The court official politely pointed out the public gallery on the other side of the room to the man about to sit down in the front row of court 61, at the High Court in London.
In a barely audible voice he pointed out that he was in fact Dan Brown, the millionaire author of one of the bestselling novels in history, which is being charged with plagiarism.
Brown has famously shunned the celebrity author circuit but his voice is expected to be heard at some point during the hearing.
At the opposite end of the front row in the courtroom were Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, two of the three authors of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Their book was published in 1982 and, until the Da Vinci Code came along in 2003, was the most successful book to claim that Jesus did not die on the cross, but married Mary Magdalene and had a child by her. Baigent and Leigh claim that "the central theme" of their book has been borrowed. They are suing not Dan Brown but his publishers, for breach of UK copyright in the UK editions of the book.
In a coincidence almost worthy of a conspiracy theorist, because of a string of takeovers, the books share the same publisher, Random House.
Gail Rebuck, the chief executive of Random House - who appeared in court sitting firmly at Mr Brown's end of the row - issued a statement saying she was "genuinely saddened that two of the three authors of the Holy Blood have chosen to bring this litigation against us".
There were two notable absentees from the court: the third author of the Holy Blood, Henry Lincoln, who is taking no part in the action; and Brown's chief researcher, whose habit was to copy, type and hand over to him long extracts from works that she thought might interest him - his wife, Blythe.
Every now and then, in a day of tortuous legal argument about what constitutes "the architecture" of a book, or of how plagiarism can be proved in the era of instant information, the softly spoken judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith, threw a remark or question into the proceedings that fell like the clonk of a concrete boot.
Quietly he remarked that inferences might be drawn from the absences of Henry Lincoln and Blythe Brown. Quietly he asked what, precisely, the plaintiffs were seeking as remedy? Did they want, as he had heard suggested on the news, to stop the release of the film? Did they want millions of copies of the Da Vinci Code to be destroyed? Or were they just looking to be paid a licence fee? Quietly he asked whether Random House was not still selling the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
"Indeed yes," stammered Jonathan Rayner James QC, for the plaintiffs, looking astonished. "Forgive me if I hesitate at your question . . ."
" "Don't worry," said Mr Justice Smith, quietly. "You'll have a lot more of them before the end of the case."