 2016)
Florida
Standards of Courtroom Decorum, FLA. 20TH JUD. CIR. CT.,
http://www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/ao/ao_2_13.pdf
Canon 3B(3)-(7), FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 83-12, 1983 WL 857452 (Fl. Jud. Eth. Adv.
Comm. November 7, 1983)
Rules 3-4.3, RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR
Rule 4-1.3, RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR
Rule 4-3.5(d)(2), RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR
Rule 4-8.2(a), RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR
Rule 4-8.4(d), RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR
Professionalism Expectations, Board of Governors, THE FLORIDA BAR (January 30, 2015)
Guidelines for Professional Conduct, THE FLORIDA BAR (September 8, 2011)
Creed of Professionalism, THE FLORIDA BAR
91
Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar

Georgia
Courtroom Etiquette, CARROLL CO. GA MAGISTRATE CT.,
http://www.carrollcountyga.com/207/Courtroom-Etiquette
Pennsylvania
Jury Trial Procedures of Judge Robert J. Colville, ALLEGHENY CO. CT. OF COMMON PLEAS
Illinois
Minimum Courtroom Standards in the State of Illinois, SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS (January
2011)
Indiana
Order Directing Proper Attire Be Worn by Todd A. Glickfield, In re Proper Courtroom Attire,
Case No. 05C01-1408-CB-000005, August 26, 2014
Louisiana
Dress Code for Coming to Court, CITY CT. SLIDELL LA., http://citycourtofslidell.com/dress.php
Nevada
Dress Code Policy, NO. LAS VEGAS NEV. MUN. CT.,
https://www.cityofnorthlasvegas.com/Departments/MunicipalCourt/PDFs/DressCode.pdf
New York
A Presiding Judge Should Not Address a Retired Judge, Who is Appearing in Court as a
Practicing Attorney, as Judge or Your Honor, NY Jud. Adv. Op. 90-60, 1990 WL 678726
(N.Y.Adv.Comm.Jud.Eth.)
Texas
Courtroom Etiquette and Conduct, GALVESTON CO. TX. CT. AT LAW NO. 3,
http://www.galvestoncountytx.gov/ct/ct3/Documents/Courtroom%20Etiquette%20and%20Cond
uct.pdf
92
Dress Code, KRUGERVILLE TX. MUN. CT.,

http://www.krugerville.org/new_court_dress_code.php
United States
Guide for Counsel In Cases To Be Argued Before the Supreme Court of the United States,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (October Term 2014),
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/guideforcounsel.pdf
Statement of Policy Regarding Dress and Attire and Guidelines Therefor, U.S. DIST. CT. (S.D.
GA.), http://www.gasd.uscourts.gov/pdf/dressCode2014.pdf
Code of Conduct, D.C. COURTS,
http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/Public-Code-of-Conduct.pdf
Final Report of the Committee on Civility, 7TH FED. JUD. CIRCUIT (June 1992)
Standard 6-1.4, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Special Functions of the Trial Judge,
American Bar Association, 3d ed. (2000)
Standard 6-3.1, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Special Functions of the Trial Judge
(American Bar Association 3d ed. 2000)
Code of Trial Conduct, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS (2005)
Australia
David Wood, Judicial Ethics, AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
INCORPORATED (July 1996)
Canada
At Court Etiquette Procedures, ONTARIO SUP. CT. OF JUSTICE,
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/at-court/etiquette-procedures/
Hon. J.O. Wilson, A Book for Judges, CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL 39-40 (Canada 1980)
New Zealand
Etiquette Guidelines for Counsel in Court, COURTS OF NEW ZEALAND (May 2009),
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/business/guidelines/etiquette-guidelines-for-counsel-in-court/Eti
quette-guidelines-for-counsel-in-court-29-4-09.pdf
93
Guide for Appearing in Courts and Tribunals, NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY,
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/practice-resources/new-zealand-law-society-guide-for-new-lawyer
s/appearing-in-courts-and-tribunals
Pakistan
Court Rules and Etiquette, HIGH CT. BALOCHISTAN,
https://bhc.gov.pk/public-desk/court-rules-etiquette
United Kingdom
Traditions of the Courts
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/court-traditions/
COURTS AND TRIBUNALS JUDICIARY, at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/
Judicial Diversity Statistics 2015, Judicial Office Statistics Bulletin (July 30, 2015)
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/judicial_diversity_statistics_20151.pd
f
Becoming a Judge, COURTS AND TRIBUNALS JUDICIARY, at
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-career-paths/becoming-a-judge/
Population of practising solicitors, from July 2009 to December 2015, Solicitors Regulation
Authority
http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-work/reports/data/population_solicitors.page
Cases
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 98 S. Ct. 824, 54 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1978)
Baisden v. State, 203 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
Bank v. Katz, et al., 2009 WL 3077147 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), affirmed 424 Fed. Appx. 67 (2nd
Circuit 2011)
Ex rel. Earman, 85 Fla. 295, 95 So. 755 (Fla. 1923)
Friedman v. District Court, 611 P. 2d 77 (Alaska 1980)
Gainer v. Koewler, 200 Wis. 2d 113, 123-24,546 N.W.2d 474,479 (Ct. App. 1996)
Hill v. State, 549 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1989)
94
In re Allen, 998 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2008)

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial AdministrationNew Rule 2.340, 2015 WL
5254248 (Fla. Sept. 10, 2015)
In re De Carlo, 141 N.J. Super. 42, 357 A. 2d 273 (Sup. Ct. N.J. 1976)
In re Frerichs, 238 N.W. 2d 764 (Iowa 1976)
In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198, 542 P. 2d 676 (Kansas 1975)
In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 79 S. Ct. 1376, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1473 (1959)
In re Shapiro, 845 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2003)
Leonard v. School Committee of Attleboro, 349 Mass. 704, 709-710, 212 N.E. 2d 468, 14
A.L.R.3d 1192 (Mass. 1965)
McArthur v. State, 801 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
McMillan v. State, 258 Md. 147, 265 A. 2d 453 (Ct. App. Md. 1970)
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
Michaels v. State, 773 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
Nordberg, Inc. v. Telsmith, Inc, 82 F. 3d 394 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Peck v. Stone, 304 N.Y.S.2d 881, 32 A.D. 2d 506 (1969)
People v. Melton, 44 Cal. 3d 713 (Cal. 1988)
People v. Rainey, 38 Cal. Rptr. 291, 224 Cal. App. 2d 93 (2d Dist. Cal.)
Purpura v. Purpura, 115 N.M. 80 (Ct. App. N.M. 1980)
Ryslik v. Krass, N.J.Super. 293, 298, 652 A.2d 767 (App. Div. 1995)
Sandstrom v. State, 309 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
Smith v. State, 954 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
State v. Cherryhomes, 840 P. 2d 1261, 114 N.M. 495 (Ct. App. N.M. 1992)
95
State v. Larmond, 244 N.W. 2d 233 (Iowa 1976)

Thaxton v. State, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
Tyson v. Damore, 2004 WL 1837033 (E.D. Penn. 2004)
U.S. v. Lopez, 799 F. Supp. 922 (C.D. Ill. 1992)
U.S. v. Nava-Salazar, 735 F. Supp 274 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
Law Review Articles, Bar Journal Articles and Other Legal Periodicals
Hon. Justice Michael Barker, The Duties of Parties and Their Lawyers to Co-Operate and Act in
Good Faith in Civil Proceedings, SEMINAR TO CELEBRATE AND REFLECT ON THE 10TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSIONS FINAL REPORT ON
THE REVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA (October 13,
2009)
Robert F. Boden, The Colonial Bar and the American Revolution, 60 MARQUETTE L. REV. 1
(1976)
John G. Browning, Do Clothes Make the Lawyer? TEXAS BAR JOURNAL, November 2014
Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States, The Special Skills of Advocacy: Are
Specialized Training and Certification of Advocates Essential to Our System of Justice?, 42
FORDHAM L. REV. 235 (1973)
Judge Victoria Gerrard Chaney, Pet Peeves from the Bench, 8 LOS ANGELES LAWYER (Fall 2005)
A. Sherman Christenson, Courtroom Decorum As An Aid to Proper Judicial Administration, 27
FED. RULES DECISIONS 445 (1961)
Anton-Hermann Chroust, Dilemma of the American Lawyer in the Post-Revolutionary Era, 35
NOTRE DAME L. REV. 48 (1959)
Catherine Thrse Clarke, Missed Manners in Courtroom Decorum, 50 MD. L. REV. 945 (1991)
Vincent S. Dalsimer, Emily Post Goes to Court, 18 CLEV.-MARSHALL L. REV. 248 (1969)
Claude I. Depew, President, The Bar Association of thee State of Kansas, Progress in Public
Relations, KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL BULLETIN (October 1954)
Anayat Durrani, The Verdict On Courtroom Fashion, PLAINTIFF (October 2011)
96
Judge John P. Erlick, Professionalism in the Courtroom, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NEWS
(August 2008)
Ann Farmer, Order in the Closet: Why Attire for Women Lawyers Is Still An Issue, PERSPECTIVES
(Fall 2010)
Leonard I. Frieling, Courtroom Etiquette: How to Set Yourself Apart, COLO. LAW. (December
1998)
Thomas Gibbs Gee, The Uncivil Lawyer, 15 REV. LITIG. 177 (1996)
Thomas G. Gutheil, M.D., Mark Hauser, M.D., Myra S. White, Ph.D., J.D., Graham Spruiell,
M.D., and Larry H. Strasburger, M.D., The Whole Truth Versus The Admissible Truth: An
Ethics Dilemma for Expert Witnesses, 31 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY LAW 31(4): 422-427 (2003)
Senior Judge Gerald W. Hardcastle, Civility In the Courtroom: A Judges Perspective, NEVADA
LAWYER (December 2009)
Joseph H. Hinshaw, Court Room Decorum, 37 J. AM. JUD. SOC. 44 (1953-54)
Lynda K. Hopewell, Appropriate Attire and Conduct for an Attorney in the Court Room,
JOURNAL OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION 12, 187-199 (1987)
George Kairinos, Manners maketh the advocate, ADVOCATE (South Africa) (Fourth Term 2000)
Richard B. Klein, A Dozen Ways to Anger a Judge, LITIGATION (Winter 1987)
Gerald Lebovits, Judicial Jesting: Judicious? 75 N.Y. ST. B.J. 64 (September 2003)
Gerald Lebovits, Ethical Judicial Writing Part II, 79 N.Y. ST .B.J. 64 (January 2007)
Steven Lubet, Bullying From the Bench, 5 GREEN BAG 2D 11 (2001)
Judge Michael D. Lyon, Practices of Successful Lawyers Appreciated by Trial Judges, 16 UTAH
B.J. 28 (April 2003)
James E. Moliterno, An Analysis of Ethics Teaching in Law Schools: Replacing Lost Benefits of
the Apprentice System in the Academic Atmosphere, Faculty Publications Paper 1011, William &
Mary Law School Scholarship Repository (1991)
Judge Adrienne Nelson, What Lawyers Should And Should Not Do In the Courtroom, 21 PROF.
LAW. 2 (2011)
97
Douglas R. Richmond, Bullies on the Bench, 72 LA. L. REV. (2012)
David M. Rothman, Exercising Judicial Control Without Contempt, JUDICIAL CONDUCT
REPORTER (Fall 1999)
Judge William R. Sawyer, Top 10 Things Never to Say to a Judge (And Three Things You Should
Always Do), 72 ALA. LAW. 476 (November 2011)
Hon. Randall T. Shepard, On Licensing Lawyers: Why Uniformity is Good and Nationalization
Is Bad, 60 N.Y.U. ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW 453-462 (2004)
D. Brooks Smith, The Art and Etiquette of Stating Object, 16 PA. LAW. 18 (May 1994)
George Rose Smith, A Primer of Opinion Writing, For Four New Judges, 21 ARK. L. REV. 197
(1967-1968)
Robert W. Thompson, Q.C., Barristers Etiquette and Ethical Duties, 13 ARCTIC OBITER (May
2009)
Elizabeth Trenary, Lawyers and Depression: Understanding the Connection, U. Miami L. Rev.
(February 17, 2014),
http://lawreview.law.miami.edu/lawyers-depression-understanding-connection/
Thomas R. Trenker, Power of court to impose standard of personal appearance or attire, 73
A.L.R. 3d 353 (Originally published in 1976)
Aaron Vehling, 5 Tips to Avoid a Fashion Faux Pas in Court, LAW360, April 10, 2015, at http
Clifford R. Weckstein, Ad-dress-ing Counsel, 58 VIRGINIA LAWYER 49 (December 2009)
Books and Manuals
Gleason L. Archer, LL.B, ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE LAWYER (Boston: Little Brown Co.,
1910)
Francis Bacon, Of Judicature, THE ESSAYS OF COUNSEL CIVIL AND MORAL (1597 AND 1625),
transcribed by Judy Boss (Renascence Editions 1968)
Hon. S. Tupper Bigelow, Legal Etiquette and Court Room Decorum (Toronto: Carswell 1955)
Susan Blake and Ros Carne, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (Oxford University Press, 15th ed. 2010)
98
BLACKS L. DICT. (6th ed. 1990)

Ronnie K. Boodoosingh, THE COMPLETE ADVOCATE (Xlibris 2013)
James E. Clapp, Elizabeth G. Thornburg, Marc Galanter, and Fred R. Shapiro, LAWTALK: THE
UNKNOWN STORIES BEHIND LEGAL EXPRESSIONS (New Haven: Yale University Press 2011)
William Cruise, Esq., TREATISE ON THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF DIGNITIES OR TITLES OF
HONOR, 2d ed. (London: Joseph Butterworth & Son 1823)
Joyce J. George, JUDICIAL OPINION WRITING HANDBOOK (4th ed. 2000)
Dent Gitchel and Molly Townes OBrien, TRIAL ADVOCACY BASICS (National Institute for Trial
Advocacy 2006)
Edward T. Hall, THE HIDDEN DIMENSION (Anchor Books 1969)
Benjamin Harrison, THE CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA (London 1897)
MORE MAXIMS OF MARK, compiled by Merle Johnson (New York: 1927)
Judicial Writing Manual: A Pocket Guide for Judges, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER (2d ed. 2013)
Lawrence E. Klein, SHAFTESBURY AND THE CULTURE OF POLITENESS (Cambridge University
Press 1994)
Thomas A. Mauet, TRIAL TECHNIQUES (New York: Aspen Law & Business 5th ed. 2000)
Roscoe Pound, THE LAWYER FROM ANTIQUITY TO MODERN TIMES (West Publishing Co. 1953)
Arman Sarvarian, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AT THE INTERNATIONAL BAR (Oxford University Press
2013)
Shimon Shetreet, Ed., THE ROLE OF COURTS IN SOCIETY, (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1988)
Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, MAKING YOUR CASE: THE ART OF PERSUADING JUDGES
(St. Paul Minn.: Thomson West 2008)
Philip Dorner Stanhope, LORD CHESTERFIELDS ADVICE TO HIS SON ON MEN AND MANNERS
(London: William Tegg 1861)
Jacob Stein, CLOSING ARGUMENTS 1:3 (2015-2016 ed.)
99
Andrew Stephenson, A.M., Ph.D., THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, Vol. II (Boston: Richard D.
Badger, The Gorham Press 1919)
Articles and Speeches
Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, eds., ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ETHICS (New York:
Rutledge, 2001)
Janet Begley, This robe of many colors tells some Indian River history, TCPALM, January 12,
2011
Christina Binkley, Opening Statements: What to Wear to Court, WALL STREET JOURNAL,
September 2, 2010
Broward Judge plans colorful break with tradition, LAKELAND LEDGER, August 22, 1982
Julie Q. Brush, Is it better to use the term lawyer or attorney on a LinkedIn profile and
other social media to maximize searchability? Do employers make a distinction? THE LAWYER
WHISPERER, April 7, 2015,
http://www.thelawyerwhisperer.com/question/is-it-better-to-use-the-term-lawyer-or-attorney-ona-linkedin-profile-and-other-social-media-to-maximize-searchability-do-employers-make-a-disti
nction/
Hon. Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States, The Necessity for Civility, Address at
the opening session of the American Law Institute, 52 FED. RULES DECISIONS 211 (May 18,
1971)
Letters on a Regicide Peace, SELECT WORKS OF EDMUND BURKE, Vol. 3 (1795), (Indianapolis:
Liberty Fund, 1999)
Deirdre Clemente, Why and When Did Americans Begin to Dress So Casually? TIME, August 5,
2015
Liza Corsillo, Dressing Casually Has Nothing to Do With Laziness, GQ, September 9, 2015
Diane Coutu, In Praise of Boundaries: A Conversation With Miss Manners, HARVARD BUS. REV.
(December 2003)
Lloyd Duhaime, Written Submissions The Art of It, Duhaime.org, September 28, 2013,
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CivilLitigation/LawArticle-1583/Written-Submissions-The-Art-of-It.aspx
100
Tim Evans, Matthew McConaughey of Indiana Bar needs to put on socks, law professor says,
INDIANAPOLIS STAR, September 4, 2014
Roberto A. Ferdman, Why Americans dress so casually, WASHINGTON POST, September 8, 2015
Rosa Flores and Marie Arce, Why Are Lawyers Killing Themselves? CNN, January 20, 2014
Jeffrey Gettleman, Prosecutors Morbid Neckties Stir Criticism, NEW YORK TIMES, January 5,
2003
Frank Greene, FAIA, Seat at the table: Hierarchy, Iconography, Anachronism, THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS (2015)
http://www.aia.org/akr/Resources/Documents/AIAB087093?ssSourceSiteId=null
Have the Gavel, Make the Rules, THE SMOKING GUN, May 5, 2010
David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional Deportment, A COURSE OF
LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY, Vol. II (Baltimore:
Joseph Neal 1836)
Laura Italiano, Alternate Juror Booted for Naughty T-Shirt, NEW YORK POST, June 24, 2010
Colleen Jenkins, Cant robe a judge in one color: Citrus judges branch out from black for good
news or their own appointments, ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, October 21, 2003
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Law and Belief, Address to the American Bar Associations
Annual Convention (August 2, 1997)
Greg Kocher, Judge Jails Woman for Wearing Short Shorts, LANCASTER HERALD-LEADER,
August 1, 2008
Jane Lee, Bullying Judges Breed Stressful System: Kirby, THE AGE, February 22, 2013
Linda Loyd, D.A. Scolds Judge for Being Rude After Prosecutor Gets in Hot Water,
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, September 10, 1999
Daniel T. Lukasik, How Stress and Anxiety Become Depression, TRIAL (December 2008)
Judith Martin, Miss Manners: A conservative verdict for courtroom attire, CHICAGO TRIBUNE,
July 31, 2002
Judith Martin, A Philosophy of Etiquette, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY 137:3, 350-356 (September 1993)
101
Judith Martin, Speech at Harvard Law School (Cambridge April 22, 1987).
J.L. Miller, Judges crack down on inappropriate clothes in court, USA TODAY, August 17, 2010
Sandra Day OConnor, Sandra Day OConnor on Why Judges Wear Black Robes, SMITHSONIAN
MAGAZINE, November 2013
Merrie Jo Pitera, Ph.D., Courtroom Attire: Ensuring Witness Attire Makes the Right Statement,
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRIAL CONSULTANTS, Vol. 24, July 31, 2012
Christine Porath and Christine Pearson, The Price of Incivility, HARVARD BUS. REV., JanuaryFebruary 2013
Peter Post, Stop. Think. It May Ease Stress in the Office, BOSTON GLOBE, December 22, 2013
Margaret Webb Pressler, The Reasons for Good Manners, WASHINGTON POST, February 10,
2011
The Honourable Mr. Justice W. Quinn, A Judges View: Things That Lawyers Do That Annoy
Judges; Things They Do That Impress Judges, Presentation to the Ontario Bar Association at the
Family Law Institute in Toronto, Canada (February 10, 2012)
John Remsen, Jr., Enough Is Enough: Lawyers Should Look Like Lawyers, THE REMSEN GROUP
(2010), http://www.theremsengroup.com/123
John Remsen, Jr., Lawyers Should Look Like Lawyers, Part II, THE REMSEN GROUP (2010),
http://www.theremsengroup.com/128
Roger Roy, Judge Makes Plum Choice, Orders Black Robe to Closet, ORLANDO SENTINEL, July
2, 1987
Brett Snider, Guy Court Attire, Strategist: THE FINDLAW LAW FIRM BUSINESS BLOG, January 7,
2014
J.C. Stubbs, The Publics Good Will, 46 LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS MONTHLY JOURNAL (January
1912)
The Stress/Rudeness Vicious Circle, THE JOB DOC BLOG, December 19, 2013
Kristin Tillotson, What Not to Wear for Your Day in Court, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE, March
11, 2011
Robin West, Socratic Teaching Is a Thing of the Past, NEW YORK TIMES, December 15, 2011
102
Whos Who and Whats What in the Courtroom, HG.ORG,

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31722
Miscellaneous
THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, In Congress,
July 4, 1776
Justice Richard W. Ervin, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PORTRAIT GALLERY
103

A Pocket Manual of Courtroom Etiquette (February 25, 2016 Draft)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Pocket Manual of Courtroom Etiquette (February 25, 2016 Draft)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2016 William H. Burgess, III. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

Preserving the Right to Fair Trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Appendix A: Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

The Florida Bars Standing Committee on Professionalism defines professionalism as follows:

THE LEGAL PROFESSION

William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

Revolution and Reprofessionalization

Law and the Civil Society

in which participants are sometimes talkers and sometimes listeners in an exchange of

A broad-based knowledge of proper courtroom etiquette is necessary for attorneys to be

Organization and Purpose of a Courtroom

Figure 1 Example of a classic courtroom arrangement for a federal courthouse.

Figure 2 Example of a corner bench courtroom arrangement for a federal courthouse.

See Whos Who and Whats What in the Courtroom, HG.ORG.

Receiving and Publishing a Verdict

Authority and Obligation to Regulate Courtroom Order and

A. Sherman Christenson, Courtroom Decorum As An Aid to Proper Judicial Administration, 27 FED.

In my view, it is now well-understood that the objectives of good decision-making achieved

Sandstrom v. State, 309 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar.

Basic Clothes Etiquette

More Maxims of Mark, compiled by Merle Johnson (New York: 1927).

See Syndi Seid, The Etiquette of Wearing a Hat, ADVANCED ETIQUETTE, at

Attorneys, in particular, are expected to be attired professionally when they are in a

Parties, Witnesses, Spectators, Law Enforcement Officers, Jurors, and Others

OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION INCORPORATED

Canon 3B(3), FLA. CODE OF JUD. CONDUCT.

Canon 3B(4)-(7), FLA. CODE OF JUD. CONDUCT.

In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198, 542 P. 2d 676 (Kansas 1975).

Conduct Toward Other Judges

Preserving the Right to Fair Trial

An important part of attorney professionalism is ensuring that concern for a clients

Professional Expectations Preamble 4, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

E.g., Trials, Pretrials, Motions, Arraignments, Add-On, etc.

Adjournment is the putting off, deferment, or postponement of an action (such as a hearing) of a

Where to Speak From

Professional Expectations 5.4, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

Joseph H. Hinshaw, Court Room Decorum, 37 J. AM. JUD. SOC. 44 (1953-54).

Resolution 5, David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional Deportment, A COURSE OF

OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY,

OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY,

OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY,

Rule 4-1.3, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY,

OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY,

Resolution 3, David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional Deportment, A COURSE OF

Prefacing an oral submission with Ill be brief before giving a long-winded

Joseph H. Hinshaw, Court Room Decorum, 37 J. AM. JUD. SOC. 44 (1953-54).

Resolution 4, David C. Hoffman, Fifty Resolutions In Regard to Professional Deportment, A COURSE OF

Ronnie K. Boodoosingh, THE COMPLETE ADVOCATE (Xlibris 2013).

Professional Expectations 5.3, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

Professionalism Expectations 4.5, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

Professionalism Expectations 3.3, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

Professionalism Expectations 4.18, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

Leaving the Courtroom

Professionalism Expectations 3.17, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

Interaction With the Judge

Professional Expectations 5.3, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

Professional Expectations 4.14, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

See Edward T. Hall, THE HIDDEN DIMENSION (Anchor Books 1969).

Professional Expectations 4.17, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

Professionalism Expectations 4.16, THE FLORIDA BAR, January 30, 2015.

OF LEGAL STUDY, ADDRESSED TO STUDENTS AND THE PROFESSION GENERALLY,