Walk into any courtroom in Pakistan, from the Supreme Court in Islamabad to a district sessions court in a small town, and you’ll notice the same thing. The lawyer who wins the judge’s attention isn’t always the one with the strongest legal argument on paper. It’s the one who knows how to stand at the rostrum, hold eye contact and speak in a way that makes the bench actually listen.
That skill isn’t luck. It’s trained, the same way an athlete trains muscle memory, through daily repetition until it becomes second nature.
Why body language matters at the rostrum
Spend a morning in the gallery of the Lahore High Court or any district court and the contrast is obvious. One advocate stands upright, weight settled on the hips, voice coming from the diaphragm, eyes fixed on the judge. Another slouches, props a foot on the footrest, sways sideways, or nods and shakes his head while opposing counsel is still speaking.
Judges are effectively taking a mental dictation of the case as it’s argued. A lawyer’s fidgeting, unnecessary head movement or nervous habits break that concentration, sometimes at the exact moment a key point is being made. Pakistani courts move quickly, and a bench that loses its train of thought rarely gets it back without frustration.
The three stage practice method
Advocates who take oral advocacy seriously, a method also taught in barrister training abroad, break communication skill building into three stages.
1. Practice Before stepping up in court, rehearse the argument out loud exactly as it will be delivered. This can happen in an office, in front of a mirror, or even in a washroom between hearings. The goal is to hear how the argument sounds before a judge does.
2. Reflection Record the practice session on a phone, then review it in three passes.
- Listen to the audio alone. Notice which words were rushed, mispronounced or given the wrong emphasis.
- Watch the video with the sound off. Study posture and hand movement, and whether the body language looks composed or nervous.
- Play both together. Match the vocal emphasis to the physical delivery and spot where the two don’t line up.
3. Consolidation Correct what the reflection stage revealed. No senior mentor is required for this. Honest, repeated self review is often more useful than outside feedback. Many lawyers who revisit their own recordings from a year or two earlier are surprised at habits they’ve since dropped, proof that the method works.
Real examples from Pakistani courtrooms
In one hearing, a state prosecutor tried to undercut opposing counsel not by objecting verbally, but by visibly shaking his head at the judge while the other side argued. The presiding judge stopped proceedings and reprimanded him on the spot for a gesture that had no place at the rostrum.
Trainers also point to a common habit in Pakistani courts: lawyers who take a quick sip of water right before rising to speak, thinking it will calm their nerves, only to find their throat tightens the moment they begin. The fix taught in advocacy training isn’t a sip mid argument. It’s a breathing exercise done beforehand.
Pakistan’s senior bar offers plenty of proof that there’s no single “correct” style, only a style that suits the advocate delivering it.
- Naeem Bukhari, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, is known for switching comfortably between Punjabi, Urdu and English in front of the bench, using whichever register lands best with a particular point or audience.
- Asif Saeed Khosa, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, built a reputation for weaving Persian and Urdu poetry, alongside Shakespeare and other literary references, into his judgments, using verse to sharpen the emotional and moral force of a legal argument.
- Munir A. Malik, a veteran senior counsel closely associated with the lawyers’ movement, is remembered for a commanding, historically grounded style that places a case within the wider arc of constitutional principle.
- Hamid Khan, another senior constitutional lawyer and long-time bar leader, is known for grounding his arguments in institutional history and legal culture rather than rhetorical flourish alone.
- Salman Akram Raja, a senior Supreme Court advocate, is regularly described by peers as eloquent and exceptionally well read, equally at ease in constitutional and commercial matters.
- Salman Safdar, known for handling high-profile criminal defence briefs, is recognised for a measured, methodical courtroom manner suited to cases under heavy public scrutiny.
The common thread isn’t a shared accent or vocabulary. It’s that each of these advocates found a communication style that plays to their own strengths, and then practised it until it became instinctive at the rostrum.
Language is a tool, not a barrier
Confidence in English isn’t the same thing as skill in advocacy. Some of the most respected voices heard in Pakistani courts built their reputation arguing, and even writing judgments, in Urdu rather than English. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, took his oath of office in Urdu and later led a bench that directed the state to adopt Urdu as an official language, closing his own judgments with lines of Urdu and Persian poetry rather than English legal prose. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, one of the country’s most senior advocates, has said in interviews that a case argued well in Urdu can often land more powerfully with a bench than the same argument delivered in English, since the language a lawyer is most fluent and natural in is usually the one that carries the most conviction.
Fluency in a particular language was never the deciding factor. What actually matters is reading widely, not just law but general knowledge, writing with precision, and listening closely enough to understand exactly what the bench is asking. Missing a judge’s question because of a language gap can cost a client the case, regardless of how strong the written brief was.
Look across the senior bar and the range of styles is obvious. Faisal Siddiqui is known for weaving poetry into his arguments. Munir A. Malik places a case within the corridors of constitutional history. Hamid Khan grounds his advocacy in legal culture and institutional principle. Mansoor Usman Awan, a Harvard-trained lawyer who now serves as Attorney General for Pakistan, brings a grounding in jurisprudence to his arguments. None of them relies on the same register or the same language to be persuasive.
A simple framework, borrowed from language learning courses, applies directly here: reading, writing, listening and speaking. Practising all four deliberately builds the command that a Pakistani courtroom demands.
The takeaway
Legal communication is a craft, not a personality trait. It’s built through repetition. Prepare the argument, record it, watch and listen to it honestly, fix what’s wrong, and repeat before the next hearing. Over time, this discipline is what separates lawyers who simply know the law from those who can genuinely command a courtroom, whether that’s the Supreme Court of Pakistan or a small district court.
About the author
Barrister Muzamil Kaisrani is a Barrister-at-Law of Lincoln’s Inn, London, called to the Bar with distinction, and a registered advocate with the Punjab Bar Council. He holds an LLM in Criminal Law and Family Law from the University of the West of England, Bristol, along with an LLB from the University of London.
He leads Kaisrani Law Associates in Lahore, handling civil, criminal, corporate and family matters, and has also worked as a law lecturer teaching contract law, criminal law and constitutional law. He writes regularly on courtroom advocacy and legal practice in Pakistan, drawing on his own experience at the rostrum to help law students and junior advocates sharpen their skills.
Related Articles
