The Value of Moot Courts from Law School to Appellate Practice

Virtually every law school requires law students to write an appellate brief and make an appellate oral argument. For many students, that’s it. Many have no interest in pursuing a career as an appellate advocate and see no value in going through that ordeal more than necessary. On the other hand, some other law students like their first experience with appellate advocacy. They participate in voluntary moot court competitions and try out for moot court teams. And then when they begin an appellate practice, moot court takes on a different meaning. What is the value of standing before a set of pretend judges, either in law school or in practice, to present an argument?

The Law School Experience

• Helps students hone public speaking skills and the ability to think on their feet.
• Gives students experience with complex legal research and writing assignments.
• Enhances critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
• Increases confidence and poise under pressure.
• Develops team-working skills.

In law school, there is formality. You are told to make sure you have an impact statement (or theme) and have a road map for your argument. The impact statement is intended to capture the attention of the appellate court; the road map is a brief summary of the points supporting why you win.  In moot court competitions, there is a premium placed on performance. Moot court competition judges often only have a surface level understanding of the substance of a case, enough to ask some questions. They tend to be impressed by students who deliver with poise and confidence and who have a good knowledge of the record (for some reason, specifically noting where a fact is in the record seems to score points with judges). I’ve seen a few judges impressed by students in a competition who had no notes or outline with them at the lectern.

The Appellate Practice Experience

• Practice helps with overall confidence.
• It helps prepare for potential questions.
• It allows for after-the-practice brainstorming with colleagues.

In the real world, it is always a good idea to moot your case before you argue. A seasoned panel of fellow appellate advocates serving as judges can help greatly with your preparation. Some people like to go through a dry run of the argument without questions before running through a second time with questions. In actual arguments, many advocates dispense with the impact statement and road map. They probably shouldn’t. In real arguments, the performance still matters. But it is the substance that really matters the most. Some advocates may not be great performers, but they know the law and how to handle difficult questions. While one needs to have mastery of the record, judges aren’t going to vote for your side just because you can cite to a specific page where a fact is found. And unless you are Paul Clement (and there is only one Paul Clement), arguing without notes or an outline is akin to a server not writing down your order at a restaurant–it’s a neat trick, but you really want your meal served as ordered.