Most importantly, it will tell you where and when the tribunal will take place. This sounds obvious. It is, but people do get it wrong. If you rely on a conversation with a collegue or client, you risk that he mispoke or you misheard. Make sure you see the notice of hearing to be sure.

The other pitfall to avoid is that some of the smaller hearing venues are administered elswhere. Brighton, for example, is administered in Southampton. So letters from the tribunal will have the Southampton address. It is easy to assume that the case will be heard in Southampton. Again, the notice of hearing will put you right.

In addition to time and place, the notice of hearing may contain other useful information. It will say whether you are expected to deal with liability and remedey, or liability alone. If you are actually listed for a Pre-hearing Review it will say so, and should give some indication of what issue will be dealt with.

You should always see the notice of hearing in any case you are involved in. If you do not have it, get a copy.

If you are going to make a habit of representing others in the tribunals, learn to touch-type. That is, learn to type fluently, without looking at the keyboard, using all your fingers on the ‘correct’ keys.

This is hard advice to follow. If you’ve been using computers for a while, you’re probably quite fluent using 2 or 3 fingers on each hand and looking at the keyboard. You’ll never reach competent secretary speeds that way, but for lots of purposes – because it’s the thinking what to write that takes the time more than the writing – you don’t notice that your typing speed is slow. Once you’ve got to that point, it’s hard to learn to type properly – because although your final touch-typing speed will be a lot faster, while you learn you will have to slow right down to complete beginner speeds. That’s incredibly frustrating while it lasts.

All the same, it’s good advice. Learning the keyboard so that you can find each letter with the right finger without looking takes maybe 2 to 4 hours’ concentration. There are lots of free typing courses on the internet; you just have to pick one, and spend a few boring hours doing exercises. After that, it’s just a matter of practice to get your speed up – and forcing yourself to stick to touch-typing for all purposes, even while it slows you down. The more you drill yourself on exercises, the shorter that period will be.

With a bit of practice, you’ll be able to take something close to word-for-word notes of evidence during the hearing. That’s handy in any case; but in a long case, or a case that gets adjourned mid-way through it’s an enormous help; see laptops in the tribunal.

There are a lot of different things that need to be done in the immediate run-up to a hearing: writing a chronology, drafting a list of issues, making a start on written submissions, preparing to cross-examine witnesses A, B and C, researching a particular point, cross-referencing the witness statements with the bundle etc. etc.

You will improve your chances of remembering to do all the things you need to do if you keep a running ‘to do’ list, updating it every time you complete one task or think of another.

A ‘to take’ list is useful, too. It is surprising how easy it is to forget to take with you to the tribunal something you need – enough copies of your witness statement, a calculator, a notebook, the power supply for your laptop, pens, highlighters, post-its etc. etc.

Don’t on any account rely on ‘mental notes.’ They’re unreliable at the best of times, and particularly so when you’re under pressure.

If you’re new to employment tribunal practice, it can be tempting to think that the person who matters is the legally qualified chairman who sits in the middle of the tribunal table and presides over the hearing, and to overlook the other two members (the ‘lay members’ as they are called). This is a mistake. The thing to remember about the lay members is that there are two of them. That is – to labour the point – twice as many as there are Chairmen. In other words, the lay members can, and sometimes do, outvote the Chairman.

So if you are giving evidence or making submissions, try to address your answers to all 3 members of the tribunal, and make occasional eye-contact with each of them. Try to make a mental note of their names. If you want to refer to a question asked by one of them of a witness, it will be awkward (and obvious) if you can’t remember their name – and they are likely to feel overlooked. And if a lay member asks a question that makes it clear that they have misunderstood the evidence or the law, don’t snub or patronise them – just explain.

Employment tribunals normally expect witnesses to read their statements aloud. If the statements are very short, there’s something to be said for this: it gives the witness an easy task to do while they settle in, and meanwhile everyone else can draw breath and shuffle their papers and remember who this witness is and where they fit in the story. Where the statements are long, it’s pretty mad – but it still often happens.

It’s helpful to know in advance roughly how long this will take, so it’s not a bad idea to run a word count once you’ve finished drafting your statement, and then put the total word count on the last page. The speed at which people read aloud varies, but 160 wpm is about the middle of the range – so for a rough estimate of the number of minutes the witness will spend reading aloud, divide the number of words by 160.

If you are represented in tribunal, you will often need to communicate with your representative. A lot of the time this can be done by discreet whisper. But this is impossible when your representative is in the middle of cross-examination or submissions. Then the usual method is passing them a note.

Notes from your client during the hearing can be very helpful – but too many can feel like sabotage. So it is worth some thought. Advisers can help themselves by discussing this issue before the hearing.

The tension is between providing useful information, and distracting your representative. They are doing something difficult and complex that requires their full attention. If you interrupt a lot you will break their train of thought, and pile on the stress. The result will be to make them less effective. On the other hand, you may have information or insight that will make all the difference.

The key is to know when to intervene and how.

When

Bear in mind what you representative already knows. Imagine that you have a wages case, and you say that your employer, Mr Smith, promised you a 5% raise from January 2008. If Mr Smith gives evidence that such a conversation never happened, there is no point in passing a note saying “He’s lying”. Your representative knows that he is, and will be busy trying to prove it.

On the other hand, Mr Smith may say something like “I wouldn’t have discussed that sort of thing. I left that all to Ms Jones, the store manager”. You may know that Ms Jones was on her honeymoon during January, while your representative does not. In that case a note letting him know will give him some valuable ammunition.

It is rarely sensible to try to give general advice about how to do something. For example, you may think that it would be better if your representative dealt with matters in a different order than he is doing. But it will be quite impossible for you to explain why and for your representative to change course during his submissions. Trying to do so will just distract him.

Bear in mind that you only have partial knowledge of what your representative is thinking. If he does not seem to be addressing a point, it is possible that he’s unaware of it, or has forgotten it. But it’s also possible that he’s spotted a problem with the point that you haven’t, or noticed that a tribunal member was reacting badly to it; or even that he thinks it’s such a good point that he’s postponing it to the end of his submissions or cross-examination where it will have most impact.

Try to take some account of how important a point is. What you’re trying to achieve by intervening is to make your adviser’s cross-examination or submissions more effective. Will the benefit be worth the cost in terms of distraction? Can your point wait until the next break?

How

Write short notes. This is important for two reasons. First, your representative will find it easier to understand and use a short note, rather than a long one. Secondly, you want to finish your note before he moves on. Even the best point will be less telling if your representative has backtrack to a point he left five minutes ago.

Write legibly. This is a good moment for large round primary schoolteacher writing – even if in fact you are a doctor.

Don’t shout. In other words – DON’T WRITE IN CAPITALS. It is surprising how much more distracting and stressful it is to receive a note written in capitals, because it does feel as if you are being shouted at.

Be prepared. Bring a pack of post-its or small pieces of paper so that you have something to write on that can be easily passed across – a lot of noisy ripping of pages won’t assist your representative’s concentration either.

Another way of dealing with this sort of issue is to agree that, at the end of cross-examination or submissions, your representative will check with you whether there is anything else that need to be covered. This allows you to deal with issues in a more organised way. If you do this, it is sensible to keep a running note of issues that you might need to raise. But be brief: while the tribunal will be happy to let you have quick whisper, they will not normally allow a prolonged conversation.

Finally: don’t take it personally if your adviser reacts quite shortly to your interventions. Under the pressure of a hearing, there often just isn’t time for the standards of courtesy you’d expect normally, and communication is likely to be reduced to the bare essentials. It doesn’t mean your adviser is irritated: it just means they’re in a situation where they have to grab the bits of information they need from you and then shut you up.

A lot of people bring friends and family to the tribunal to support them.

This is an excellent idea. Tribunals are stressful, difficult and not the the sort of thing you should do alone unless you have to. Just knowing that there is someone there to give some emotional support can make things much easier.

Tribunals almost always have a row of chairs behind the parties for people to sit on. Most hearings are public. Even if yours is not, the tribunal is unlikely to object to people you know attending if you want them to.

The respondent will often have quite a few people with them too. The convention is that each side’s supporters sit directly behind the party they are connected with. This saves embarrassment on all sides and allows everyone to whisper about how things are going.

The advice about not making faces applies to observers as well as participants. Overt expressions of support will go down badly with the tribunal. In particular, hand gestures (of any sort) should be refrained from.

You know your friends and family best, but it might be worth reminding them of this before you go in.

One of the problems you can face early in your career is that tribunals don’t take account of your inexperience. It can feel as if you’re expected to reach the standard expected of an experienced lawyer from the first moment you start representing clients.

To some extent this is just not a problem that should be solved. Tribunals expect a certain basic standard of all representatives. Inexperienced shouldn’t mean incompetent.

But beginners are inevitably less skilled than experienced people. It is not unreasonably to expect the tribunal to cut you a little slack in your first few appearances.

Generally, tribunals notice when you are a beginner. But if they don’t, should you tell them?

There is no absolute answer to this. It will depend on you, your client, your opponent, the tribunal and the situation. Here are some pros and cons:

Pros

• The tribunal may cut you some slack. This can take a number of forms, but include giving you a bit more latitude in cross-examination, being more willing to listen during your submissions, doing more work to translate what you say into the correct legal language and so on.
• The tribunal may also simply be nicer to you. This sounds minor, but actually can be quite important. Hearings, particularly your first couple, are often extremely stressful. It’s easy to be thrown right off your stride by even a mild reproof from the Judge.

Cons

• You may annoy the tribunal by appearing to ask for special treatment.
• Your submissions may carry less weight.
• You may undermine your client’s confidence in you.
• The Respondent may see it as a sign of weakness.

If you do decide to come clean about your inexperience, do so shortly and directly. Don’t apologise or be sheepish. Just say that this is your first (or second, or whatever) case and you hope the tribunal will bear with you. And do it right at the beginning: if you bring it up only when the tribunal barks at you, it will sound like an excuse.

When in doubt, it is best not to make jokes during a tribunal hearing.

It is not that nobody does. You’ll very rarely hear an actual joke, but many Judges will indulge in a dry remark from time to time. And representatives will often do the same.

No matter how funny you are though, it will almost never have a positive impact on your case. And there is always the possibility that it will cause a problem – by offending someone, or suggesting that you aren’t taking the hearing seriously.

Litigants are also more at risk of this than representatives. Nobody expects a professional representative to approach every case with grim seriousness. But a tribunal might interpret a light remark by a claimant negatively – even if it was just the result of nerves or some other perfectly innocent impulse.

So, it is sensible to err on the side of caution. At least until you have had a chance to gauge the audience and to be sure you will not be misunderstood.

Jokes are even riskier in correspondence. From time to time you may feel the urge to poke fun at something the other side have said or a particularly ridiculous assertion they have made. Resist it. These things never look nearly as funny three months later when the tribunal reads them.

Finally, if your Judge does indulge himself in a humorous remark, it is strongly encouraged to crack a smile.

Or, in English, the time you spend on an issue in tribunal should be proportional to the importance of the issue and its complexity.

The amount of time you spend on something will send a message to the tribunal. The more time you spend on a point the more important you suggest that it is.

So, all else being equal, you should spend the most time on your important points.

However, all else is not equal and you will have to take account of how complex your points are. A difficult issue takes more time to deal with. And if what you have to say is short and simple it does no good (and normally does harm) to keep talking once you’ve made the point.

It is sometimes worth flagging up exceptions to the general rule. For example you might say “Sir, my next point is really the key to this case, but it’s a simple point and I will be brief.” Similarly, you might say “Madam, the contractual point is rather difficult and I’m afraid I’m going to have to spend rather a lot of time on it.”

Update: A reader points out that, arguably, the equation should be importance multiplied by difficulty; rather than importance divided by difficulty. This is correct – unless difficulty is expressed as a number greater than zero but equal or less than 1. This may be a post event rationalisation, but it preserves the original formula.