By Felix Attard
Throughout the day, the 2026 Emerging Lawyers Conference had shone a light not only on the highs of what can be an exhilarating profession, but also its sharper edges – the pressure, high stakes and burnout that can ensue.
But what was then made clear in the final session, a panel discussion on lessons in advocacy with five judicial officers, was that those addressing the room want to see emerging advocates succeed. Advocacy, as Justice Forrester remarked, is meant to be fun.
Facilitator Thomas Coltrona of the Law Society’s Young Lawyers Committee was joined by the Hon Michael Buss KC, until recently President of the WA Court of Appeal; the Hon Justice Amanda Forrester of the Supreme Court of WA; her Honour Judge Tania Jeyamohan of the District Court of WA; Magistrate Trevor Darge of the Magistrates Court of WA; and Registrar Camille Goucke of the Federal Court of Australia.
Tentative first steps
Naturally, those on the panel remember their first appearances, which as Judge Jeyamohan pointed out, can inform whether one will pursue a career in litigation. Indeed, former Justice Buss KC recalled being put off by advocacy in the 1980s. Thankfully, how judicial officers in the District and Magistrates courts interact with junior lawyers, or inexperienced advocates, has since evolved.
The panel members seemed to agree that judicial officers, or a jurisdiction more broadly, can encourage speaking roles for less experienced advocates, which the Federal Court’s Next Generation Initiative Practice Note, Registrar Goucke remarked, is designed to achieve for junior counsel. In the Federal Court’s jurisdiction, more junior practitioners will often appear in the registrars’ lists. The Magistrates Court, Magistrate Darge pointed out, can also serve as a training ground.
The telltale signs of an inexperienced advocate, Justice Forrester noted, might be that their hands are trembling, they are reading their submissions or they appear less confident. In those instances, a judicial officer can bring them along; give them more latitude to make a submission.
But as Judge Jeyamohan pointed out, recognising a junior practitioner is not always easy, hence the importance of treating practitioners consistently. Her Honour tries to place the emphasis on what a matter calls for and has, where necessary, stood a matter down for a more senior practitioner to appear.
Promising signs
Nonetheless, the panel members seemed to concur with former Justice Buss KC’s remarks that less experienced advocates tend to care about their work, answer the question that’s asked of them, and be sensible and well-prepared.
However, as Justice Forrester noted, a lack of preparation will sometimes be beyond one’s control. Her Honour recalled, on occasion, being handed a file with only a few minutes to prepare. Poor preparation becomes an issue when a practitioner has been involved in a matter for some time.
For those occasions where there is little time, and a practitioner might not know the answer to a question, Justice Forrester reminded the audience that everyone has been there before – even senior practitioners. The best one can do is not panic, ask for a moment and avoid rambling. Judge Jeyamohan added that the obligation to not mislead the court applies to being honest about what one does not know, and it may be possible to obtain further instructions and provide written submissions.
Moving parts
Indeed, the importance of time was a common thread – punctuality, of course, but also courtesy towards a judicial officer by informing chambers when a matter has been resolved through conferral. Apologising for lateness is imperative, and that extends to non-compliance with orders, which are not facultative. It should not be assumed that proposed consent orders will automatically be made, and promptly.
In a high-volume jurisdiction like the Magistrates Court, a judicial officer is unlikely to have the time to read lengthy written submissions. In that context, a practitioner’s time is better spent understanding what is required of them, so that submissions can be conveyed concisely.
Open to persuasion
One should be economical with their time in court. Judicial officers, Registrar Goucke reminded us, already know the law – avoid stating first principles.
A judicial officer is there to be persuaded, and that can be said equally of the Court of Appeal. As former Justice Buss KC noted, written submissions can be ‘turgid’ and contain excessive quoted text from caselaw. Contrary to a common preconception of the Court of Appeal that an appellate judge’s preliminary view on a matter will remain in place, oral argument can serve to tease out issues; a judge’s engagement with counsel can be a device to do the same.
While it is not always clear how authentic collegiality is compatible with a working life now largely spent online, it was uplifting to be reminded that there is still such value in the public forum of the courtroom.
