Two things: Don't confuse the adversarial process with the post-adversarial process. Don't confuse civil and criminal cases. On the first: The adversarial p

Two things: Don't confuse the adversarial process with the post-adversarial process. Don't confuse civil and criminal cases. On the first: The adversarial process is between two sides, maybe you and a company, or two companies, or you and the government, whatever. The adversarial process ends when someone wins or loses. During the adversarial process, the judge is basically a referee. This is an oversimplification, but close enough. Beyond that, they mostly are trying to get all of the info out on the table, so the dispute can be resolved. If you want to be an asshole to the other side, you can be as much of an asshole as the referee lets you get away with, and this is going to vary depending on lots of things. This is true in many contexts (sports, for example). But once that's done, the judge is not a referee anymore. They decide the remedy. If you are an asshole to them, that is not going to go well. This is also true in many contexts - talk shit to the guy who knocked you down on the pitch, maybe you get a yellow card. Talk shit to the ref after they card you, they'll throw your ass out of the game, and fine or suspend you afterwards for doing it. On the second - criminal cases have both a different burden of proof, and a different effective set of expectations of behavior, because of the stakes. FWIW - the various rules of professional conduct explicitly go into various roles and hats that lawyers (and judges) often wear, and the acceptable behaviors during those roles.