Our Blog

Welcome to our blog


How to Use May It Please the Court

Posted 21. Oktober 2022 by Logistik-Express in Allgemein

There are other problems with the sentence. How should it be delivered? Is this a statement or a question? How should it be printed – that is, which words are capitalized? These questions are easy to answer. First of all, it should not be delivered as a question, but as a statement, similar to May the Force be with you or May the wind always be at your back. The tone goes down at the end, not upwards. And when printed, only the first and last words are capitalized – May as the beginning of the sentence and court as a sign of respect for the court to which one is addressing (however modest its jurisdiction). In Appellate Advocacy (2001), I was taught that the term is archaic and only appropriate in pleadings. For this reason, I have never used this term in a trial court. Since I work primarily in family court and have witnessed the drastic change in the culture of this court over the past 7 years, I`m only sure that no matter what you say or do, there`s a 50% chance the court won`t like it. In the mid-1990s, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, William K. Suter, created the very important Guide for Lawyers, which is available on the Court`s website. He ordered counsel to use the immutable wording, Mr.

Chief Justice, and that the court please. Some time ago, Judge Jon O. Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit expressed the view that the words “May it Please the Court” may be the only words of counsel that are not immediately challenged. We don`t want to be understood as opposing the age-old phrase, but when we think about it, we`re not sure it really serves a useful purpose. It is doubtful that a presiding judge of the appellate judge will reprimand a lawyer for saying these words, but on the other hand, it might be helpful to simply say “hello” or “hello” (as the case may be). After all, who knows what the court will like? We risk answering that shorter briefs with fewer points could be a start. In the photo, I am standing in a winter forest, my four children are gathered around me.

In this image, they range from about three to thirteen years. We are surrounded by pristine snow and bare trees and framed by a pretty fieldstone arch. I`m radiant, and my whole world revolves around keeping them safe, warm and out of harm`s way. If you had approached me at the time and told me that in a few years I would not only be a prosecutor but I would also be pleading in the state Supreme Court, I would have looked at you the same way as if you had told me that genealogical research had just revealed that I was really the Queen of England. and a Lear jet was ready to take me back to the other side of the pond. Oh, and the roof of Buckingham Palace needs to be repaired. Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan L. Hecht consulted with colleagues who liked the phrase but did not insist on it.

He says: “I don`t think it`s legal German, although it`s a formalism. An essential aspect of legal language seems to me to be that it is an inelegant or inefficient way of communicating. Please the Tribunal is not a statement, nor is it a real question or even a rhetorical question. It is not intended to receive information or communicate the intention of the speaker; Or if so, then it is often difficult to recognize in what follows a thought of the speaker, to really please the court. I may have skipped a law class that day, but I don`t remember being taught that I had to begin each argument by reciting, “Let the court please it.” Early in my career, after hearing that my older colleagues were starting to argue this way, I started to do it. At one point, I changed my introduction to “Thank you, Your Honour” [“or honours” when addressing multiple judges]. • First, we could wait for a woman to take over as chief, then remove the reference to the chief justice and go back to the dedicated May that pleases the court. It hardly seems right – changing practice only after a woman has taken the highest position in American law. When I asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her opinion, she replied, “Bryan, you have identified two precedents for bringing Mr. before the judge: `Justice O`Connor, and may the Court like it` and `Chief Justice ____, and may the Court like it` should not provoke dissent.” The lawyers asked Suter for advice on what form of address to use, and they followed his advice: “Judge O`Connor, please the court.” As the case involved a small child who clearly deserved a better life, the tiger mother in me also intervened and I spent weekends working on the case. I stopped on the side of the road to jot down ideas about Dairy Queen towels that came to mind while driving.

I sat cross-legged on the basement floor of the courthouse, bending over dusty law books from the 1800s, trying to trace the path of law from the days when children were considered property to today`s realities. I repeated my introduction over and over again while driving, fearing that if I hadn`t attached the words absolutely to a subconscious part of my brainstem, I might freeze to death like a deer in the lighthouse. In American courts, May it please the Court was the most frequent opener throughout the 19th century. But there were variations. The characteristic phrase of the great Daniel Webster was May it please your honors (recorded in 1818 and 1848). The same goes for Benjamin R. Curtis, a Supreme Court justice from 1851 to 1857. Joseph H. Choate, a famous Supreme Court lawyer in the late 19th century.

It usually opened with If the Court please. As sometimes happens, I`m in a different place. I do not like or reject the term “Your Honour” or “The Honourable”. Not because I don`t respect our judges. These terms, although common in the United States. The courts are a fairly clear remnant of the English courts and are derived from the honour of kings and other hereditary titles of various nobility. I don`t want to get all the 1776s out of all, but they just shouldn`t be a part of us. I will use them as requested because I am too polite, but it is really bad for Americans, and we should reconsider this custom. Another judge of the 9. Susan Graber, said: “His absence is always more remarkable than his presence, so I prefer lawyers who say the court can love him.” During her last term on the court in 2005, Suter tells me, Justice O`Connor presided. It was the first and (so far) the only time that a woman presided over the Grand Chamber.

--> -->