During advocacy trainings, at some point, I inevitably deliver my short speech to the trainee lawyers about how a judge doesn’t only evaluate the merits of our arguments and case but also our credibility and competence or the lack of it. Both influence how the judge perceives, considers and decides our case. The more we have of both, the more persuasive we are likely to be.

Credibility relates to our trustworthiness and honesty.

Can we be trusted to tell the court the truth when it does not favour our client? Does the judge have such confidence in us that she can take us at our word? Can we answer directly a yes-or-no question by the court? Do we fudge our answer with a half-truth? Can we be trusted to concede to be reasonable about our advanced argument or client’s legal position? Can we be trusted to be fair, reasonable, and civil in our conduct?

These questions ask the same essential thing: Can we be trusted to do the right and noble thing in a challenging situation?

Credibility has nothing to do with how much money we have, how good we look, or how fancy we talk. It has to do with others being able to rely on what we say. Credibility is straight talking and hard walking. When we say one thing and do another, it raises doubts about what we say and suspicions about what we do.

If a judge or anyone else does not or cannot trust what we say, we are not credible. If we are not credible we are not persuasive. Who listens to someone they do not trust? If we are not persuasive, we are ineffective.

Credibility is the foundational building block to persuasiveness. Honesty builds trust. Trust creates confidence. Confidence inspires reliance. Reliance opens the door to believability and persuasiveness.

Competency relates to our ability to do our work effectively.

Are we well-versed with the law and practice? Do we know the procedure, tradition and ethics of our profession? Do we know how to go about doing our work? Have we done our research, understanding and thinking about the matter? Are we doing it systematically, thoroughly and reliably? Is what we are doing helpful to the progress of our case and the judge?

Competency has to do with doing our work well. It is not enough to be honest. We have to be skilled too. If we are not, a judge is unlikely to trust us fully. A glow of suspicion will surround whatever we do. It is not that the judge is worried we will lie to her. She is worried that we made a mistake, were ignorant or are not prepared. A judge will not be able to rely on what we advocate if we cultivate a reputation for incompetency. A judge must be able to trust us and our abilities.

If credibility makes us believable, competency strengthens a judge’s confidence in us. We do not want it be said of us, He is an honest chap, but he is incompetent as an advocate. Both are vital to lay the foundations for persuasiveness.

There are two others C’s I omit because I don’t want my short speech to erupt into a long lecture. Charm and courage. These qualities amalgamate and strengthen our ability to persuade.

If competency is about doing things correctly and well, charm is doing so in a way that is helpful to a specific judge.

To charm is to please or arouse admiration by the judge from a legal dimension. By charming a judge, I do not mean bribing them or ingratiating ourselves with her. Instead, I mean pleasing or delighting a judge through how we go about our work. We make things easy and interesting for them. Or give them what they didn’t know the needed. Doing so telegraphs the implicit message that we have taken the time, effort and trouble to know, understand and accommodate them. Humans like that and judges are human. Being liked lowers the barriers to persuasiveness.

Some examples. Judge X likes each legal proposition mentioned to be supported by case law. We prepare our written submission accordingly. Cite the leading case afer stating the legal proposition. Judge Y does not like footnotes in a written submission. Avoid it. We know a judge will be greatly assisted by a case chronology and a Scott-schedule of the pleadings, prepare it, even if not asked for. Conceding arguments or facts where appropriate. Keeping our arguments concise and cogent. Not asking irrelevant questions of witnesses at trial. Making our cross-examination interesting. All these actions are about helping a judge decide the case according to their preferred way of working.

Finally, courage is about doing something difficult or challenging when we are afraid. Courage is not the absence of fear. It is doing what we have to do in spite of it, even if it is to our detriment. Rule 16 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 demands we ‘fearlessly uphold the interest of his client, the interest of justice and dignity of the profession without regard to any unpleasant consequences either to himself or to any other person.’

If we do not raise an argument because we are afraid of annoying a judge, looking foolish (assuming the argument isn’t foolish) or angering someone powerful, we shortchange our client and disgrace our profession. Cowardice restrains us from advancing our client’s cause to its fullest reasonable extent. It holds us back from conducting a case to the best of our ablities. We won’t do the client or their case justice, and may potentially cause a miscarriage of justice.

Courage is an essential component of advocacy. It is under appreciated as an advocacy quality despite it being baked into our role as a lawyer. A cowardly lawyer prioritises his personal interest over his client’s interest. They take the fee as a lawyer but fail to conduct themselves as a lawyer should. A coward is, therefore, a fraud and has no place in legal practice.

There are a handful of mental strategies I use to deal with the fear that can inhibit, ennervate or consume me.

To summon and fortify the courage I need to do what I have to do is to see the task as a responsibility I have no choice about. It is something I must do. This is my fate. The only question is how to do this task well and emerge improved from the experience. When I convince myself of this two things happen. First, the fear gradually feels less relevant. It does not go away. It just feels less relevant and insistent. It’s always there but I have turned the volume down on it. Second, with the lessening of anxieties, dread and stress, it frees up the mental and psychological bandwidth it would have taken up so I can apply them to the task at hand. It is difficult to think in a cloud of fear, anxiety and stress.

Then, to keep focused, I don’t predict or simulate the future. I don’t try to envisage the dread of failure or the exuberance of success. I can do that but I do not take any of it seriously. It’s all speculation, anyway. I take it as it comes. See what happens. You never know. Que sera sera. Professionally, of course, I can and have to do it. But at the intrinsic level I don’t believe any of it. Life is far too complex for us to predict. I can see the trajectory of a case but past a certain point it disappears into the fog of the unknown. There are too many variables, many of which we are not aware of. We don’t even know what we don’t know, and we need to know everything to predict the future.

And if I could predict the future, I would not be full time in the legal profession. I would be playing the stock market and doing cases for fun. It would be a far better return on my predictive ability.

These four qualities I discuss is to demonstrate that advocacy is not simply a technical ability. It is not just about knowing how to examine-in-chief, cross-examine, object or argue. Advocacy includes the cultivation of reputational integrity, bringing empathy and consideration as well as possessing emotional and psychological awareness and the skill to manage them.

To be a effective advocate, we have to go beyond mere legal advocacy.