Over the past few weeks I've been
out and about in the legal community and seen a number of presentations from
The verdict was in. EPIC FAIL!
Now for those of you outside the UK,
Counsel (QCs) are the creme de la creme of that part of our legal
profession that performs in court.
As a result, they need to be super
persuasive, brilliant communicators, and able to influence the toughest of
judges and juries.
Now I have to admit, other than a
trip to see the House of Lords (the judicial arm, not the political chamber)
when I was a law student, I've never actually seen any of them live in action,
as litigation was never my area of practice as a lawyer. That said, I have no
reason at all to suspect their professional abilities are anything other than
tremendous - I suspect the market for their services would have found them out
well before they reached the top if they didn't cut the mustard.
However, my recent exposure to their
presenting abilities was not in the familiar setting of a courtroom, but the
cold, harsh reality of the seminar circuit.
These, were very much "away" matches
and not comfortable home fixtures.
The most astonishing presentation
was from an eminent QC who had thoughtfully prepared for his audience a 90+
page summary of the recent developments in the law in his area of practice over
the last twelve months.
"Great", I thought to myself as I
settled down before the seminar began, "this means I won't need to take notes
during the lecture, and I'll be able to really concentrate on what he'll say".
As our presenter took the stage to
applause, and the audience settled down in anticipation, my expectations were
high. After a few brief, humorous anecdotes, it was time to get down to
Our presenter then produce his own
set of notes, identical to the audience's, but heavily highlighted and with a
massive amount of post-it notes poking out all over the place. They looked like
a giant, fluorescent hedgehog, and my spidey-sense began to tingle.
Something was wrong.
"If you'll all please turn to page 4
of your notes, we'll begin with paragraph 16.....".
The presenter then began to read
We then had, I kid you not, 75
minutes of this heavyweight QC reading his notes out to an audience of at least
200 delegates. It was truly painful. Did he not think we could read them
ourselves? What value did he think he was bringing to the written material? Did
he think about the audience at all? It was truly astonishing.
The other QC presentations
(different events) were a marginal improvement, but continued on a central
theme. All the others involved powerpoint (which as a tool can be very useful, but is
often grossly misused IMHO) , and typically the presentations were built using
a standard Microsoft template with the chambers logo hastily cut and pasted on
the last slide. They all used bullet points and seemed to be a font size of
about 16, which meant the writing was (just) legible for those at the back of
the auditorium, but small enough so the QC could pack enough text on to simply
read out for 30-45 minutes.
All of the presentations were, by
today's standards, epic failures of the highest order.
You'll have gathered that nil points
were awarded for presentation style. But on top of that, the content itself was
so dry and dusty, cobwebs began to form on my ears as I listened. These people
are often at the absolute cutting edge of legal developments in the areas they
were speaking about, and so surely (surely!) must have had some practical
examples they could have shared, some war stories to make the law seem a little
more "real"? A little human warmth to bring things alive?
The other unifying theme through all
of the presentations, and for me, the final nail in the coffin was the timing.
Each of the presentations finished in a huge rush, with material at the end of
the talk being either run through at a million miles an hour, or skipped
Now I appreciate there are
undoubtedly times when time can be difficult to manage in a presentation - when
you are presenting towards the end of a conference, other sessions have
overrun, and as a result your time is compressed. Fine. Or perhaps if you are
taking questions as you present, and either some really interesting debate
arises, or you have a particularly difficult audience member.
But in the examples I'm describing,
these factors weren't present, it was just bad time management from the
What made this even
more unforgivable, was that I saw two of the QCs take questions at the end
of their presentations, and both were brilliant. Utterly fantastic.
They came alive - their personalities
shone through, they were engaging and their mastery of their subject matter
became crystal clear. Difficult questions were not brushed aside, but met head
on with relish and grace. Stories and really useful hints and tips came
tumbling from their lips.
It was like night and day.
In short, they became (as I expected
from a QC), truly world-class presenters.
But, in my mind, this only made
their performance during the main presentation even more surprising.
Let's be clear, they are far from
the only people who have given poor presentations. I know I've presented and
not lived up to my own standards, and I also know there are plenty of people
who present and do so either being absolutely terrified, or do so without being
given appropriate training or experience.
Regular readers will know I'm a big
fan of an approach called "Presentation Zen" by Gary Reynolds, but just
following the presentation basics would have worked for the QCs in question.
Think of your audience. Build a
story. Structure your message. Work out the timings. Practice.
You don't need to be a QC to shine.
Read more from The
For more information about
LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site