Higher EducationInterview the client. Then stand up and argue the case.
Lancaster University Law School used Real Talk Studio so undergraduates could practise client interviewing and advocacy — the conversations lecturers could not run one student at a time. Students ran 100 client interviews, 97 of them in a single week, and 84 advocacy hearings. The median advocacy score was 67.
100
client-interview sessions
97
of those interviews in one week
58
median interview score, out of 100
84
advocacy sessions before a judge
67
median advocacy score, out of 100
83%
of avatar ratings were 4 or 5 out of 5
The practice
Two scenarios
Scenario 1
Client interviewing
The avatar is a fictional client. The student has to ask the right questions and follow the process.
6–13 February 2026
- long enough to score
- 68
- median score
- 58
- mean score
- 53
- avatar rated 4 or 5
- 83%
- Asking open, targeted questions46 of 61
Intermediate or advanced
- Separating fact from opinion50 of 61
Intermediate or advanced
- Following the gathering process34 of 61
Intermediate or advanced
- Clarifying ambiguities46 of 61
Still at beginner — the gap
32 sessions were too short to score, all under two minutes. Nine failed at the start. Five were a closed browser. Skill ratings cover the 61 scored interviews that included a breakdown.
Scenario 2
Advocacy
The student presents a judicial review argument to a judge, scored on structure, legal authority, and courtroom delivery.
8 December 2025 – 5 February 2026
- sessions scored
- 80
- median score
- 67
- scored 80 or above
- 15
- highest score
- 93
- Applying the law to the facts58 of 80
Intermediate or advanced
- Persuasive, coherent submissions50 of 80
Intermediate or advanced
- Courtroom delivery and structure48 of 80
Intermediate or advanced
- Rebutting the other side47 of 80
Still novice or beginner — the gap
The mean score was 61. Sessions under three minutes averaged 46. Sessions of at least three minutes averaged 67. 32 of the 80 scored 70 or above.
The Challenge
Undergraduate law students have to learn two conversations the profession actually runs: interviewing a client, and advocating a case.
Lecturers at Lancaster University Law School wanted to offer more of that practice. With more than 300 students, they could not. A timetable cannot put every undergraduate in front of a client, then in front of a judge, and give each of them another go.
Employers had already described the same gap from the other side of graduation. Graduate communication skills were declining. The conversations a law degree is meant to prepare people for were the ones the cohort could not rehearse.
The outcome is a skill, not a feeling
A law degree can send a graduate into the profession knowing the doctrine, and still meeting their first client — or their first judge — for the first time. Employers had already said that communication was slipping. Lancaster put the cohort into the conversation, and scored what came back.
That is the learner outcome. On the interviews long enough to score, students could open the matter and separate fact from feeling: 50 of 61 were intermediate or advanced at that. The gap was just as precise. Clarifying what the client had left ambiguous was still beginner for 46 of 61. On advocacy, applying the law to the facts was already there for 58 of 80. The skill that decides a hearing — anticipating the other side — was still novice or beginner for 47 of 80.
Stay with the argument and the score moves. Advocacy sessions under three minutes averaged 46. Sessions of at least three minutes averaged 67. Fifteen scored 80 or above. One reached 93. A lecturer can now coach the person in front of them: what they asked, how they structured the case, and the one skill that still needs another go. That is how practice turns into a better lawyer, while there is still time to become one.
The same standard belongs in the firm
The first client interview of a career should be a rehearsal. So should the first time someone stands up and argues. Lancaster ran both, at the scale of a cohort a timetable could not reach one conversation at a time: 100 client interviews in a teaching week, 84 arguments before a judge, each one leaving a record a partner could actually read.
A firm can hold its trainees to that same standard. The client who is upset, the conference with a partner, the hearing that will not pause while someone finds their structure — those are the conversations that make a lawyer. They can be practised before a real client is on the line, scored against the behaviours the profession uses, and repeated until the gap closes.
Lancaster is the proof that this works in law. The question for a firm is how long the first real conversation stays the first time.