News

Polite lawyers are actually the most aggressive, research finds

By on
9

Saying ‘respect’ in court can in fact mean ‘disrespect’

Barristers who use the word ‘respect’ when speaking to opponents in court may actually be conveying ‘disrespect’, a new study has found.

Research by Nottingham Trent University and De Montfort University has shown that the phrase, which is often used in a ritualistic way during proceedings, can ironically be an indicator of the very opposite sentiment between barristers, and between barristers and judges.

The study, published in the Journal of Pragmatics, was undertaken to gauge further understanding of legal proceedings, as the use of the words ‘respect’, ‘respectfully’ and ‘respectful’ is a key way that lawyers remain within the code of conduct during heated courtroom discussion.

But the study has shown that barristers’ use of the word can indicate disrespect and undermine the professional competence of other lawyers.

Principal investigator Dr David Wright, a forensic linguist and senior lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, said: “The word ‘respect’ is used so frequently in the legal profession that it has developed a cultural significance around it, but when it is used in context it can be open to a variety of interpretations.”

Dr Wright shared an example from 2016 when the former Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger said in a speech: “[W]hen the judge makes what the advocate thinks is a stupid point, the advocate will often begin his answer with the words, ‘My Lord, with great respect…”

He also referenced a 2013 Legal Cheek article titled ‘How to speak lawyer’ in which readers were told that the phrase ‘with the greatest respect’ is to be translated as ‘you are a total idiot’.

“There’s also an underlying logic that the greater the number of times ‘respect’ is used between an advocate and judge is an indicator of the increasing number of concerns in the mind of the judge,” he continued. “So, the word ‘respect’ has a well-established and implicit institutional meaning, and when used in context, has a range of quite different interpretations.”

The 2022 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

The research — which included an analysis of an appeals court hearing — found that ‘respect’ is mostly used with genuine intent by lawyers when they disagree with judges, as a way to prevent them from appearing to undermine the judge’s status.

But the study also found that when used between opposing barristers, ‘respect’ can attack their opponent’s level of competence.

Co-investigator Jeremy Robson, senior law lecturer at De Montfort University, said: “It’s important to understand the use of the word ‘respect’ as it is used differently in different power dynamics in court, which underpin the rule of law.”

“The word ‘respect’ can mitigate disagreement between barristers and judges, and in doing so the advocate acknowledges that they themselves are in no place to tell the court how to do its job,” he said. “But it can also be a key element of language that obscures courtroom protocol for those outside of the profession. When it is used between barristers only, it can exacerbate and intensify disagreement. Lawyers can use ‘respect’ to appear polite on the surface, but it can also amplify attacks on their opposition to make them lose face professionally.”

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

9 Comments

Concerned

Respectfully, this study states the obvious.

(87)(0)

Anonymous

It’s not “aggressive” though, nor is it a sign of aggression, it simply lets the other person know you disagree.

(19)(0)

💩💩💩

Top article, fascinating stuff

(10)(0)

Yahyah

What was the point of this tosh? Please tell me no taxpayer cash was wasted funding it. Of course “respect” is just a phrase to introduce disagreement or challenge to a point being made.

(19)(3)

Stating the Obvious

Surely this is no different to the “per my last email” squad

No one is trying to be helpful by directing the recipient to a previous correspondence, they are merely highlighting their ignorance / obliviousness

(13)(0)

Gobbler

Bet the freshers are gobbling up this revelation

(10)(0)

Al

Sort of related, there’s been a fair bit of judicial comment recently disparaging unnecessary words.

One apposite example was that you can just “submit” stuff. You don’t have to do it “respectfully”.

Similarly it’s enough to deny or object. There’s no extra points for ‘vigorously’ or ‘strenuously’.

I agree; wholeheartedly.

(10)(0)

Anonymous

I was chanting Boo-urns.

(10)(0)

Trubble

The team are now working on a paper as to whether bears shit in the woods.

(6)(1)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories