PostsFeature

Quiet in court: rethinking legal confidence

Avatar photo

By Sajanthiya Siridaran on

4

University of Exeter law student Sajanthiya Siridaran challenges pre-conceptions around the type of students that make great lawyers


I used to think I couldn’t be a good lawyer because I was quiet. When people think of lawyers, they often imagine naturally loud, confident, and bold personalities — always ready to argue and often expected to be the most commanding voice in the room. I believed this too, which made me uncomfortable as a naturally shy and introverted person.

I felt as if I didn’t fit the traditional image of what a lawyer should be. I wasn’t naturally argumentative or a confident speaker. I didn’t necessarily enjoy the spotlight, and I already found myself feeling like an outsider in an industry I was just starting to get into. It was as if I were experiencing a different kind of impostor syndrome, which was hardly the confidence boost I hoped for at the start of my legal career! However, I have come to realise that confidence in law doesn’t always have to be loud.

My name is Sajanthiya, and I have just completed my first year studying law at university. And this is what I have learned so far.

How I fell for the loud-lawyer myth and tried to change

I was convinced that being a good lawyer meant being extroverted, sharp-witted, and effortlessly persuasive. So, I made it my mission to ‘fix’ myself.

I signed up for mooting competitions, volunteered at open days, and took up speaking roles in mock tribunals to improve my public speaking skills and confidence. And I am glad I did because those experiences pulled me out of my shell, helped me build my confidence, and develop my public speaking skills. I would highly recommend these opportunities to fellow law students because they can offer real and rewarding growth, and they can help more than you would expect.

However, one of these experiences taught me a deeper lesson — not public speaking or voice projection — but something that completely changed how I saw myself as a law student.

A mock tribunal that changed my perspective

During a mock tribunal, I volunteered to play the role of a cross-examining barrister in another attempt to improve my confidence. Thanks to film and TV, I imagined the role would require fierce questioning, quick thinking and bold delivery. I thought a good cross-examination depended on intensity, volume and pressure. However, when it came to my cross-examination, I took a different approach. I was not loud or assertive, but I was calm and thoroughly prepared.

And it worked.

The 2025 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

The real secret: preparation, not projection

I had mistakenly believed that advocacy was about putting on a performance, but it wasn’t my ‘performance’ that won the moment. Instead, it was the preparation and observation I did in silence.

I had spent hours behind the scenes reading witness statements, studying case details and carefully crafting my questions. These were the tools that played to my strengths as someone who tends to be reflective and detail focused. That’s when I realised: my silence was a strength, not a weakness.

Why silence is a strength, not a weakness

Being a lawyer definitely requires public speaking skills and confidence; they are vital. But I had wrongly assumed that being quiet, introverted and observant were qualities I had to leave behind. Ironically, in trying to boost my confidence and become more extroverted, I have seen the value of my quieter qualities.

You don’t have to be the loudest in the room to be a good lawyer because a good lawyer also knows how to listen closely, think critically, when to speak and when not to.

If you’re a shy or introverted law student feeling like you don’t fit into the legal world, give yourself a chance. Throw yourself into those uncomfortable opportunities. Build your public speaking skills. Push your boundaries. Get out of your comfort zone. But don’t throw away what makes you, you.

Law needs all kinds of voices; both the loud and quiet ones. It needs strategic thinking, prepared voices, and quiet confidence. We need to stop believing in the myth that there is a single mold that you have to fit into to be a good lawyer, and instead break the mold.

So, whether you’re stepping into a mooting competition, a mock tribunal, or a real tribunal, confidence doesn’t always roar; sometimes it prepares quietly, observes patiently, and speaks with clarity when it matters most.

Sajanthiya Siridaran is a first-year Law with Business student at the University of Exeter with a strong interest in family and human rights law. She hopes to practise in these areas in the future and is particularly passionate about legal aid and access to justice for vulnerable groups.

4 Comments

Sally Terris

Very much liked this. Also, think musician. You’re not always going to make the loudest noise. In fact, speaking in the wrong place or too much can actually be disastrous for your case. Sometimes you’ll have a virtuoso role; sometimes you’ll have no more than ‘a cough and a spit’ (as we luvvies like to say).

Reply Report comment
(0)(1)

Bike Brief

For court room lawyering you need a fast mind, the ability to process changing facts quickly and a decent level of tribunal reading. For preparation you need a detailed mind. When the two are combined you have a top level advocate. I manage the first, the second does not come so easily to me. Sajanthiya, who seems to be stronger in the second skill set would do well to be mentored by someone whose skill set and attributes are the ying to her yang. But as a court room hack of 30 odd years, mostly in the KBD, preparation beats inspiration 99 times out of 100. Good luck to you. A good Russell group uni is a good start and I would respectfully suggest your style is better suited to the solicitors’ side of the profession and thereafter a solicitor-advocate if you want to get onto your hind legs. You can learn a lot, just sat behind counsel. You can learn both good advocacy and what doesn’t work, and if, as a young solicitor or trainee, you are exposed to different styles of advocacy, you can learn what works for you. Barristers tend to ape their first six pupil masters, rather than lots of different styles. I think I learned more about advocacy from sitting alongside judges than I ever did on my hind legs. Good luck Sajanthiya. The law is a tough gig.

Reply Report comment
(5)(0)

Quiet counsel

I shall always despise the stereotype that quiet people must strive to become louder to succeed. The truth is, excellent lawyers come in all temperaments. Insight, precision, and judgement are not the preserve of extroverts. Introversion necessitates no redemption arc. Mooting may build skills, but it is not a rite of passage. Public speaking experience does not make an advocate. The “loud lawyer myth” dissolves not through conformity, but through unapologetic competence. You don’t need to become anything. You just need to be good — and that includes being quietly brilliant from day one.

Reply Report comment
(2)(0)

Al

I do a bit of advocacy training. Now obviously we don’t try to create clones or suggest theres only one approach to advocacy; the best style is the one that works for you. Having said that, I do use “It’s cross examination, not examining crossly” a lot.

I’m also a big fan of the idea of advocates as story tellers. Fundamentally we are trying to sell a narrative. So we have all the same issues any story teller has, the story has to be compelling, easy to follow, and not require too much suspension of disbelief. Quiet competence can play a big part in that. There’s the idea that ‘the truly powerful never have to raise their voice.’.

A key element on advocacy is control. The advocate must control the narrative, which means controlling the evidence, which means controlling the witnesses. That can often be best achieved by a gentle softly softly approach.

Similarly when presenting submissions to a judge or jury. Advocates have a tendency to see cases as battles to be won, but or judges/juries, case are problems to be solved. So your task is to help the tribunal solve the problem. You do that by making their job as easy as possible. Set the scene, identity the parties, say what the relevant issues are (and also what issues, despite being in dispute, aren’t relevant to the decision to be made), Set out any relevant legal tests, then identity what evidence assists with that.

Remember, submissions are a dialogue, not a lecture, you are seeking to persuade, not to harangue. And it’s very rarely that merely being louder makes your points any more cogent.

Reply Report comment
(0)(0)

Join the conversation