Why Do Attorneys Rise? Rules, Traditions, and Defense of Democratic Principles
When Courtroom Rules and Traditions Become More Than an Ethical Duty: They Become Acts of Preservation of our Legal System Itself.
Preface
I originally intended to write a straightforward piece about courtroom formalities—exploring the rules, such as the one that requires attorneys to stand when addressing the court, and tracing the centuries of tradition behind these practices. It seemed like a pleasant topic: how today's procedures connect us to hundreds of years of legal history.
But then two things changed my perspective entirely. First, news broke that the American Bar Association had filed an unprecedented lawsuit against the Trump administration to protect attorneys and the legal profession from government retaliation. Then, at the State Bar of Texas Annual Meeting in San Antonio, I heard former Chief Justice Nathan Hecht's sobering remarks about escalating attacks on judges and their families. Throughout that conference, a common thread emerged in discussion after discussion: the critical importance of ethics, professionalism, and civility in preserving and defending our legal system.
Those events transformed what I had planned as a simple historical exploration into something far more urgent. The courtroom formalities I intended to discuss as quaint traditions suddenly revealed themselves as essential defenses of judicial independence and democratic governance. This article reflects that realization.
When an attorney rises to address the court, that simple physical act carries a profound purpose rooted in centuries of legal tradition. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 269(h) states: "It shall be the duty of every counsel to address the court from [their] place at the bar, and in addressing the court to rise to [their]1 feet." This requirement traces back to medieval England, where standing before judges represented recognition of the King's authority as exercised through his representatives—hence the term "court."
Today, standing to address the court serves a different but equally important purpose—it creates a crucial moment of transition that separates casual conversation from formal argument. It prompts speakers to gather their thoughts, recognize they're now "on the record," and treat their words with appropriate gravity. When we rise, we acknowledge not just the individual wearing robes, but the entire apparatus of law that makes civilized society possible.
The phrase "Your Honor" emerged from these same traditions, serving multiple essential functions. It creates psychological distance that helps maintain judicial impartiality, reminds everyone they're in a special place governed by different rules, and reinforces that precise language matters in a profession where words can determine life, liberty, and property rights. This formal recognition of judicial office represents respect for the institution rather than the individual—a crucial distinction in a system where law must remain above personal preference or political pressure.
Trial procedure itself follows careful choreography designed to ensure fairness. The adversarial system—opening statements, evidence presentation, cross-examination, closing arguments—embodies centuries of refinement in pursuit of truth and justice. The plaintiff goes first because they bear the burden of proof, reflecting fundamental principles that those making claims must substantiate them. The requirement that witnesses be sworn creates a moment of solemnity and establishes clear legal consequences for false testimony. Even the expectation of professional attire reinforces the courtroom's special character, distinguishing legal proceedings from everyday interactions and signaling that participants must meet higher standards of conduct and respect.
These formalities work together to create what anthropologists call a "sacred space"—a realm set apart from ordinary political combat where different rules apply and different behavior is expected. Professional dress codes, the requirement to stand when addressing the court, the use of "Your Honor"—these practices establish that courts serve as places where citizens can challenge government action, where parties of all sizes and resources can seek justice on equal footing, where the rule of law substitutes for the rule of force. The judicial system's ability to endure upheaval and maintain public trust relies on upholding dignity, predictability, and respect for established procedures.
A Crisis Emerges
This historical foundation now faces unprecedented challenges. Justice Hecht's remarks at that State Bar meeting proved particularly compelling when he recounted specific examples of violence against judges. He recounted the tragic shooting of Texas District Judge Julie Kocurek in her Austin driveway in 2015, and the horrific attack at the home of Federal Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey, where a gunman killed her son and wounded her husband in 2020. These weren't random acts of violence but evidence of escalating tensions involving the judiciary.
Beyond these horrific acts by individuals, the threat has evolved into systematic institutional intimidation. More than 60 federal judges who ruled against administration policies have faced online abuse, doxxing, and physical threats2. Reuters investigations found that families of at least 11 federal judges have faced threats of violence or harassment.3 The attacks follow a deliberate pattern—targeting judges' relatives, sharing personal information online, and creating fear designed to compromise judicial independence.4
The assault extends to the legal profession itself. On June 16, 2025, the American Bar Association took the extraordinary step of suing the Trump administration, alleging a coordinated campaign to intimidate law firms and lawyers who challenge executive policies. The ABA claims executive orders have stripped law firms of security clearances, banned them from government buildings, and terminated federal contracts—all based on political disagreement with their clients or causes. Further, according to their pleading, the chilling effect extends beyond targeted firms, with many attorneys no longer willing to take on representations against the federal government for fear of retaliation.5
The Silent Guardians
This systematic assault creates a unique crisis because judges cannot defend themselves. Judges are ethically prohibited from speaking about their cases or responding to political criticism, making the judiciary uniquely vulnerable. While other powerful politicians command massive social media followings and can respond immediately to criticism, judges must rely on others to defend the institution they serve.
This is where the legal profession's duty becomes crucial. The Texas Lawyer's Creed explicitly addresses this responsibility. Section IV states that "Lawyers and judges are equally responsible to protect the dignity and independence of the Court and the profession." The Creed requires lawyers to "recognize that the position of judge is the symbol of both the judicial system and administration of justice" and to "refrain from conduct that degrades this symbol."
This obligation extends beyond professional courtesy. Comment 3 to Rule 8.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that "to maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized." When lawyers fail to speak up against unfair attacks on the judiciary, they fall short of their professional duty to protect the system that makes their own work possible. The ABA's unprecedented lawsuit against the administration exemplifies this responsibility in action—lawyers standing up to protect both the legal profession and judicial independence when they face systematic pressure.
Formality as Democratic Defense
But lawyers don't need to file lawsuits to fulfill this protective duty. The intentional and sincere practice of courtroom formalities itself becomes an expression of our commitment to defending the legal profession and judicial independence. When administration officials attack judges, when threats target judicial families, when executive orders attempt to intimidate law firms, the formal practices of our courtrooms become visible proof that the rule of law still functions—that some spaces remain governed by principle rather than politics.
When attorneys rise to address the court today, they're participating in something larger than tradition. They're demonstrating that some institutions still deserve respect, that careful procedure and formal discourse can produce better outcomes than political intimidation, that the law itself remains worthy of reverence even when those who wield power seek to undermine it.
The Texas Lawyer's Creed concludes with this commitment: "I will honor the requirements, the spirit and the intent of the applicable rules or codes of professional conduct for my jurisdiction, and will encourage others to do the same." In an era when the ABA must sue to protect lawyers from government retaliation, when judges face threats for upholding constitutional principles, this promise becomes an act of resistance.
That's why attorneys rise. Not just to honor tradition, but to defend the principle that justice emerges from a structured process rather than political intimidation, that law governs power rather than the reverse. The courtroom formalities that have served justice for centuries now serve as visible reminders that the rule of law endures. Every time we stand for the court, every time we say "Your Honor," every time we follow careful procedural order, we affirm that—despite unprecedented and extraordinary challenges to our legal institutions—we are preserving, protecting, and defending our fragile democracy.
So now, let us “All Rise!” together.
This essay represents the author's analysis of legal traditions and current events related to judicial independence. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of any court or legal institution.
I am also a big proponent of removing sexist language in our laws and institutions. See, for example, one of my earlier articles:
Federal Judicial Security Report, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (2025).
Sarah N. Lynch, "Exclusive: Threats Against U.S. Federal Judges Surge Amid Political Tensions," Reuters, June 15, 2025.
Id.
Complaint, American Bar Association v. Trump, No. 25-cv-1234 (D.D.C. June 16, 2025)
Great read and great reminder!