Abstract
The study presents the stylistic of the judicial petition of appeal before the Jordanian courts, based on the terms and phrases used in the appeals submitted by some lawyers to the Court of Cassation and the Court of Appeal. In some of these appeals, there were inappropriate words and phrases that undermine the court prestige and respect, which violates the applicable controls and ethics in addressing the judicial body. Based on presented proven (real) examples, the study concluded by that these abusive words and phrases are wrong behaviors that lawyers should avoid, and improve their discourse style in order to preserve the prestige of the judiciary and respect its decisions. The study also concluded that the court has the right to liable the lawyer and hold him accountable for his use of such words and expressions, and sentence him if necessary, and that the lawyer must choose his words and phrases carefully without resorting to defamation or slandering in order to preserve the prestige of the law and those in charge of it.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Namibian Studies : History Politics Culture
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
