Events 
Resources 
News News
Read our latest news, stories and articles
ASA below 40 & Friends Advocacy Workshop Report – “Advocacy Lessons for the Young (at Heart)”
Daniella Anthony, Schellenberg Wittmer
Key Takeaways from Domitille Baizeau, Steven Finizio, and Christopher Boog
Domitille Baizeau (LALIVE), Steven Finizio (WilmerHale), and Christopher Boog (Schellenberg Wittmer) led ASA below 40’s Oral Advocacy Workshop during the Swiss Arbitration Summit 2025, sharing expert insights on effective advocacy, best practices, and common pitfalls. Covering, procedural hearings, merits hearings, and witness examination, the session provided participants with practical skills for mastering each stage of oral advocacy. For the purpose of the workshop, Finizio and Boog respectively provided the relevant common law and civil law considerations, while Baizeau focused on the arbitral tribunal’s perspective.
Best Practices and Common Pitfalls
- Substance over style: The panel urged young lawyers to focus on substance over style and develop an authentic personal advocacy style, rather than mimicking senior practitioners or, worse, adopting exaggerated TV courtroom theatrics. Finizio advised starting with a solid argument structure on which to build personal style. Baizeau stressed that while clients may enjoy an aggressive, or dramatic, style tribunals tend not to.
- Practice is key: Finizio emphasized that the best way to improve oral advocacy is through consistent practice. Handling multiple tasks at once – engaging with the tribunal, engaging with witnesses, and structuring arguments – is a complex but essential skillset to master. Boog recommended public speaking exercises as well as moot courts or mock trials to hone these skills in a low-stakes environment.
- Preparation, active listening, and adaptability are the golden rules of oral advocacy. Nervousness, Baizeau noted, is normal, can sharpen performance and is a sign of engagement. She advised to expect the unexpected and noted that oral advocacy is 75 % preparation and 25 % thinking on your feet – which also comes down to preparation. If things are not going well, requesting a break or recess can help reset strategy.
- Persistence is valuable, but unnecessary aggression backfires: Advocates should stand firm without being hostile. If a witness avoids answering repeatedly, turning to the tribunal and expressing one’s frustration can be effective. Baizeau and Finizio cautioned against quickly capitulating to an impatient tribunal, who may initially not be fully aware of the importance of a point.
- Virtual hearings require extra awareness: Engaging arbitrators through screen presence is crucial. Boog emphasized the importance of good lighting and camera set-up, and to ensure visibility of witnesses and the tribunal to monitor reactions.
- Addressing bias tactfully: If a tribunal member overlooks a key point or appears biased, Baizeau recommended raising the issue, but doing so diplomatically.
- Managing client expectations is crucial: Boog noted that clients may have unrealistic notions of effective oral advocacy shaped by fictional portrayals of legal proceedings, something counsel should proactively manage.
The panel also addressed the common misconception that civil-law-trained lawyers are at a disadvantage in oral advocacy. Baizeau and Finizio noted that in reality most common law-trained lawyers – apart from barristers – receive minimal structured advocacy training and that the gap in training is therefore generally minimal. While the difference may come from practice, Boog highlighted that non-native English speakers often turn a perceived disadvantage into an asset by adopting a clear and concise style using simple language and focusing on the essential points.
Procedural Hearings and Case Management Conferences (CMCs)
Finizio emphasized that oral advocacy starts long before the merits hearing. Procedural hearings set the stage, and advocates should try to shape the procedure in accordance with their case strategy. Finizio also pointed out that it is usually more effective to be constructive and collegial during procedural conferences, although some points may be contentious.
Baizeau explained that making a strong first impression at a CMC is essential and advocates should choose their battles wisely. They should come prepared, demonstrate deep knowledge of their case, and state clearly what points are left for the tribunal to decide. Finizio and Boog highlighted the importance of “reading the room” to determine when to interrupt and when to follow the sequence of topics in the agenda. Poorly handled procedural hearings can leave a negative impression, which is difficult to reverse later.
Boog alsohighlighted that clients often struggle with initial procedural setbacks and recommended explaining these challenges in advance to help manage their expectations.
Merits Hearings
Finizio and Boog explained that advocates should present a compelling narrative to reiterate the key points of their case rather than repeating their written pleadings.
Baizeau emphasized that hearings always provide fresh insights. Arbitrators benefit from hearing the case orally, even if they have read the material but caution counsel not to repeat their submissions. Though visual aids can be helpful, they should be used sparingly. A well-placed document or timeline can enhance clarity, but excessive reliance on slides or graphics may detract from the advocate’s message.
Witness Examination
Effective witness examination prioritizes substance over style. Asking the right questions and clarity matter more than rhetorical flourishes. Baizeau explained that in civil law contexts, the distinction between open and closed questions is not always well understood. For example, while it is not prohibited under any procedural rules to ask closed questions during direct examination, it is generally accepted that such questions should be avoided and that they undermine credibility. Finizio also warned against allowing witnesses to ramble, which can frustrate the tribunal and waste valuable time.
Boog stressed that witnesses should feel comfortable during examination, requiring some form of preparation or familiarization with the exercise of giving oral testimony. However, over-prepared witnesses may appear rehearsed or inauthentic, damaging their credibility. Baizeau added that advocates should also ensure that witnesses remain consistent with their written statements.
Cross-examination, according to Finizio, should focus on discrediting the opposing case rather than extracting dramatic confessions. The key to a successful cross-examination lies in the precision of the questions. The goal is to take away pieces from the opposing case while reinforcing one’s own arguments. Advocates should build up to their key points, including by using documents to highlight discrepancies and gaps. Further, advocates should never lose their composure, and only show emotion for tactical reasons.
Conclusion
Mastering oral advocacy requires practice, adaptability, and clear communication. Effective advocacy is not about theatrics but about delivering compelling arguments with precision and confidence. Young lawyers should focus on preparation, substance, develop their own style, and refine their skills through practice.