A lawyer should strike a positive response from the judge

Lawyers acting for civil cases, the main consideration is the case is how to determine the claims, claims to collect evidence, and how to deal with each other's defense against each other and the evidence for cross examination. Generally speaking, the impartial judges, lawyers task is around the principal's claims, to help judges to sort out ideas, to reduce the workload, to persuade the judge to the client's own referees. But in some cases, lawyers to raid the response from the judge "".

The raid on the lawyer, or attack, in various forms, in the following forms: one is common during the trial to lawyers, interrupt the lawyer's speech, in extreme cases, the individual judge or humiliated lawyer. The two is the judge's initiative to collect is not conducive to the client's own evidence, to produce during the trial. The three is the judge in the procedure, let the lawyers have cannot say painstakingly.

Investigate its reason, because of some judges and lawyers are not the same, in the eyes of the lawyer is to attack, the judge seems to be in the necessary procedure, this is the level of high performance than lawyers, lawyers on this "attack" should be fully prepared for. Some reason is because the lawyer's cause, such as the law of abuse of procedural rights in court the burden of proof, confusion, speech repetition. But there are also some reasons such as the quality of judges, lawyers in court to interrupt speech. In the case, may also because of some special reasons, such as the opposition lawyers don't respect judge the cause; in extreme cases, the judge of the case itself is biased, try to help the other party.

In order to prevent the attack from the judges in civil cases, as a lawyer, first of all should do their own practice does not let the judge resentment. The author thinks, as a lawyer, some actions should be avoided.

First, there is no reason to abuse of procedural rights. Unless the delay time must, lawyers need not make excuses made unfounded jurisdiction objection, for the avoidance of procedural rights.

Second, optional change claim. In the prosecution lawyer should be cautious before to help the client to determine the claims and claims. The judge is generally more objectionable lawyers in the case to help clients to modify the claim. Because the workload is generally big, the judge to consider the case as soon as possible. If the claim is uncertain, the case will not. So unless necessary, a lawyer should as far as possible to avoid changing the claim in the case.

Third,We provide evidence. Evidence is a branch of knowledge, in some cases, to the interests of the principal, not a one-time in place to provide evidence. But in the absence of the necessary partial provide evidence, if the lawyer can't provide evidence, may affect the process of case, the judge would rather disgusted.

Fourth,The burden of chaos. If a lawyer proof chaos, the burden of proof is not intrinsic logic, even without evidence classification, no pagination, have patience, judges can scold lawyer.

Fifth,On the other side provides evidence of denial. A lawyer should seize the key points of the case, there can be no rebuttal evidence and should not be provided by the other party denied. If all the evidence law on the other side proposed are no basis to deny, anti caused resentment but strange judge. The author once acting together contract disputes, the other agent of our evidence denies, said: This is very angry, the presiding judge, "I do so for many years the judge, haven't seen you like this agent." One can imagine the verdict.

Sixth,The speaker to repeat. The lawyer in the trial process, should be avoided on the same facts and opinions to repeat the statement. Just make sure your speech has been clerk record, there is no need to excessive repetition, there is a need to pay the agent word in court. Otherwise, the judge interrupted speech should be a normal phenomenon, the judge has the right to control the trial process.

Seventh,No respect for the trial order. Mainly for sitting late, the trial process to interrupt the other party or the agent's speech. In this case, the lawyer is difficult to be the judge of courtesy.

Eighth,To the other party or the agent to use personal offensive language. The court is reasonable, whether the other party or agent how bad, lawyers should not use the personal offensive language. If the attack each other personality, on the one hand will intensify the conflict, so that the other party to the discontent to lawyers, have experience on the other hand, the judge will stop the lawyer this speech.

The lawyer to avoid the above words and deeds, hand is the embodiment of the quality of a lawyer, but also can avoid the judge in court to lawyer. Especially in front of the client, the lawyer was reprimanded, will be very ugly. The lawyer was the judge charged, also easy to stumble, talk ideas. I also heard of such a law, in order to keep his face, the court make her post by the judge, that judge biased against himself, requires a judge's recusal, the court has really changed the judge. But the law is thus not only against a judge, the bad name in all judges of the court all hung up the number.

For some, because of the difference of judges and lawyers thinking mode resulting from the "raid", lawyers should have sufficient thought preparation. This is mainly manifested in the following aspects:

The first,Suddenly an adjournment. If long-distance comparison do lawyers time, it is not difficult to encounter such a situation, a period of time after the trial, no time to work, the judge adjourned the hearing date, re elective notice. If the lawyer was very puzzled, the lawyer practice is not enough. This happens, is generally caused by one of the following reasons. A judge that need additional defendants or third people; two is the judge according to the authority to collect relevant evidence; the three is the judge to give a party to collect the key evidence of the time; four is the plaintiff claims to change the thinking of the time; the five is that the original judge cases, accused both antagonism is relatively large, the case again it is difficult to make both sides, need to ease the antagonism between the time, do the work of the two sides of the court mediation, for. Of course, also judge that need judicial identification of the evidence, the attorney general will understand the judge adjourned the reason. There is a situation, is a judge in the help of a party delays the time, this is to be discussed later.

Second,According to the authority or the third additional defendants. There are many reasons for this, the author has acting together the doctor-patient dispute case, the plaintiff's three medical institutions, the judge in order to facilitate the judicial identification, will be another plaintiff did not prosecute patients in the hospital the hospital also added as a defendant.

Third,The judge's investigation and evidence obtainment. According to the rules of evidence, the judge's investigation and evidence collection, only two kinds of situations, one is in the public interest to others or the society, the two is about the procedural aspects of the evidence. But in actual operation, the judge in the pursuit of substantive justice, ascertain the facts, but also often does not belong to the above two kinds of circumstances, according to the authority to obtain evidence.

Fourth,The evidence exchange. The major and complicated cases, the judge told the court in a specific time to exchange evidence or the pre trial, lawyers do not have let down, it almost can replace the actual hearing evidence evidence stage in the process of forensic investigation.

The above two kinds of circumstances, some lawyers that raid from the bench, but in fact is the lawyer's practice caused by inadequate.

There are some real sense from the raid, judges help deliberately help party, lawyer and no evidence. This law is generally difficult to guard against, but also careful identification, calmly.

The first,Deliberately delay litigation preservation time. Property preservation, is to ensure that the case in favour of judgment would be the key measures of execution, but individual judge individual court for property preservation of the parties, delays in processing. The two reason outside, one is for the preservation measures judge too busy, the other two are found, the judge delays the time intentionally. In this regard, the lawyer should apply for property preservation measures before as far as possible to assist the client to ascertain the applicant property clues, because in the preservation period of action, provide the applicant property to the applicant. At the same time, lawyers and judges should contact, ask the attachment process, to judge some of the pressure.

Second,During the trial without interrupting the lawyer spoke. Sometimes, the judge even deliberately humiliating law personality, such as asked the lawyer: you Is it right? Lawyer? You are legal workers? The judge to do, is to make a lawyer in court a loss, not to say the words. In this regard, the lawyer must first understand the judge meant by doing so, can not own footing. Secondly, the lawyer should also argue. If your client is not present, the lawyer can say to the judge: since you do not let me speak, the trial I didn't say a word. Lawyers say, not weakness. Because one party does not speak, the trial cannot proceed. Finally, the judge lawyer "shame you Is it right? Lawyer" such practices, the lawyer can ask the judge: I Is it right? Lawyer, you should check with my lawyer before a court. Or: you before the court without looking over my lawyer? Or: you need to see my lawyer? The opposition says: I Is it right? Lawyer, is decided by the judicial administration department, as I have no right to ask whether you are the judge is the same reason.

Third,No announce an adjournment, long procrastinate not found. In addition to the aforementioned judges suddenly announced an adjournment reasons, do not rule out the possibility of the judge is to help the other party. The judge adjourned is right, but the law is not no way to deal with. First of all, the lawyer should as far as possible to consider the judge may be adopted in the court after the parties to help each other, make some plans to deal with. As in the proof is very beneficial to their client's case, the judge lawyer or the principal work in court, request the parties to a big concession mediation, lawyers should stick to their point of view, for judgment. For some intentional long procrastinate not sentenced cases, lawyers can be informed of their clients to the trial supervision tribunal judge.

Fourth,Illegal authority survey evidence. A lawyer may request copies of the evidence, the judge gives testimony time requirements. On the other hand, the lawyer can call into question the legitimacy of the evidence. I am acting together housing sale contract dispute, judges to the intermediary staff access to my client to testify. The judge asked me to the examination opinions of the evidence, I put forward the following opinions: one is that the evidence does not meet the two kinds of evidence rules; two is the form of evidence is documentary evidence, is essentially the testimony of witnesses, witnesses should be in accordance with the application of a party concerned to appear as a witness, accepted by the other party the parties ask. In the last sentence in the book, he made no mention of the intermediary's testimony. The judges called evidence, lawyers can also be based on other evidence of falsification of the.

Fifth,Inductive questioning. In general, the judge asked, in order to ascertain the facts. But the judges have the biased case, lawyers should prevent the judge to client own inductive questioning, once recorded, constitutes a confession. The work should be in before the trial with the client to explain clearly. In addition, the lawyer in court debate, should also be judged on the other party make the judge question answer, not to judge by the so-called implied recognition opportunities.

Sixth,Ideas do not. The judge has the obligation of interpretation on their cases to the parties that the evidence, the judge's interpretation obligation, also called the interpretation right. Some judges do not clarify their views on the case, in good faith, is to prevent the parties think they have a bias to the case. In this case, the lawyer should be from the communication process and the judge, try to figure out the judge's point of view, so as to adjust the time to make the litigation strategy. In extreme cases, the judge should view that parties to the interpretation, but in order to favour one party intentionally not interpretation. In this regard, measures the best lawyer, is the product carefully put forward his claims, do oneself than to judge better, not to the judge to have this opportunity.

(copyright or references, reprint please indicate the source.)