TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1 Court Manners/ Etiquette and its Need 5-9
2 Clarity of Factual Proposition and Grasp of legal 9-11
aspects:
9
 Importance of Facts
10
 Types of Facts
11
 Logical and legal relevancy of facts
3 Framing of arguments along with the knowledge 12-14
of the legal aspects
4 Typology of legal framing 14-15
5 References 16

1|Page
COURT MANNERS/ ETIQUETTE AND ITS NEED
The word, “etiquette” according to Cambridge Dictionary, means ‘the set of rules or customs
that control accepted behaviour in particular social groups or social situations. In a courtroom
setting, this etiquette is interpreted as proper behaviour to display while you are in the
presence of the judge. Courtroom etiquette is a prescribed and accepted standard of behaviour
for those visiting the courthouse. When we talk about courts generally, the first thought that
arises in one's mind is the formal behaviour with which they must approach the court. In the
court, including lawyers, witnesses, police officers and the public must conduct themselves
according to the Court's rules. Courtroom etiquette is important for everyone to know. No
matter who they are, the same rules apply. When one shows respect for the court’s rules, they
are helping the court and themselves.

The American Bar Association Committee has well explained the need for a code of legal
ethics. It has been observed that the legal profession is necessarily the keystone of the arch of
Government. If it were to be weakened and allowed to be a subject of the corroding and
demoralising influence of those who are controlled by craft, greed or gain or other unworthy
motives, sooner or later the arch, must fall. The future of the country depends upon the
maintenance of the shrine of justice, pure and unrolled by the advocates. Thus, it cannot be
maintained, unless the conduct and motives of the members of the legal profession are what
they object to being. Therefore, it becomes the plain and simple duty of the lawyers to use
their influence in every legitimate way to help and make the Bar what it is ought to be. A
code of ethics is one method of furtherance to this end.

Advocates have the dual responsibility of upholding the interests of the client fearlessly while
conducting themselves as officers of the court. Accordingly, they are expected to adhere to
the highest standards of probity and honour. An advocate’s conduct should reflect their
privileged position in society which derives from the nobility of this profession. In a nut
shell, if you are an advocate your service to the common man should be compassionate,
moral and lawful. The rules mentioned in the Chapter II, Part IV of the Bar Council of India
Rules on standards of professional conduct and etiquette shall be adopted as a guide for all
advocates in conducting matters related to law.

The Bar Council of India is a statutory body that regulates and represents the Indian Bar. It
was created by Parliament under the Advocates Act, 1961. It prescribes standards of
professional conduct and etiquette and exercises disciplinary jurisdiction. Section 49(1) (c) of
2|Page
the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Bar Council of India to make rules to prescribe the
standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by the advocates. It has been
made clear that such rules shall have effect only when they are approved by the Chief Justice
of India. Bar and bench are two eyes of the Justice. There are judicial ethics and etiquette for
judges. There are professional ethics and etiquette for advocates. Every advocate should
follow them in his profession. Advocacy is a noble profession. It cannot be compared with
any other profession like trade, business etc. because it is a part and parcel of the judiciary
and administration of justice. It has also been made clear that any rules made concerning the
standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by the advocates and in force
before the commencement of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973, shall continue in force
until altered or repealed or amended under the provisions of this Act.

The main object of the professional ethics of advocacy is to maintain the dignity of the legal
profession. Chief Justice Marshall has observed in this respect, “The fundamental aim of
legal ethics is to maintain the honour and dignity of the law profession to secure a spirit of
friendly co-operation between the bench and bar in the promotion of higher standard of
justice, to establish honourable and fair dealings of the counsel with his client, opponent and
witness, to establish a spirit of brotherhood with bar itself and to secure that lawyers
discharge their responsibilities to the community generally”.

The rules which are mentioned ahead contains the conduct and etiquette as general guides but
it doesn’t deny the existence of others equally imperative though not specifically mentioned.

Duty to the Court

1. An advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise acting
before a court, conduct himself with dignity and self-respect. He shall not be servile
and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it
shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.

2. An advocate shall maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, bearing in mind
that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of a free community.

3. An advocate shall not influence the decision of a court by any illegal or improper
means. Private communications with a judge relating to a pending case are forbidden.

3|Page
4. An advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting
to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the court, opposing
counsel or parties which the advocates himself ought not to do. An advocate shall
refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not
consider himself a mere mouth-piece of the client, and shall exercise his own
judgement in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous
attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in court.

5. An advocate shall appear in court at all times only in the prescribed dress, and his
appearance shall always be presentable.

6. An advocate shall not enter appearance, act, plead or practise in any way before a
court, Tribunal or Authority mentioned in Section 30 of the Act, if the sole or any
member thereof is related to the advocate as father, grandfather, son, grand-son,
uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband, wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt,
niece, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law or
sister-in-law.

For the purposes of this rule, Court shall mean a Court, Bench or Tribunal in which
above mentioned relation of the Advocate is a Judge, Member or the Presiding
Officer.

7. An advocate shall not wear bands or gown in public places other than in courts except
on such ceremonial occasions and at such places as the Bar Council of India or the
court may prescribe.

8. An advocate shall not appear in or before any court or tribunal or any other authority
for or against an organisation or an institution, society or corporation, if he is a
member of the Executive Committee of such organisation or institution or society or
corporation. “Executive Committee”, by whatever name it may be called, shall
include any Committee or body of persons which, for the time being, is vested with
the general management of the affairs of the organisation or institution, society or
corporation.
Provided that this rule shall not apply to such a member appearing as “amicus curiae”

4|Page
 or without a fee on behalf of a Bar Council, Incorporated Law Society or a Bar
Association.

9. An Advocate should not act or plead in any matter in which he is himself pecuniary
interested.

Illustration:
He should not act in a bankruptcy petition when he himself is also a creditor of the
bankrupt.
He should not accept a brief from a company of which he is a Director.

10. An Advocate shall not stand as a surety, or certify the soundness of a surety for his
client required for the purpose of any legal proceedings.

Duty to Opponent

1. An Advocate shall not in any way communicate or negotiate upon the subject matter
of controversy with any party represented by an Advocate except through that
Advocate.

2. An Advocate shall do his best to carry out all legitimate promises made to the
opposite party even though not reduced to writing or enforceable under rules of the
Court.

Duty to Colleagues

1. An Advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether
by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interview not warranted
by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or procuring his
photograph to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or
concerned. His sign-board or name-plate should be of a reasonable size. The sign-
board or name-plate or stationery should not indicate that he is or has been President
or Members of a Bar Council or of any Association or that he has been associated
with any person or organisation or with any particular cause or matter or that he
specialises in any particular type of work or that he has been a Judge or an Advocate-
General.
5|Page
 2. An Advocate shall not permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid
of or to make possible, the unauthorised practise of law by any lay agency.

3. An Advocate shall not accept a fee less than the fee taxable under the rules when the
client is able to pay the same.

4. An Advocate shall not enter appearance in any case in which there is already a vakalat
or memo of appearance filed by an Advocate engaged for a party except with his
consent, in case such consent is not produced he shall apply to the Court stating
reasons why the said consent could not be produced and he shall appear only after
obtaining the permission of the Court.

CLARITY OF FACTUAL PROPOSITION AND GRASP OF

LEGAL ASPECTS

Facts are the information about the case given by the client to his lawyer, and then the lawyer
makes their arguments based on it to win the case in the court of law. Before giving, any legal
solution to any issue, it involves the application of the law to the facts of the particular case.
It is necessary to identify the facts of the case that are critical for the outcome.

The word “fact” is derived from the Latin word “factum.” It was first used in the English
language with the same meaning that is a thing done or performed. But the same is now
obsolete. The word “fact” now means “something which has occurred.” The meaning dates
from the middle of the 16th century. In layman’s language, the fact stands for “something
which is real, tangible like an actual event” and in a lawsuit, a fact is an information of the
case concerning an event or a circumstance. Evidence is a relative concept signifying a
relationship between two facts, the fact in issue (factum probandum), or proposition to be
established, and the evidentiary fact (factum probans), or material supporting the
proposition. The former is necessarily hypothetical; the latter is brought forward as a reality
for the purpose of convincing the tribunal that the former is also a reality.

6|Page
In India, the term fact has been described under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. And it
is not only conned to the tangible nature but includes even the state of mind, feelings, and
personal opinions are under the broad umbrella of facts.

TYPES OF FACTS

• The relevant fact is the fact which has a certain degree of probative force. All facts can be
said to be relevant that exists in relation to cause or effect to the fact alleged to exist.

• Irrelevant fact/ facts are those facts which are coincidental to the event but doesn’t have
significant legal importance in the case.

• The most common way in which evidence is presented in court is through oral testimony.
Oral testimony occurs when a witness swears to tell the truth or be subject to the penalty of
perjury, and then relates his or her experiences. Other forms of evidence such as objects from
a crime scene, or a signed contract in a civil suit, can be submitted to the court as well.
Concrete pieces of evidence like this are called physical evidence. Physical facts include
state of things or relation of things, anything capable of being or perceived by the senses.

• Some facts are proven with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is "evidence
that may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts, which have been
proven." Fingerprints are a perfect example of circumstantial evidence. There may be no
eyewitness to place an alleged burglar at the scene of a crime, but if the defendant's
fingerprints were found at the scene, it can be inferred that he or she was there.
"Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the
fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for
various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

• Psychological fact is any mental condition of which a person is conscious.

IMPORTANCE OF FACTS

• Our Indian legal system resolves disputes by applying the rule of law to the facts of the
case. The issue at hand is the specific question raised by the specific facts of one’s case.
Therefore, the facts are important for the issue at hand.

7|Page
• Facts are also important so as to determine which law can be applied to a case or how law
can be applied to a particular case in the presence or absence of certain facts.

• Another reason for its importance is that the determination of whether the court’s opinion is
on point is largely governed by the similarity between the facts of the client’s case and the
facts of the court opinion.

LOGICAL AND LEGAL RELEVANCY OF FACTS

The main issue in this regard is deciding which fact fulfils the criteria of legally relevant as
well as logical in nature. A fact may be logically relevant, but there is no surety that it will be
legally admissible in the court of law. So all the evidence which are to be produced in the
court of law has to satisfy two conditions. And those two important hurdles are that the
evidence has to be both logically relevant and legally admissible at the same time.

In the case of State of UP v. Raj Narain, it was said that not all relevant facts are admissible
in the court of law. The Ram Bihari Yadav v. the State of Bihar is a landmark judgment
which explains the distinction between relevance and admissibility and the concept of
clearing the two hurdles. It states that relevancy is actually the test of admissibility. The Apex
Court stated that “in most cases, the two words admissibility and relevancy are used
interchangeably, but their legal implication is very different because often relevant facts such
as communication between the spouses in wedlock are important but not legally admissible.”

Needless to say, our basis of distinguishing between conclusions of law and propositions of
fact will depend in large measure on our definition of law. Of course under any set of
definitions some things will more or less readily fall on the side of law, some on the side of
fact, and some in between. But the common law has not worked with any preconceived
definitions. Such classification as it has made has been blundered into on the basis of
procedure. One thing is clear, that whatever definition of law we adopt, there is a large and
growing group of facts that tend to be dealt with as matters of law after courts have had a
large experience with them in the course of which a uniform line of decisions on the facts has
developed.

8|Page
The aim of a case is not merely to present a legal dissertation to the judge, but to explain what
the result should be when the law is applied to the facts of a particular case. Therefore, it is
important to be aware of exactly what the facts of your case are. Rechecking the facts often
will be an important part of any preparation, but to begin with, you will almost certainly be
reading the facts to identify the applicable law and the likely legal issues.

So it can be said that there is nothing wrong in saying that the facts of the case are imperative
for any outcome of the case. It not only helps in commencing the proceedings before the
court of law but also leads to the right direction to provide justice to the needy.

FRAMING OF ARGUMENTS ALONG WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF

THE LEGAL ASPECTS

"Framing" occurs at many levels of legal argument. As Professor Nesson showed, good
lawyers when describing the facts of cases often select narrative frames that cast in
favourable light the behaviour of their clients. Lawyers are often similarly strategic in the
ways in which they classify disputes.

A single set of facts (e.g., industrial activities on X's land produced dust, smoke, and odour’s
that drifted onto Y's land, causing annoyance and discomfort) frequently might plausibly be
fit into either of two doctrinal boxes (e.g., a nuisance or a trespass), and the choice of box will
make important differences (e.g., as to the governing standard of liability, statute of
limitations, or measure of damages). Naturally, lawyers try to classify cases in ways that
favour their clients.

Framing provides the conceptual framework for decision-making. The choice of concepts for
framing an issue can have both psychological and legal consequences. The way a case is
framed can affect the persuasiveness of an argument, and there are often several plausible
ways of framing a legal issue. In the end, it is the framing accepted by the judge or other
decision-maker that will be used in determining the result of the case. Framing that appeals to
the decision-maker’s sense of justice or fairness will have a greater chance of being chosen.
Framing legal issues has been described as a process of translation or transformation of
peoples’ needs, interests, and disputes. These descriptions recognize the difference between
how people see their problems, and how the law frames and characterizes them

9|Page
Lawyers play a major role in framing their clients’ problems as legal issues, and how they do
this has been studied extensively. Researchers have found that lawyers help to shape the
client’s “legal self” to fit the issues at hand. This may include convincing the client that his or
her emotions should be ignored or suppressed because they are irrelevant to the issues and
obstruct rational problem-solving.

Arguments are what make the crux of the whole case. If you fail in making them compelling
and persuasive, you will not be able to convince the judge and that will make you lose the
case. For framing an argument regarding your legal issue, you need to have in-depth
knowledge on the subject matter. You also need to know the laws which govern that
particular case. For making a compelling argument in the court, you’ll need tact, knowledge
and the ability to see both sides of the debate.

Firstly, before framing arguments what you need to do is that you have to identify the legal
issues. The issues around which the subject matter of your case revolves are legal issues.

Then, you need to apply the law to the facts of the case. Secondly, you need to see what
section of a particular legislation applies to your case.

Thirdly, read up commentaries on that section for a clear and better understanding. You will
also find arguments with legal backing from various precedents given by the Courts there. In
this arena of finding arguments, reading matters a lot. If you want to find good arguments for
your case, you’ll need to have that particular skill-set through which you would apply your
research to the facts of the case. You shall be able to make compelling arguments after doing
so.
And, lastly, it depends upon you as to how you can structure the arguments to bring out the
decision of the case in your favour. Certain arguments are fact related as there might be
certain facts in the case which you could use to make your argument sound more persuasive.

Having a firm grip on the basics of the legal concepts of law is very important to build valid
and strong arguments to be presented in the court. Without the presence of this tool, mere
allegations do not build any case in front of a judge in the court.

10 | P a g e
In making decisions, judges first determine their answer based on the whole of the facts, and
afterwards find the supporting legal principle. All legal minds need to function in this
manner, i.e. by first taking into account the sum total of the facts affecting a particular case.
Another reason for its importance is that the determination of whether the court’s opinion is
on point is largely governed by the similarity between the facts of the client’s case and the
facts of the court opinion.

Our legal system aims at providing justice to all concerned and this could not be done in a
mechanical way. It is a matter of prudence that no one law shall be applied to all the cases in
the similar way. The facts of each case are special and therefore there could not be any strait
jacket formula for application of law to the facts. Here comes the role of judicial mind. Time
and again the importance of application of Judicial Mind to the facts of the case has been
highlighted by the Apex Court and this is only feasible when the Judicial Officer at large has
done a perusal of facts and can read in between the facts of the case.

TYPOLOGY OF LEGAL FRAMING

The ideal typology of legal framing proposed here acknowledges the dynamic aspects of
legal framing. The three ideal-type legal frames, which have become institutionalized in
social movement discourse since the mid-twentieth century, show the different ways in which
movements have struck a balance between the institutional pressure to reproduce dominant
ideologies and the internal pressure to reform those ideologies. This ideal typology thus
reflects the theoretical view of meaning as socially constructed; not only does it remain
cognizant of how legal meaning is negotiated by the power-ridden interaction between
mainstream and insurgent legal interpretations, it also is wary of how institutional power
affects the transformative potential of challenges to legal meaning at a very fundamental level
– in the construction of meaning within social movements. This model of legal framing will
therefore provide a common framework for sociological and socio-legal research on social
movements, directed at theorizing how movement actors negotiate the symbolic meaning of
legal language and generate new legal interpretations ‘‘in the shadow of social institutions’’,
or how they construct law while taking into account the multiple arenas of social power that
manifest both within movements and in the social environment. Ideal types of legal framing
provide leverage for theoretical development by defining the logical structure of legal frames.
Because law operates as a different sort of constitutive force on movement rhetoric in each of
these ideal-type frames (i.e., as a normative framework, an ideological force, or a set of
11 | P a g e
cultural values), these ideal types prevent ambiguity about how broadly a study
conceptualizes the ‘‘legal.’’ By identifying the variety of ideational ‘‘tools’’ the legal system
provides social movements, ideal types sharpen researchers’ analysis of the particular
movement characteristics and institutional conditions that restrict a movement’s ability to
(successfully) use these tools. Finally, the social constructionist approach to legal framing
research suggests promising areas for future research on law and the reproduction of social
inequality. Because the logical structure of these frames delivers different symbolic
consequences for social, political, and legal institutions, the frames may be inherently more
(or less) appealing to particular types of social movements, and the frames may be better (or
worse) received in different contexts. However, empirical analyses of a movement’s framing
strategies in light of competing internal and external pressures may reveal that progressive
social movements are more exposed to adverse consequences for legal framing strategies than
are conservative social movements. Anti-domination movements are more likely to
experience internal pressures to use collective rights framing because social stigma generates
a distinct collective identity. Yet at the same time, anti-domination movements are also more
likely to be exposed to a dual institutional pressure to use individualist legal framing, which
comes from both official legal institutions and from conservative backlash against
progressive movements. The social constructionist model for legal framing research, by
exposing how institutional pressures on legal framing strategies may generate adverse
consequences for progressive social movements, can be used to advance theoretical inquiry
into the relationship between law, hegemony, and inequality.

12 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

 http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/about/professional-standards/rules-on-
professional-standards/
 https://lawbriefcase.com/indian-courtroom-101-things-to-know-before-
visiting-court/
 https://read.aupress.ca/read/legal-literacy/section/e16d667c-fa23-43b7-
b9b9-1cff97dca8ed
 https://www.diplomacy.edu/resource/framing-an-argument/
 https://cyber.harvard.edu/bridge/Framing/framing1.htm
 https://legodesk.com/legopedia/facts-of-the-case/
 Canons of Judicial Ethics: Conduct, Character, and Integrity of Judicial
Officer By Y. Srinivasa Rao, Judge available at:

http://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Canons-of-
Judicial-Ethics-Conduct-Character-and-Integrity-of-Judicial-Officer.pdf

 The Law and the Facts, Author(s): Nathan Isaacs Source: Columbia Law
Review, Jan., 1922, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1922), pp. 1-13 Published by:
Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.

13 | P a g e
 Spangler, Brad. "Legal Facts." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess
and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of
Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003
 UCLA Public Law & Legal Theory Series, ISBN 978-1-78190-619-4,
Author Leachman, Gwendolyn

14 | P a g e