In Brief, Do Lawyers Need Some Lessons in How to Behave?

Perhaps everyone in Division 113 of Van Nuys Municipal Court was suffering a bit of post-lunch hypoglycemia.

Perhaps they all recognized the duo in the second row: reporters.

For whatever reason, courtroom decorum burst out everywhere one recent afternoon in the contentious case of the People vs. Daniel Hustwit, the Century City defense attorney facing a misdemeanor charge of inciting a physical conflict in court by uttering what the law calls “fighting words.”

Within a matter of minutes, the court reporter apologized to the judge for being tardy, the defense attorney apologized to the judge for interrupting him and the judge apologized to the defense attorney for interrupting him back.

But soon civility at the hearing began to slide--just as it has in courtrooms across the country.

“Your Honor,” defense attorney Charles Kelly Kilgore sneered as the case’s two prosecutors huddled repeatedly with their boss, “I had a mentor when I was in law school. Can I have him come down here and help me?”

Perhaps it was inevitable. This was, after all, the case of a lawyer who in March called a prosecutor and bailiff “asses” and allegedly challenged the bailiff to a fight.

Rhetorical jousting is a much-revered talent when it comes to the law. But violations of courtroom etiquette have broken down so often that lawyers and judges from coast to coast are pondering stricter rules of behavior.

Of course, some in the profession suggest that counsel-to-counsel relations are the same as ever: sour.

“The good old days weren’t the good old days,” said UCLA law professor Peter Arenella. “The only reason . . . people might suspect an increase in intemperate remarks is that the media is paying more attention to the courtrooms since the O.J. Simpson case.”

*

What Hustwit did--variously deemed “chest-beating,” “not that big a deal” and plain “dumb” by court watchers--was, first, say that Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Pargament and bailiff Michael Ascolese were long-eared, slow-moving pack animals.

Then he said to Ascolese: “If you want a piece of me, take off your gun and badge and let’s go outside.”

It was that challenge to combat that has landed Hustwit in court--that and his refusal to apologize--on a “fighting words” charge. He contends that his comment came only after Ascolese issued an “unspoken” invitation to fisticuffs.

Hustwit is a 31-year-old man who dresses in double-breasted suits and sports a goatee, gold earring and ponytail. (So does his own attorney.) His take on courtroom civility is that tensions in criminal trials have been heightened recently by California’s three-strikes law: It used to be that a defense attorney’s loss meant his client was going away for a few years; today, losing a felony case may send his client to prison for life.

“Now prosecutors have all the cards to play,” Hustwit said before the jury heard opening arguments Thursday.

Meanwhile, attorneys and judges from around the country were preparing for a gathering Sunday in San Francisco. Titled “Conference on Professionalism for the 21st Century,” the event will consider how to coax lawyers into being nicer to each other.

One idea, since most practicing attorneys seem to think additional rules won’t do the trick, is a system of “peer counseling, peer pressure,” now being experimented with in Santa Clara County and other places, said conference speaker Ann Ravel, a member of the State Bar of California’s Board of Governors. The idea is for experienced attorneys to advise newcomers about proper behavior, and to give the occasional petulant whippersnapper--or old-timer, for that matter--a verbal noogie.

“The practice of law is a lot less fun,” said Ravel, a 23-year member of the bar. “People just don’t enjoy getting into hassles with other people, whether you’re a lawyer or not.”

*

A dozen attorneys gathered in Division 113 to watch the fun in People vs Hustwit. After all, Mr. Bumble in the Dickens novel “Oliver Twist” famously got away with calling the law “an ass.”

But the jury is still out--or will be next week--on whether you can refer to officers of the court that way. Or at least whether you can do so while asking if “you want a piece of me.”