The best lawyers have the ability to turn a case in their clients' favour with their impressive arguing skills and attention to detail. Their courtcraft demands the attention of judges they are arguing before and inspires the next generation of lawyers.

But how do they do it? What happens behind the scenes? What are their mantras for success?

In this series, Bar & Bench's Aamir Khan delves deeper into these aspects. Inside Legal Minds captures the inner workings of these lawyers through visual storytelling, from the point of preparing a brief to arguing it in court.

For this photo essay, we followed Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, who began his practice in the Supreme Court of India.

When we arrived at Dave's chamber on the second floor of his premium South Delhi office, the first of nine conferences scheduled on a hectic Thursday evening had begun.

The commotion caused by the continuous ingress of briefing counsel, who would await their turn in the lobby, fades as we enter the conference room.

At around 5:45 pm, the first team of briefing counsel and a junior discuss with him a cheque dishonour case under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

Dave uses a bunch of stapled case papers to note down each essential detail, such as the amount of money involved. Writing down these details at the time of his briefings helps the senior lawyer remember them when he argues before a judge.

"If you make it (notes) with your hand, you remember it," he had told us at the beginning of his conferences.

There is a constant exchange with briefing counsel on the developments that have taken place in the trial court and the High Court.

"Too much marking. I also need some space to mark. How will I, if everything is (already) marked?" Dave admonishes a junior associate.

Upon noticing gaps in the case of the prosecution, he wonders how his client has been convicted on the basis of "bald allegations".

"How have you been convicted?" Dave asks rhetorically.

He starts reading the provision of the NI Act relevant to his client's case and notices that one of briefing counsel does not have a Bare Act.

"If you come for a conference, as a young lawyer, you should carry all your books," the young lawyer is instructed.

He is "most curious" to know the High Court's ruling in the case. Dave displays an argumentative rigour as he goes through the case file.

"We have a good bench," he feels.

"The findings are completely wrong," Dave says as he begins his second conference, again related to a cheque dishonour case. But this time, he is representing the complainant.

He asks the briefing team, comprising three lawyers, as to why they relied on a particular precedent relating to Section 156(3) (power of magistrate to order investigation) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conscious of the fact that a hearing in the Supreme Court is the last resort for many, Dave employs brevity and clarity in his approach.

The next briefing begins at around 6:36 pm with a team of four briefing counsel and a junior associate from his chamber.

The client is facing possible contempt action and Dave demands from the team specific points where the client has been let off and the grounds on which the investigative agency initiated its probe.

"Thoda push karna padega (We have to push for it a little)," he suggests.

Back-to-back conferences mean little time to decompress. During a small interlude between conferences, he says,

"You constantly think of certain matters. The only time you don't think of it is when you are having a good sleep. There are usual ones but a certain two or three keep playing in your head while you are home or you are enjoying your drink in the evening, or in the morning while getting ready, or driving to court."

Before his next conference begins, Dave notices that the papers in his hand have a haphazard series of colourful "post-its", making it difficult for him to flip pages.

"There is no way that I can turn the file. It will all keep falling. Your supposed to see which one to look at, not look at," he reprimands a junior.

On the next issue involving a contractual dispute, Dave keenly listens to the briefing counsel and takes down detailed notes.

There is a prolonged discussion on the monetary aspects and developments in the case so far. He notes down the date of the suit filed for recovery of money and raises a point, which ideally ought to have been there in the suit.

There are noticeable highlights in the next case, a rape which reportedly took place 30 years ago. The client is a septuagenarian holding a law degree.

After the briefing team explains to him the facts of the case, Dave asks his associate for a non-amended copy of the law to see the punishment prevalent in the 1980s.

The senior lawyers informs him that till 2005, the law did not provide for the production of bodily fluids such as semen.

"Except an adverse inference, there's nothing," refers Dave to the finding in orders punishing his client.

In the three decades that followed the incident, a point emerged where the client was keen to fight his own legal battle.

Upon hearing the unlikely proposition, Dave prods,

"The worst thing for a lawyer is to argue for himself. Every lawyer thinks they're the greatest."

The next conference takes place virtually. His associate Vidhi briefs the senior lawyer before the online meeting.

Dave asks the lawyer on the laptop screen to come straight to the point.

"You have only 2-5 minutes and can't tell the entire Ramayana. You have to come directly to the point. Every judge works at a particular speed but you have got to be at your own speed. There are 60-70 matters, so you have to be quick," he told us in between his conferences earlier.

A young lawyer wants to meet Dave along with the briefing team of his seniors during a conference. Considering it is the junior lawyer's maiden opportunity to participate in the briefing, Dave asks him to read the case file.

With the conclusion of a couple of more conferences, Dave announces,

"End of a long day."

It is time to put preparation to practice in the Supreme Court on the next day.

In one of the matters, Dave listens to the Bench carefully, without interrupting the judges. He then draws parallels with the co-accused persons in the case to get the relief of bail for his client. He wasn't so lucky in another matter, where the Bench was resolute.

In another matter, Dave exhibits patience, responding to all of the judges' queries and obtaining a direction for an expeditious decision by the High Court.

In another hearing, Dave politely pushes his submission. The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's order and records his submission that the trial court should not be influenced either by the observations of the High Court or the apex court.

Veering away from a workable norm at the time of arguments can yield undesirable results and a possible loss of clientele, Dave says. Therefore, constant introspection as a legal professional is a must, he feels.

"You have to keep checking yourself. Because you are there as a professional. And only those words must come out of your mouth that are on behalf of the client."

The instructing client's word has primacy over everything else. Going "left or right" is deviating from the client's case.

"Suppose one starts sermonising the bench. I really stay away from it. As a pure professional, you are only to act unless the bench says something in their lighter moments," he says.

The momentum and attention of judges significantly depends on how a lawyer starts with a matter, he says.

"You wait for your item to be called out — this is etiquette. We've lost that etiquette in court. That's one. And I'm a great believer in etiquette. Secondly, we are increasingly, amongst a generation of people, I'm seeing that we've lost the art of advocacy. Advocacy is to be learned. It is not that you are born with advocacy. You see how people go and you learn. In the profession, if you don't have advocacy, I doubt you'll be very successful, no matter how brilliant you are. Thirdly, you have to learn to be hard working," shares Dave.

Continuing with arguments even after an order has been passed or when a judge hasn't finished asking a question is something one needs to be more mindful of, he says.

"I firmly believe that once a judge, after hearing has passed an order, stop arguing. It is most unfair to the court or to interrupt the court when they are dictating an order. And I see it happening so many times," he tells us.

Even as senior counsel come equipped with a quiver full of strategies, Dave feels it is actually the judges who make or break a lawyer.

And young lawyers can make use of the encouragement offered by the judges to argue in courts.

"They groom and teach you," he says.

He claims to be "a product of what the judges taught" him in the Supreme Court.

"If I didn't have those judges to groom or to encourage me, I would have been anywhere close to where I am now."

When it comes to lawyers he draws inspiration from, Dave regards Fali Nariman as the greatest lawyer he has seen in the Supreme Court.

"You are going to replace the ones who are older and replaceable. But you have to watch out for the ones who are going to replace you and be happy that you've been replaced by younger people. Seek them."

He appreciates the new system of listing of cases in the Supreme Court, as it can offer a platform for young associates to argue.

"It is a good system. Wednesday, Thursday is back to appeal. People filing PILs in their own names as lawyers. You're not supposed to be doing all these things. You're supposed to be in a profession. Treat it like a profession..."

As someone who started practice at the Supreme Court, Dave finds it unfair to ask lawyers to practice for a number of years before they can enter the apex court.

"Suppose somebody doesn't have the wherewithal to practice in a High Court or in the lower court, you can come. Join a good chamber, listen to your senior if he's telling you something. Watch other seniors, you can learn a lot by watching."

The process of training juniors should not mean one starts to patronise them, he opines.

"Train them, don't send them to get vegetables or walk dogs. Sometimes, they are asked to procure medicines, carry files. Pay good remuneration. Chief Justice of India said that juniors should pay. You did an article on it."