Moot court

I served on a three-judge panel, representing the entire nine-judge U.S. Supreme Court, at a law school moot court proceeding Monday night.

I've done this many times before, and have commented occasionally on this blog how impressed I've been with the students' performance.  Let me say so again.

Unlike most of the moot court proceedings over which I've presided, or joined with others in presiding, this was a moot court for first year law students only.  It was the first moot court in which any of the participants had participated.  Moot courts were less common and less frequent when I was in law school.  But all first year students were required to participate once as part of our legal writing class.  I enjoyed the writing; I was terrified at the prospect of defending my opinions before three practicing attorneys.

I vowed that, once graduated, I'd become some sort of scrivener, surrounded by books in the back room of a law firm, writing briefs with a quill pen for others to argue.  Instead I became a trial attorney, with considerable experience in appellate practice.  Such are the little surprises that life springs on us.

But, although some seemed a bit more nervous than others, no one appeared terrified last night.  Arguing before us were four first-year students, two arguing that the lower court's ruling should be overturned (counsel for the petitioners), and two arguing that the lower court's ruling should be affirmed (counsel for the respondents).  They argued complex constitutional issues regarding freedom of speech and due process of law -- not the sort of issues that most students encounter during their first year of law school. 

Both sides did an excellent job of analyzing these issues.  All four students appeared poised and articulate.  All four did a good job of responding to the judges' questions.  I have argued a fair number of cases in the state court of appeals and the state supreme court.  I would have considered any one of these four students a competent adversary. 
 
Part of our job as moot court judges was awarding points for various qualities of argumentation and, finally, choosing one of the two teams the winner.  (Moot court judges do not judge the issues argued on the merits -- we judge the quality of argumentation.)   The losing party was not eliminated from the first round -- they were to face each other again last night, changing sides as to whether they represented petitioners or respondents.

I was pleased with the experience and pleased with the students.  I'm pleased that my law school is both admitting and educating superior future attorneys.