Rhetorical critics generally base their comments on the assumption that a communicator has all the reasons, persuasive devices, and approaches available in the rhetorical situation, and that he can make choices of what should be utilized. The lawyer-persuader, however, does not have unlimited choice since he is bound by legal rules and constraints. Therefore, the rhetorical critic must at least be aware of the legal constraints before he can criticize lawyers' choices and persuasive methods. Courtroom atmospheres, settings, and traditions, as well as laws and set procedures, impose rhetorical restrictions. Some recently published articles on the communication process and on forensics indicated an awareness among scholars of the possibilities that unique courtroom situations offer for further communication research. (RN)