David Pope laments hefty skeletons
The growth of written advocacy is one of the most striking recent developments in English civil justice. It is still not 30 years since Lord Donaldson officially sanctioned the use of “a skeleton of the argument” in the Court of Appeal. Yet today, skeleton arguments are mandatory for all but the most inconsequential hearings in the civil courts.
Written advocacy has flourished because it serves several useful functions. For judges, skeleton arguments permit more economical use of time spent in court; knowing in advance what a case is about allows judges to prepare for and conduct hearings more efficiently. Well-written skeleton arguments are also often judges’ first resort when producing judgments.
For advocates, anything that assists judges is, naturally, a good idea. But written advocacy doesn’t just help judges, it persuades them. Judges routinely form provisional views of cases based on their pre-reading. Provisional views, once formed, are notoriously hard to shift. So get a decent skeleton argument under the judge’s nose and an advocate can win a case before a word is spoken in court.
The trouble is
