Attorney Erica Sutter attended a hearing for an interested company that was not a party to the underlying business lawsuit. Confidential documents covered by a protective order were displayed, and the trial court held Sutter in contempt for failing to identify herself as the company’s lawyer. The Court of Appeals reversed because the hearing transcript showed no clear, express instruction requiring spectators or lawyers for nonparties to identify themselves. A contempt finding cannot rest on what a judge may have implied; the command must tell the person in definite terms what to do. The court did not decide Sutter’s other objections to the sanction or any dispute over the protected documents. Its holding concerns the notice required before a court may punish noncompliance with a directive.