Justice must be seen (always wear your shoes) and heard (just don't whisper loudly)

Can lawyers come up with a tongue-in-cheek book, one aimed at their esteemed peers?

A new book, A Civil Practice: Good Counsel For Learned Friends, touted as a light-hearted book complete with "cartoons and tips that range from the general (sic) right down to the brass tacks (sic!)" has been launched by the Chief Justice, as reported in The Straits Times ("Primer on manners for lawyers launched," 11 March, page A10).

The caption to a picture of the CJ unveiling the cover of the book carries a reminder by him to lawyers to maintain their "long tradition of mutual courtesy and respect in the discharge of their professional duties".

Now read the following excerpts, "Some rules of engagement for lawyers," from the book, as published by ST. My comments are in square brackets:

Your opponent is not your enemy. Don’t treat your opponent with automatic suspicion just because he is your opponent. While waiting for a meeting or a hearing, try to engage him in casual conversation or banter [Ask him if he has read War and Peace.] Don’t sit apart from him and ignore him studiously. [But just look at the heading above, which has "rules of engagement" -- definitely a military term that specifies how to deal with your enemy!]

Keep your shoes on. [Oh, I love this one!] Being shoeless is a bad idea, even if nobody can see it. No matter how tight your shoes are, or how high your heels, do your best to keep your footwear on. This applies to women as well. [Here's how I would describe this part: "Lawyers, always put your best foot forward, shod, not slipshod".]

Avoid legal jargon. [Show me a lawyer who does not use legal jargon and I'll show you a legal eagle who had decided to turn in his law books and is now a writer, playwright or journalist.] Jargon tends to confuse or intimidate or both. Simple English is most effective when communicating with a client or other lay person [Dear reader, try not to laugh at this last bit, please.]

Don’t do anything to distract anyone in court. [So, women lawyers, no low-cut blouses, please. And no nose digging in open court, whatever your gender.] Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of noisy actions that are not appreciated:
(a) Loud whispering. Speak quietly and only when necessary. Better still, write a note.
(b) Vigorous page-turning or bundle-shifting.
(c) Chuckling or snorting at your opponent’s submissions (believe it or not, the court is seldom inclined to dismiss an argument just because you laughed at it) [Finally, this comment in brackets attempts to be tongue-in-cheek. Bravo!].
(d) Sighing, smirking, shaking your head, rolling your eyes or showing pained facial expressions during your opponent’s submissions or during a witness’ evidence ["pained facial expression"... even if you suffer from late-stage incontinence and forgot to wear disposable adult diapers that day? Meanwhile, that terror judge is watching your every antsy antic...]
(e) Bashing your laptop keyboard [Wah, assault and battery! Okay, keyboard has no battery.]
(f) Clicking or twiddling your pen [You know how these lawyer types are... they will look for loopholes. So it's all right to chew on your pen, coat it with your saliva, take its parts apart and re-assemble them ad nauseum, etc.]
(g) Breaking the seals on bottles, pouring water [where? on your opponent's head?], gulping one’s drink from a bottle [Note: gulping is permissible; just don't do it from a bottle See next....] Use a cup or a glass at all times.
(h) Eating in court – this is absolutely forbidden [Hmmm... I'll like to know how many were caught out?]
(i) Opening and closing the courtroom door – do it quietly. It can be done [Yes, of course! Just stand there, quietly open the door, then quietly close the door, then.... ad nauseum.]
(j) Doodling when your opponent is speaking – if the judge has to listen to him droning on, so should you. [Once again, get this right, dear chap... doodling is permissible. I daresay even when the judge is, er, droning on. But you then risk being meted his or her poetic justice, of course.]

So, why do I find an element of farce here? Recall that the CJ extolled the "long tradition of mutual courtesy and respect"? These reminders do not seem just tongue-in-cheek. They seem to point to actual unseeming practice in court! I shall rest my case here.