Chapter 7: At the Moot
The most interesting part of the moot is the oral rounds .This is the time for which you have worked for months. The adrenaline rush you get while speaking in front of the judge is memorable.
Oral Rounds augment the important skills that a lawyer needs
1) Start an argument with a conclusion, 2) Differentiate fact from opinion, and
3) To organize a legal argument by issue rather than by a chronological narrative of the facts.
Moot courts also teach professionalism and ethics to students of law, to apply law to fact, to structure and rank a legal argument by strength, and not to assert losing propositions. They provide law students opportunities to improve their legal writing, legal research, and oral advocacy in a competitive environment that prepares students for a competitive world. The moot court experience is perhaps the most important activity in law school. It is the activity that fully develops the skill every lawyer must possess: advocacy. Regardless of practice area, all lawyers must communicate in a way that advances their client’s interests, whether in a courtroom or boardroom. Most important, moot court builds character. Every student competitor “will be a better lawyer, and a better person, because of the moot court experience.”
In an actual court the motive of the lawyer is to win the case. But in a moot court, one does not have to bother about the outcome of the case. One just has to gain appreciation for one’s performance. Wit and charm, ability to give impressive answers to the jury, subtly intimidating the judges, these are some of the tools, a mooter uses to win his moot. The judge does not bother about the merits of the case, but about the effectiveness of the speaker.
Oral argume...
... middle of paper ...
...s turn.
The usual forms of address are as follows:
The moot judge: Your Lordship/ Ladyship
Your colleague: My learned friend
Your opponent: My learned friend opposite
At many occasions the speaker or the judge may try to lift the veil between the moot and the reality. For instance, once one of my friends was asked as to why did he come before the High Court, when the damages were so few that he could have gone to a lower court? Such questions are attempted to check the level of confidence and common sense of the speaker. One must always be prepared to answer such questions. If nothing else strikes you, you can always say that you shall discuss with the client before committing anything to the bench.
To get an actual feel of the court, a visit to any of the High Courts or the Supreme Court may be worthwhile.
And most importantly…. Remember to have a good time!
As I became more involved with campus life, I couldn’t find a way to immerse myself in preparing for a career in law. While I knew why I wanted a law degree, I couldn’t conceptualize what I wanted to do with it. Prior to college life, my familiarity with the legal system was by way of internships with judges and lawyers. Clearly, that traditional route perked my interest but not my passion. Living with the athletes affirmed my interest in their culture. I began to immerse myself in subjects surro...
Questions Presented: This is where the legal issues are stated that the party would like for the appellate court to think about and make a final decision (Statsky, pg. 545).
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
The School of Law offers engaging classroom instruction across a wide spectrum of courses that appeal to students with disparate interests (University of California Los Angeles. “The UCLA School of Law”). The first-year curriculum focuses on embracing incoming students with a variety of courses that introduces the students to vast range of legal subjects. The course work concentrates on the overview of major common law subjects and constitutional law by providing students more skill-centered experience combined with elements of legal writing and research courses. Crimin...
The Progressive Era prompted an increasing need to form the American Bar Association which was established August 21, 1878, in Saratoga, New York, by a group of 100 lawyers from 21 states who promoted order throughout the nation’s law schools (Matzko, 1984). After over 100 years of existence, the American Bar Association continues to serve and assist law students and lawyers as one pursues to serve and defend the constitutional rights and liberties of others. The American Bar Association is known for providing continuing education and testing to assist future lawyers in one’s quest to defend.
One-L, by Scott Turow, outlines the experience of attending Harvard Law School as a first year law-student. Turow weaves his experiences with those around him, and intertwines the professors of Harvard law, as well as their lectures. Initially, Turow enters Harvard law in a bit of disarray and awe. As a world of hornbooks, treatises, law-reviews, group studies, and legal terminology unfold beyond comprehension; Turow is confronted with the task of maintaining sanity. Time appears to be the most important variable, as Turow begins to study for contracts, torts, property, civil procedure, and criminal law; because time is so precious, one key-highlight for law-students is to balance family. Moreover, Turow is part of section-1, and two of his
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later.
These courts are often complex, involve new partnerships, new roles, and of course new players both in and outside the courthouse. It is important to understand that each problem-solving court will be shaped by local circumstances. As such, problem-solving justice remains as much an uncharted territory today as when it was first introduced.
With law enforcement lying, it makes it hard for citizens to depend on law enforcement. In the article, “All the Court’s a stage, and All the Lawyers Players: Leading and Misleading the Jury” Richard Zitrin and Carol Langford explain what really happens in the courts. They state, “Abraham Dennison is the most successful trial lawyers in Port City. He is smoother than silk outside of the courtroom, but in court he takes on a bumbling, aw-shucks persona.” They explain how Dennison changes the clothes he wear, and his clients to look like they are not privileged. He even dumbs down he’s speeches when talking. I might have to say it is a very smart tactic to win over the jurors. The main goal in court is to sell your client to the jury so they will feel bad for him/her. According to this article, “Dennison tells his young associates to ‘select a biased jury, it wins the case.’” By picking the right jury you can sell your clients innocence. It is sad you have to bend the truth in order to win a case. The fact one has to pick the right jury who would feel sorry for one, and act like one is uneducated in order to win a case is sad. This is bending the truth to people thinking something totally different. One should win a case by the facts, not how you hold yourself. An example of lawyers actually lying to win a case of a guilty man is the ‘affluenza’ case. In the article “Before
After analyzing the discourse community of law and the detailed process lawyers take in order to write an effective appeals brief, one can see that lawyers have a very specific and unique way of communicating that includes certain jargon unfamiliar and possibly incomprehensible to the general public. Although writing an appeal brief is only one aspect of many that government prosecuting attorneys such as Kenny Elser face in their jobs on a daily basis, it is also a very necessary job because not only is it used by a single discourse community in the law profession but utilized by the discourse community of law as a whole.
It is no secret that the American legal system is distinct from other developed Western nations in its practices and laws. This variation, termed “adversarial legalism” by Professor Robert Kagan in his book, Adversarial Legalism, has two salient features: formal legal contestation and litigant activism. In civil and criminal law, jury trials and a specific lawyering culture exemplify these traits. Though adversarial legalism responds well to the American desires of justice and protection from harm while simultaneously respecting the societal fear of a government with too much power, it leads to extremely costly litigation and immense legal uncertainty. To reconcile the American view of justice and the undesirable outcomes of formal contestation and litigant activism, the legal system has gone so far as to reform large parts of the system, including bureaucratic regulations and the plea bargaining process. However, as Kagan states, rather than reduce the costliness or uncertainty of the legal process, these procedural changes have merely lead to an increase in litigation and, therefore, an increase of adversarial legalism in criminal and civil law.
Some people say that by watching the court system in action, what once was very unknown and unfamiliar, has now become familiar and useful in helping people become more knowledgeable of what happens inside courtrooms. Most people have not been in courtrooms and only have the perspective that T.V. gives to them. Now they are able to see what really goes on and can better understand and relate. Having court proceedings on T.V. can help us really understand and become educated about them.
Presenting the Case Orally in Court: The Lawyer has to argue about his client’s case in front of the Judge in court.