Back
Disruptive Behavior by Lawyers
Subject : Legal Ethics - Courtroom Conduct
Court Slams Lawyers for Disruptive Behavior During Oral Submissions
Justice Chang of the Canadian court has condemned the unprofessional behavior of lawyers who resort to facial expressions and snickering during opposing counsel's oral submissions. He emphasized that such conduct is neither new nor rare and is not a hallmark of an effective advocate.
The court noted that during a recent hearing, counsel for the applicant engaged in eye rolling, head shaking, grunting, snickering, guffawing, and loud muttering while the opposing counsel was presenting arguments. Despite an apology at the insistence of the judge, similar displays continued throughout the hearing.
Justice Chang stressed that rolling eyes, dancing eyebrows, and other mannerisms do not constitute proper critique or response to submissions. He urged lawyers to maintain decorum and respect for the court and opposing counsel.
This incident highlights the importance of professionalism and ethical conduct in legal proceedings. Lawyers have a duty to uphold the integrity of the court and to present their arguments in a respectful and dignified manner.
Disruptive behavior - Facial expressions - Snickering - Professionalism - Courtroom etiquette - Respect for the court - Legal ethics
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
