Jurisdiction is what determines whether a court will hear
the case on merits or not. If a court does not have jurisdiction over a matter,
they will throw out the case and tell the petitioner to go to the right court
or tribunal which has jurisdiction. For this purpose, you need to be able to
clearly answer these questions:
Which court/tribunal are you appearing before
(the moot court problem should clearly mention that)? Under what law does it
have jurisdiction over the matter? Can jurisdiction be challenged on some
grounds? Is it appellate or original jurisdiction?
Identify the issues
from the problem
It is unlikely that a moot problem will not identify the
issues for you. The most common practice is to identify 3-4 issues that you are
supposed to argue on. All major moots like Vis or Jessup, and even major Indian
moots do that. However, it is possible that some moot problem did not do so. If
that is the case, you have to identify the issues. Be careful there - think of
the points of conflict of interest between the parties and decide on issues based
on that. Jurisdiction must be established first before you can argue case of
merits, and even in memo you must argue on jurisdiction unless issues are
specified by the problem and jurisdiction is not one of the issues, which is
again, not heard of. Similarly, Quantification of damages/ extent of sanction
is often a major issue.
Read the facts and
argue from both sides
You need to know the facts
backwards, and you should be able to use the fact to your advantage. Be clear
about what facts helps your case and which ones are against you. When there is
no law to argue in your favor on a point, or if there is a clear judgment
against you, you get down to wrestle over facts and show that the specific case
which appear to be against you actually does not cover the fact scenario in
hand.
Know the arguments and counterarguments
You need to be acutely aware of
each argument, both of the legal and factual kind, from either side no matter
which side you are going to argue from. After that, you have to prepare a response to those
arguments. Knowing the first level of arguments is just the beginning, you can
not do well unless you go into the next level - counter-arguments. It is your
ability to engage in logical arguments and counterarguments (with judges in
most cases), especially when it comes to a moot in India, is what wins you
great scores. You need to engage in arguments and counterarguments, I repeat,
logically, calmly, and politely. Counterarguments are not to be presented in a
belligerent manner, but more in form of answer, as if you are trying to satisfy
the curiosity of the judge.
Preparing for this is very
important - you can not engage a judge in this way unless you are truly confident,
and confidence comes in large measures from knowledge and understanding, apart
from self esteem.
Pay attention to
details in the memo, make it look great
Memorial is a written version of
the arguments. It will have common sections such as a statement of
jurisdiction, statement of facts, summary of arguments, pleadings and
authorities, and of course, not to forget the prayers. A good memo writer must
have tremendous attention to details - such as formatting, definitions, list of
abbreviations and glossary, proper formulation of headings and sub-headings,
flow of arguments and use of authority, adequate and uniform footnoting.
Content, of course, is important, but not as important as how the memo looks
and feels when someone tries to glance through. Yes, most judges tend to glance
through the memos and mark you on basis of that. Therefore, the task is to make
a beautiful and professional looking memo that seems to be well researched -
from the number of footnotes, structure of arguments and coverage of issues.
Look at some good memos before you start writing on your own - they are available
on the official sites of moots like Jessup and Vis (Vienna and Hong Kong). Just
look up the best memos of the yesteryears.
You need not write every argument
you may take up during oral rounds in the memo itself - especially counterarguments,
i.e. arguments used to answer
questions. Just try to ensure you are not missing any major argument or an
authority in the memo. If you do, you can still use them up in the oral rounds.
One more time, how the memo looks
matters a lot.
Speaking - how to handle oral rounds
This is the most important part.
aif you do this well, you may get away with many mistakes everywhere else. If
you don't do this very well, mooting would not be as much fun.
Do not think whether you are a
good speaker or not. Some people may have been born to be effortlessly good
speakers, but there are the rest of us who can match them if we learn the
basics. Here are some things on which no one will tell you to work on, but you
need to.
1. Tone of your voice - Try
speaking out loudly imagining that the room is full of people. You need to be
heard by everyone. Are you speaking in your most impressive tone? Try a few
different tones. WHich one sounds best to you? Take suggestions from friends
too, if needed. Practice speaking in that tone as you speak to people. Yes,
this will help you in the moot, and help a lot more in your life generally.
2. Mannerisms - most people put
on distracting mannerisms while they try to give public speeches. Verbal
mannerisms. Body language. Distracting fidgeting. These can take away a lot
from your speaking. Get yourself filmed. Analyze your mannerisms. Ask others
for their opinion. Then go watch "Thank You for Smoking" or "Scent
of a Woman". See the mannerisms everyone loves. Copy if you can -
hopefully over time you'll develop your own endearing mannerisms.
3. Don’t drag, don't be
monotonous, engage - It’s a fatal mistake to be monotonous. You'll turn off the
judges. They will get so bored that they will not even hear the brilliant
arguments you have come up with. They will be so disinterested that they will
not ask you questions except as a matter of routine maybe. If you don't want
that - try and make sure you have life in your voice, energy in how you carry
yourself as you proceed through arguments, and never drag. Condense your arguments.
State and argument, see what can be asked by a judge based on what you just
stated, and then think if you can say it in a way to preempt that question
altogether, of course without launching in a long rant but by being economical
with words.
4. Use examples, analogies and
common sense. Without these, law is dry and arguing is boring. Use the
liveliest examples and your effort in making the courtroom experience more
enjoyable for you and for the judges will be rewarded.
Hi I'm Lawyer Thailand.
ReplyDelete