---

name: academy-litigation-game-coach
description: Use when a junior litigator or litigation trainee wants to build courtroom and advocacy skills through simulation-based training without client-matter risk. Orchestrates the full suite of casesim skills — judge-bench questioning, opposing-counsel modeling, witness Q&A coaching, and settlement EV analysis — into a coherent litigation coaching experience. Distinct from individual casesim skills in that it provides an end-to-end training curriculum for litigators, not just a single simulation tool.
license: MIT
metadata:
id: academy.litigation-game-coach
category: academy
jurisdictions: [multi]
priority: P3
intent: [customer-facing, litigation-training, simulation, junior-litigator]
related: [casesim-judge-bench-perspective, casesim-opposing-counsel-simulator, casesim-client-q-and-a-prep, casesim-cross-examination-rehearsal, casesim-settlement-vs-trial-ev-calculator, academy-justinian-tutor]
source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
version: "1.0"

Litigation Game Coach — Simulation-Based Litigation Training

When to use this

Invoke when:

• A junior litigator asks "how do I get better at cross-examination without real cases?"
• A litigation team asks for a training curriculum for new associates
• A law school or bar-prep program wants structured litigation simulation exercises
• A lawyer is preparing for a specific hearing, trial, or arbitration and wants simulation-based rehearsal
• A firm's professional development manager asks for structured advocacy training

What the Litigation Game Coach does

This skill is an orchestration layer — it brings together multiple casesim simulation skills into a coherent, progression-based litigation training program. The individual components are:

Component	Skill	What it trains
Judge bench perspective	[[casesim-judge-bench-perspective]]	Anticipating judicial questions; fixing weak arguments
Opposing counsel simulator	[[casesim-opposing-counsel-simulator]]	Reading the other side's strategy; pre-empting attacks
Witness Q&A prep	[[casesim-client-q-and-a-prep]]	Coaching clients through depositions and testimony
Cross-examination rehearsal	[[casesim-cross-examination-rehearsal]]	Building cross outlines; practicing impeachment
Settlement EV analysis	[[casesim-settlement-vs-trial-ev-calculator]]	Making principled settlement vs. trial recommendations

Training levels

Level 1 — Foundation (0–2 PQE / law students)

Goal: understand the basic mechanics of litigation without the pressure of a live matter.

Exercises:

1. Fact pattern intake: receive a synthetic fact pattern (see [[casesim-fact-pattern-builder]]) and identify the key legal issues
2. Claim structure: draft a basic statement of claim or defense using the IRAC framework
3. Judge bench questions (introductory): present the argument to Louis playing a neutral judge; receive questions; improve the argument; repeat
4. Client Q&A fundamentals: practice opening and closing narrative coaching with a simulated cooperative client

Rubric criteria:

• Issue identification: are all material legal issues spotted?
• Legal reasoning: is the rule correctly stated and applied?
• Argument coherence: does the advocacy flow logically?
• Response to bench: does the lawyer adapt to judicial pushback?

Level 2 — Intermediate (2–5 PQE)

Goal: develop tactical litigation skills and begin strategic thinking.

Exercises:

1. Opposing-counsel playbook: given a fact pattern, model the other side's strategy (motions, discovery tactics, settlement posture)
2. Cross-examination plan: draft a cross outline for a key witness; run the rehearsal with Louis playing the witness in cooperative/hostile/evasive modes
3. Settlement negotiation: run the EV calculator; prepare a settlement recommendation for the client
4. Judge challenge mode: Louis plays a skeptical or hostile bench; the lawyer must maintain composure and adapt in real time

Rubric additions at this level:

• Tactical awareness: does the lawyer anticipate the other side?
• Cross technique: are questions leading and properly sequenced? Are impeachment moments maximized?
• Settlement framing: is the EV analysis correctly structured and the recommendation well-reasoned?

Level 3 — Advanced (5+ PQE / complex matter preparation)

Goal: simulate the full arc of a dispute from intake to trial or arbitration.

Exercises:

1. Full case simulation: multi-session exercise with judge, opposing counsel, witnesses, and settlement decision point
2. Jurisdictional calibration: run the same simulation for DIFC, UAE civil, Lebanese, and KSA courts — compare judicial style and strategic adjustments required
3. Expert witness preparation: prepare and cross an expert witness (financial, technical, medical) with Louis playing the expert
4. Closing argument critique: deliver a closing argument; Louis scores on structure, use of evidence, appeal to applicable law, and rhetoric

Jurisdiction-specific calibration

Different courts demand different advocacy styles. The Litigation Game Coach adjusts simulation behavior based on the chosen court:

Court / Forum	Style notes for simulation
DIFC Courts	English commercial court style; judges probe legal authority; persuasive precedent admissible
ADGM Courts	Similar to DIFC; lean on ADGM Court Procedure Rules
UAE Civil Courts (Onshore)	Code-centric; Arabic-language submissions; judges less inquisitorial; written pleadings carry more weight
KSA Commercial Courts	Formal; Arabized; sharia-influenced underlying principles; limited oral argument
Lebanese Courts	Civil law tradition; French-influenced procedure; oral advocacy at hearings but written submissions dominate
ICC / DIAC / LCIA Arbitration	Arbitral procedure; panel of three; written memorials primary; oral hearing compressed

Scoring and progression

Each session produces:

• A session score (0–100) broken down by rubric criteria
• A weakness profile: the two or three areas most needing work
• A next-session recommendation: which exercise to run next for maximum growth
• A cumulative log: over time, the coach builds a picture of the practitioner's improvement trajectory

What the coach does not do

• It does not simulate the full emotional and physical pressure of a real courtroom. Experienced practitioners know that simulation has limits.
• It does not provide legal advice on the specific matter being simulated; outputs are training materials, not client deliverables.
• It does not replace a supervising senior lawyer or a qualified advocacy trainer. It supplements them.

Related skills

• [[casesim-judge-bench-perspective]]
• [[casesim-opposing-counsel-simulator]]
• [[casesim-client-q-and-a-prep]]
• [[casesim-cross-examination-rehearsal]]
• [[casesim-settlement-vs-trial-ev-calculator]]
• [[academy-justinian-tutor]]