The courtroom performance most observers notice is the visible part of advocacy. What Emily Windsor has built her career around is the invisible part — the preparation that happens in private, the self-questioning that takes place before a case is called, and the discipline of holding yourself to a standard that no external authority is there to enforce.
Windsor practises at the chancery Bar, and her approach to preparation reflects both the demands of that specialism and the broader conditions of barrister life. Barristers typically work alone. There is no team reviewing your submissions, no colleague checking that you have read everything relevant or identified the weaknesses in your argument. The quality of your preparation is, in practical terms, a function of how honestly and rigorously you assess it yourself.
That assessment begins with the material. Windsor expects herself to have read everything thoroughly, to have the facts available without hesitation, and to be capable of explaining the relevant cases and statutory provisions to a judge clearly — including in response to questions she has not been able to anticipate in full. The latter requires more than reading; it requires understanding the law well enough to engage with it flexibly.
Her work on practitioner texts reflects that commitment to deep legal understanding. Writing contributions to reference works used by other lawyers demands a level of accuracy and clarity that goes beyond what casework alone requires. Windsor typically sets aside two to three weeks for this — often during summer holidays, when the usual pressures of practice are reduced. The investment is not made for its own sake; it pays back in the depth of knowledge she brings to court.
Preparation also means taking a critical view of your own position. Windsor is explicit about this: effective advocates do not only prepare their case — they prepare against it. Identifying the arguments the other side will make, thinking through the questions a judge is likely to pose, and finding the weaknesses in your own submissions before they are exposed in court are all part of the preparation process she describes. The advocate who has worked through that discomfort in advance is not caught off-guard when it surfaces in a live hearing.
Windsor’s analytical instincts were developed early. She has spoken about her teenage interest in debating, in the mechanics of constructing and contesting arguments, and in the mental agility required to think on your feet. Those qualities — valued in competitive debating — are equally valued at the Bar, where the ability to respond quickly and accurately to unexpected developments is a daily requirement.
The range of competencies that preparation now covers has expanded significantly over the course of her career. Remote hearings have become a settled feature of practice, particularly for shorter matters and case management proceedings. Windsor treats technical preparation as integral to professional preparation: poor audio quality during a remote hearing is not a minor inconvenience but a substantive problem that can undermine the hearing itself. Clear communication with the judge, she notes, is the fundamental requirement — and it applies whether the hearing is in person or online.
The balance between oral and written advocacy has also shifted. Early in Windsor’s career, the most respected advocates were those who performed best on their feet. That remains important, but written submissions now carry equivalent weight, and the outcome of many cases is shaped before anyone speaks aloud.