Moot court

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Moot court is an extracurricular activity at many law schools in which participants take part in simulated court proceedings, usually involving drafting memorials or memoranda and participating in oral argument. The term "moot" traces its origins to Anglo-Saxon times, when a moot (gem?t) was a gathering of prominent men in a locality to discuss matters of local importance. The modern activity differs from a mock trial, as moot court usually refers to a simulated appellate court or arbitral case (appellate advocacy), while a mock trial usually refers to a simulated jury trial or bench trial (trial advocacy). Moot court does not involve actual testimony by witnesses, cross-examination, or the presentation of evidence, but is focused solely on the application of the law to a common set of evidentiary assumptions and facts to which the competitors are introduced. In most countries, the phrase "moot court" may be shortened to simply "moot" or "mooting." Participants are either referred to as "mooters" or "mooties".

Moot court and law review are the two key extracurricular activities in many law schools. Depending on the competition, students may spend a semester researching and writing the memorials, and another semester practicing their oral arguments, or may prepare both within the span of a few months. Whereas domestic moot court competitions tend to focus on municipal law such as criminal law or contract law, regional and international moot competitions tend to focus on subjects such as public international law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, international trade law, international maritime law, international commercial arbitration, and foreign direct investment arbitration. Procedural issues pertaining to jurisdiction, standing, and choice of law are also occasionally engaged, especially in arbitration moots.

In most moot competitions, each side is represented by two speakers or oralists (though the entire team composition may be larger) and a third member, sometimes known as of counsel, may be seated with the speakers. Each speaker usually speaks between 10 and 25 minutes, covering one to three main issues. After the main submissions are completed, there will usually be a short round of rebuttal and even surrebuttal. Depending on the format of the moot, there may be one or two rounds of rebuttal and surrebuttal. In larger competitions, teams have to participate in up to ten rounds. The knockout/elimination stages are usually preceded by a number of preliminary rounds to determine seeding. Teams almost always must switch sides throughout a competition, and, depending on the format of the moot, the moot problem usually remains the same throughout. The scores of the written submissions are taken into consideration for most competitions to determine qualification and seeding, and sometimes even up to a particular knockout stage.

Video Moot court

International moot competitions

International moot competitions are generally targeted at students and only allow participants who have not qualified to practice law in any jurisdiction. However, there are a handful of international moot competitions that are targeted at young lawyers, such as the ECC-SAL Moot, which is a regional moot started in 2012 and is jointly organised by Essex Court Chambers and the Singapore Academy of Law. The first table below lists some of the more notable international moot competitions for students, while the second table lists the champions and finalists for some of those competitions.

List of notable competitions

List of champions and first runners-up

Maps Moot court

Mooters with multiple international championships

• Lucas Bastin, University of Sydney: WTO'2006; IHL'2007; Jessup'2007
• Emily Chalk, University of Queensland: Maritime'2013; Jessup'2014
• Bethel Chan, Singapore Management University: Asia Cup'2014; Vis East'2015 (also a Vis'2015 finalist and Essex-SAL'2017 champion)
• Jason Chan, National University of Singapore: Jessup'2001; Asia Cup'2001; Vis'2002
• Chang Zi Qian, Singapore Management University: Price'2010; Youth for Peace'2011
• Foo Shi Hao, Singapore Management University: LawAsia'2013; ICC'2015
• Kiu Yan Yu, National University of Singapore: Asia Cup'2016; IASLA Space '2016; Private Law '2017
• Jeremiah Lau, National University of Singapore: DM Harish'2015; HSF Competition Law'2015
• Eden Li, Singapore Management University: Asia Cup'2014; Vis East'2015 (also a Vis'2015 finalist and Essex-SAL'2017 finalist)
• Odette Murray, University of Sydney: IHL'2007; Jessup'2007
• Muz Omar, Singapore Management University: ALSA'2014; LawAsia'2014
• Ong Chee Yeow, National University of Singapore: Asia Cup '2016, IASLA Space '2016
• Nicolette Oon, Singapore Management University: Asia Cup'2014; Vis East'2015 (also a Vis'2015 finalist)
• Saw Teng Sheng, Singapore Management University: ICC'2016; Price'2017
• Dhruv Sharma, National Law University, Delhi: IHL'2013; ICC'2014
• Grace Sim, Singapore Management University: LawAsia'2014; Vis East'2015 (also a Vis'2015 finalist)
• Kabir Singh, National University of Singapore: Jessup'2001; Asia Cup'2001
• Jerald Soon, Singapore Management University: Asia Cup'2014; Vis East'2015 (also a Vis'2015 finalist)
• Ephraim Tan, National University of Singapore: Asia Cup '2016; IASLA Space '2016
• Tan Jun Hong, Singapore Management University: ALSA'2014; Asia Cup'2014; Vis East'2015 (also a Vis'2015 finalist and Essex-SAL'2017 finalist)
• Nanthini Vijayakumar, Singapore Management University: LawAsia'2013; WTO/FTA'2015 (also a Moot Shanghai'2014 finalist)
• Samuel Yap, Singapore Management University: LawAsia'2013; ICC'2015

src: www.law.georgetown.edu

Records

Most number of international championships in a season

• 5: Singapore Management University, 2014/15 (Asia Cup, Hague Convention, LawAsia, Vis East, ICC)
• 5: Singapore Management University, 2016/17 (Fletcher, Frankfurt, LawAsia, Price, ALSA)
• 4: National University of Singapore, 2000/01 (Asia Cup, Lachs, Maritime, Jessup)
• 4: National University of Singapore, 2016/17 (Asia Cup, Air Law, Maritime, Private Law)
• 3: Singapore Management University, 2015/16 (Price, ICC, WTO/FTA)
• 3: National University of Singapore, 2015/16 (Nuremberg, IASLA Space, ALSA)
• 3: Leiden University, 2012/13 (ICC, ELMC, Telders)
• 3: National University of Singapore, 2014/15 (D. M. Harish, Jean Pictet, Maritime)

Most number of international championship finals in a season

• 9: Singapore Management University, 2015/16 (Vis East, Vis, Price, IHL, ICC, WTO/FTA, Maritime, Asia Cup, Private Law)
• 8: Singapore Management University, 2014/15 (Hague Convention, Asia Cup, LawAsia, Vis East, Vis, Frankfurt, Price, ICC)
• 6: Singapore Management University, 2016/17 (LawAsia, Fletcher, Frankfurt, Price, ICC, ALSA))
• 6: National University of Singapore, 2016/17 (Asia Cup, Air Law, Maritime, Pan Asian Human Rights, Private Law, HSF Competition Law)

Teams that have successfully defended a major international championship

• Singapore Management University, 2014/15 and 2015/16 (ICC)
• Singapore Management University, 2015/16 and 2016/17 (Price)

src: law.marquette.edu

Domestic moot competitions

List of notable competitions

• Australian Law Students' Association
• Ames Moot Court Competition
• English Speaking Union Moot
• Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition
• London Universities Mooting Shield
• New York City Bar Association National Moot Court Competition
• NZLSA Bell Gully Mooting Competition
• The Laskin Moot

USA

Operation

Law schools structure their moot court programs differently. Some moot court organizations accept a small group of people for membership, and those members each participate in a number of national or regional moot court competitions. Other schools accept a larger number of members, and each member is matched with one competition. A few schools conduct moot court entirely intramurally. Moot court competitions are typically sponsored by organizations with interest in one particular area of law, and the moot court problems address an issue in that field. Competitions are often judged by legal practitioners with expertise in the particular area of law, or sometimes by sitting judges.

The basic structure of a moot court competition roughly parallels what would happen in actual appellate practice. Participants will typically receive a problem ahead of time, which includes the facts of the underlying case, and often an opinion from a lower court that is being challenged in the problem. Students must then research and prepare for that case as if they were lawyers or advocates for one or sometimes both of the parties. Depending on the competition, participants will be required to submit written briefs, participate in oral argument, or both. The case or problem is often one of current interest, sometimes mimicking an actual case, and sometimes fabricated to address difficult legal issues.

A number of moot court competitions focus on specific areas of law. For example, the First Amendment Center annually holds a National First Amendment Moot Court Competition, in which the judges have included numerous United States Circuit Court judges.

The American Collegiate Moot Court Association

Every year undergraduates across the world participate in moot courts (simulating argument before the Supreme Court). In the United States, undergraduates experience moot court in a variety of disciplines and a variety of settings. The most common are in-class exercises that are assigned by professors. Other schools actually form competitive teams. These teams often compete in intramural events, some in statewide competitions, or they can enter tournaments sponsored by the American Collegiate Moot Court Association. Since 2001, ACMA has hosted the Championship Tournament to crown the national champion of intercollegiate moot court. The first several national championship tournaments were hosted by the Honors College at UT-Arlington. The event was open to all comers, and even its first tournament drew teams from across the country even though the field was just over 20 teams. In 2006, the Executive Committee agreed to move the Championship Tournament to different sites across the country and opted to sponsor a series of national qualifying tournaments in venues across the nation.

While undergraduate moot court is still a relatively new forensics activity, when compared with speech and debate and intercollegiate mock trial, by the 2009-2010 season, there were 248 teams who competed at the regional tournaments hosted by California State University, Long Beach, Fitchburg State University (MA), Hamline University (MN), Regent University School of Law (VA), Texas Tech University School of Law, the University of Tampa (FL), the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law, and The College of Wooster (OH). The regional tournaments vary by size, but there is a standardized process for awarding bids to nationals. Currently, teams that finish in the top 25 percent of each regional earn an automatic bid to the national tournament. The remainder of the 64 team field is awarded to at-large teams with the best records at the qualifying events. No school can earn more than eight bids to the national field. ACMA tournaments currently have three preliminary rounds and a series of elimination rounds are very much like the "sudden death"/"one-and-done" nature of the NCAA basketball tournament. The qualifying tournaments are held during the fall semester, most are in November, and the championship tournament is in mid-January. ACMA is governed by an Executive Committee of educators and attorneys from member schools. It has an elected President who is empowered to implement decisions made by the Executive Committee between called business meetings.

There are other organizations that sponsor intercollegiate moot court tournaments, and will, for instance, host statewide championships, e.g., the Texas Undergraduate Moot Court Association (TUMCA). Smaller invitational tournaments exist that enable teams to gain additional experience in moot court. In California, for instance, students compete in the spring in the California Classic. This event has been held at Mt. St. Mary's College and Fresno State University. There is also fall scrimmage in Texas that has drawn a number of teams from around the nation. Additionally, in 2008, there was a four-school event in the District of Columbia at the Prettyman Judicial Complex. These invitational tournaments are not ACMA-sanctioned events.

Case

Undergraduate moot court cases pose two certified questions. The case (known as the "record") includes an appellate majority opinion and a dissent. The "library" is a closed one. Typically, the record includes twenty opinions that students can rely upon for their arguments. Rules allow them to refer to cases cited in the cases directly included in the record. However, they can only rely on these cases within cases to the degree that they were used by the authorities directly in the record. All teams competing in ACMA-sponsored events will argue the same case. ACMA students have engaged in oral argument on issues such as same-sex marriage, national health care, privacy under the 4th Amendment, life terms for minors who are not guilty of murder or attempted murder, freedom of religion, a federal ban on firearms on school grounds, and warrantless domestic wiretapping of suspected terrorists. Cases are written by the ACMA. The case problem is released on the ACMA website by May 1 of each year.

Teams

Undergraduate moot court teams consist of two oral advocates. The advocates are responsible for knowing both issues - but typically are only asked about one certified question. Each team will receive 20 minutes to argue its case, and each advocate must speak for a minimum of seven minutes. Teams are judged on their forensics, knowledge of the law, demeanor, and ability to answer questions from the bench.

Judges

Good judges are the key to a good moot court hearing. Judges are typically lawyers or members of the state or federal bench. At times, law students (especially those with past undergraduate moot court experience) are asked to judge. Past judges at ACMA events have included former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, former White House Counsel, D. Edward Wilson, former legal counsel for the US Department of the Treasury D.J. Gribbin, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Maryland Amanda Stakum Conn, Supreme Court reporter for the LA Times David Savage, California Courts of Appeals Justices Paul Turner and Raymond Ikola, a great number of federal judges, including The Honorable Otis Wright, George Schiavelli, and Gerald Lewis, numerous state trial judges, and several law school deans.

Written advocacy

The ACMA also sponsors a brief writing contest. Students are not required to prepare briefs in order to compete for the oral advocacy national title. Teams who enter follow a specific set of rules and compete for prizes. The competition is judged by lawyers and law professors. This competition is named for the late Sandra Knerr, who along with her husband, was a dedicated supporter of intercollegiate moot court.

United Kingdom

The courts systems differ in various parts of the United Kingdom. Thus, the style of a moot will often vary depending in which jurisdiction it is to be heard, although some national competitions do exist. The principal differences are between the laws in Scotland and those in England and Wales.

England and Wales

In England and Wales the moot will typically simulate proceedings in either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. Moot questions generally involve two questions of law that are under dispute and come with a set of facts about the case that have been decided at the first instance trial. Generally the question will surround a subject that is unclear under the present state of the law and for which no direct precedent exists. Mooting is a team effort, consisting of senior or lead counsel and junior counsel. It is normal practice for the senior counsel to take on the first point and the junior the second; although this may vary depending upon the exact nature, and necessary length, of the arguments. Typically the question will focus on one area of law, e.g. tort, contract, criminal law or property law.

The question will be provided to the teams a few weeks in advance of the moot along with details as to which of the appellant or respondent they are to represent. It is then up to each team to prepare their case as though they were barristers. Authority for each argument is necessary and will usually take the form of precedent from case law but may also involve legislation. Reliance may also be placed on governmental papers, research from NGOs and academic journals and texts.

A few days before the moot takes place each team will prepare and exchange their skeleton arguments or brief. Copies will also be provided to the judge along with the moot problem. The judge is normally an academic or practising solicitor or barrister. The moot itself takes the form of an oral argument. The order in which the advocates will speak mirrors that of the actual courts the exercise is based upon. In England and Wales the order would be as follows:

1. senior counsel for the appellant
2. senior counsel for the respondent
3. junior counsel for the appellant
4. junior counsel for the respondent

The competition may also allow the appellants an additional few minutes in order to reply to the respondents arguments.

After the presentation of arguments has concluded, the judge will retire to deliberate on both the law and the overall winning of the moot. A moot is not won and lost on the legal argument, but on the advocacy skills of the participants. It is often the case that the team that has the weaker legal argument is in a better position as they have to argue that much more persuasively.

Scotland

In Scotland a moot can be set in a variety of fora; in civil law problems it is set most commonly in either the Inner House of the Court of Session or in the House of Lords, although it is not uncommon for a moot to be heard in the Sheriff Court before the Sheriff or Sheriff Principal. Occasionally, an Employment Appeal Tribunal may also be used as a forum for a Scottish civil law moot. If the moot problem concerns Criminal Law, the moot will most likely be heard as though in the Appellate division of the High Court of Justiciary (commonly known as the Court of Criminal Appeal).

The moot points and style of the problem are similar to that of England and Wales stated above; however, the format of the moot is significantly different. Junior counsel is more likely to take the first moot point and senior counsel the second (this can however be reversed depending on the problem). The format of the moot is far more adversarial than that of English and Welsh moots. This is primarily due to a more adversarial legal system. This manifests itself in different ways, most notably with the appellants and respondents facing each other during a moot, rather than, as in England and Wales, facing the judge.

There is only one national Scottish competition, the Alexander Stone National Legal Debate, administered by the Law School at the University of Glasgow. All Scottish universities that offer the LL.B. are eligible to take part, although in recent years the competition has been fought out mainly between Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde universities. The final is held in the Alexander Stone Court Room at the University of Glasgow in February or March each year. The current holder of the trophy is Strathclyde.

There is also an annual inter-varsity competition between the Law Schools of Glasgow and Strathclyde, in the form of the Glasgow Sheriff's Cup. This is organised by Glasgow Sheriff Court and is judged by a Senator of the College of Justice. The moot is held annually in May or June each year and takes place in one of the larger court rooms at Glasgow and Strathkelvin Sheriff Court. The current holder of the trophy is Glasgow, while Glasgow University lead the series 11-9.

Law Schools in Scotland also take part in UK-wide competitions, such as the Oxford University Press and the English Speaking Union Moot. These moots are UK-wide in participation, but typically follow the style and law of moots in England and Wales. The University of Glasgow reached the semi-final of the English Speaking Union moot in 2008 and the final in 2005. The University of Dundee reached the semi finals of The Oxford University Press moots in 2009.

Judges in Scottish moots are typically legal academics, solicitors, sheriffs, advocates or Senators of the College of Justice.

India

Surana and Surana International Attorneys have been conducting various moot competitions from mid 1990s including Surana & Surana International Technology Law Moot Court Competition, Surana & Surana National Corporate Law Moot Court Competition, and Surana & Surana National Trial Advocacy Moot Court Competition.

src: www.colorado.edu

See also

• Mock trial
• Model United Nations
• Moot Alumni Association (MAA), the Alumni Association of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot
• Mootness, which has a precise meaning in United States law that is quite different from United Kingdom usage.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

References

src: www.colorado.edu

External links

• Lexcetera: Moot Court Competition dedicated Website.

Source of the article : Wikipedia