michaelgkarnavas.net/Blog

The orator must not only teach, delight, and persuade; he must also move.  — Cicero

The most powerful moments of persuasion in a courtroom are rarely the loudest. Whether before a jury, a single judge, or an appellate bench, they tend to be quiet, controlled, and precise. They do not overwhelm. They settle in. Through deliberate rhetorical choices, an advocate can shape not only how a case is understood, but how it is experienced—without ever stepping outside the discipline the bench (chamber) demands. It is in these moments, as Cicero reminds us, that advocacy truly moves its audience.

This is especially so in international criminal tribunals, where persuasion unfolds before judges drawn from different legal systems, cultures, and professional traditions. In such a setting, advocacy requires more than doctrinal fluency. It requires an acute awareness of how arguments resonate across those differences. Continue reading “Disciplined Pathos: The Art of Restrained Emotional Persuasion Before Judges”

Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible.

Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric

In my last two posts (here and here), I offered some foundational advice for appellate moot court participants—primarily those engaged in international law competitions. The focus there was on structure, clarity, responsiveness to the chamber, and the disciplined use of authority. Although framed in the context of moots, much of that guidance applies far beyond competition settings. Advocacy skills, after all, travel well—across jurisdictions, legal traditions, and levels of experience.

But appellate mooting is just one area. There are also trial moot court competitions that, like real trial advocacy, require a different mindset and skillset. They demand mastery not only of argument but also of examination, evidentiary judgment, narrative control, courtroom presence, and quick responsiveness. They call for agility in responding to witnesses, sensitivity to judicial intervention, and the ability to think strategically on the spot. These skills are not just for competition; they are transferable abilities that shape real-world litigation—whether in party-driven adversarial systems or judge-led civil law traditions.

Beyond competitions, I regularly engage in trial advocacy training—particularly in international and hybrid criminal courts and tribunals. I also lead training sessions in national jurisdictions, mainly for defense attorneys, and occasionally, I am consulted by both new and somewhat experienced advocates seeking advice on courtroom strategy, preparation, and persuasion. Through over forty years of practice and reflection, I’ve realized that although techniques evolve and procedural rules differ, certain core principles remain constant.

From time to time, I will share reflections based on experience—lessons learned in courtrooms, training rooms, and through observing what persuades and what does not. These reflections are offered humbly, not as strict formulas, but as practical guidance for those looking to improve their craft—whether prosecutors, defense attorneys, victim advocates, or aspiring advocates still finding their voice.

With that in mind, I believe every advocate should begin with one of Aristotle’s three powerful rhetorical tools of persuasion: ethos. Continue reading “Effective Advocacy Trilogy: Ethos as Foundation, Erosion, and Restoration”

Don’t prepare to fail. Prepare only to win.

— Mehdi Hasan

In Part I, we explored how careful, disciplined drafting transforms a brief into a tool judges can actually use—how clarity, precision, ethical rigor, and structural logic make written advocacy credible and actionable. The same principles carry forward into oral argument. Persuasive appellate advocacy relies not on clever phrasing or theatrical delivery, but on clear thinking, preparation, and the ability to guide a decision-maker through complexity with confidence, restraint, and discipline.

Since persuasive oral advocacy depends on storytelling and the capacity to communicate with ease and clarity, I often start my advice to moot court participants and young lawyers with a familiar exercise: imagining a conversation with a stranger over drinks at a bar. This simple scenario tests an advocate’s understanding of the facts, the law, the issues, and the procedural context. More importantly, it challenges them to explain those elements clearly, succinctly, and persuasively to someone unfamiliar with the case, showing why each point matters. If your arguments can be understood—and appreciated—by a stranger, you are well on the path to guiding a bench.In this way, the exercise is both a mirror and a bridge: it reflects your mastery of the written brief developed in Part I while helping you turn that work into compelling oral advocacy. Continue reading “Fundamentals of Appellate Advocacy for Moot Court Participants Part II: Preparing for Moot Court Oral Advocacy”