Ask most barristers what distinguishes good preparation from adequate preparation, and the answer tends to focus on the material — documents read, cases reviewed, arguments organised. Emily Windsor starts in a different place. She starts with the conditions under which preparation happens, and with what those conditions demand of the individual.
The defining condition Windsor identifies is solitude. Most barristers, most of the time, prepare their cases alone. There is no colleague reviewing the argument, no supervisor asking whether a particular weakness has been considered, no team meeting at which gaps get identified and addressed. The work is done independently, and its quality is therefore a product of how honestly and rigorously the individual assesses it.
That assessment, Windsor holds, must be unflinching. Have you read everything? Do you have the facts at your fingertips? Can you explain the relevant cases and statutory materials to a judge — and can you do it under questioning, when the ground shifts and the question is not the one you prepared for? If the answer to any of those questions is uncertain, the preparation is not complete.
Her own approach to building that kind of legal knowledge extends beyond active caseload. Windsor has contributed to practitioner texts in her field, dedicating two to three weeks each year to this work — usually during summer holidays when practice pressures are lower. Writing for a professional audience that will rely on accuracy forces a different quality of engagement with the law. It is not preparation for a specific case; it is preparation of a broader, deeper kind that informs everything that follows.
The same instinct for thoroughness applies to thinking ahead. Windsor prepares not only the arguments she will advance but the arguments she will face. She works through the weaknesses in her own case, considers the questions a judge is likely to ask, and thinks through the precedents that might be deployed against her. An advocate who has done that work in advance can respond swiftly when something unexpected arises in court. One who has not is relying on instinct where preparation should have been.
Windsor developed her instinct for argument through debating in her teenage years, and through subjects — English and history — that required marshalling evidence and responding to competing interpretations. She has described enjoying the process of thinking on her feet, of working through an argument in real time. Those capacities translate well to advocacy, where the ability to react quickly under pressure is not incidental but essential.
The professional landscape those capacities operate within has changed considerably over her career. Remote hearings — now standard for shorter matters, case management proceedings, and hearings not involving witnesses — have made technical proficiency a requirement of professional competence. Windsor’s position on audio quality is direct: if a judge cannot hear submissions, the hearing fails. Preparing your technical setup with the same attention you give your legal arguments is the only appropriate approach.
The shift in written advocacy is equally striking. Where oral skill was once the primary currency of reputation at the Bar, written submissions now carry matching weight. Windsor has watched this change across her career and adjusted accordingly — because preparation, done properly, accounts for how the game is actually played.