National Moot Court Competition
Sponsored by Young Lawyers Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York:
http://www.nycbar.org/law-students/national-moot-court
Regional and National
Regional:
National:
Rotates among Boston-area law schools
New York
Relevant Dates (approximate – dates vary from year to year)




Problem distributed:
Brief due:
Regional Competition:
National Competition:


Constitutional law or federal statutory issue
Past issues: Equal Protection as applied to potential juror; statutory interpretation in
antitrust legislation; First Amendment and state commercial regulation; First
Amendment (videotaping a police officer); Fourth Amendment (cell phone search).


You choose side
Counts 40% and it makes a big difference as the margins of victory usually very slim,
and brief scores are almost always further apart than oral scores. Argument ties are
broken with the higher oral score, but ranking ties are broken with the higher brief score.
No assistance whatsoever in preparing brief
Get all other teams’ briefs
September
October
Late November
Late January / Early February
Topic
Brief


Regional (14 regions)



Usually 8-12 teams per region (150-200 teams nationwide)
Two preliminary arguments that all teams do (on and off brief). Teams are randomly
assigned and both rounds are on the same day. Assignments go out around 2 weeks
before Competition.
Four teams to semifinals - undefeated teams, along with next highest-seeded teams
based on W/L and margin of victory. If there are more than 4 undefeated teams, there is
a tie-breaker round. Pure elimination from 4 to 2 to 1. Side in semifinals and finals
chosen by coin toss. Both finalist teams go to Nationals in NYC in early February.
BU Law won regional in 2010; placed second in 2011; made semi-finals in 2012 and 2014.
ALBERS PRECEPTORS
Session on oral advocacy for 1Ls during Esdaile moot court
National Appellate Advocacy Competition
Sponsored by the Law Student Division of the ABA. Must join ABA student division (school pays).
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_students/events_competitions/practical_skills_competiti
ons/naac.html
Regional and National
Regional:
National:
Changes from year to year (usually Boston)
Previous years: Atlanta and Las Vegas
Site of the ABA Convention in March/April (usually Chicago)
Relevant Dates (this year; note that dates vary from year to year)




Problem distributed:
Brief due:
Regional Competition:
National Competition:


Constitutional law or federal statutory issue –usually complex
Past issues: Civil procedure (reviewability of a motion to dismiss after trial) and
employment law complaint sufficiency; employment law and computer misuse; false
arrest, malicious prosecution, and the Fourth Amendment.


You choose the side
Counts 33.33% for the first three rounds, but makes a big difference as the margins of
victory at oral argument can be very small. The brief score is also used to determine
your opponent in first two rounds. Separate and substantial deductions for technical
errors, which can really lower your score.
Can have “limited faculty assistance” which means limited to discussing the issues.
Only your teammates may comment on brief drafts before they are submitted, and only
the team can do research. After briefs submitted, faculty assist in oral argument prep.
Get all other teams’ briefs on-line, along with other materials.
Mid-November, online
Early January
Late Feb./Early March
Late March/Early April
Topic
Brief


Regional



Usually 35-40 teams
Person not arguing serves as bailiff
Three preliminary arguments before elimination. First two rounds, power matched by
brief score. Third round, power matched by margin within W/L category. Sides
determined by coin flip, called by higher seed. 16 teams from Round 3 go on to 4; 8
teams in Round 5. Four or five winners on to Nationals.
Both BU Law teams regional finalists in 2014 and one team made Nationals; 4th best oralist 2014.
Made Nationals in 2015; 8th best oralist in 2015.
STONE PRECEPTORS
National First Amendment Moot Court Competition
Sponsored by Vanderbilt Law School and Freedom Forum First Amendment Center,
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/moot-court
Relevant dates (this year; note that dates vary from year to year)



Problem distributed:
Brief due:
Competition:


Religion or speech
Past issues: School speech restrictions; restrictions on judicial candidates’ fundraising
efforts; First Amendment protection for act of tattooing; government speech (private
monument on government land) and Establishment Clause violation.




Assigned side
No assistance at all from anyone other than each other in writing your brief
Get all the other teams’ briefs online
Briefs count 50% through quarterfinals (then 0%). Important to have good brief score, as
brief scores always further apart than oral.
Previous year’s best brief and video from final round argument are often online.
November
Late January
Mid-to-late February
Topic
Brief

Orals




General critique of practice arguments ok.
Everyone competes in all four preliminary rounds, and you are guaranteed at least one
on brief and one off brief (they try to make it two on, two off). The first three
preliminary rounds (all in one day) are randomly assigned. The fourth round is all teams,
power matched. Eight teams advance to the quarterfinals, based on total points. Pure
elimination to 4, then 2, then 1.
Each round is 24 minutes per team, not 30; allocate how you wish but at least 10
minutes each
Great benches in the semifinals and finals, with circuit court and federal district court
judges. Occasionally a Supreme Court Justice in finals.
BU Law won Best Brief in 2008; placed second overall in 2011.
STONE PRECEPTORS
Gibbons National Criminal Procedure Moot Court Competition
Sponsored by Seton Hall Law School, Newark, New Jersey,
http://law.shu.edu/Students/academics/skills/moot-court/inter/Gibbons/index.cfm
Relevant dates (this year; note that dates change from year to year)



Problem distributed:
Brief due:
Competition:


Crim Pro issues
Past issues: Appropriateness of extended seizure and dog sniff during traffic stop;
whether one tenant’s objection to search trumps consenting co-tenant when objecting
tenant is removed; statutory interpretation in criminal provision; reliance on a warrant to
search a residence to detain an individual elsewhere; whether drawing blood to
determine BAC without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.




General discussion of the issues with others allowed
You choose side
Get copies of all other teams’ briefs (online)
Score is out of 100, scored by at least three judges. Technical deductions come out of the
combined brief score and are detailed in the rules.
Brief counts for 40% in the preliminary rounds. In the octofinal, quarterfinal, and
semifinal rounds, it counts for 30%, and in the final it counts for 20%. Unusual for a
brief to still count in the finals, so the brief is really important.
Brief scores also break ties.
February
Mid-March
Late March
Topic
Brief


Orals



Argue at least twice before any elimination. A best oralist will be chosen from the
preliminaries, announced at mid-competition dinner/awards.
16 teams with best scores advance to the octofinal, 8 to the quarterfinal, etc. Coin toss
decides which side in these rounds.
30 minutes per team, to divide how you wish (at least 10 minutes per person).
Petitioners can rebut, up to five minutes.
BU Law won Best Respondent Brief in 2012; advanced to octofinals in 2012 and 2014.
STONE PRECEPTORS
Sutherland Cup Moot Court Competition
Sponsored by Catholic University Law School, Washington, D.C.
http://law.cua.edu/Academic/cocurricular/mootcourt/
Relevant dates (this year, they vary from year to year)



Problem distributed:
Briefs due:
Competition:


Constitutional law issues – this is the oldest Con law competition in the country.
Past issues: Confrontation clause problems with supervisor testifying to lab report;
ineffective assistance of counsel; denial of press access to closed termination hearing by
state university; ministerial exception.




No help from anyone on the brief
Assigned side, often uses a real case that was recently denied cert.
Get all other teams’ briefs (via email).
Point deductions for technical issues are detailed in Rules.


General discussion of the issues and general critiques ok for practice oral arguments
Argue both sides, two to three (depending on number of teams) rounds before any
eliminations. Four teams to semifinals. Two semifinal teams with highest scores go on
to finals (so two teams from same argument may go on, as opposed to head-to-head
elimination).
30 minutes per team, but you have to allocate it yourself. Must argue for at least 7
minutes.
Brief counts 50% in preliminary rounds, 0% in semi-final and final rounds. Brief can
make a huge difference.
Small competition: 8-14 teams.
To be eligible for best oralist, have to argue in both prelim rounds (so for teams of 3,
take that into account)
mid-December
late February
late March
Topic
Brief
Orals




BU Law won Best Brief in 2010, won Best Brief and the entire competition in 2011, and won the
entire competition in 2012 and 2014.
STONE PRECEPTORS
Oxford Intellectual Property Moot
Sponsored by the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre (held at Oxford University),
www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/moot.php
Relevant dates (this year, they vary from year to year)



Problem distributed:
Briefs due:
Competition:

IP issues, usually copyright or trademark, but several years ago they had a patent issue.
The patent issue was an experiment meant to show that one does not need a hard science
background to understand patent issues.
Past issues: Patent on GMO crops and on bees; copyright and moral rights; trademark
and passing off.
early November
mid-December
late March
Topic

Brief


You submit pleading for both sides, 3000 words each
Brief only counts for the Best Written Argument award. Briefs will also be used to
decide which 24 teams will compete if more than 24 enroll. [Note: There is no guarantee
we will move on after the written stage. We advanced to the oral rounds in 2010, 2011,
2013, and 2014, but not in 2012. There is no backup plan in that event, the team simply
does not travel to the competition.]


15 minutes per advocate in the preliminary rounds, 20 minute per in the final.
Advocates must submit a skeleton argument (no longer than 2 sides of a page) to the
clerk before their argument. Should only include points you intend to raise. You may
depart from its scope in answering questions. Not restricted to what is in your written
submissions.
Advocates must also submit a bundle of the authorities they intend to rely on. Redacted
versions or excerpts are fine, but you cannot rely in argument on anything not submitted.
Be selective but not unduly narrow. Bundles are extremely important, and should be
well-constructed and referred to during arguments (judges will rely heavily on them so
they must be easy to use).
Four preliminary rounds. Eight teams proceed to quarterfinals, four to semis, two to the
final.
Need to be VERY deferential to the judges, much more staid than in US.
Orals



BU Law won the competition in 2010, placed in quarterfinals in 2011, won third best written
submission in 2013, made the semifinals in 2014, won best oralist and fifth best oralist awards in
2014.
IP LAW COURSEWORK REQUIRED
STONE PRECEPTORS
Stone Directors
As the Stone Competition is in the fall, you will do the bulk of your work over the summer.
Remember to extend LEXIS and Westlaw over the summer.
Rough Schedule:





May:
o Receive the schedule, a sample problem and bench memo, an issue idea list, and
a “how to write the problem” memo.
o Start thinking about topics.
June:
o Finalize topics, and get them approved by Associate Director.
o First draft due in late June.
August:
o Final draft of bench memo due in mid-to-late August.
o Draft Problem.
Fall: Administrative tasks, begins as soon as school starts
o Introductory meeting first week of school for interested students
o Preceptor meeting in mid-September
o Assign students to problems
o Check Stone email account frequently, answer questions, issue clarifications
o Schedule judges, preceptors, advocates
o Run arguments and post-argument receptions
September – November: Competition
o Problem distributed usually the third week in September
o Briefs usually due the second week in October
o Oral arguments are mid-October through mid-November
o Final reception before Thanksgiving break
Drafting the Bench Memo and Problem:







One problem per Director (2 issues)
Work with the Associate Director.
Plan to write at least 3 drafts of the bench memo, two of the problem.
Call and email to discuss cases, topics.
Clear your topics before you start. Circuit splits are easiest. Can be state or federal, and
you should write your facts and your bench memo first, the problem last.
Takes place in a fake jurisdiction.
Certing is possible – see Prof. Volk
Access to an office on the 5th floor for the year.
Esdaile Directors
You will do some work over the summer, but the bulk of your writing work will be in the fall, and
running the competition will happen in the winter and spring. Remember to extend LEXIS and
Westlaw over the summer.
Rough Schedule:






May:
o Receive the schedule, a sample problem and bench memo, an issue idea list, and
a “how to write the problem” memo.
Summer:
o Start thinking about topics, collecting research
o Finalize topics by the end of July, and get them approved by Associate Director.
Detailed outline due at the end of August.
o Work with the Associate Director via phone and email.
October: First draft due
Mid-November: Second draft due
Mid-December: Final draft due
February – April: Esdaile Program
o Checking the email account very frequently to answer questions
o Scheduling outside judges, student judges, advocates, clerks
o Running the arguments and the post-argument receptions
o Arguments run in April until the end of classes
Drafting the Bench Memo and Problem:






One problem per Director (2 issues).
Plan to do three drafts of the bench memo and two of the problem.
Work with the Associate Director
Clear your topics before you start. Circuit splits are easiest, and first-year topics work
best. Can be state or federal. You should write your facts and your bench memo first, the
problem last.
Takes place in a real jurisdiction, which can make it harder.
Certing is possible – see Prof. Volk
Access to an office on the 5th floor for the year.
Albers Directors
Note: Only Albers participants are eligible to be Albers Directors. You will do some work over the
summer, but the bulk of your writing work will be in the fall, and running the competition will
happen in the late winter and early spring. Remember to extend LEXIS and Westlaw over the
summer.
Rough Schedule:








May:
o Receive the schedule, a sample problem and bench memo, an issue idea list, and
a “how to write the problem” memo. Talk to faculty about topics.
June:
o Start thinking about topics, collecting research.
o Finalize topics and get them approved by Associate Director.
o Work with the Associate Director via phone and email.
July: Write detailed outline.
August – September: Start writing facts, first draft of the bench memo.
Mid-September: First draft due
Fall: Subsequent drafts due
Early January (usually during intersession): Final draft due
o If possible, you’ll want to get your last draft done before intersession or exams.
Second Semester: Competition
o Your work begins as soon as the second semester starts
o In January, meeting with the participants
o Problem is posted the third week in January, at which point questions start
o Check the email account and issue clarifications as needed
o Schedule judges and send materials
o Grade briefs with preceptors in February
o Score first two rounds of oral arguments in late February and early March
o Run arguments and post-argument receptions
o Select next year’s teams and boards
Drafting the Bench Memo and Problem:






One problem total, each Director works on one issue. You must coordinate!
Plan to do three drafts of the bench memo and two of the problem.
Work with the Associate Director and Professor Volk
Topics can be state or federal, and we endeavor to choose novel or cutting-edge topics.
You should write your facts and your bench memo first, the problem last.
Takes place in a fake jurisdiction.
Certing is possible – see Prof. Volk
Access to an office on the 5th floor for the year.
Additional Moot Court Competitions – Contact the relevant group or Jen McCloskey for info
Phillip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition sponsored by the International Law
Students Association; can participate in through a seminar class:
http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/index.php
Thomas Tang National Moot Court Competition sponsored by the National Asian Pacific American
Bar Association: http://www.napaba.org/napaba/showpage.asp?code=moot
Frederick Douglass Moot Court Competition sponsored by the National Black Law Students
Association: http://www.nblsa.org/index.php?pID=71
National Health Law Moot Court Competition, sponsored by Southern Illinois University School of
Law and others: http://www.law.siu.edu/healthlawmootcourt/
Native American Law Students Association Moot Court Competition, sponsored by NALSA:
http://nationalnalsa.org/events/mootcourt/
Duberstein Moot Court Competition, bankruptcy-focused: http://www.stjohns.edu/law/centerbankruptcy-studies/duberstein-moot-court-competition