The Inaugural Australian Bar Association Residential Advocacy Course

At the final night dinner of the inaugural ABA residential advocacy course, I noted to a South Australian participant that I personally felt the most important part of the course was to come — the reflection necessary about the lessons learned in order to incorporate them into real life practice. At the time, I was so exhausted that the only thing I actually felt capable of reflecting on was the back of my eyelids. But as I write this short article whilst sitting at the airport, awaiting my flight home after loads of sleep and a couple of days seeing the sights of Perth (in none less than 40 degree heat), now is the time for that reflection.

To say that I felt trepidation going into the course is an understatement. A few too many days off over Christmas and a busy work start to January, saw me bitterly complaining to my chamber colleagues that I was severely under-prepared for the course which had recommended a solid and minimum five days of preparation on the briefs provided. Luckily two of the three applications and the trial to be prepared covered topics with which I was somewhat familiar, so I had crossed my fingers that I would be able to deal with any issues raised on the fly if necessary.

My fears were perhaps not justified. Certainly whilst there were some people more prepared than me, late nights and early starts (as in 3am Perth time) ensured that I managed not to humiliate myself. The coaches, all senior barristers sourced from across the country (with the notable exception of the Northern Territory that drew no participants or coaches) and one “terribly delightful chap” from England, were outstandingly supportive whilst being adult-like (to the point and fair) in their criticisms. Because advocacy is an art, the coaches did not always agree and in more than one session, one coach at the end of a performance would mention one aspect for possible improvement whilst the next coach in private video review would openly discount the criticism. So be it. What the occasional conflict in advice demonstrated, perhaps more than anything, is the importance of developing my own style.

What of the course as a whole? Well, the accommodation was basic but the grounds of the college and the location spectacular in a very old-fashioned way, the participants were friendly, the food copious and tempting (back to the gym I must go), the drinks regularly flowing, the hours long, the expectations high, the support immense, the criticisms constructive, the improvement and growing confidence in all participants palpable, the friendly game of cricket in the afternoon sun hot and sweaty, Mr Plowman (the first respondent in the case on which we worked for 4 of the 5 days) devious, evasive and cunning (no prizes for guessing that I was representing the applicant).

Most of all, the atmosphere was collegiate. That was both a challenge and a reward for a person like me who, despite occasional external appearances, sometimes needs to force herself to not just assess the competition quietly from the sidelines. It was a reminder that senior barristers, although busy, do care about the future of the bar and that fellow junior barristers all face similar challenges, at times feeling out of their depth and often worrying about their level of performance as compared to their peers.

So what of the course am I going to apply in practice? Well, that would be giving away my competitive advantage just gained. And in any event, the great thing about the advice I received is that it is advice peculiar to myself, honestly and thoughtfully given. That alone made the course wholly worthwhile.

Melanie Hindman