Judges often face lawyer misbehavior in court. Such misbehavior, and the way judges address it, are pressing issues, which challenge all courts. However, the current literature on the legal profession and legal education lacks a systemic analysis of judges’ perceptions of lawyers’ behavior in their courtrooms, of the ways in which judges are influenced by lawyers’ misbehavior, and of the ways in which they respond to it. This Article fills this gap by empirically analyzing judges’ perceptions of lawyers’ misbehavior, how it influences judges’ work environments, the methods they use to cope with it, and the constraints they face in dealing with such behavior.
The data is based on two studies: A survey circulated among presiding judges, and a qualitative study which included dozens of interviews with retired judges. We analyze the original empirical data we
gathered using public choice theory and new institutionalism.We found that judges acknowledge that lawyers’ misconduct is frequent. However, although judges have many means to control lawyers, most refrain from using such means, instead using oral reprimand almost exclusively. Judges do so because they believe that using more severe methods might yield negative results for them since the judicial system will not support them against lawyers’ backlash. Moreover, though most judges declare that they succeed in maintaining decorum in their courtroom, they largely agree that “other
judges” have a problem in attaining that goal, that lawyers’ misbehavior has a negative impact on judges’ work environments and wellbeing, and that the judicial system does not adequately deal with this problem. This study will help researchers better understand judges’ perceptions and behavior and shed light on the reasons behind judges’ choices when they are confronted with unruly lawyers—issues that have been at the heart of a fierce academic debate in recent decades.
Comments