Emily Windsor has spent decades at the chancery Bar, and the lesson she returns to most often is one that begins long before a hearing opens: the ability to judge your own preparation with rigour and honesty. In a profession where barristers typically work alone, that internal audit is not optional — it is the foundation of everything that follows.

The solitary nature of practice is something Windsor addresses directly. Without colleagues to review your arguments or flag gaps in your reasoning, the responsibility for comprehensive preparation falls to the individual. That means reading every document thoroughly, having the facts accessible without hesitation, and knowing the relevant cases and statutory materials well enough to explain them clearly to a judge and respond to questions about them on the spot.

This command of the material does not come from casual familiarity. Windsor has contributed to practitioner texts in her field, typically spending two to three weeks on book writing, often using time away from active practice — summer holidays, for instance — to deepen her understanding of the law she applies every day. The result is a level of knowledge that builds what she describes as genuine confidence rather than performed assurance.

Preparation extends well beyond mastering your own position. Windsor places equal weight on anticipating what the other side will argue and on identifying the weaknesses in your own case before opposing counsel does. Thinking through the questions a judge might put, the precedents that cut against your argument, and the developments that might arise mid-hearing — these are not optional extras. They are the difference between an advocate who can react swiftly under pressure and one who is caught off-guard.

Her instinct for argument was shaped early. During her teenage years, Windsor was drawn to debating and the kind of analytical thinking it requires — marshalling points, considering opposing views, and responding quickly. Those habits transferred directly to the Bar, where thinking on your feet remains as essential as it has ever been.

What has changed is the range of competencies the modern barrister must command. Technical proficiency now sits alongside legal knowledge as a component of professional credibility. Windsor is direct on this point: fumbling with technology while trying to advance legal arguments damages your authority. For remote hearings, which remain common for short hearings, case management matters, and proceedings not involving witnesses, her preparation checklist covers audio quality above all else. Judges can accommodate a video glitch; they cannot work with submissions they cannot hear.

Communication has evolved significantly over the course of Windsor’s career. She recalls a time when barristers corresponded by letter and typing your own opinions was considered a sign of modernity. What has changed most profoundly is the balance between oral and written advocacy. When she was called to the Bar, the finest advocates were those who performed best on their feet. Today, written submissions carry equal weight — and cases are frequently decided before a hearing begins.

Through all of this change, Windsor’s view of preparation has remained consistent. The advocate who takes time to reflect honestly on their own readiness — who asks difficult questions, addresses gaps, and holds themselves to a standard no one else is there to enforce — enters the courtroom on stronger ground than one who does not.