By Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D., & Kevin R. Boully, Ph.D.
The efficacy of communicative exchanges between a message originator and an intended audience is substantially mediated by the linguistic architecture through which informational content is transmitted. Lexical selection, syntactic complexity, semantic accessibility, and the degree of alignment between speaker and audience discourse conventions collectively influence the recipient’s cognitive receptivity, interpretive fluency, and ultimate susceptibility to attitudinal modification. Consequently, communicators who employ unnecessarily ornate, ceremonially formal, or institutionally coded language frequently undermine the very persuasive objectives such linguistic choices are ostensibly intended to advance.
If that paragraph felt tedious, pretentious, or difficult to connect with, you have already experienced the point of this month’s column.
If you made it through that opening paragraph, congratulations! But take a moment to think about how you felt as you read it. Did your brain start wandering, maybe thinking about what you are going to have for lunch or dinner? Did you think, “Oh God, what am I reading?” Did you move on to a different article without even getting this far? Regardless, we bet you did not feel enjoyment and connection to the message (and if you did, do not go to trial next time without calling one of us first).
The biggest hurdle lawyers face when they step in front of juries is the fact that they are lawyers. In front of juries, lawyers need to stop being lawyers, and start being people. Having a law degree and having a trial practice allows a lawyer to stand up and talk to jurors; a lawyer’s training is NOT a playbook for what to say to jurors. But unfortunately, for many, being a lawyer means lawyer-speak is the only way to speak, and the result at trial is death by legalese in three respects: the jury, the lawyer’s credibility, and ultimately the client’s legal claims.
We have often thought about devoting a column to the commonly used words and phrases lawyers should abandon at trial, but in this column, we want to focus on one in particular: “I submit to you.”
No one says “I submit to you” in ordinary conversation (other than those engaged in S&M, which is hardly the impression you want to make). Instead, this phrase is lawyer-centered rather than juror-centered, creates distance rather than connection, and signals a performance rather than genuine communication.
We were curious about where the phrase, “I submit to you,” originated, so we did a little research. Surprisingly, there does not appear to be a clear answer. The most common explanation is that the phrase migrated into legal practice from parliamentary procedure, where participants would formally “submit” motions, arguments, or proposals for consideration. Whether that explanation is correct or not, one thing seems clear: attorneys continue using the phrase largely because generations of attorneys before them used it. Like many forms of lawyer-speak, it appears to have survived through tradition rather than any demonstrated persuasive value. In this column, we examine five reasons attorneys should drop this phrase from their courtroom vocabulary.
First, it is not authentic. Jurors are remarkably sensitive to authenticity cues. Although attorneys often assume jurors are primarily evaluating the facts, jurors are simultaneously evaluating the people presenting those facts. They are constantly asking themselves whether a witness, attorney, or party appears genuine, trustworthy, and sincere. These are often shortcuts for understanding the more complex evidence and arguments.
The phrase “I submit to you” cuts against perceptions of authenticity because it does not sound like something one would naturally say to another. It suffers from a sincerity problem and sounds less like a sincere statement of conviction and more like a ritualistic courtroom formula. This undermines jurors’ trust. The phrase instantly signals “lawyer mode,” which creates distance between the attorney and the jury rather than creating a sense of simple communication with fellow human beings. Jurors may not consciously identify the phrase as a problem, but they often recognize the underlying reason it is a problem: this person sounds inauthentic and scripted. In a setting where credibility and trust are essential to persuasion, that is a tradeoff all attorneys should avoid.
Second, it weakens perceived confidence in the argument. The phrase often sounds tentative, as though the attorney is gently offering up a possibility for the jury’s consideration rather than a clear and confident belief about what the evidence proves. Confidence matters. Jurors take cues from the attorney about how strongly they should feel about the evidence or argument. If the attorney sounds uncertain, jurors will feel uncertain at best and entirely dismissive at worst. In short, attorneys should not soften their strongest points with language that makes them sound less certain than the evidence allows.
Third, “I submit to you” creates verbal clutter that disrupts conversational rhythm. The phrase adds words without adding meaning. Jurors know the attorney is making an argument, so there is no need to announce it. Effective communication is characterized by clarity, efficiency, and natural flow. People trust speakers who sound as though they are having a genuine conversation with natural flow rather than delivering a scripted performance. Phrases like “I submit to you” interrupt that cadence with unnecessary filler between the speaker and the message. Repeatedly adding these needless words and phrases can subtly dilute the impact of an attorney’s most important arguments while making the presentation feel less natural and engaging.
Fourth, “I submit to you” unnecessarily reminds jurors they are being persuaded. One of the most consistent findings in persuasion research is that people become more resistant when they are conscious that someone is trying to influence them. Effective advocacy should feel like a conversation. Jurors are more receptive when they feel they are arriving at a conclusion themselves rather than having a conclusion pressed upon them. Phrases such as “I submit to you” call attention to the persuasive act itself. Rather than focusing jurors on the evidence, the phrase subtly shifts attention to the attorney’s effort to convince them, which creates an additional barrier.
Finally, “I submit to you” can make attorneys sound outdated. Today’s jurors respond better to plainspoken communication than they do to the older, ceremonial style of courtroom advocacy that many lawyers inherited from prior generations. The phrase carries a distinctly old-school quality and evokes dated socio-cultural hierarchies. That matters even more in venues where juries value a broader diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and communication styles. To many jurors, “I submit to you” sounds like the kind of thing an older lawyer says because that is how older lawyers were taught to sound. And because the profession has historically been dominated by older white men, phrases like this can unintentionally reinforce the perception that the attorney is speaking from that history, creating a greater disconnect. Plainspoken language does not require attorneys to abandon professionalism. It simply requires them to sound like they understand the world their jurors live in.
There are many reasons attorneys should stop saying “I submit to you,” and most of them come down to one core problem: it does not sound like a real human being talking to other human beings. Jurors notice that disconnect, even if only subconsciously. One of the easiest ways for attorneys to improve their courtroom communication is simply to eliminate these habitual phrases and replace them with direct, conversational language. Jurors always respond better to clarity and authenticity than ritualistic courtroom words and phrases.
Thomas M. O’Toole, Ph.D. is President of Sound Jury Consulting in Seattle, WA. Kevin R. Boully, Ph.D. is Senior Consultant at Perkins Coie in Denver, CO.
