Legal proceedings often involve opposing sides presenting their arguments and evidence before a judge or jury. When lawyers representing different parties disagree on a particular issue during court proceedings, they must address their disagreements professionally and respectfully. This article explores what lawyers say in court when they don’t agree, the protocols they follow, and how they present their conflicting views while upholding legal ethics and the decorum of the courtroom.
I. Objections
One of the primary ways lawyers express disagreement in court is by raising objections. An objection is a formal statement by an attorney opposing a question, evidence, or argument presented by the opposing counsel. Lawyers may raise objections based on specific grounds, such as:
Relevance: If they believe the question or evidence presented is not directly related to the case or is not essential to proving or disproving a fact.
Hearsay: When the evidence or testimony being presented is based on hearsay, meaning it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Leading Question: If the opposing counsel asks a question that suggests the answer or leads the witness to a specific response.
Speculation: When a question requires the witness to guess or speculate rather than provide factual information.
Character Evidence: Lawyers may object if the opposing party attempts to introduce evidence about a person’s character to prove their behavior in a particular situation.
When an objection is raised, the lawyer making the objection states, “Objection, Your Honor,” and briefly indicates the grounds for the objection. The judge then rules on the objection, either sustaining it (agreeing with the objection) or overruling it (allowing the question or evidence to stand).
II. Motion to Strike
In some instances, after an objection is overruled, a lawyer may request the court to “strike” the objectionable question or testimony from the record. This is known as a “motion to strike.” The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the objectionable content does not influence the decision-making process.
III. Stipulations
Lawyers can also use stipulations to acknowledge certain facts or evidence without the need for formal presentation and disagreement. A stipulation is an agreement between the parties about specific facts or evidence that both sides accept as true. By stipulating to certain facts, the parties can streamline the trial process and avoid unnecessary disputes over uncontroversial matters.
IV. Bench Conferences
During a trial, lawyers may request a “bench conference” to discuss issues or disagreements with the judge outside the presence of the jury and the public. This allows the attorneys to address sensitive matters without prejudicing the jury or derailing the proceedings. Bench conferences are typically held at the judge’s bench, and their outcomes are not disclosed to the jury.
V. Ethical Obligations
Lawyers have a professional duty to present their client’s case diligently and zealously. However, this duty is balanced by ethical obligations to maintain civility and professionalism in the courtroom. Lawyers must not engage in disrespectful behavior, personal attacks, or excessive arguments with opposing counsel. The duty to be truthful and forthright in court also requires lawyers to avoid making false or misleading statements.
VI. Appeals
If lawyers disagree with the judge’s ruling on an objection or other legal matters during the trial, they can preserve the issue for appeal by making a “proffer” or a “bill of exceptions.” This is a formal record of the objection and the judge’s ruling, which can be reviewed by a higher court if an appeal is filed after the trial.
VII. Conclusion
In the adversarial legal system, lawyers often encounter situations where they don’t agree with the opposing counsel. When faced with disagreements in court, lawyers are expected to raise objections respectfully, adhere to legal ethics, and maintain the decorum of the courtroom. By doing so, they uphold the principles of justice and ensure a fair and orderly trial process. The ability to navigate these disagreements professionally is a hallmark of competent and effective legal representation, contributing to the pursuit of truth and justice in the legal system.