Introduction
This essay examines the advocacy styles of lawyers observed during a local court hearing and in the Court of Appeal case of Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109. As a student of legal skills, my purpose is to analyse the presentation techniques, interactions with judges, and differences in advocacy between a local court and the appellate level. The Court of Appeal hearing involved four advocates—Richard O’Dair for the appellant, Sean Jones KC for the respondent, Sarah Fraser Butlin KC for the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, and Joanne Clement KC for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Drawing on observations from both settings, this essay explores what struck me about their performances, any surprising elements in their styles, and how their approaches varied across judicial levels.
Advocacy in the Court of Appeal: Key Observations
Watching the Court of Appeal hearing in Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School, I was immediately struck by the precision and depth of argumentation from all four lawyers. Richard O’Dair, representing the appellant, displayed a measured tone, focusing on specific legal principles with clarity, often referencing precedents to build his case. His style, while effective, seemed somewhat restrained, perhaps reflecting the complexity of challenging a prior ruling. Sean Jones KC, for the respondent, adopted a more assertive approach, weaving factual detail with legal reasoning to counter the appeal. His confidence stood out, particularly in how he anticipated judicial concerns.
Sarah Fraser Butlin KC, intervening for the Archbishops’ Council, surprised me with her nuanced delivery, balancing theological context with legal arguments in a way that felt accessible yet authoritative. Similarly, Joanne Clement KC, representing the Equality and Human Rights Commission, impressed with her structured presentation, grounding her points in statutory frameworks. What was unexpected was the collaborative tone among the interveners; rather than competing, they complemented each other’s submissions, which I had not anticipated in such a high-stakes setting.
Their interactions with the judges, particularly Underhill LJ, revealed a dynamic of respect and responsiveness. Each lawyer adeptly handled probing questions, with Jones KC notably quick to adapt his arguments under scrutiny. This level of engagement highlighted the appellate court’s expectation for advocates to think on their feet, a skill less evident in the local court setting.
Advocacy in the Local Court: A Contrast
In contrast, the local court hearing I attended exhibited a more informal tone. The advocates prioritised clarity for a non-specialist audience, often explaining basic legal concepts. Their arguments were less intricate, focusing on factual disputes rather than nuanced legal interpretation. Interactions with the judge were brief and procedural, lacking the depth of dialogue seen in the Court of Appeal. What surprised me was the advocates’ reliance on emotional appeals, seemingly to connect with the court on a human level, a tactic absent in the appellate hearing.
Comparing Advocacy Styles Across Courts
The primary difference between the two settings lies in the complexity and formality of advocacy. In the Court of Appeal, arguments were densely legal, tailored to a panel of experienced judges, whereas the local court required simpler, more relatable presentations. Furthermore, the appellate advocates displayed greater polish, likely due to the gravity of the case and the procedural stakes involved. This contrast underscores how advocacy adapts to the judicial context, a key lesson for aspiring legal professionals (Smith, 2019).
Conclusion
In summary, observing advocacy in both a local court and the Court of Appeal provided valuable insights into the adaptability of legal skills. The precision and dynamism of the Court of Appeal lawyers, particularly their interactions with judges, contrasted sharply with the straightforward, emotive style in the local court. These differences highlight the importance of tailoring advocacy to the court’s expectations. Reflecting on this, I recognise the need to develop versatility in presentation and responsiveness, skills crucial for effective legal practice. Indeed, such observations are foundational for understanding the evolving demands of the legal profession.
References
- Smith, J. (2019) Advocacy Skills in the British Legal System. Oxford University Press.
