Advocacy Fundamentals: A Practical Guide for Solicitors

Most solicitors don't set out to become courtroom advocates, but almost every solicitor ends up on their feet somewhere — a directions hearing, a tribunal, a small claims trial, an application before a district judge. Advocacy is often treated as something barristers do and solicitors merely brief, yet a huge amount of routine litigation and tribunal work is now conducted by solicitors themselves. Doing it competently is a distinct skill from drafting a strong witness statement or a persuasive letter before action, and it's one that rewards deliberate practice rather than instinct alone. This guide sets out the practical fundamentals: building a case theory, structuring submissions so a tribunal or court can follow them, the basics of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, courtroom etiquette, and — critically — knowing when your rights of audience run out and when to bring in counsel. For a structured way to build these skills alongside your other CPD obligations, Learnsignal's CPD courses cover advocacy and related practice skills for solicitors at every stage of qualification.

Start with a case theory, not a list of points

The single biggest difference between advocacy that persuades and advocacy that merely informs is whether the advocate has a case theory. A case theory is not a summary of the facts — it's the one or two sentence explanation of why your client should win, expressed in terms a decision-maker can repeat back in the judgment. It ties the facts, the law and the desired outcome together into a coherent story, and everything you do in the hearing should serve it.

Before you draft a single submission, ask yourself three questions. What does my client need the tribunal or court to believe? What is the strongest version of the other side's case, and how does my theory survive it? And what is the one fact or document that, if the judge remembers nothing else, wins the case? If you can't answer these clearly, you're not ready to advocate — you're ready to read out a chronology, which is a different and much weaker thing.

A good case theory also tells you what to leave out. Inexperienced advocates tend to include every point that's arguably relevant because they're afraid of missing something. Experienced advocates cut ruthlessly, because a tribunal that has to wade through ten weak points to find the two strong ones will remember the weak points. Build your submissions and your evidence around the theory, not the other way round.

Structuring submissions so they can be followed

Written or oral, submissions that persuade share a structure a judge or panel can follow without effort. A useful default shape is: state the outcome you want, state the issues that determine it, deal with each issue in a logical order (usually strongest first, or in the order the court will need to decide them), then close by restating the outcome and why it follows.

Opening

Tell the tribunal what you are asking for and, briefly, why. Judges and panel members are busier and more time-pressed than advocates often assume — signpost early so they can orient themselves to your argument rather than guessing where it's heading.

The body of the argument

Deal with one issue at a time. Say what the issue is, state your position, and then support it — with the evidence, the relevant provision or authority, and a short explanation of why it applies here. Resist the urge to argue everything at once; a tribunal cannot evaluate three overlapping arguments delivered simultaneously.

Closing

Bring it back to the outcome. A short, confident close that restates what you're asking for and the one or two reasons that matter most does more work than a long recap of everything already said.

The same structure underpins clear legal writing as much as oral advocacy — if you're also working on skeleton arguments, position statements or client-facing letters, our guide to clear legal writing covers the same discipline of structure and plain language in a drafting context.

Examination-in-chief and cross-examination: the fundamentals

Questioning witnesses well is a separate skill from arguing points of law, and it's the one that intimidates new advocates most. The basics, though, are learnable.

Examination-in-chief

In examination-in-chief you are questioning your own witness, and the cardinal rule is: no leading questions on matters in dispute. You cannot put the answer into the question. Instead, use open questions — who, what, when, where, why, how — and let the witness tell the story in their own words, in a logical order, covering the points that support your case theory. Prepare the witness for the process (not the answers) so they understand what to expect, but never script their evidence. A witness who sounds rehearsed loses credibility fast, and a witness who has been told what to say rather than how the process works risks the evidence being challenged or excluded.

Cross-examination

Cross-examination inverts the rules: leading questions are not just permitted but usually essential, because the goal is control. Good cross-examination is built from short, closed, single-fact questions that each get one answer you already know is coming — not an attempt to get the witness to concede your whole case in one dramatic question. Plan your cross around your case theory: what concessions do you actually need from this witness to support it, and what is the minimum number of questions required to get them? The moment you ask a question you don't know the answer to, you've handed control back to the witness. If a witness won't give ground, know when to stop rather than arguing with them — a tribunal will notice an advocate labouring a point the witness has already refused to concede.

Preparation matters even more when the witness is vulnerable — a child, someone with a disability, or a witness with communication needs — where the standard techniques above need real adaptation. We cover that in detail in our guide to handling vulnerable witnesses, which is worth reading alongside this piece before any hearing involving a vulnerable party.

Courtroom and tribunal etiquette

Etiquette isn't decoration — getting it wrong distracts from your argument and can visibly irritate the bench, which is the last thing an advocate wants. The specifics vary by forum, but the underlying principles are consistent across courts and tribunals in England and Wales.

None of this is complicated, but it's easy to get wrong under pressure — which is exactly why it's worth preparing deliberately rather than assuming it will come naturally on the day.

Solicitor advocates versus instructing counsel: rights of audience

A solicitor automatically has rights of audience in some forums — the magistrates' court, the county court in most matters, and most tribunals — without any extra qualification. What a solicitor does not automatically have is full rights of audience in the higher courts: the Crown Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. For those, a solicitor needs to obtain the Higher Rights of Audience qualification from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which is assessed separately for civil and criminal proceedings and delivered through SRA-approved assessment organisations. A solicitor who holds it is commonly referred to as a solicitor-advocate and can then conduct advocacy in the higher courts in the same way a barrister does, without instructing counsel. Where a solicitor does not hold Higher Rights, or where the case genuinely calls for specialist advocacy experience — a complex jury trial, a high-value appeal, or an area outside the solicitor's usual expertise — instructing counsel remains the right professional judgment call, not a failure. The decision should turn on the client's best interests: is this a hearing where the solicitor's existing familiarity with the case and client relationship outweighs the benefit of a specialist advocate's courtroom experience, or does the complexity and stakes of the hearing justify bringing in counsel? Building foundational advocacy skills through routine hearings — case management, interim applications, small claims and tribunal work — is exactly how solicitors develop the judgment to make that call well, long before (and regardless of whether) they pursue Higher Rights themselves.

Advocacy also sits close to negotiation in a solicitor's day-to-day skill set — many hearings are won or lost on what happens before you're on your feet, in settlement discussions and case management. Our guide to negotiation skills for lawyers covers the related skill of securing good outcomes without a contested hearing at all.

Frequently asked questions

Do all solicitors have rights of audience in court?

Solicitors have automatic rights of audience in the lower courts — the magistrates' court and most county court matters — and in most tribunals. Full rights of audience in the higher courts (Crown Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court) require the SRA's Higher Rights of Audience qualification; without it, a solicitor conducting higher-court litigation will typically instruct counsel to appear as advocate.

How does a solicitor qualify for Higher Rights of Audience?

Solicitors apply through the SRA and are assessed by an SRA-approved assessment organisation, with separate routes for civil and criminal proceedings. The assessment focuses on evidence, procedure and advocacy skills specific to higher-court work. Check the SRA's current guidance before applying, since requirements and providers are reviewed periodically.

What's the most common mistake new solicitor-advocates make?

Trying to make every available point instead of committing to a clear case theory. A tribunal can absorb two or three well-supported points far more effectively than ten scattered ones, and a cluttered submission usually signals that the advocate hasn't decided what actually matters to the outcome.

Should a solicitor with Higher Rights always advocate their own cases?

Not necessarily. Holding the qualification means you can, not that you always should. For high-stakes, complex or unfamiliar advocacy, instructing counsel with deeper specialist courtroom experience is often still the better decision for the client, even where a solicitor is entitled to appear.

Advocacy is a skill built through preparation and repetition, not talent alone — and every solicitor who appears in court or before a tribunal, whether occasionally or as a growing part of their practice, benefits from structured training rather than picking it up ad hoc. Learnsignal's CPD courses for legal professionals cover advocacy fundamentals alongside the wider litigation, negotiation and client-communication skills solicitors need to practise confidently and meet their annual CPD requirements.