Top Law Schools

I've searched for any thread that discusses this and I haven't been able to find something on it. Anyways I have a few questions The first how could this soft be looked at by admissions? How could this impact your chances on doing moot court in law school? And for anyone who's done it, how has it helped during law school.

Does it matter? Just do it cause it's fun. I had a blast with last year's case, though by the end of it we were all a little sick of Jackie and the Maserati and the marina and the gambling debt etc etc. I swear I can still say that case by heart.

Haha no worries there I've competed in it for two years and one last time this year. I believe we may compete in different competitions. Our case dealt with the constitutionality of giving a juvenile under the age of 18 a mandatory sentence of life with out the possibility of parole, along with fourth amendment implications. The reason I ask is to gauge how it can help me during my admissions cycle this fall.

your case is the right one..this years case is AWSOME excited about the 14th amendment and same-sex marriage debacle..

anyway, I dont know how it is looked up on but I think its fun...

to the poster above (rikkugurl)...jackie and the masarati is mock trial not moot court, but I did both and liked moot court more..

did you go to nationals?

Yep, Jackie Owens was the Mock Trial case for this year.

I was involved in Mock Trial and I think, like most softs, it's not going to be that big of a deal. Do this stuff because you might enjoy it...if anything, I think my internships at PD/DA did more than any success in Mock Trial. Do that instead or heck, just do both. As others have noted, mock trial/moot court are really quite fun!s

It's a possibility.....how about you? Do you compete in both? I think the civil rights issue is cool but it feels like the first amendment arguments from two years ago. I'm more motivated in arguing the commerce clause to passionately argue for healthcare. Good case overall. I believe the AMCA has been on the ball these past few years by creating cases that are parallel to some of the most recent cases the Supreme Court has had to deal with. Ps if you don't want to out yourself pm me.

Great to see fellow undergrad moot courters on the board. Been stalking the forum for awhile, but seeing someone mention the ACMA compelled me to post. They have done an amazing job with the hypos over the past few years. This year's looks amazing too. Wish I could argue it.

I was involved in mock trial throughout my time in UG. I never did Moot Court but I attended one of the competitions. It's clear that Mock Trial is a far more theatrical kind of event than Moot Court, where the argument you make is the most important thing. In Mock Trial, there are a lot more variables involved and you have to deal with every mock judge saying that you're as good as any real practicing attorney in their court. Both seem to be great experiences and I would have enjoyed doing Moot Court had I been able to spare the time.

Well...you know, you don't really get a choice in what you argue. In moot court they give you a case and you need to prepare to argue both sides of the issues presented in the case. In mock trial, you're either given a criminal or a civil case and you have to prepare witnesses, do directs/crosses, opening arguments/closings/rebuttals.

Although it is true that one in moot court should be well versed in both issues I've done it far to long that my coach and I know what I excel at. I give him my two cents and he see's what works. In short it's helped network like crazy in my home town. As to billyez I agree that one should do it because it's fun. I have a judicial externship under my belt plus work experience at a law firm. So I don't just do it for anything else. That being said I wish there were more urms competing, it's sad. I hope that as competitive moot court grows that it can improve. Anyways it's cool that a few us are on this site.

Whoopsadoodle, RC fail

no worries! ya I have a DA internship this summer and really like it. In general I think moot court will simply help in law school, as others have stated it is less theatrical, and yes it is fun! I do think the 14th amendment issue is similiar to the first amendment...its messy, but hey I did that question two years ago and liked it so hey!

It actually is really nice knowing that there are a few moot court/mock trial alums here. A good thread indeed.

Hope I'm not derailing or anything too much, but when I saw the Moot Court competition, I thought for sure that MC would be more beneficial to someone going to law school than MT. What do ya'll think? I just thought the heavy emphasis on analysis of substantive issues, like the Eighth Amendment issue and Foruth Amendment issue in the MC competition I watched, would be more helpful than the simulated trial experience of MT.

I have no experience in mock trial. However the help that move court provides is invaluable. Moot court allows you to think critically on top of your feet in front of real judges and lawyers answering real questions on the law based on your analysis on the case law. Moot court teaches you how to brief cases and look for the essence of the case and teaches you how to apply the case law to advocate for your position. Throughout my time in moot court we've covered the first, fourteenth, eighth, and fourth amendments and the commerce clause. If anything it's good prep for con law. More importantly it helps in public speaking which from what I've seen working at a law firm it is invaluable those skills help you win your cases and help you keep and get more customers. I also think it helps open up doors for law school moot court which I would pursue if I couldn't do law review. I plan to discuss all those skills in my diversity statement this fall.

By the way billyez can you tell me about cycle. I saw your Len profile and it really gives me hope to apply to places I wouldn't have dreamed of.

Another Moot Courter here. I've already graduated but I did it for two years in UG. From what I have experienced with my recent cycle is that law schools, IMO, really don't care whether you did Moot Court in UG. Yeah it seems cool but I'm pretty sure your numbers and your PS (to an extent) matter the most to them.

Hey, this is pretty neat. I'll admit, I've never really heard much about moot court, but I've been involved in mock trial for about five years now (high school... Yeah, I was one of those kids). It is a little bit theatrical for my tastes, but the courtroom procedure and case law it's taught me have been invaluable in my decision to go to law school. Could someone explain a little bit about moot court, specifically, though? My university just established our mock trial program and could be open to moot court.

billyez wrote:It actually is really nice knowing that there are a few moot court/mock trial alums here. A good thread indeed.

Hope I'm not derailing or anything too much, but when I saw the Moot Court competition, I thought for sure that MC would be more beneficial to someone going to law school than MT. What do ya'll think? I just thought the heavy emphasis on analysis of substantive issues, like the Eighth Amendment issue and Foruth Amendment issue in the MC competition I watched, would be more helpful than the simulated trial experience of MT.

Definitely. My team hit two of the top 5 teams at championships this year, and let's just say I was less than impressed with their knowledge of the rules of evidence. It was theater more than anything else.

jay115 wrote:

billyez wrote:It actually is really nice knowing that there are a few moot court/mock trial alums here. A good thread indeed.

Hope I'm not derailing or anything too much, but when I saw the Moot Court competition, I thought for sure that MC would be more beneficial to someone going to law school than MT. What do ya'll think? I just thought the heavy emphasis on analysis of substantive issues, like the Eighth Amendment issue and Foruth Amendment issue in the MC competition I watched, would be more helpful than the simulated trial experience of MT.

Definitely. My team hit two of the top 5 teams at championships this year, and let's just say I was less than impressed with their knowledge of the rules of evidence. It was theater more than anything else.

Credited, unfortunately.

Montevillian wrote:

jay115 wrote:

billyez wrote:It actually is really nice knowing that there are a few moot court/mock trial alums here. A good thread indeed.

Hope I'm not derailing or anything too much, but when I saw the Moot Court competition, I thought for sure that MC would be more beneficial to someone going to law school than MT. What do ya'll think? I just thought the heavy emphasis on analysis of substantive issues, like the Eighth Amendment issue and Foruth Amendment issue in the MC competition I watched, would be more helpful than the simulated trial experience of MT.

Definitely. My team hit two of the top 5 teams at championships this year, and let's just say I was less than impressed with their knowledge of the rules of evidence. It was theater more than anything else.

Credited, unfortunately.

Well, that's a bit overbroad, don't you think? For someone who plans on a career as a trial attorney (say, a DA or PD), mocking trials is probably much more in line with that skill set than mocking appellate arguments.

emilybeth wrote:

Montevillian wrote:

jay115 wrote:

billyez wrote:It actually is really nice knowing that there are a few moot court/mock trial alums here. A good thread indeed.

Hope I'm not derailing or anything too much, but when I saw the Moot Court competition, I thought for sure that MC would be more beneficial to someone going to law school than MT. What do ya'll think? I just thought the heavy emphasis on analysis of substantive issues, like the Eighth Amendment issue and Foruth Amendment issue in the MC competition I watched, would be more helpful than the simulated trial experience of MT.

Definitely. My team hit two of the top 5 teams at championships this year, and let's just say I was less than impressed with their knowledge of the rules of evidence. It was theater more than anything else.

Credited, unfortunately.

Well, that's a bit overbroad, don't you think? For someone who plans on a career as a trial attorney (say, a DA or PD), mocking trials is probably much more in line with that skill set than mocking appellate arguments.

Unfortunately not. MT is restricted to a set of rules (an abridged version of the federal rules of evidence), so we don't get the full trial experience, such as discovery (where most of the action happens). Furthermore, even though we're given exposure to the rules of evidence, most kids at all mock trial levels still employ the strangest understandings of the rules to the case. You'd be surprised how many people I've encountered over my three years of mock trial who didn't understand the full meaning of hearsay.

..

YCrevolution wrote:

jay115 wrote: Unfortunately not. MT is restricted to a set of rules (an abridged version of the federal rules of evidence), so we don't get the full trial experience, such as discovery (where most of the action happens). Furthermore, even though we're given exposure to the rules of evidence, most kids at all mock trial levels still employ the strangest understandings of the rules to the case. You'd be surprised how many people I've encountered over my three years of mock trial who didn't understand the full meaning of hearsay.

"Hearsay" is the title track of Alexander O'Neal's 2nd album "Hearsay" which was released in 1987. The original track from the album wasn't released as a single but in 1989, a remixed version was released in the UK Singles Chart and it became a minor hit, reaching #56.

Lol, we definitely listen to different genres of music .

..

By the way billyez can you tell me about cycle. I saw your Len profile and it really gives me hope to apply to places I wouldn't have dreamed of.

Certainly. I PM'd, but be aware that there's nothing I can really say - I was really blessed that things worked out the way they did.

jay115 wrote: Unfortunately not. MT is restricted to a set of rules (an abridged version of the federal rules of evidence), so we don't get the full trial experience, such as discovery (where most of the action happens). Furthermore, even though we're given exposure to the rules of evidence, most kids at all mock trial levels still employ the strangest understandings of the rules to the case. You'd be surprised how many people I've encountered over my three years of mock trial who didn't understand the full meaning of hearsay.

Three years of involvement and I'm ashamed to say that whenever it seemed like I had a clear understanding of what it entailed...*sigh*

YCrevolution wrote:

jay115 wrote: Unfortunately not. MT is restricted to a set of rules (an abridged version of the federal rules of evidence), so we don't get the full trial experience, such as discovery (where most of the action happens). Furthermore, even though we're given exposure to the rules of evidence, most kids at all mock trial levels still employ the strangest understandings of the rules to the case. You'd be surprised how many people I've encountered over my three years of mock trial who didn't understand the full meaning of hearsay.

"Hearsay" is the title track of Alexander O'Neal's 2nd album "Hearsay" which was released in 1987. The original track from the album wasn't released as a single but in 1989, a remixed version was released in the UK Singles Chart and it became a minor hit, reaching #56.

glad to see alot of moot court, mock trial alums here. I believe that the skills we learned will be invaluabe. I unforrunately couldn't participate in mock trial since my school doesnt have a program, but i work at a law firm and have expereince all the legal paper work first hand. Discovery is the worst thing! haha

jay115 wrote:

emilybeth wrote:
Well, that's a bit overbroad, don't you think? For someone who plans on a career as a trial attorney (say, a DA or PD), mocking trials is probably much more in line with that skill set than mocking appellate arguments.

Unfortunately not. MT is restricted to a set of rules (an abridged version of the federal rules of evidence), so we don't get the full trial experience, such as discovery (where most of the action happens). Furthermore, even though we're given exposure to the rules of evidence, most kids at all mock trial levels still employ the strangest understandings of the rules to the case. You'd be surprised how many people I've encountered over my three years of mock trial who didn't understand the full meaning of hearsay.

My question was rhetorical.

Mock trial is more valuable than moot court for someone who wants an on-the-ground trial job, for example an ADA or a PD position, as I stated. You'll note that neither of these positions involve discovery. You'll also note that these positions demand a skill set which mock trial, but not necessarily moot court, helps develop: namely, sharp oratory/storytelling skills; ability to react quickly and maintain composure despite the inevitable crazy stuff that goes down in a criminal trial; and a thorough understand of the workings of evidence procedure (NOT necessarily substantive rules of evidence.)

No offense, but you're a 0L. You're going to have to trust me on this.