We had a camera a bit further away and set up a podium.
In other words, you always need to have your pants on.
You are probably on the judge’s good/bad list by now…
Just tabs, long-sleeved waistcoat and robes. No wig. Sent you a clip a few years ago, remember? 
(Oh, and pants and shoes and all the other bits as well. But no wig.)
But if you’re wearing robes, who’s to know whether you’re wearing trousers or even pants?
They don’t button in front and end below your knees.
I know it. I hike around that part of town from time to time.
Tripler
The curriculum always interested me.
I always thought we stood up, because the Judge stood up, in a mutual “We-All-Have-Pants” Verification Ceremony to open the Court. This guy apparently bucked that legal tradition, and is now doing time in jail for indecent exposure due to his own No Pants Party.
Tripler
He gave new meaning to “All rise!”
You’re wearing the robe wrong. You’re supposed to put it on so it opens in the back like a hospital gown.
(And still, as always, you’re not supposed to ever turn your back on the judge.)
I think it was Flip Wilson who said “Here comes the judge” on Laugh-In.
Sammy Davis Jr as well.
I always use it in the former sense, usually when talking with someone I consider a peer, but still wrong. I don’t recall ever saying “with all due respect” to someone I didn’t have respect for.
Yeah - I remembered. Sorry I didn’t look it up.
The longer I’ve done this gig, the less I am impressed w/ the “formalities.” IMO, people show respect by the content of their presentation/preparation. Not by what they wear or their specific word choice. (Well, preferably no shorts and flip flops, and keep the cusswords to a minimum.)
For my taste, I’d rather someone just say, “I disagree” or some variant. Whether or not we respect each other is adequately demonstrated by the entirety of our interaction.
In legal proceedings, lawyers are often making their “best argument.” With little regard to “right or wrong”. They are simply saying they WANT you to view things their way.
Fair enough, but sometimes things get heated. A kind word sometimes disarms that tension.
Of course. I’m not there as an amicus. I am advocating for a client, even if I personally think the other side has the better of it.
Sure. But unless you are a public defender or something, you choose which clients to represent in which actions. And you are doing so in the pursuit of personal profit. If you have a weak case, just make your best case. But don’t act all righteous about it.
One of the most challenging things I had to learn as a judge was to not engage with attys who were presenting BS arguments. Because it would only frustrate me when they would fail to respond to a direct question, or respond w/ more BS. Just let them have their say, and then issue whatever decision I think appropriate.
If a rep generally presents garbage in case after case before me, it makes it challenging to realize that they might actually be making sense in a subsequent case.