Unit Profile Correction added on 05-09-17
The Assessments do not have a minimum mark or grade.Overview
Legal Advocacy concerns the preparation for and oral presentation of persuasive legal arguments. The unit includes how to prepare for, structure and present oral arguments - examining topics such as interviewing, negotiation, and fundamentals of trial technique. It is essential that lawyers know how to present their arguments in a coherent and persuasive manner. Students will prepare numerous oral presentations culminating in a moot.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
Prerequisite:- LAWS13010 & corequisite LAWS13017
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 2 - 2017
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes – in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 6-credit Undergraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 12.5 hours of study per week, making a total of 150 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of ‘pass’ in order to pass the unit. If any ‘pass/fail’ tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully (‘pass’ grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the ‘assessment task’ section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University’s Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback – Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
Feedback, Recommendations and Responses
Every unit is reviewed for enhancement each year. At the most recent review, the following staff and student feedback items were identified and recommendations were made.
Feedback from Students and self
Assessment Information.
Attention will be given to providing more information about each assessment to recalibrate the balance between explaining what is required and doing the assessment for the student.
- Competently prepare and present persuasive quality oral arguments and presentations that are simple, clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, ethically sound, ethnically sensitive, gender neutral, and in plain language.
- Implement a research strategy to support a moot and a plea in mitigation.
- Analyse and explain how clients and the public interpret and construct meaning from oral arguments.
- Apply analytical and critical legal skills in formulating an oral and written argument.
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
| Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 - Practical and Written Assessment - 10% | ||||
| 2 - Presentation and Written Assessment - 20% | ||||
| 3 - Presentation and Written Assessment - 30% | ||||
| 4 - Presentation and Written Assessment - 40% | ||||
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
| Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 - Communication | ||||
| 2 - Problem Solving | ||||
| 3 - Critical Thinking | ||||
| 4 - Information Literacy | ||||
| 5 - Team Work | ||||
| 6 - Information Technology Competence | ||||
| 7 - Cross Cultural Competence | ||||
| 8 - Ethical practice | ||||
| 9 - Social Innovation | ||||
| 10 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures | ||||
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Graduate Attributes
| Assessment Tasks | Graduate Attributes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 1 - Practical and Written Assessment - 10% | ||||||||||
| 2 - Presentation and Written Assessment - 20% | ||||||||||
| 3 - Presentation and Written Assessment - 30% | ||||||||||
| 4 - Presentation and Written Assessment - 40% | ||||||||||
Textbooks
An Introduction to Advocacy
Edition: 2nd (2011)
Authors: Lee Steusser
Thomson Reuters
Sydney Sydney , NSW , Australia
ISBN: 9780455227580
Binding: Paperback
Fundamentals of Trial Technique
Edition: 3rd (2011)
Authors: Thomas A Mauet and Les A McCrimmon
Thomson Reuters
Sydney Sydney , NSW , Australia
ISBN: 64058914668
Binding: Paperback
Additional Textbook Information
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
- Students who do not have access to internet adequate for Zoom (both video and audio) should not enrol in this elective. Zoom.us is a free application via Google, which must be downloaded by all students in this unit. Assessments 2, 3 and 4 are via Zoom. Familiarity with Zoom and access to good quality stable internet is essential.
All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: Australian Guide to Legal Citation, 3rd ed
For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.
c.walshaw@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
Qualities and skills of legal advocacy
Chapter
Lee Steusser, An Introduction to Advocacy (2nd ed, 2011), Ch 5; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Ethics and etiquette
Chapter
Lee Steusser, An Introduction to Advocacy (2nd ed, 2011), Ch 15; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
The Tasks of a Legal Advocate
Chapter
Reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Preparation for Trial
Chapter
Lee Steusser, An Introduction to Advocacy (2nd ed, 2011), Chs 1, 2, 3, and 4; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Oral Submissions
Chapter
Lee Steusser, An Introduction to Advocacy (2nd ed, 2011), Chs 5, 6, 7,and Appendix 1; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Witness examinations
Chapter
Lee Steusser, An Introduction to Advocacy (2nd ed, 2011), Chs 9 and 11, Appendix 1; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Special witnesses
Chapter
Lee Steusser, An Introduction to Advocacy (2nd ed, 2011), Ch 14; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Exhibits and Objections
Chapter
Lee Steusser, An Introduction to Advocacy (2nd ed, 2011), Chs 10 and 13; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Sentencing and pleas in mitigation
Chapter
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld); http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/Current/P/PenaltASenA92.pdf; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Written submissions and appeals
Chapter
Lee Steusser, An Introduction to Advocacy (2nd ed, 2011), Ch 8; reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Moots
Chapter
Reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Moots
Chapter
Reference readings in Study Guide.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
1 Practical and Written Assessment
Assessment One: attend court hearing or equivalent and post report
Students are encouraged to attend a court hearing or equivalent as soon as an opportunity presents itself, even if this is before the unit commences. This assessment has two components:
1. Attend a court hearing and evaluate the effectiveness of one or two advocates as they appear to (1) you and (2) the judge. You must NOT make notes in court without the permission of the presiding judge. Make your notes immediately after you leave. See Study Guides for Topics 1 and 2 for guidance. (Maximum 400 words).
2. And (3) evaluate the effectiveness of one or two advocates in terms of courtroom etiquette and (4) describe one or two points that appear to give rise to ethical issues. (Maximum 300 words).
Students who are unable to locate an available court should contact the UC by e mail. An alternative will be suggested, including a video of a court hearing.
Week 3 Friday (28 July 2017) 10:00 pm AEST
Monday (7 Aug 2017)
- Demonstrate powers of observation and assessment.
- Articulate clearly, concisely and relevantly your observations and assessments.
- Display critical thinking.
- Demonstrate knowledge of the factors relevant to the qualities and skills of advocacy.
- Demonstrate knowledge of the factors relevant to ethics and etiquette in court.
Marking Rubric
All students who post, on time and within the word counts, a report that complies with the task description will receive 10 marks. Marks will be deducted to the extent that this does not occur.
- Competently prepare and present persuasive quality oral arguments and presentations that are simple, clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, ethically sound, ethnically sensitive, gender neutral, and in plain language.
- Analyse and explain how clients and the public interpret and construct meaning from oral arguments.
- Communication
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Information Literacy
- Cross Cultural Competence
2 Presentation and Written Assessment
Assessments Two, Three and Four via Zoom
Assessments Two, Three and Four require the posting of written material on Moodle and live presentations via Zoom. The live presentations are given in groups of no more than 4 and at a day and hour to be arranged with students. For each group and after all presentations, feedback is provided orally on a group basis unless a student objects to that. Group members may collaborate but this is not necessary, except for teams of two in Assessment Four. The presentations are not recorded. Note the Assessment Criteria and Rubrics for each Assessment.
Assessment Two: opening address text and oral presentation
Read the Study Guide for Topic 5. Read the note of Waite v Stewart in Stuesser pages 191-203. Read about the content of an opening in Stuesser Ch 6, pages 51-57. Ignore other references to this case in Stuesser. Read and be guided by the Study Guides for Topics 1 – 4 and the required reading, especially about theory of the case and quality of presentation in the courtroom.
Read aloud the sample complete opening for the plaintiff in Stuesser at pages 55-56. Time it. Devise your own theory of the case. Write your own opening address no longer than two thirds the length of the Steusser opening, avoiding any risk of overstatement and being one-sided, which I suggest is a problem with the Stuesser opening.
Watch the short instruction video.
Write out the reduced text and submit this as a document for assessment by posting on Moodle under assessment Two. Present (not read) your opening address on Zoom at a day and hour to be arranged.
Week 6 Friday (25 Aug 2017) 10:00 pm AEST
Presentations during Week 7 and if necessary during Week 8.
Week 8 Friday (8 Sept 2017)
1. Demonstrate that you
- Have an understanding of what is required to adequately present oral argument in court;
- Have an understanding of the nature and content of an opening address;
- Are familiar with the aids to structuring your arguments.
2. Demonstrate that you are familiar with the theory of the case.
3. Demonstrate an ability to critically evaluate oral argument prepared by another advocate.
4. Demonstrate in the oral presentation an ability to be concise, relevant and persuasive.
Marking Rubric
Maximum mark of 20 for a combination of presentation of opening, content of opening and content of document, graded with reference to the assessment criteria and this Rubric (content refers to written and oral content):
HD 17-20: Court ready in all respects and outstanding down to excellent.
D 15-16: Excellent to very good presentation let down by content, in that it is incomplete and/or repetitive or lacking in focus.
C 13-14: Good presentation let down by lack of clear strategy and focus and/or content that it is incomplete and/or repetitive.
P 10-12: Effort but out of comfort zone with presentation. Adequate down to barely adequate content.
- Competently prepare and present persuasive quality oral arguments and presentations that are simple, clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, ethically sound, ethnically sensitive, gender neutral, and in plain language.
- Apply analytical and critical legal skills in formulating an oral and written argument.
- Communication
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Information Literacy
3 Presentation and Written Assessment
Assessments Two, Three and Four via Zoom
Assessments Two, Three and Four require the posting of written material on Moodle and live presentations via Zoom. The live presentations are given in groups of no more than 4 and at a day and hour to be arranged with students. For each group and after all presentations, feedback is provided orally on a group basis unless a student objects to that. Group members may collaborate but this is not necessary, except for teams of two in Assessment Four. The presentations are not recorded. Note the Assessment Criteria and Rubrics for each Assessment.
Assessment Three: written and oral plea in mitigation of sentence
Students will engage in the following steps:
1. The preparation of an imaginary scenario that requires a plea in mitigation of sentence (no more than one page).
2. The preparation of an outline of the plea (no more than one page).
3. Posting of the scenario and outline in one document by the due date below.
4. An oral presentation of the plea via Zoom on the day and hour to be arranged.
Week 9 Friday (15 Sept 2017) 10:00 pm AEST
Present (not read) your plea at a day and time to be arranged during Week 10 and if necessary during Week 11.
Monday (2 Oct 2017)
- Demonstrate an ability to construct an interesting scenario that also shows knowledge of sentencing rules and guidelines.
- Competently prepare and present a concise, relevant and persuasive outline and oral argument in mitigation of sentence.
- Make a presentation that is simple, clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, ethically sound, ethnically sensitive, gender neutral, and in plain language.
- Implement a research strategy to support the plea in mitigation.
- Demonstrate knowledge of particular rules and guidelines relevant to the scenario.
- Apply analytical and critical legal skills in formulating an oral and written argument.
Marking Rubric
Maximum mark of 30 for a combination of presentation of plea, content of presentation and content of document, graded with reference to the assessment criteria as follows (content refers to written and oral content):
HD 25-30: Court ready in all respects and outstanding down to excellent.
D 22-24: Excellent to very good presentation let down by content, in that it is incomplete and/or repetitive or lacking in focus.
C 19-21: Good presentation let down by lack of clear strategy and focus and/or content that it is incomplete and/or repetitive.
P 15-18: Effort but out of comfort zone with presentation. Adequate down to barely adequate content.
- Competently prepare and present persuasive quality oral arguments and presentations that are simple, clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, ethically sound, ethnically sensitive, gender neutral, and in plain language.
- Implement a research strategy to support a moot and a plea in mitigation.
- Apply analytical and critical legal skills in formulating an oral and written argument.
- Communication
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Information Literacy
4 Presentation and Written Assessment
Assessments Two, Three and Four via Zoom
Assessments Two, Three and Four require the posting of written material on Moodle and live presentations via Zoom. The live presentations are given in groups of no more than 4 and at a day and hour to be arranged with students. For each group and after all presentations, feedback is provided orally on a group basis unless a student objects to that. Group members may collaborate but this is not necessary, except for teams of two in Assessment Four. The presentations are not recorded. Note the Assessment Criteria and Rubrics for each Assessment.
Assessment Four: participation in a moot
The moot will involve the presentation of written and oral arguments before an appellate court in a civil appeal. The moot problem will be posted on Moodle on 15 September 2017 and will be the same for all students. Students will form teams of 2, for the appellant or for the respondent. Moot Rules will be posted on Moodle on 15 September 2017.
Each team will post and exchange a written outline of their intended argument in accordance with the Moot Rules. Each team member supports that argument in oral submissions before the appellate court and responds to questions from the court. The hearings, which will be no longer than one hour, will be via Zoom.
The written outline of the intended argument must be posted on Moodle and be delivered to the opposing team on or before the due date below. Timetables and hearing times will be fixed in consultation with students. The moots take place at a day and hour to be arranged during Weeks 11 and 12.
Week 11 Monday (25 Sept 2017) 10:00 pm AEST
Exam Week Friday (20 Oct 2017)
A demonstration of the following abilities:
- Competently prepare and present a concise, relevant and persuasive outline of the intended oral argument.
- Make a presentation that is persuasive, and is clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, ethically sound, ethnically sensitive, gender neutral, and in plain language.
- Implement a research strategy to support the argument.
- Apply analytical and critical legal skills in formulating the written and oral argument.
- Apply the qualities and skills of advocacy including an ability to respond to questions orally.
- Appropriate manners.
Marking Rubric
Maximum mark of 40 for a combination of presentation at moot, content of presentation and content of outline, graded with reference to the assessment criteria as follows (content in written and oral content):
HD 34-40: Court ready in all respects and outstanding down to excellent.
D 30-33: Excellent to very good presentation let down by content, in that it is incomplete and/or repetitive or lacking in focus.
C 26-29: Good presentation let down by lack of clear strategy and focus and/or content that it is incomplete and/or repetitive.
P 20-25: Effort but out of comfort zone with presentation. Adequate down to barely adequate content.
- Competently prepare and present persuasive quality oral arguments and presentations that are simple, clear, comprehensive, unambiguous, ethically sound, ethnically sensitive, gender neutral, and in plain language.
- Implement a research strategy to support a moot and a plea in mitigation.
- Apply analytical and critical legal skills in formulating an oral and written argument.
- Communication
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Information Literacy
- Team Work
As a CQUniversity student you are expected to act honestly in all aspects of your academic work.
Any assessable work undertaken or submitted for review or assessment must be your own work. Assessable work is any type of work you do to meet the assessment requirements in the unit, including draft work submitted for review and feedback and final work to be assessed.
When you use the ideas, words or data of others in your assessment, you must thoroughly and clearly acknowledge the source of this information by using the correct referencing style for your unit. Using others’ work without proper acknowledgement may be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in your university study ensures the CQUniversity qualification you earn will be valued as a true indication of your individual academic achievement and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it deserves.
As a student, you are responsible for reading and following CQUniversity’s policies, including the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure. This policy sets out CQUniversity’s expectations of you to act with integrity, examples of academic integrity breaches to avoid, the processes used to address alleged breaches of academic integrity, and potential penalties.
What is a breach of academic integrity?
A breach of academic integrity includes but is not limited to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, and academic misconduct. The Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure defines what these terms mean and gives examples.
Why is academic integrity important?
A breach of academic integrity may result in one or more penalties, including suspension or even expulsion from the University. It can also have negative implications for student visas and future enrolment at CQUniversity or elsewhere. Students who engage in contract cheating also risk being blackmailed by contract cheating services.
Where can I get assistance?
For academic advice and guidance, the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) can support you in becoming confident in completing assessments with integrity and of high standard.
What can you do to act with integrity?
