First time mooter (1 Viewer)

[munchiecrunchie]

So I'm entering a mooting comp for the first time, and I'm feeling kinda lost.

I understand how the moot works etc. but I just can't get my head around how I structure my arguments.

I can't seem to apply the law to the arguments we have (because the case referred to is being distingushed) , so basically I have a debating speech framework, not a mooting one.

Anybody like to help out/give advice etc etc? Pleeease?

Thanks.

 

[Azamakumar]

Thread title is incredibly misleading.

 

[melsc]

Try not to structure it like a speech as the judges often ask questions and then you lose your place.

I structure mine with bullet points and the formula I use is the same that I use for answering problem questions:
State the law
Cite authority
Apply the facts
Conclude

Keep in mind the judges may not let you go through your arguments in order or ask you about one part of your argument etc...dont be put off, act confident and you will be fine.

Good luck and remember if its your first time ask the judges afterwards for feedback and you are there to learn and you will keep getting better with practice!

 

[47.46.45]

Be prepared to think on your feet and make sure you know the topic well, sometimes it's more like a interrogation than a presentation
Another protip for first time appearances: for the love of god, don't pronounce Kirby J in Oats Pty v Taylor as "Kirby jay in Oats pee tee why vee Talor".

Thread title is incredibly misleading.

I was just wondering whether anyone else was immature enough to have picked up on that. Oh mr kumar, you're always there for me <3

 

[subdued123]

hi there,

i have general tips...

1)
Don't go there preparing it as a debate. Don't have a speech. Don't speak like you're in a debate. Melsc is correct. Be flexible.

2)
Slow down and relax, don't speak too quickly. It is difficult for the judge to follow arguments as it is, so make it clear as day, and slow.

3)
Think in terms of submissions - the legal points you are trying to advance. Your judge will always come back to that. Make it clear what you're trying to advance to the court.

4)
Be prepared to deal with heat from the bench - don't take it personally - they're trying to test how good you are. The team that handles the heat better wins.

there's a lot more obviously, but get your ahead around these 4 for now.

 

[jackmurray1989]

Watch a few episodes of Boston Legal to get your confidence up.

Not the IPL, though. It's shithouse. The picture quality is so shit and the crowd won't shut up.

 

[amaccas]

LOL. I thought it was alright.

 

[melsc]

Don't feel put out if you get slammed by the judges, it will feel as if they have teared appart your arguments, but they do it to both sides!

 

[MichaelJackson2]

the only thing i wish to add is that when the judge asks you a question, IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY ANSWER IT! So many times I have witnessed my opponents answering questions indirectly like a politician under pressure. If it is a yes/no type answer, immediately say 'YES' or 'NO' and then give a concise reason. DO NOT give a verbose answer with qualifiers, eg 'well your honour, that is an interesting hypothesis, and it really depends on whether we can satisfy X Y and Z which, as I have submitted, depends on A B and C'. If you do this, then you WILL lose points.

Also, try to make your submissions as SIMPLE as you can. DO NOT use verbose sentences when a simple one will do. Less is more. Having said that, don't make it so simple that it looks as though you don't appreciate the legal complexities.

DO speak formally. AVOID everyday conjunctions like 'well' or 'ummm....' or 'well, ya know.....'. If you cannot answer a question, don't say 'sorry I dunno', say 'i'm sorry your honour i cannot assist you further in that regard'. Get my drifT?

riteo, good luck and may the force be with you.

 

[subdued123]

MichaelJackson, those are A-Grade tips, bravo. It takes a while, but when you 'get' it - the correct way to speak in a moot - it becomes second nature. It is a strange and slightly artificial method of speaking.

While trying to sound formal - and by all means you must - it is important to allow your own personality to come through, and not be a monotonic robot.

And as bad as it sounds, getting beaten around is the only way to learn. I was completely shat on in my first moot - even being told to stop by the judge who was getting sick of my grandiose and needlessly pompous/over the top style - and now i've caught the bug, having competed in a few national moots. It is fun. Good luck.

 

[MichaelJackson2]

And as bad as it sounds, getting beaten around is the only way to learn.

that is so true. the first time my team reached the semi-finals of the school's senior mooting comp, held at the supreme court, i was fully pumped and ready to win. i was so excited i wanted to moonwalk. but alas we were defeated. in my mind i just thought "beat it, just beat it, ooOWWW". anyway, i found that i learned from that round more than what I had learned during the preliminary rounds put together, where i kept getting congratulated on what i did right rather than what needed significant improvement.

also, if you get time to do a summary (applies mainly to junior counsel, i.e. second speaker), NEVER conclude with a dramatic 'law and order'/'boston legal' finish. i remember way back in a first year moot my team mate concluded her submission with: "your honour, this is just a tragic tale of a struggling man who was unfairly deprived of his contractual rights. we ask the court for justice to be done". big no-no. if you get time to do a brief summary, do just that.

depending on the format of your mooting competition, senior counsel for the appellant usually gets a 2 minute right of reply. if this applies to you, DO NOT use up the entire 2 minutes. in fact, do not even take any more than 30 seconds. you should only use this time to point out the single and fundamental flaw of your opponents' submissions, eg "submissions put forward by my learned friends were based on the principle of [blah]. however, such principle was distilled from an incorrect identifcation of the ratio decidendi of cases X Y and Z. the correct ratio as explained by the High Court in Alien v Predator is [blah]. therefore, further submissions of A, B and C by my learned friends must fail on this ground"... or something similar to that! then sit down and smile.

 

[mitsui]

Oh ho!!

first moot tomorrow night. pumped and freaked.

But mostly very excited.