How Attentive Should You Be During a Trial?

If you’re aspiring to master the art of courtroom advocacy, you’ve likely heard the tongue-in-cheek (or is it?) advice: “If you doze off or lose focus during a trial, stand up and shout, Objection!” The inspiration drawn from John Grisham novels and American legal thrillers is hard to miss.

But there’s more to this advice than just theatrics. Raising objections is deeply rooted in the Roman law principle vigilantibus iura scripta sunt—“the law is written for the diligent and vigilant.” Another version puts it even more clearly: iura vigilantibus non dormientibus prosunt, or “the law helps those who stay awake, not those who nap.”

Polish civil procedure has incorporated this principle, most notably in the famous Article 162 of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPC)—and (how could it not!) it does so in a way that raises more questions than answers.

Under this rule, a party must bring procedural violations to the court’s attention by formally requesting that an objection be recorded in the minutes. Failure to do so—particularly by a professional attorney—may result in losing the right to raise those objections later.

Of course, this brings a host of questions, legal controversies, and even psychological hurdles. Many attorneys hesitate to raise objections, fearing they might offend the court and jeopardize their case.

But practical challenges also abound. One of the most debated issues in legal practice is whether a lawyer must specify the exact procedural provisions the court allegedly violated. In an ideal world—with clear and straightforward rules of civil procedure—this wouldn’t be a problem.

But in Poland things are much less clear. Does Article 162 KPC require you to cite the specific legal basis for the objection? Should you, when an evidentiary motion is disregarded, reference only Article 235² § 1 KPC and its subsection? Or should you also tie it to Article 227 KPC? If the court excludes evidence as inadmissible, do you need to cite the specific provision of the KPC that renders such evidence inadmissible? In commercial proceedings, should you reference preclusion rules from standard civil procedure as well?

The current state of Polish procedural law leaves much to interpretation. Many legal scholars and case law opinions support the view that there is no obligation to provide the legal basis for an objection, even for professional attorneys. Procedural obligations—especially those with potentially negative legal consequences—must be explicitly and unambiguously stated in the law. Article 162 KPC, even after its amendments, simply does not impose such a requirement.

The Supreme Court recently confirmed this in its ruling from July 2, 2024, (II CSKP 2317/22), stating that objections under Article 162 KPC do not need to include references to specific procedural provisions to be valid—even when made by professional representatives. While it is certainly desirable to include such references (especially for attorneys), it is not mandatory and does not affect the validity of the objection (see also Supreme Court ruling of January 22, 2021, III CSKP 23/21).

That said, a vague objection—such as simply saying, “I object under Article 162 KPC”—is rarely enough. To effectively preserve an argument for later use, you must clearly articulate the court’s error, explain its impact on the proceedings, and, where possible, suggest how it could be corrected. Doing so demonstrates professionalism and aligns with the principles of procedural fairness and loyalty.

So, don’t shy away from engaging in these courtroom battles. After all, what may seem like a minor skirmish could ultimately decide the outcome of a future appeal. And in litigation, it’s the vigilant—not the hesitant—who win the day.