Legal Commentary

Is there an informal norm against humor in legal environs? If so, what are the contours of the norm?  My answers are ?yes? and ?I?m not sure.?

Humor exists in the law: in trials, in appellate argument, in client meetings, in classrooms.  About that there is no doubt.  Yet in many circumstances -- circumstances I find difficult to categorize or describe with precision -- humor (whether an outright joke or simply a wry observation) is seen as evidence of the speaker?s lack of seriousness, competence, or some other desirable quality. 

Certainly some attempts at humor are simply unwelcome because (1) they are not funny or (2) the subject matter is patently inappropriate for a professional setting, e.g., ribald humor.  But that?s only a partial explanation.  I believe, for example, that using a quasi-goofy analogy to orally illustrate a relevant point in a corporate legal setting is commonly understood to be less desirable than using a dry analogy (holding the explanatory power of the two analogies constant).  Put another way: I suggest grey dialogue does no disservice to the speaker?s reputation, while colorful dialogue may, if only modestly.  And I think there are a variety of other circumstances, which I admittedly cannot broadly categorize, in which the informal norm against color/humor holds. 

Agree or disagree?  If you agree, but believe it?s a good thing, I?d like to hear why.