82,439
edits
Law firm seminar: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work| | {{a|work|[[File:Gregorian monk.png|450px|frameless|center]]}}WHY ARE LAW FIRMS SO BAD AT PRESENTING SEMINARS? | ||
[[File:Gregorian monk.png|450px|frameless|center]] | |||
The JC once asked a [[Magic circle law firm|magic circle]] [[partner]], in exasperation, “for the love of all that is holy, why don’t you make your associates go on public speaking courses?” | The JC once asked a [[Magic circle law firm|magic circle]] [[partner]], in exasperation, “for the love of all that is holy, why don’t you make your associates go on public speaking courses?” | ||
| Line 31: | Line 29: | ||
We can read quicker than you can speak. If you’ve put all the information you plan to deliver on the slide, we don’t need you. Just send us the slides and we can read them at our leisure.<ref>Or save them for reading “later”, of course.</ref> Remember the point of the exercise, from your perspective: to give us the impression ''we need you''. | We can read quicker than you can speak. If you’ve put all the information you plan to deliver on the slide, we don’t need you. Just send us the slides and we can read them at our leisure.<ref>Or save them for reading “later”, of course.</ref> Remember the point of the exercise, from your perspective: to give us the impression ''we need you''. | ||
Blessed as most in-house lawyers are with basic literacy levels, generally we don’t need someone to read out loud to us, and if we did we would choose Martin Jarvis or David Horovitch, not | Blessed as most in-house lawyers are with basic literacy levels, generally we don’t need someone to read out loud to us, and if we did we would choose Martin Jarvis or David Horovitch, not a mumbling LLB (hons) from Bristol. | ||
===Don’t clutter your slides=== | ===Don’t clutter your slides=== | ||
Limit yourself to a sentence per slide. One ''short'' sentence. Try it. This will help you to speak naturally to your audience, not to your notes. | Limit yourself to a sentence per slide. One ''short'' sentence. Try it. This will help you to speak naturally to your audience, not to your notes. | ||
| Line 37: | Line 35: | ||
The best exponent of excellent, uncluttered slides is [[Lawrence Lessig]]. Watch him in action [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVk77VQuPAY here]. | The best exponent of excellent, uncluttered slides is [[Lawrence Lessig]]. Watch him in action [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVk77VQuPAY here]. | ||
===Vary your tone=== | ===Vary your tone=== | ||
''You are not a Gregorian monk. Nor is anyone your audience''. Speak with some animation. Bring that personality. Moderate your range. Pause. Punctuate. Be dramatic. Be hyperbolic. ''This is a performance, not a root canal''. | ''You are not a Gregorian monk. Nor is anyone in your audience''. Speak with some animation. Bring that personality. Make one up, if you haven’t got one of your own. Moderate your range. Pause. Punctuate. Be dramatic. Be hyperbolic. ''This is a performance, not a root canal''. | ||
===Speak in idiomatic English=== | ===Speak in idiomatic English=== | ||
Of ''course'' it is hard, since legal discourse has been beaten into you, but ''try not to speak like a lawyer''. Don’t speak the way you draft. (Come to think of it, don’t ''draft'' the way you draft). Say less, perform more. Build rapport. | Of ''course'' it is hard, since legal discourse has been beaten into you, but ''try not to speak like a lawyer''. Don’t speak the way you draft. (Come to think of it, don’t ''draft'' the way you draft). Say less, perform more. Build rapport. | ||
===Keep out of [[Weeds|the weeds]]=== | ===Keep out of [[Weeds|the weeds]]=== | ||
This may be the worst crime of all. Your objective is to give a high-level overview: to present issues in stark, apocalyptic terms, apt to terrify your audience into calling you, and only you as the | This may be the worst crime of all. Your objective is to give a high-level overview: to present issues in stark, apocalyptic terms, apt to terrify your audience into calling you, and only you — you are marketing, remember? — as the one respected authority on this cataclysmic risk, and thereby paying you for your sage counsel. ''You are not meant to be reading out your internal knowhow folder''. If your slides are densely packed with point font, ask yourself: “am ''I'' missing the point of my own seminar?” | ||
This ought to be a rhetorical question. | This ought to be a rhetorical question. | ||
| Line 58: | Line 56: | ||
An audience will not begrudge an entertaining hour, even it learns nothing. It will ''deeply'' resent an hour of needless [[tedium]]. | An audience will not begrudge an entertaining hour, even it learns nothing. It will ''deeply'' resent an hour of needless [[tedium]]. | ||
What ''you'' want is for your audience to think: “hey, ''she’s'' pretty neat. ''She’d'' be fun to work with (first) and hey — ''she knows tons about the regulatory environment post Brexit!!!'' (second). She is definitely who I will call!”{{sa}} | What ''you'' want is for your audience to think: “hey, ''she’s'' pretty neat. ''She’d'' be fun to work with (first) and hey — ''she knows tons about the regulatory environment post Brexit!!!'' (second). She is definitely who I will call!” | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Continuing professional development]] | *[[Continuing professional development]] | ||
*[[Tedium]] | *[[Tedium]] | ||