Apologies for my tardiness. I, too, am playing catch-up after a busy music weekend at ACL.
One thing I can say is that I wish I had read this section before my first oral argument. Granted, the actual experience is a much better learning mechanism than just reading about it, so the retrospective advice is still helpful as I reflect on ways to improve for next time.
The keys I took away from this reading are:
-Preparation (pretty obvious)
-Simplicity
Clearly prepping and rehearsing are essential. I think with last week's first run, part of my insecurities were that I wasn't sure I completely understood everything I needed to address so my notes were more scattered than they should have been, and I focused way more on just trying to understand the problem than on rehearsing my own argument. In the future, I will spend way more time preparing so that the fundamentals will be covered and I can focus more on the delivery.
Simplicity, however, is probably underemployed, at least by new advocates. No matter if the audience is a bunch of 5th graders or Nobel Laureates, everyone appreciates a clear, simply-put summary of the main points. I think before reading this, I would have assumed that I need to make sure to use all the appropriate technical language from the relied upon conventions and codes and dazzle the audience with all the fine points and complexities of the issues. It is still necessary to understand all of that and have it at my disposal for nuanced questions from the tribunal, but it will probably be a useful tool for me as the speaker to learn all the necessary details, and then go back and simplify everything down into layman's terms at the very end of the preparation and rehearsal process.
It seems that there could be an inclination for advocates who are comfortable with "performing" to add some dramatic flair to both the opening and closing arguments. When I've observed opening and closing statements that appear to be more performance and less "straight shooting" I'm sometimes a bit skeptical and slower to warm up to the underlying message. Cheesiness is to be avoided at all costs, and I'm a pretty big critic of overt displays of bravado. I understand that everyone has his and her own narrative style, and story-telling flair can grab the tribunal or jury's attention and be much more memorable than a more conventional recitation of the issues. I just don't think that this style is for me. That being said, I am interested in working on developing my own narrative style, and the first step is being well-prepared so that once I've covered my bases I can focus on the delivery and being receptive to the audience.
Definitely agree that "cheesiness" should be avoided at all costs. I think that some advocates can effectively utilize bravado but without the word cheesiness ever coming to mind. The most important thing, however, is that your style be your own. it's incredibly important to make sure that the style an advocate uses is one that they are comfortable with; otherwise, both the advocate and the message they are conveying will come across as disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteI too am interested in working on my own narrative style and am excited to see everyone in the class develop their own style as well.
Interesting post. I think simplicity in design, life, and oral advocacy are all hugely underrated. I like beautiful objects that are simple and functional. I like stories, and presentations, that are uandorned but fully functional. This, in my opinion, is the key to a successful life. Think simple, and the rest will work itself out. Unless, you are a lawyer and every issue is so complex it boggles the mind!
ReplyDeleteIn arbitration, a low-key style that avoids cheesiness is probably even more important, no?
ReplyDeleteI've read that if you can't say something simple, no matter how complex the matter, you don't really understand it. Simplicity on the far side of complexity, Yoda say. Watch me forget all of this tomorrow...
To follow up on Tim's point:
ReplyDeleteI think symplicity is key not only because it makes it easier for the arbitrators to understand your argument, but because by trying to simplify your arguments, you are taking out what's not important, and organizing everything else in a way that allows you to understand your material and arguments front and back.
Also, as a side note, a federal district court judge in Dallas said that he appreciates a 10 page well written complaint, than a 20 page poorly written one.
I guess cheesy performances only work in Hollywood;)
ReplyDeleteIt's true though, simplicity is key and the only real way to be sure that your message has not been misinterpreted and won't be forgotten