Suck it Up and Take Trial Advocacy
I know, at least at my law school, students are afraid of trial advocacy. Maybe they’ve heard that it’s a ton of work, or maybe they’re just reluctant to speak in public in front of other attorneys, judges, and their classmates.
The fact of the matter is that even if you’re not planning on litigating, effectively communicating your thoughts is a skill that will be useful to you. Unless you plan on locking yourself in a room until you die, it will likely benefit you to be able to stand up in front of a group and persuade them. If you are planning on litigating, you’re seriously handicapping yourself by not taking the trial portion of advocacy.
There’s a difference between theory and practice.
Okay, sure — it almost goes without saying. Here’s what I mean, though. I’m one of the few insane people who really enjoyed Civ Pro. I (mostly) understood the nuances of the Erie Doctrine and compulsive joinder, etc. Still, after our initial client interview in Advocacy II, I had to sit down and think: “uh, hmm . . . what now?” Civil Procedure helped in that I have flags in my head for important issues, but if you’re anything like me, you probably forgot that you need to have a 26(f) meeting with opposing counsel to come up with a Discovery Plan. Heck, if you’re anything like me, you probably have no idea how to make a discovery plan or what one should look like.
Maybe you took Pro Rep: seemed relatively straight-forward at the time, right? Do you think it’s easy to balance zealous advocacy with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? Not always. What do you do if you’re committed to a client, but think she’s lying to you? Do you have any idea what the standard is for a contingent fee agreement? Do you know the difference between a fee and a cost? Is digital research a fee? If you’re claiming negligence, since “harm” is an element, do you have to disclose any document tending to show that harm was done to your client at initial disclosures?
You get the point. There are likely many, many, many nuances that escaped you during Civ Pro, and if you’re planning on litigating, better to become familiar with them now so that you can use your time wisely later.
I’d love to hear from some law grads who took advocacy. What’s your take on the course?
Related posts:


[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Legal Geekery, goldenrail. goldenrail said: RT @legalgeekery: Why You Need to Suck it Up and Take Trial Advocacy – http://bit.ly/aqP8BT [...]
I have yet to take our school’s Trial Advocacy, but I have taken Pre-Trial Practice and Procedure which I think meshes with what you are describing here.
I think that it ought to be a mandatory class: if you don’t know how to file a complaint, or a response, then you’re not going to last long in practice. It’s likely that whatever firm you end up working for will have templates, but unless you know how/when they’re appropriate, they don’t do a lot of good. As added bonuses, there was also a lengthy discussion on client interviewing (though my school also offers that as an intercession skills class) and we practiced taking/defending depositions.
Long & Short: I cannot recommend these classes enough.
Reply to comment
Joshua Auriemma Reply:
February 9th, 2010 at 11:30 am
@dms2L, I think that pretty much sounds like our Advocacy II class.
Amusingly, we aren’t really taught anything about client interviewing, but we are thrown into a situation where we need to interview a client (an actor). It made me realize that I’m probably more cut out for corporate than anything else. When my client told me that he wasn’t able to perform everyday tasks, and he definitely wasn’t ever going to play football again, my response was, “Good. Wait, not good but . . . you know what I mean.”
Reply to comment
Leave your response!
Little Geeks
Advertisements
Recent Comments
Receive LG Updates Through Email
Categories
Suggested Reading
Tags
Archive
Random Links
Blogroll
LG Sponsors