'Make The Point First, Show Relevant Facts And Support It With Law' : Sr Adv Akhil Sibal Discusses Court Craft [Watch Video]

In an insightful and engrossing session, Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate of Supreme Court, discussed his approach towards dealing with case briefs and structuring arguments in court.He was talking at a webinar organized by R&R Law Chambers on the topic 'Mastering Briefs & Structuring Arguments'. The session lasting for almost one and half hours was moderated by Rohan Batra and Reena Choudhary, Partners at R&R Law Chambers.Key takeaways from the session :While clarifying that he has no straight-jacket formula when it comes to structuring arguments, he said that he followed a general pattern with respect to structuring arguments in court.If there are preliminary objections, they would be raised at the beginning itself. As regards merits, the attempt would be to put across the best points as quickly as possible, and avoid detailed narration of facts."My starting point is not to start with the facts. I don't want the judge to get impatient wondering what the argument is. The sooner the judge knows what the argument is, the sooner she can start thinking about it. Then the facts as you place them will have a context. De hors the argument, the judge cannot appreciate why you are focusing on certain facts and not others. So I try to make the point at the outset and the detailing should come after", he said about his approach in higher courts..This approach, he said, makes the arguments more cohesive. Make the point, show the relevant facts, and support it with the relevant law - he described his pattern.Think in terms of propositions of fact and lawHe said that it was important to think in terms of "propositions of facts and law"."Fact is a statement of what happened. Proposition of fact is a factual inference that you wish to derive from the fact; it is the point you wish to make with respect to a fact. It is a fact bundled with an argument", he explained.Stating propositions of facts is more effective in getting the point across, than mere narration of facts.Opening submissionsHe said that his preferred style was to get the judge thinking immediately. Start with points that will grab the judge's interest. "You will have to pique interest. You need a big picture beginning. A trailer to captivate the attention of the judge. Remember, the judge might have also read the brief and might have come with pre-conceived notions. So, you need to think of something that will appeal to the judicial mind and judicial conscience. For that, you need to think from the shoes of the judge", he said.He added that it was not his personal style to make an overly dramatic beginning, but a focused and pointed one. "Some lawyers are theatrical. That can also yield results. It is a matter of personal style", he said.Need to know opposite side's argument.It is important to know the opposite side's argument. One should try to build their argument to the hilt and demolish it.One must also think out of the box with respect to the opposite side's arguments, without getting confined by what is stated in their brief or pleadings. This will avoid situations of you being caught unawares by an out of box argument raised by them in court.. "You must test the strength of your argument based on your independent thought, having built up the opposite side's case as if you have accepted their case", he said.Sibal also explained that he factors in who the opposing counsel is while readying his arguments in court. "I will be conscious about who are appearing at the opposite side. Over time, you will understand the lawyers, what tricks they have up their sleeves, what style they follow, how well prepared are they with their briefs etc. You play to your strength and their weaknesses", he said.The idea is to make your experience in court as predictable as possible.Don't combine good arguments with bad arguments If you combine good arguments with bad arguments, it can reduce the overall credibility of your case. The way the mind works, and the way the judge absorbs the case, is based on the overall impact of the arguments. If you sneak in terrible arguments with good arguments, the judge starts to doubt your better points which you argued with greater conviction. Focus on winnable arguments, be selective, as time is limited.He added that if the case is generally weak on merits, and the strongest point is also not that appealing, he might use a combination of weaker arguments, hoping any of it might strike. He also highlighted the importance of knowing the court room personality of the judge. Certain aspects matter more before certain judges. Some judges have certain intellectual and policy leanings. You can't have a one size fix all approach before everyone. Need to be flexible alsoIf the argument which you thought was convincing is not working with the judge, don't flog it beyond a point.As a counsel you need to have flexibility, and you need to think quickly on your feet, to dial back and course correct and abandon that argument, instead of just drilling ...

'Make The Point First, Show Relevant Facts And Support It With Law' : Sr Adv Akhil Sibal Discusses Court Craft [Watch Video]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Sibal also extensively spoke about his methodical and clinical approach towards studying briefs.

Tags