The term 'Moot Court' is a familiar one to law students. For the layman I guess it's best described as a mock court session. Every educational course is made up of a theory portion and a practical portion. One of the practical aspects of a law course is a 'Moot Court.' A moot court is essentially to give law students a feel of what it will really be like to practice in court. And let me tell you, it's nothing like the movies! Law colleges often conduct moot court competitions amongst themselves. It’s the lawyers form of sports day, with teams competing for the gold. Only the running lasts a lot longer than the 100 m dash.
It's true what they say, it's only in hindsight that you realise how much you could have improved upon something. As a law student I took part in quite a few moot court competitions, and found them to be an invaluable learning experience. But I can't help thinking how much better I could have done if I'd actually had some clue as to what I was doing before I first started out.
I had originally planned to write one article about moot courts, but there is just so much to say! Yes, yes I know... lawyers tend to be verbose. Which is why I thought it would be better to make a series of short and sweet articles, rather than have the lot of you falling asleep on me. Contrary to popular belief, law is really not a boring subject. But reading pages and pages on any topic at a stretch is enough to put anyone to sleep!
This article is going to focus on what exactly is a moot court competition. Which doesn't mean it's restricted to only law students; it's just as relevant to those who are not from a legal background. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat, and all that... [Don't worry, I stuck to the English language, and kept the 'hereforth' and 'therewith' to a minimum]
Before I tell you what a moot court is, let me tell you what it's not -
A moot court is not a lawyer walking up and down the court, with his arms waving frantically, while he tries to argue the point.
A moot court is not two opposing lawyers interrupting each other’s every sentence and shouting 'Objection Your Honour'
A moot court is not a criminal in a witness box yelling his innocence, nor a witness screaming out their evidence.
A moot court is not a client sitting next to the lawyer on the bench and silently crying against the circumstances that brought them to this court hall.
A moot court is not a judge with a hammer, yelling 'order in the court'
It is most definitely not made up of a bunch of jury members, just dying to get home. (At least not in India)
There are also no white wigs...
... It does rather seem like all the drama is taken out of the situation, doesn't it? But rest assured, the drama is still very much there. It's just more subtle.
Like most things, a moot court is also made up of two stages - a written stage and a verbal stage. I'll deal with both in greater detail at a later point. The duration of a moot court stretches over a couple of months, with the written stage preceding the verbal stage.
First a moot problem is released. A moot problem is a hypothetical situation often mimicking the facts of an actual case. Unlike the movies there is no 'right' side and 'wrong' side, no hero and villain who have come here to settle a great injustice. Both parties have points in their favour and against. Both parties are toeing the line of justice, stepping as far across as they dare. The question to be solved is who crossed over to the other side a bit more than the other.
Once the moot problem is released, students form into teams of three. Each team consists of two speakers and one researcher. In the actual competition, the Speakers are the ones who present the argument, while the Researcher assists. The main part of a Researcher's job ends after the first, written stage. After the team is formed, they investigate into the various aspects of law touched upon by the moot problem at hand, and frame their arguments to support each side.
Now here a moot court is very different from an actual court session. In an actual court session, each party will have their own advocates representing them. However, in a moot court the same people have to prepare to argue for both sides. Confusing isn't it? How can the same people argue for both sides? They don't... atleast not at the same time. I'm going to leave you hanging for the moment and get back to this later.
Once teams have framed their issues and found authorities to support their contentions, they draft written memorandums for both sides. [Don't panic, I'll explain all these terms in my next article] But, for now, to translate - The team has to decide what exactly the two parties are fighting about. After they decide this, they look for provisions in the law that support their side of the argument and then compile these all together in the form of a written submission.
Submission of these written Memorandums marks the end of the first stage. There is a gap of quite a few days before the oral portion of the competition. The number of days varies in every moot court competition, and usually depends on the organizers.
The second stage of the competition generally spans over 2 - 3 days and is held at a predetermined venue. Like any competition, there are landmarks you have to cross before advancing to the next stage. The Oral Arguments usually consists of three rounds - The Preliminary Rounds, The Semi-Finals and the Finals. The rounds can increase depending on the number of teams taking part.
The Preliminary Round consists of two sessions, both against different teams. The manner of deciding opponents is left up to the organizers. In each session you'll be representing a different party. This way every team has no option but to eventually argue for both sides.
Teams qualifying through the Prelims, then move up to the Semi-Finals. Traditionally only four teams qualify. The decision of which side to argue for is a matter of luck and chance at this stage. Sadly, most often, teams are not really given the option of choosing sides, so be prepared to argue for the weaker side, even if you'd rather not (much rather not!). The Finals - well I'm sure you can guess how that goes.
The arguments are presented before a panel of judges. The Petitioner or Plaintiff side goes first (again, will explain all these terms). After one side gives their arguments, only then does the other side get up to argue. No interruption, no 'I object', no talking even, until one side is done with their arguments. The second side - the Respondents or Defendants - then present their arguments, making sure to counteract some of the points raised by the first side. After they finish, the first side is given a chance to rebut some of the issues raised by the second side. But that's where it ends! The second side cannot then re-rebut arguments and so on and so forth.
An important thing that must be noted here is that the oral arguments must always remain within the framework of the written submission. It's like a venn diagram. The written submissions is the big circle, with the oral arguments coming within it. You can't raise a point in your oral arguments that you haven't already mentioned in your written submissions. Yeah, I know, makes everything so much tougher! And annoying when you have a really great argument and you're not allowed to bring up. This is why the first stage is so significant.
Once the final teams have argued, the judges deliberate and pass their decision. In the end it’s never about who was right and who was wrong, it’s always about who manages to convince the judges he’s right (even if he really is wrong.)
The adrenalin rush of trying to get a group of people to get around to your way of thinking is indescribable. Every law student will have to experience a moot court at some point or the other (it is part of the curriculum after all.) But it'd really recommend taking part in some of the moot court competitions as well. It'll be a lot of hard work, probably some sleepless nights and a hard fight to finish. More times than not you won't even end up winning the gold. But crossing that finish line is truly worth running the race!