14.2 Differences Between Moot Court Competitions and “Real Life”
Although moot court competitions are meant to simulate real-life legal issues, no simulation experience can perfectly replicate real life. First, both your procedural facts and the client’s case facts are limited to what you have been given.
If your research reveals an issue that would be affected by a fact that has inadvertently been left out of the record, you cannot do more investigation to discover that fact, as you would in real life. It would be wise to read the record and do some basic research immediately after you receive the record materials; in this way, you may discover any legally significant gaps in the record while it is still early enough to consult competition administrators for guidance. This step would allow the competition to issue a clarifying memorandum to all of the competitors. If you find a gap too late, or if the gap is not significant, it might be appropriate to make a realistic assumption based on other facts in the record and include that assumption in your argument (e.g., “Assuming that Ms. Lamb had graduated from high school...”). Naturally, you should not make assumptions that are unrealistic or that will significantly affect the issues in the case, (e.g., “Assuming that the Miranda warnings provided to Ms. Zahm were invalid...”).Second, in a moot court competition, there are some expectations about what you will argue and what you will not argue. Many competitions provide the parties with the questions presented; others will include a grant of certiorari that allows the parties to argue “all issues fairly raised by the record,” but will include a lower court opinion that clearly identifies two major issues.
Finally, style is often as important as substance in a moot court competition. It is not more important — most judges will notice significant misstatements of the law — but it has a much larger role in moot courts than it does in real life.
In real life, the law and the facts will usually dictate the outcome, even though oratorical style may play a role in some extremely close cases. In moot court competitions, in contrast, the substantive points are earned not based on which side has the better substance, but on which side is best acquainted with the substantive arguments in the case, and which side can best express itself to the court when explaining that substance. Because most students become fairly well acquainted with the legal issues that the case presents, style differences may be the only significant distinctions between some competitors.I should stress at this point that not all students need to aim for the same style. Over my many years of judging and coaching moot court competitions, I have seen several different effective styles. Students who speak softly (but loudly enough to be heard) can be as effective as students who speak loudly; students who gesture can be as effective as more sedate students. The main points of an effective style — maintaining eye contact, speaking loudly enough to be heard, listening when the court speaks, answering questions directly, supporting answers with reference to law and facts, and integrating answers into the argument — work with many different kinds of speaking styles.