{"id":2272,"date":"2019-02-04T11:49:32","date_gmt":"2019-02-04T16:49:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/?p=2272"},"modified":"2021-12-16T14:57:22","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T14:57:22","slug":"practice-does-not-make-perfect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/02\/04\/practice-does-not-make-perfect\/","title":{"rendered":"PRACTICE DOES NOT MAKE PERFECT"},"content":{"rendered":"

Too many of us believe that if we do it<\/em> [in the case of litigators, trying cases] enough, we will become good if not expert at our craft.\u00a0 Irving Younger preached the 20 jury trial threshold; others have written that 10,000 hours of practice [rehearsal] are the sine qua non<\/em> of moving on to expert status.\u00a0 See, e.g., BBC \u2013 Can 10,000 Hours of Practice Make You An Expert https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/magazine-26384712<\/a> (last visited 12-3-18).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

But research and common sense show otherwise.\u00a0 Everyone has seen the lawyer who chronically repeats bad habits and who we bemoan by saying \u201cwhen will she\/he ever learn?\u201d\u00a0 And a recent book makes the point that it is not practice but deliberate <\/em>practice that makes a difference.<\/p>\n

The book is PEAK: SECRETS FROM THE NEW SCIENCE OF EXPERTISE by Anders Ericsson and Robert Pool (Mariner Books\/Houghton Mifflin 2017).\u00a0 Based on studies of musicians, athletes, people who develop the skill of memorizing remarkably long lists of randomly-selected numbers and others, the authors make clear that repetition is not the recipe for significant improvement.<\/p>\n

What is involved in deliberate<\/em> practice and can it be translated to trial advocacy?<\/p>\n

At its simplest, especially for lawyers and lawyering, the basic steps are (1) determine the criteria for superior performance; (2) identify the expert performers in the field; (3) learn what makes them perform so well; and (4) identify training techniques that permit you to absorb their lessons and heighten the needed skills.<\/p>\n

Criteria, to this writer, should be something beyond win-loss records.\u00a0 Those may be as much a product of the field the lawyer litigates in, current popular sentiments, and the weakness of the opposition as they are of excellence.\u00a0 Instead, it is indisputably a skills-focused approach \u2013 the best opening, the best, direct examination, etc.<\/p>\n

And then?\u00a0 The authors posit the following as essential steps:<\/p>\n