Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / StockLegalPhrases

Go To



* "I can no longer represent my client in this matter." (Lawyer speak for, most often, "My client specifically asked me to lie to the court," although it can also mean "My client is a fucking asshole and I hate him and I just can't work with him anymore," "My client up and disappeared and I've been trying to find him for months but still have no clue where he is," or "My client refuses to pay me.")

to:

* "I can no longer represent my client in this matter." (Lawyer speak for, most often, "My client specifically asked me to lie to the court," although it can also mean "My client and I have just discovered we have a conflict of interest," "My client is a fucking asshole and I hate him and I just can't work with him anymore," "My client up and disappeared and I've been trying to find him for months but still have no clue where he is," or "My client refuses to pay me.")


** The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on Literature/TheBible, particularly Quakers (a powerful group in the powerful state of Pennsylvania).[[note]]Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.]] Which is in itself interesting, because [[Literature/TheBible the book they're refusing to swear on]] says "Do not swear [...] any other oath, but let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.'" (Which itself was a big part of why the Quakers didn't swear things, so it comes full circle.)[[/note]] To this day, Pennsylvania is home to one of the most variant swearings/affirmings-in ("Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth in the matter now trying?").

to:

** The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on Literature/TheBible, particularly Quakers (a powerful group in the powerful state of Pennsylvania).UsefulNotes/{{Pennsylvania}}).[[note]]Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.]] Which is in itself interesting, because [[Literature/TheBible the book they're refusing to swear on]] says "Do not swear [...] any other oath, but let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.'" (Which itself was a big part of why the Quakers didn't swear things, so it comes full circle.)[[/note]] To this day, Pennsylvania is home to one of the most variant swearings/affirmings-in ("Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth in the matter now trying?").trying?") even though the Quakers have long since lost their political influence.[[note]]For the curious, the largest and most powerful Christian sect in modern PA is the Roman Catholic Church. The Quakers are still there, but they don't run the place anymore.[[/note]]


** The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on Literature/TheBible, particularly Quakers (a powerful group in the powerful state of Pennsylvania).[[note]]Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.]] Which is in itself interesting, because [[Literature/TheBible the book they're refusing to swear on]] says "Do not swear [...] any other oath, but let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No."[[/note]] To this day, Pennsylvania is home to one of the most variant swearings/affirmings-in ("Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth in the matter now trying?").

to:

** The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on Literature/TheBible, particularly Quakers (a powerful group in the powerful state of Pennsylvania).[[note]]Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.]] Which is in itself interesting, because [[Literature/TheBible the book they're refusing to swear on]] says "Do not swear [...] any other oath, but let your "Yes" 'Yes' be "Yes," 'Yes,' and your "No," "No."[[/note]] 'No,' 'No.'" (Which itself was a big part of why the Quakers didn't swear things, so it comes full circle.)[[/note]] To this day, Pennsylvania is home to one of the most variant swearings/affirmings-in ("Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth in the matter now trying?").


-->-- ''WebAnimation/StrongBadEmail'', "rampage"

to:

-->-- ''WebAnimation/StrongBadEmail'', "rampage"
''WebAnimation/StrongBadEmail'' #128 [[Recap/StrongBadEmailE128Rampage "rampage"]]


* "All rise!" Said by the bailiff when the judge(s) enter(s). (In the US). Today, many courts will only do this twice a day--once when the judge gets on the bench for the morning session at the beginning of the day and once when the judge gets on the bench for the afternoon session after lunch. If the judge takes a break during a session (whether it be to confer with the attorneys or his/her law clerk, to consult another judge for advice, or simply to use the facilities), it's not uncommon for the bailiff to say "please remain seated" when the judge returns to keep things moving along. [[note]] "[[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} All ri-]]" (*is faced with a bunch of floating Pokemon who are physically unable to do so*) "[[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} Erm... I apologize... let me rephrase that]]. [[FantasticLegalWeirdness If you can rise, rise. If you cannot because of the]] [[RealityEnsues physical limitations of your species]], [[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} then]] [[RealisticDictionIsUnrealistic ple- please]] [[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} remain where you are.]]" [[/note]]

to:

* "All rise!" Said by the bailiff when the judge(s) enter(s). (In the US). Today, many courts will only do this twice a day--once when the judge gets on the bench for the morning session at the beginning of the day and once when the judge gets on the bench for the afternoon session after lunch. If the judge takes a break during a session (whether it be to confer with the attorneys or his/her law clerk, to consult another judge for advice, or simply to use the facilities), it's not uncommon for the bailiff to say "please remain seated" when the judge returns to keep things moving along. [[note]] "[[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} All ri-]]" (*is faced with a bunch of floating Pokemon who are physically unable to do so*) "[[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} Erm... I apologize... let me rephrase that]]. [[FantasticLegalWeirdness If you can rise, rise. If you cannot because of the]] [[RealityEnsues physical limitations of your species]], [[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} then]] [[RealisticDictionIsUnrealistic ple- please]] [[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} remain where you are.]]" [[/note]]


* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel. Disruption of the order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt. This is mostly American.

to:

* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel. Disruption of the order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt. This is mostly American. In more comedic works, one can expect someone to respond to this with [[IncrediblyLamePun a food order.]]


* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.) Important exception, though: in "street-level" civil hearings (usually small claims and the like, though it happens in family court, as well) where the parties are largely self-represented and do not know the law and there is usually no formal pretrial discovery, this is actually a relatively common occurrence. Since these street-level cases form the bulk of civil actions, but no lawyer appears in most of them, this may happen more often than many lawyers realize.

to:

* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.) Important exception, though: in "street-level" civil hearings (usually small claims and the like, though it happens in family court, as well) where the parties are largely self-represented and do not know the law and there is usually no formal pretrial discovery, discovery/disclosure, this is actually a relatively common occurrence. Since these street-level cases form the bulk of civil actions, but no lawyer appears in most of them, this may happen more often than many lawyers realize.


* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.) Important exception, though: in "street-level" civil hearings (usually small claims and the like, though it happens in family court, as well) where the parties are largely self-represented and do not know the law, this is actually a relatively common occurrence. Since these street-level cases form the bulk of civil actions, but no lawyer appears in most of them, this may happen more often than many lawyers realize.

to:

* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.) Important exception, though: in "street-level" civil hearings (usually small claims and the like, though it happens in family court, as well) where the parties are largely self-represented and do not know the law, law and there is usually no formal pretrial discovery, this is actually a relatively common occurrence. Since these street-level cases form the bulk of civil actions, but no lawyer appears in most of them, this may happen more often than many lawyers realize.


* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.)

to:

* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.)) Important exception, though: in "street-level" civil hearings (usually small claims and the like, though it happens in family court, as well) where the parties are largely self-represented and do not know the law, this is actually a relatively common occurrence. Since these street-level cases form the bulk of civil actions, but no lawyer appears in most of them, this may happen more often than many lawyers realize.
* "If the Court pleases" or "If your Lordship pleases": Exactly what it sounds like, it can be a genuine marker of respect, an off-the-cuff bit of verbal filler, or a bit of snark at the judge. The "your Lordship" version is of course only used when the judge is addressed as "my Lord" (most typically a British High Court judge).


*** An issue of ''ComicBook/SonicTheHedgehog'' had the lawyer (in this case Antoine), going overboard in his questioning and asking the witness (Amy Rose) about overcharging a badger in joining a fan club, leading the judge (Princess Sally) to tell him to "stop badgering the witness".

to:

*** An issue of ''ComicBook/SonicTheHedgehog'' ''ComicBook/SonicTheHedgehogArchieComics'' had the lawyer (in this case Antoine), going overboard in his questioning and asking the witness (Amy Rose) about overcharging a badger in joining a fan club, leading the judge (Princess Sally) to tell him to "stop badgering the witness".


[[quoteright:324:[[ComicBook/ArchieComicsSonicTheHedgehog https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/badgeringthewitness.png]]]]

to:

[[quoteright:324:[[ComicBook/ArchieComicsSonicTheHedgehog [[quoteright:324:[[ComicBook/SonicTheHedgehogArchieComics https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/badgeringthewitness.png]]]]



-->-- ''[[WebAnimation/HomestarRunner Strong Bad Email: Rampage]]''

to:

-->-- ''[[WebAnimation/HomestarRunner Strong Bad Email: Rampage]]''
''WebAnimation/StrongBadEmail'', "rampage"


** There is one situation where surprise evidence is somewhat often introduced—for impeachment (i.e. evidence that undermines the credibility of the witness). Impeachment evidence is usually hearsay[[note]]Almost always, in fact, with the giant caveat that statements made by an opposing party are not considered hearsay, and very often the witness you're trying to impeach is the opposing party, testifying in support of their own case.[[/note]] and is often so weakly relevant or so prejudicial that the other side won’t bother to try to get it in (as a waste of limited time and resources). However, lawyers often keep potential impeachment in reserve in case an opposing witness "opens the door" to bringing the evidence in, typically by saying something that completely contradicts a previous statement.

to:

** There is one situation where surprise evidence is somewhat often introduced—for impeachment (i.e. evidence that undermines the credibility of the witness). Impeachment evidence is usually hearsay[[note]]Almost always, in fact, with the giant caveat that statements made by an opposing party are not considered hearsay, and very often the witness you're trying to impeach is the opposing party, testifying in support of their own case.[[/note]] and is often so weakly relevant or so prejudicial that the other side won’t bother to try to get it in (as a waste of limited time and resources). However, lawyers often keep potential impeachment in reserve in case an opposing witness "opens the door" to bringing the evidence in, typically by saying something that completely contradicts a previous statement.


** There is one situation where surprise evidence is somewhat often introduced—for impeachment (i.e. evidence that undermines the credibility of the witness). Impeachment evidence is often so weakly relevant or so prejudicial that the other side won’t bother to try to get it in (as a waste of limited time and resources). However, lawyers often keep potential impeachment in reserve in case the opposing party "opens the door" to bringing the evidence in, typically by saying something that completely contradicts a previous statement.

to:

** There is one situation where surprise evidence is somewhat often introduced—for impeachment (i.e. evidence that undermines the credibility of the witness). Impeachment evidence is usually hearsay[[note]]Almost always, in fact, with the giant caveat that statements made by an opposing party are not considered hearsay, and very often the witness you're trying to impeach is the opposing party, testifying in support of their own case.[[/note]] and is often so weakly relevant or so prejudicial that the other side won’t bother to try to get it in (as a waste of limited time and resources). However, lawyers often keep potential impeachment in reserve in case the an opposing party witness "opens the door" to bringing the evidence in, typically by saying something that completely contradicts a previous statement.


** There is one situation where surprise evidence is somewhat often introduced—for impeachment (i.e. evidence that undermines the credibility of the witness). Impeachment evidence is often so prejudicial that the other side won’t bother to try to get it in (as a waste of limited time and resources), but often keep in reserve in case they "open the door" to bringing the evidence in.

to:

** There is one situation where surprise evidence is somewhat often introduced—for impeachment (i.e. evidence that undermines the credibility of the witness). Impeachment evidence is often so weakly relevant or so prejudicial that the other side won’t bother to try to get it in (as a waste of limited time and resources), but resources). However, lawyers often keep potential impeachment in reserve in case they "open the opposing party "opens the door" to bringing the evidence in.in, typically by saying something that completely contradicts a previous statement.


** The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on Literature/TheBible, particularly Quakers (a powerful group in the powerful state of Pennsylvania).[[note]]Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.]] Which is in itself interesting, because [[Literature/TheBible the book they're refusing to swear on]] says "Do not swear [...] any other oath, but let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No."[[/note]] To this day, Pennsylvania is home to one of the most variant swearings/affirmings-in ("Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth in the matter now trying?")

to:

** The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on Literature/TheBible, particularly Quakers (a powerful group in the powerful state of Pennsylvania).[[note]]Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.]] Which is in itself interesting, because [[Literature/TheBible the book they're refusing to swear on]] says "Do not swear [...] any other oath, but let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No."[[/note]] To this day, Pennsylvania is home to one of the most variant swearings/affirmings-in ("Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth in the matter now trying?")trying?").

Showing 15 edit(s) of 133

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report