How Do Expert Barristers Judge Their Own Arguments? Emily Windsor Reveals Her Process

Barristers don’t have the luxury of team feedback that solicitors enjoy. Standing alone before a judge, they need to know their arguments are secure before opening their mouths. So how do top-tier barristers critically judge their own work?

Property law specialist Emily Windsor pulls back the curtain on the preparation processes that have served her through decades of courtroom battles.

IMAGE: UNSPLASH

Preparation Demands Complete Familiarity With The Documents

The starting point seems obvious but gets overlooked: know your stuff. Expert barristers evaluate every document, precedent, and statute until they can confidently present and discuss them.

Emily Windsor finds that being a contributor to legal textbooks sharpens her specialist knowledge: “Writing a book makes you research everything in great detail. You have to make sure you’re up to date with all the changes.

You have to research every single recent case and statutory instrument.” This same thoroughness carries into her case preparation.

Judges ask tough questions, and they’ll spot immediately if you’re unprepared. For 24 hours before each hearing, a barrister will playing the case through in their minds. Can they explain complex legal concepts in plain English?

Have they fully analysed how each reported case applies to their specific situation? Have they identified all the weak spots in their reasoning?

Anticipating Opposition Strengthens Your Position

Good barristers prepare their arguments. Great barristers prepare their opponents’ arguments too. They mentally rehearse the entire courtroom exchange before it happens.

“In a courtroom, you need to be able to react swiftly, to counter arguments and developments, both those that you were anticipating, and those that you weren’t,” Windsor notes. Her approach involves methodically analysing her own position to find any weaknesses in her argument before the opposition does.

Windsor traces this skill back to her teenage debates: “During my teenage years, I knew that I liked debating and argument.

I enjoyed English and history, marshaling arguments, and thinking on my feet.” Those early intellectual contests created mental habits that serve her decades later in high-stakes property disputes.

Now You Need Tech Skills Along With Legal Smarts

Today’s barrister needs more than intellectual competence. The pandemic revolutionized courtroom procedures, making technical competence essential to credibility.

Emily Windsor says everyone has seen capable lawyers undermined by preventable technical problems, and just hopes it will never be them. “You don’t want to be in a situation where you’re fumbling with the technology while trying to make legal arguments. Technical competence is now part of professional competence.”

Her pre-hearing checklist now includes internet stability tests, audio equipment checks, lighting adjustments, and document management rehearsals. Small technical failures create outsized negative impressions on judges who expect seamless presentations.

“Clear audio is actually more important than perfect video. Judges can tolerate video glitches, but if they can’t hear submissions clearly, the hearing becomes impossible,” Windsor explains. With many procedural hearings staying online permanently, technological self-assessment has become as important as legal preparation.

Communication Clarity Creates Judicial Understanding

Brilliant legal arguments mean nothing if poorly communicated. Expert barristers carefully evaluate whether their presentations match judicial thinking patterns.

Windsor has adapted her communication style significantly for remote hearings: “The slight transmission delay in video platforms can make rapid delivery seem rushed or unclear.” She deliberately slows her pace and uses more explicit verbal signposting to compensate for the digital barrier.

Her experience taught her that judges appreciate advocates who structure complex arguments into digestible segments with clear markers. Precise citation methods direct judicial attention exactly where needed, particularly crucial when electronic bundles might have pagination inconsistencies.

Ultimately, the barrister’s harshest critic must be themselves. Emily Windsor believes that self-assessment becomes more intuitive with experience, but never less important. The courtroom reveals the difference between those who have put the work into evaluating their arguments beforehand and those who haven’t.

No amount of rhetoric and bravado can compensate for a lack of preparation.