Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Edinburgh and Advocacy Training

Chilly Edinburgh

On Monday, Rebecca and I were guests of the Scottish Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh. We were shown around the faculty's grounds and library by the Keeper of the Library, Stephen Woolman, and a member of the faculty (and former solicitor) Gail Hawthorne.
Scottish advocates are not organized in chambers, as English advocates are, but are rather members of the collective Faculty of Advocates, and all work out of the faculty's library.
Each advocate keeps a fairly large wooden box in an area of the library where papers are delivered. The box is used by the clerks to deliver bundles of solicitors' instructions. At the end of the day, the advocate places materials in the box, and a courier collects the materials and brings them to the advocate's home. The following morning around 4:30 a.m., a courier collects the materials from a bag outside the door of the advocate's home and brings the materials back to the box for the advocate's use. Mr. Woolman explained that this convention of transportation by courier was developed in an age where it was considered unseemly for gentlemen advocates to be seen in public carrying their materials in their own hands.
The most active area of the faculty grounds is the hall, a large room adjacent to the library where the advocates can be seen walking back and forth in conversation with solicitors or advocates in training (who are called "devils"). Mr. Woolman explained to me that often the first lesson a devil learns is how to "walk the hall." Specifically, devils must match their step to the advocate's step (when he steps with his right, you step with your right), and when walking in a group of two, the duo must turn inwards upon reaching the end of the hall. Mr. Woolman said that he has become so accustomed to thinking while walking the hall that he finds himself wishing to walk whenever he wishes to reflect on a subject.
Because all advocates work out of the faculty library, the library is as full as a law school's just before exams. (Of course the advocates wear suits whereas most law students wouldn't dress up just to work in the library!) Most advocates bring laptops and expropriate a section of shared table space on which to lay out their papers and law books.
Advocates are organized in 'stables,' and each stable is managed by a set of clerks who work in a separate room of the library. Clerks do not earn commission, but there have been recent calls to revise the clerks' compensation and allow commissions to be earned.
Rebecca and I were joined by another advocate as well as Mr. Woolman and Ms. Hawthorne for lunch. Over a lovely meal, our group discussed British and American politics, the differences in our legal systems, the benefits of the Pegasus program, a specific legal problem at issue for one of the advocates, and our views on Britney Spears. Rebecca and I appreciated how conversational and comfortable our guests were, and felt inspired to return to Edinburgh at some point in the future.*
Advocacy Training
Today at 4:30 I tried on the role of a barrister, or at least the role of a pupil, as I participated as the counsel for the respondent in an oral advocacy training exercised organized by Brick Court Chambers' pupilage committee. My learned friend, Sarah Abrams, began her argument with strong opening remarks and quickly launched into a discussion of relevant authority. She spoke with a rapidity that reflected a sharp comprehension of the legal matter at issue, and adjusted her argument to accommodate questions from members of the four-person panel. After about a fifteen-minute presentation, the chairman of the panel and organizer of the event, Charles Hollander, signed that the panel understood the petitioner's submissions and wished to hear from me.
I got off to a good start; I began with a clear statement that outlined the points I wished to make, paused, and turned to my first argument. That went well enough, but at a couple points I couldn't find the exact word I wanted and therefore didn't speak as fluently as I would have liked. Nevertheless, I received a few questions from the panel that tested the logical consequences of the position I was advocating, and answered them to the best of my ability.
After my presentation, the next set of pupils entered the office, took our places, and articulated their submissions. This set used more time to articulate their arguments, and the panel -- sufficiently warmed up to the problems by the first set of advocates -- ratcheted up the difficulty of its questions. Both advocates fielded the questions expertly, without verbal hiccups, and each fluidly moved from responding to questions to resuming argument. It was an impressive sight, particularly since the advocates were pupils who had only recently finished their first six months in chambers.
At the conclusion of the second set of submissions, the panel directed the three pupils and I to leave the room so that they could confer. Following this session, the four of us were invited back to the office to receive feedback. Mr. Hollander, speaking on the panel's behalf, said that I did very well and that the panel was impressed by my willingness to participate. The pupils received constructive comments and praise, and were informed that they would have a mid-pupilage review in a few weeks where their progress would be discussed individually.
Having earned the right to relax, the pupils and I went to The Pegasus, a bar connected to Inner Temple, to have a drink and chat. Among other things, we discussed how the pupilage process requires candidates to weather a great deal of stress and uncertainty. It was noted, however, that upon receiving a tenancy, the new barrister is put on an established (if very junior) footing among other self-employed barristers. While certainly a new barrister must continue to earn his or her salt among the members of the bar, tenancy acts like tenure in academia and protects barristers from interfering overmuch in any junior's work.
I was glad I had the opportunity to try my hand as an English barrister (although our hearing was, sadly, unrobed and unwigged). American advocacy is markedly different from English advocacy, and I at least two differences (as well as my obvious North American accent) were evident in my presentation. First, although English barristers certainly do appeal to the equities of an argument (in other words: my position is simply more fair), the tendency is to keep argument intellectual. Because I felt that the side I was representing clearly had the more reasonable position, I stressed this point at various times in my presentation (using facts from the case that illustrated the unfairness of the opposing position). Second, as my previous posts have noted, American argument tends to keep ideas packed tightly, whereas English argument tends to unpack, scrutinize, and organize nearly every possible point. Reflecting this, my argument was essentially limited to two points, and I did not speak for more than my allotted time.
I return to chambers tomorrow to resume my work with Mr. Chamberlain.
* I would, however, pick a warmer weekend than this past one.

No comments: