Also known as: professional conduct
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The standards of formality and courtesy observed by participants in conducting legal or parliamentary business. These standards guide judges in regulating the length, scope, and tone of arguments to ensure fairness and order.
Denise Donovan instructed her lawyer to file a motion the lawyer knew violated court rules. The lawyer met with Donovan to explain the restriction on pursuing the request. This consultation followed the duty to advise about limits on permitted assistance.
Derek Douglas, a senior partner, learned that an associate planned to submit an inflammatory brief. Douglas reviewed the draft and required revisions to align with professional standards. The oversight implemented the duty to ensure conformance with conduct rules.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Deborah Dunn, an associate, received instructions from her supervisor on handling an arguable disclosure issue in a filing. Dunn followed the supervisor's reasonable approach. Her compliance satisfied the safe-harbor provision for reasonable resolutions of professional-duty questions.
Dylan Duffy received an order from a senior attorney to make an ex parte contact prohibited by the rules. Duffy refused and proceeded only through proper channels. The refusal implemented the principle that rules bind a lawyer regardless of direction from another person.
Delilah Duran held a press conference hours after her client's indictment and made detailed public comments about the evidence. The state bar later charged her with violating publicity rules. The statements breached decorum by risking prejudice to the fairness of the upcoming trial.
Doris Duffy served on a jury that convicted a defendant after one juror made statements relying on racial stereotypes during deliberations. The trial court considered evidence of those statements. The inquiry protected decorum by ensuring the verdict rested on impartial deliberation rather than bias.
Trial judges may regulate the length, scope, and decorum of arguments but must exercise that discretion evenhandedly and consistent with structural rules such as Rule 29.1. One-sided limits that bar the prosecution from addressing admitted evidence while allowing the defense to do so, and that eliminate rebuttal, depart from the required order and balance. Such departures are reviewed for abuse of discretion and prejudice rather than treated as automatically reversible.
No. While judges retain discretion to control decorum, that authority does not extend to altering the basic structure of closing arguments by denying the government any rebuttal after the defense has addressed key evidence. Such an order creates an unfair one-sided presentation that an appellate court is likely to find an abuse of discretion.
…Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence §6076, pp. 580–583 (2d ed. 2007) (Wright); see also Variations of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.5 (Sept. 15, 2016) (overview of state ethics rules); 2 Jurywork Systematic Techniques §13:18 (2016–2017) (overview of Federal District Court rules). These limits seek to provide…