Advocacy practice assessment

The day I had been dreading finally arrived on Wednesday, the practice assessment for advocacy. I didn't actually feel too apprehensive in the days leading up however, come Wednesday morning I was a bag of nerves and very eager to get it over and done with. 

I met my opponent outside the interview room and luckily remembered to jot down his surname so that I could introduce him correctly. Unfortunately, his name was rather difficult to pronounce and I spent the next 10 minutes prior to entering the room repeatedly asking how to pronounce it - I am sure this came off as extremely rude but I hope he could see how nervous I was!

The hallway was filled with anxious students, some jabbering away, some quietly reading through notes, some wearing suits, others (like me) in their usual uni get-up. My pair was the last to get called in. Luckily the woman taking our assessment was my Tax teacher and I was grateful for the familiarity. She spent a couple of minutes chatting to us and I felt thoroughly calm by the time she pressed the timer and I had to begin. (In retrospect, it may have been better not to have had this prior chatting as, in the real assessment, you are treated as having begun the assessment as soon as you enter the room and should treat the room/assessor as you would a courtroom/judge). 

My intro was a little shaky and I forgot a few things I wanted to say, albeit nothing vital. After I had the introduction of the parties and the application out of the way I regained the flow I had had in the practices I had done at home and the whole thing seemed to whiz by. 

The 'show and tell' section (in which you are required to take the judge through the bundle, showing the relevant parts and telling how they strengthen your client's case etc) was my weakest part. This was mainly due to the fact I left out a large part of the respondent's evidence on the basis that I thought if it weakened my case it was best left for them to bring up. As I found out, it is necessary to address this evidence and try and put a positive spin on it in light of your client's case. Obviously I have used this technique before but thought, with only 10 minutes to make my case, it would be best focussing on all of our evidence and leaving the dissection of theirs to the full trial! Whoops!

My opponent had a very strong start but slowly began to unravel and I felt extremely uncomfortable for him, as I am sure he felt the same during my weaker points. Eventually he abandoned the 'show and tell' and moved on to a rather persuasive summary. 

Either way we were both found to be competent, and luckily not on the borderline. We were both told that our 'show and tell' was the weaker part of our advocacy, we both had felt it. After examining our notes, I was told that mine could be annotated a little more without risking a fail and that his were too annotated, bordering on breaching the NO SCRIPTS rule.

To be honest, the whole experience wasn't nearly as terrifying as I thought it would be and those 10 minutes flew by. The real assessment is on 18 December and we get our case notes on 2 December. I am hoping to get an application for security for costs again but there is a chance I will be given summary judgment. 

Some good advice our assessor gave us was to only have a brief read through of the papers when you get them. That way, when you come back to them in a week or so time you will have remembered in your head only the key issues i.e. those issues you are introducing as the relevant issues to be decided. 

Anyway, no other news this week. I hope everyone else's practice assessments are going well. 

 

Advocacy

I have finally finished the two advocacy workshops that are part of the litigation module. I won't lie, I still find it absolutely terrifying but I think I have a good shot at being found 'competent'.

The basic idea is that two students go head to head in an interim application hearing in front of a tutor acting as the judge. You receive the case papers two weeks in advance and can highlight and make notes as appropriate in preparation. 

As with interviewing, advocacy is a 'skill' and therefore marked as competent/not competent. My practice hearing is on 20 November and I have been given the role of applicant in a security for costs application (there are two roles: applicant or respondent, and two types of hearing: summary judgment or security for costs). One of the scariest things about being an applicant is that you speak first and it is your job to introduce both you and the respondent's solicitor, the basic facts of the case and then your specific points. Originally, I thought our class (all being applicants) had gotten the raw end of the deal but after the practice sessions I actually think the respondent's have it worse. The respondent's have to remain calm enough during your ten minutes of speaking to actually respond to what you have said. Not only do they have to address the points the applicant has made but also put forward their own version of events and reasons why the application should be dismissed, taking each piece of evidence in chronological order and making sure not to miss anything that the applicant has said that may harm their case. This is actually rather difficult!

The workshops themselves were extremely helpful and we got a lot of great practices in. The key here (more than ever!) is to prepare the advance case papers. Unlike interviewing, you can't just wing it and won't get the most out of the sessions without knowing who your client is and what you are actually arguing. Seems obvious but unfortunately very few people were adequately prepared. However, advocacy is similar to interviewing in that, the biggest tip in terms of properly utilising the sessions is to completely throw yourself into it. Most people were happy to have a go and everybody got something wrong. I personally think the ones that were reluctant and didn't give it their all are the ones at risk of not passing. 

A few little points: not wearing attire appropriate for court is an instant fail. Having a script is an instant fail. Writing more than a few bullet points on the case papers is a possible fail. Using two highlighters to show your points and their points is advised so that if you do go completely blank you can at least try to locate the right colour and go from there. 

We also have mock exams for property and civil litigation coming up on 27 November. Property is going fairly okay; it was never going to be a great love of mine but it isn't as hellish as I anticipated. I think I can do well in it with a little bit of focus and time. 

We have also handed in our final electives choices. After much consideration, deliberation and tipex, I finally settled on Private Client and International Commercial Law (which has replaced standard Commercial Law). I think that these, along with Employment, prove to be a well rounded and not too niche set of electives attractive to a majority of firms. Importantly, they are also subjects I predict I will enjoy and are areas I would be keen to eventually practice in - win win!

As for the LLM dissertation I remain undecided along with 80% of my classmates. I honestly think it will depend on my personal circumstances nearer the time. At the moment, as with most of the part time students studying the LPC, I am working four days per week and attending university one day which leaves me two days to try to fit in some relaxation plus the 15 hours workshop prep time. I personally can't see where I would fit work towards a (good) dissertation into that! Also, if i manage to obtain a training contract I don't think I will spend a further three months studying toward a qualification that won't result in me gaining anything. The LLM has never been a specific goal of mine. I would be interested to hear other people's thoughts!