Want Barack Obama's charisma, Tiger Woods' golf swing and the advocacy ability of David Pannick QC? Gus Sellitto delves into the world of neuro-linguistic programming to uncover the secrets of those at the pinnacle of their professions

What is it that separates the excellent advocate from the average one, where both were called to the Bar at the same time and have similar academic track records?

My background of working as a communications consultant to the legal profession, coupled with my interest in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), led me to explore some of the answers to these questions.

Neuro-linguistic programming

NLP is the study of how outstanding individuals and organisations get their results. It looks at how the best communicators work, and today the tools of NLP are used internationally in sports, business, education, law, therapy, sales and many other fields.

The name neuro-linguistic programming comes from the three areas it unites: neurology – the mind and how we think; linguistics – how we use language and how it affects us; and programming – how we sequence our actions to achieve our goals.

The principle defining activity of NLP is modelling, which is the process of learning how others get their outstanding results so that they can be duplicated. For example, if you wanted to become an excellent public speaker, you would model someone like Barrack Obama; if you wanted to improve your golf swing, you would model Tiger Woods.

NLP studies how we structure our subjective experience and how we construct our internal world from that experience in order to give it meaning.

If you asked two different people how they experience the same painting or concert – what they feel, see and hear – you would find that they both attach different meanings to, and thus derive a different experience from, what is the same event. By learning how different people are 'wired' – and, in particular, by understanding what makes those who excel at their art excellent – we can become more effective in the areas in which we wish to excel.

The modelling process

I carried out in-depth interviews with various leading barristers. I also spent a week in the civil and criminal courts observing advocacy. Finally, I studied language patterns used in a selection of court cases.

It is important to emphasise what I was not doing: I was not seeking to discover what technical and academic skills equip an advocate to be proficient in court. Rather, my interest was to analyse the conscious and unconscious processes that the excellent advocate employs. This is the first phase of the modelling process, whereby you focus on the behaviour and physiology of the model (what he or she does), his or her internal thinking strategies (how they do it) and the supporting beliefs and assumptions of the model (why they do it).

The second phase of the modelling process involves refining the process to see which elements are essential to the success of the person being modelled and which elements are not. The final phase of the process involves testing – i.e. teaching the skill that has been modelled to other people.

I found that excellent advocates shared the following NLP characteristics that could be modelled and repeated.

The Meta Model and the richness of language

George Orwell once said: "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." The excellent advocate makes sure that they say what they mean and understands as clearly as possible what other people mean.

NLP has a very useful map of language which is known as the Meta Model. The Meta Model looks at how thoughts are translated into words with the aim of gaining a fuller understanding of what people say and mean. A human being will have a full idea of what she wishes to say; this is called the 'deep structure'. The deep structure is not conscious. We shorten this deep structure – what we actually say is called the 'surface structure'.

In order to go from the deep structure to the surface structure, we do three things. Firstly, we only select some of the information available in the deep structure. This is known as deletion. Secondly, we give a simplified version which will inevitably distort the meaning. Thirdly, we generalise. The Meta Model is series of questions designed to fill in the missing information, reshape the structure and elicit specific information to make sense of the communication. This process allows you to understand other peoples' maps of the worlds and has obvious applications to the courtroom.

A simple example of a deletion is where a witness would say: 'Mistakes were made.' To fill in the deletion and get back to the deep structure, the advocate would ask: 'Who made the mistakes?' or, 'Mistakes were made? By whom?' Through my modelling research I found that excellent advocates are highly effective at reconnecting clients and witnesses to the deep structure of what they want – or in some cases, do not want – to communicate.

Representational systems

Representational systems deal with how we think, how language relates to thought, and how we can tell the way in which other people are thinking. Visual, auditory and kinesthetic are the primary representation systems used in Western culture. Although we are not aware of it, we tend to favour some of these systems over others.

If someone is a highly visual person, and you do not use language that appeals to their representation system, they are far less likely to engage with what you are saying. Examples of language that speaks to each of the representation systems are: 'Picture the scene' (visual), 'The alarm bells began to ring' (auditory) and 'What was your gut reaction to that event?' (kinesthetic). I found that the barristers I modelled were all highly visual and auditory.

Metaprograms

Metaprograms are perceptual filters we habitually act on to help us create our own map of the world. Excellent advocates shape their language to fit the other person's model of the world, subconsciously using their own metaprograms to enable them to do this. Some of the most useful metaprograms include:

Proactive – Reactive. The proactive person initiates action. The reactive person will take time to analyse and understand first, before taking action. The majority of the barristers I modelled were reactive.

Towards – Away from. The towards person stays motivated on his or her own goals. The away from person focuses on problems to be avoided rather than goals to be achieved. The majority of my models were away from.

Internal – External. The internal person has internal standards and decides for him or herself. The external person takes standards from
outside, requiring direction from others. The majority of my models were internal.

Options – Procedures. Options people need choices and are good at developing alternatives. Procedures people are good at following a fixed series of steps. The majority of my models were alternatives people.

General – Specific. General people are most comfortable dealing with large chunks of information. They do not pay attention to details. Specific people notice details and need small chunks of information to make sense of a larger picture. The majority of my models were specific.

Pacing and leading

Pacing is the process of gaining and maintaining rapport with another person over a period of time by joining them in their model of the world. You can pace beliefs as well as behaviour. The excellent advocate is able to lead a person in a certain direction by understanding how they see things. Leading will not work without rapport.

When I asked one of the barristers I modelled to define good advocacy, he borrowed from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in his response: "A good advocate is someone who cannot only talk the hind legs off a donkey, but can also persuade the donkey to go for a walk afterwards."

It is my belief that by employing neuro-linguistic programming techniques the good advocate can become great – and the donkey will find itself taking a very long walk.

Gus Sellitto is an NLP master practitioner and a director of Byfield Consultancy. Particular thanks go to Timothy Dutton QC, Michael Todd QC, David Reade QC, Judge Alistair Norris and Andrew Burr.