Presentation Skills
| Author | Peter Lyons |
| Pages | 5-21 |
Have you ever been at a wedding where somebody has delivered a good speech? Perhaps not, but we have all been to weddings where there has been a bad speech: long-winded, monotonous, inappropriate jokes or simply dull.
Speaking at weddings is a difficult task. Most people want to get it right. No one wants to spoil the couple’s big day.
The pressure on after-dinner speakers is immense. The questions swirl around. Should I lay off the drink? Will a wine or two ease my nerves, or cause me to say the wrong thing and lose my place? I don’t want to read it, but what if I miss something out, such as thanking the bridesmaids? Will I be entertaining or boring? Too long or too short? Will I strike the right note with the audience? Will it be remembered for the right reasons?
Yet, the irony is that you will never get a more receptive audience than at a wedding. Nobody wants you to fail. They will forgive you for quite a lot of shortcomings. Unless there is an unbridled drunk in the room, you should get through the experience unscathed.
Think about that good wedding speech you saw. What was it that the speaker did that was effective? Break it down into little pieces. Was the speaker funny; knowledgeable; did he look at the audience; did he vary his tone of voice; pause in the right places; was he prepared? Did he look confident?
These are just a few characteristics of the good speaker. It is worth examining them because, with the exception of being funny, each characteristic is an asset in any courtroom. Let the judge do the jokes. They are usually bad but don’t laugh too hard.
1 Substance
1.1 Knowledge of subject
It is of enormous assistance if the speaker knows what he is talking about. Preparation is a vital part of presentation.
Former US Secretary of State, James Baker, said that his dad used to talk about the ‘5 Ps’:
6 Advocacy: A Practical Guide
‘Prior Preparation Prevents Poor Performance’
Apart from the redundancy of the first word, it is a memorable aphorism.
The audience has to feel comfortable that the speaker is familiar with the subject. This is even more important in court because the judge is relying upon you.
Skilled advocates, especially those who have to cross-examine expert witnesses, become so familiar with the material that they appear to know as much or even more than the expert.
A good advocate anticipates every point that is likely to arise and every question the judge might pose. There are no short cuts. It is a painstaking job.
1.2 Structure
An attractive structure makes things easier to follow. A ramble or stream of consciousness buries the messages.
The ancient Greeks knew the value of presenting things in threes.
Good stories and jokes are usually in threes. You wouldn’t look forward to a tale about Goldilocks and the Seven Bears.
I heard an otherwise excellent speaker, who was an American judge, stand up in front of a group of admittedly hungover lawyers one Saturday morning and say, ‘I want to talk to you this morning about the 17 most important things about cross-examination.’
You could feel the whole room sink.
The same experience occurs when a judge is told that the advocate intends to address her for four days.
The structure has to be logical – it has to make sense. Lawyers are trained to think chronologically and in paragraphs. I have a friend who is an artist and he thinks in images which burst upon him from all directions. A student of mine thought in Venn diagrams.
But the vast majority of lawyers think in neat logical structures. If that is the case, you can be assured the judge also thinks like that. So, present it to her in paragraphs and chronologically.
Your client often wants to tell you the last thing that happened. You always want to know the first thing that happened.
5.
In addition, whereas with a joke you must hide the punch line and deliver it at the end, the situation in court is different.
A submission to a court is not a murder mystery novel. One must announce the murderer or give out the punch line in the first ten seconds.
1.3 Tell a story
Justice Laskin of the Canadian Supreme Court produced an excellent paper some years ago on what persuades judges. I draw on the judge’s observations in this book.
His Honour concluded somewhat strikingly that the best advocates are the best story tellers. By no means did he intend to convey that good advocates make up stories. But your client’s case is a story. A well-told story is attractive to most human beings. We were brought up on stories. Most of us had them read to us at bedtime. Why do tabloid newspapers sell so well? Why are novels about sex, violence and intrigue so popular?
The good advocate knows why this is the case and tells his client’s story in a compelling way throughout the case: in opening; in examination-in-chief through his own witness; and in cross-examination through his opponent’s witnesses.
A good story comprises well-arranged facts. It is easy to follow and enjoyable to listen to.
How many judges drive to work with their partner and say, ‘I’m really looking forward to being bored today’?
You want a judge, jury or arbitration panel to be saying to themselves ‘Keep going. I’m enjoying this. It’s interesting. I want to hear more.’
1.4 Simple words
Using simple words can help to maximise the effect the story has on your audience.
I was intrigued by Tony Blair’s success as a politician. I found him compelling to listen to in speeches and interviews. He always seemed to be answering the question but, on reflection, you realised he sometimes dodged it.
8 Advocacy: A Practical Guide
But there was more to it than that. I watched him under pressure at Prime Minister’s Questions in Parliament and I studied his set-piece speeches at Party Conferences. Clearly, there were many verbless sentences and sometimes he overdid it, but he was a superb communicator.
And then the secret to his success struck me. By and large, Tony Blair used simple words – words of one syllable as often as possible; words that were understandable and easy to absorb.
He never used expressions such as ‘fiscal outcomes’ or ‘driving though the desired policy agenda.’ He spoke ‘human’, which allowed his audience to understand him and relate to him.
So did Churchill. ‘We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.’
The longest word is ‘surrender’. Apparently, Churchill spent three weeks preparing a speech such as this one, making sure he had just the right words and rhythms. It worked. It was directed to the farm hands and the factory workers. Simple but powerful language, expressed in those growling, defiant tones, inspired and firmed the resolve of the country.
As the famous American journalist, Ed Morrow, put it, ‘Churchill mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.’
Lord Denning was another. He had a triple first class Honours degree from Oxford, yet his speeches and his judgments were delivered in the most plain and simple language.
As he put it, ‘I had to practise continually ... In chambers if asked to advise, I took intimate pains in the writing of an opinion. I crossed out sentence after sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial