When counsel opposes either the form or substance of a question asked at trial by the other side, the proper response is to state that you have an objection, and then state the objection in a concise manner. This can be done by referencing the specific Rule of Evidence or by stating a recognized evidentiary objection, e.g., “Objection: Hearsay”; “Objection: Leading Question”; “Objection: Foundation”; “Objection: Calls for Speculation.”

In contrast, attorneys sometimes engage in what is called a “speaking objection” or a “talking objection.” This is a mini-argument to the court, and it is never proper during trial. Many judges will admonish counsel in front of a jury that a speaking objection is improper, signaling to a jury that the attorney’s interruption was out of line.

Let me provide an example. Assume counsel asks the following question of a witness, “Why do you think Jane Doe was willing to sign a contract under these circumstances?” Opposing counsel might state, “Objection: Calls for Speculation.” This is a proper objection. In contrast, a speaking objection might be, “Objection your Honor; how could the witness possibly know what Ms. Doe was thinking? They barely know each other. You can’t ask something like that.”

Speaking objections during trial tend to occur when counsel senses that a question is improper but is not familiar enough with the Rules of Evidence to invoke the proper objection. The attorney then panics and proceeds to make an argument in an effort to prevent the witness from answering the question. (On rarer occasions, it may be that an attorney is using a speaking objection to coach a witness before the witness answers, but I see this occurring more during depositions that at trial.)

At best, an attorney making speaking objections is going to annoy a judge, who may feel compelled to correct the record by cautioning the attorney to stop making such objections. At worst, a speaking objection can be the basis for the other side appealing a verdict under the theory that counsel unduly prejudiced the jury.

The best way to avoid speaking objections is to stay familiar with the Rules of Evidence by periodically reviewing them. I have seen some attorneys bring to trial a sheet of paper that lists common objections along with the particular Rule of Evidence associated with each objection.

An attorney who is able to make proper objections gains a tactical advantage by elevating the level of formality in the courtroom, for a judge is likely to hold the other side to the same standard of formality.