THE MOOT PRIMER

How to Win a Moot in 15 Days*

*Or 6 months. Whatever.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 MY LORDS, IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE TO ARGUE BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT ................................... 2 A TESTIMONIAL TO MOOTING ....................................................................................................................... 4 STEP 1: HOW TO READ A PROBLEM AND RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 5 STEP 2: HOW TO WRITE A MEMO .................................................................................................................. 9 STEP 3: WHAT TO DO BETWEEN MEMO SUBMISSION AND ORALS ..................................................................... 13 STEP 4: THE ORALS .................................................................................................................................... 15 MOOT MYTHS DISPELLED........................................................................................................................ 18 15 DAYS AND 15 NIGHTS: A TIMELINE ....................................................................................................... 19 MY APPROACH TO MOOTING ...................................................................................................................... 21

ii | P a g e

INTRODUCTION
By Radhika Chitkara, IVth Year, Convenor, MCS

There are a few experiences without which your Law School life will remain incomplete.1 Mooting is one of them. It provides you with an interface with the law which is hard to accomplish through anything else. The depth that you attain in your study of an area of law is invaluable not only for pure academic enrichment, but also for numerous practical benefits. The skills of researching, of expressing your arguments in a crisp language, written or oral, stay with you all through your life, and help infinitely with whatever work you undertake. I, for instance, find articles on Human Rights Law tolerable because of the capacity to absorb information, which I developed through mooting. Mooting also gives you an entire repository full of anecdotes and stories, which you collect for 4-6 months living in the basement of the library, to keep you amused at your alumni meets years after you graduate. For example, the time when you asked your Observer to get you a Takwani from the third rack from the back, and he gets you a chocolate from Nagarbhavi instead. It was a delicious chocolate, sure, but it really wont reflect too well if I were to cite Cadbury Dairy Milk to a complex proposition on the jurisdiction of the forum. And lets not forget the many exotic locations that you get to visit around the world, ranging from Washington, to Vienna, to Hong Kong, to Sydney or Korea. Not only will you be more erudite at the end of the process, but a lot better tanned too. Beauty and brains, anyone? And so we stand before you today, bursting with excitement to welcome you into this fascinating world. We understand it can be a little (well, very) intimidating at first, so we have decided to take you step by step. Well make the first stop at the how-to-read-a-problem-and-research station (written very diligently by Subhang Nair, R. Akshaya, Vakasha Sachdev and Molshree Srivastava), followed by the memo-writing station (written with impeccable precision by Gautam Bhatia). Next well hit pre-orals (drafted with extreme meticulousness by Ashwita Ambast), and round it up by flying out (with flying colours, perhaps?) of the Orals section (written, again, by Gautam Bhatia), including a short pause to dispel Moot Myths, by Shantanu Naravane. You will also find two sections by Aditya Bandhopadhyaya and V. Niranjan, providing invaluable step-by-step guidance from start to finish of a Moot. 2 But before all of this, lets launch our journey with Gautam Bhatias and Raeesa Vakils testimonial on mooting itself. Hope you enjoy the ride!

Such as a History course with Prof. Elizabeth and a CPC course with Prof. Shankara Reddy. Note, I said a course. Repeating isnt much fun. 2 Needless to say, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all those who contributed to this Primer. 1|P a g e

MY LORDS, IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE TO ARGUE BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT

By Gautam Bhatia, Batch of 2011

In the first week of Law School, extra-curricular activities come to you packed like sardines in a crush. Able practitioners provide exciting demonstrations, and exhort you to lend your time, effort and talents towards the particular activity they represent. And in the glitter-and-glamour stakes, mooting may appear as the poor cousin in an illustrious family. Admittedly, mooting entails hours spent in the library, engaged in extensive reading and drafting. Admittedly, mooting culminates in being put on the spot where the product of all those hours will be tested to the utmost, in a challenging environment. And admittedly, mooting offers no quick, sure-fire or even reasonably certain path to success. A typical mooting career may be littered with unrecognized and unrewarded effort, wretched luck, disappointment and defeat, and only occasionally punctuated with the odd moments of glory. And yet, despite all this, despite the uncertainty and the seeming dryness of mooting, and despite this sounding extremely paradoxical, if there is one activity that is essential towards ensuring a complete Law School experience, it is mooting. And so, if there is one activity that you choose to pick and to give your heart and soul to, let it be mooting. Why, you will no doubt ask, given the intimidating picture that has been drawn above, does mooting deserve any kind of commitment or passion? Reasons abound, but a plethora of reasons wont ever substitute experience, an experience you will not have until you try it. Nonetheless, in brief: more than your courses and curricula, more than the projects you submit and the exams you write, more than the research groups you may eventually join or the journals that you may eventually edit, mooting compels you to engage with the law, to a depth and extent that nothing else in Law School does. Mooting will require you to read judgments, to examine and analyse them closely, to apply or distinguish them based on whichever side youre arguing for, to find equally strong arguments for both sides in the same case, to write these arguments equally well and then at last, to defend them in the face of intense and often hostile questioning. In short, mooting will ensure that you hone and develop every single one of those skills that a complete lawyer needs in his career, wherever he may go and whatever he may do. And so, mooting is something where the process actually counts for the most, and it is the process not the end-product that is truly the most enriching and learning experience that you can have in Law School. And its not only about the enrichment and the learning it is also tremendous fun. The joy, the rush of adrenaline, the sheer kick that you get when you suddenly make a breakthrough after two days and sleepless nights of going nowhere is simply unbelievable. The ecstasy of unearthing that one 1964 Allahabad High Court judgment that says exactly what you want it to say in order to make precisely the innovative argument that you want to make, renders those three hours of fruitless research that preceded it more than worthwhile. And finally, when all is said and done, when you stand before the judges at the end of a grueling week, or a grueling three-month as the case may be, and make the argument that you spent a week (or weeks) crafting to perfection, not a
2|P a g e

word out of place and not an authority missing, and you watch them nod because youve convinced them of what youre saying, because they understand and appreciate what theyre saying the feeling that thrills your entire being at that moment of time cannot be put into words, and must be lived to be known. For above all else, mooting is an intellectual challenge, a challenge that pits you against a finely-designed moot problem, the uncertainties and vagaries of the law, and the knowledge and experience of a qualified bench of judges. And like any other challenge, rising to it brings its own unique joy and pleasure. Nor is the process restricted to the moot rooms in the library basement, or the challenge restricted to the problem, the law and the judges. As you progress in your mooting career, so too will rise the level of competition that you face. In competitions like the Philip C. Jessup Moot at Washington DC or the Vis Moot at Vienna (the two biggest moots in the world) you will probably, at some point of time, find yourselves across the table from Harvard, or Columbia, or Oxford, or NUS, or the best universities around continental Europe and Australia (Heidelberg, Bonn, ANU, Sydney etc.). And what is more, despite a gaping chasm in terms of resources and external support, you will find yourselves competing on a level of equality with them, and even defeating them. And that is one of the greatest pleasures of mooting alone amongst Law School activities it gives you a chance to compete with the very best in the world, judged by the very best in the world, on a truly grand stage. For example, the Opening Ceremony of the Philip C. Jessup Moot takes place in the Presidential Ballroom of the Capital Hilton Hotel in Washington DC. If youve won your national qualifying rounds, you will be given the Indian flag. At the ceremony, Law Schools name will be called out, and you will walk forward to place the Indian flag alongside the flags of the ninety other participating countries, in front of representatives from the greatest universities in the world. There is no feeling quite like it. The final is judged by sitting and ex-judges of the International Court of Justice, and watched by some of the greatest and most famous names in the legal fraternity. It is the moment when you look back at six months of sacrifice and effort, and know that this is what it was all for. And as Law Schools past record testifies, to be there is no impossible dream. And so, if you enjoy the law, reading, writing or simply learning about it, moot. If you do not know yet what you feel towards the law, but love an intellectual challenge and the spirit of competition anyway, moot. From the Justice Hidayatullah Moot Court Hall that you see in the Academic Block, to the numerous national moots around the country, to the Juridicum at Vienna or the Hilton at Washington every step of the journey, wherever it takes you, is brilliant and more than worthwhile. And as you stand at the cusp of this incredible journey, I envy you the experiences that lie ahead and the dreams, joys and discoveries that await you. And I wish you the very best of luck.

3|P a g e

A TESTIMONIAL TO MOOTING
By Raeesa Vakil, Batch of 2011

Some of us come to university, after school, expecting that it will be a place that will challenge us that the corridors will be full of people talking about Important Things and holding Intelligent Views. In particular, we come to NLS expecting that we will learn the law and that we will have faculty who will at the very least, educate us. In this we are often disappointed, and find that rather than being taught, we are left to learn as best as we can, by ourselves. It is true that nothing can replace a good teacher. However, it is also true that the best education in the law that you can give yourself is to do a moot. You will pit yourself against a complex problem, start at the bottom, teach yourself the absolute basics and then build up your knowledge till you can argue the most complex points with an ease that no classroom can teach you. Does it sound boring? It really isnt. There is nothing more exhilarating than working, and figuring things out, and searching and researching until you can finally say, I have it! I have the answer! Much like Archimedes in his bathtub, youre liable to run around like crazy, yelling this to all your friends albeit, unlike Archimedes, running and yelling in the NLS library will get you into hot water, and not a permanent place in history. Mooting is an activity where youre not answering to some teacher, or writing some exam to keep your parents happy, or finishing homework. Its essentially you versus a problem, and how well you solve it, and how well you research it, is entirely up to you. Its a game where you set the standard, by how much work and effort and thought you want to put in, and you will win, if you want to. I first mooted in my third year. Until that point, I looked at mooters with some disdain. They seemed like the ultimate geeks, scuttling around in the dark library at night and speaking in incomprehensible terms. It was when I actually did one class round and two univ rounds that I realized that it becomes a fraternity a group of you all together, working towards the same end. Its not just research and writing either at the end of the day, a successful mooter is also a successful performer. To be able to stand before a bench, and to stand up without hesitation and make the point you want and answer correctly, takes not only research and intelligence, but a whole lot of guts. And if, like me, youre scared of speaking in public, you just might find that at the end of three rigorous rounds that its a fear youve conquered. As a last thought, consider this. Imagine a large chamber, full of every well-known scholar and writer on a particular topic of the law. In front of them is a table where three judges sit. Theyre not your seniors. Theyre not some bored lawyers. Theyre judges from the International Court of Justice, who have taken time out to come and listen to someone argue a complicated point of law. That someone, who stands up and who makes that point, in front of all those experts, to those three judges, and who picks up a trophy as a reward for his or her hard work, determination and sheer courage that person could be you.

4|P a g e

STEP 1: HOW TO READ A PROBLEM AND RESEARCH

By Subhang Nair, Vth Year, Vakasha Sachdev and R. Akshaya, IVth Year and Molshree Srivasatava, IIIrd Year

Dont Panic.3 The most important thing to do when starting work on a moot is to remain calm. If you hype it up, you will screw up. If you remain calm, and maintain your inner peace,4 youll be fine. Now the first thing you will have to do to start work on a Moot, is to read the problem. Obviously. Before you begin your actual perusal, however, get a few copies of the problem. 5 should be sufficient, allowing you to have a couple of copies to show to seniors who can help you out, or if you want to scribble stuff on the copy you read and want a clean copy for later. You may also end up flushing one down the toilet by mistake, or tearing it in frustration, so its good to have backups. After this, you need to get down to actually reading it. Its best to read the problem alone for the first time. At this time, just read it, dont try underlining or marking anything. You need to understand the facts, and the background to the legal dispute, so read it slowly and carefully. Once youre done, then read it again, this time, however, you should use a pencil to underline important facts, dates, etc. If you think a particular fact is significant, or you think that there is a relation between two facts, make a note of it. The next step is to sit with your firm, if you have one. Read the problem together, and discuss it. Go paragraph by paragraph to do so, then discuss relevant stuff in light of the issues. The issues in a moot problem are normally specified at the end of the problem. These will give you a broad idea of what to do. Divide the issues among your firm members, to make things easier. Then discuss the problem again, in light of whatever you think is relevant to your own issue. Bounce ideas off your firm-mates, itll help you get things clearer in mind. If you dont have a firm, it doesnt matter. Just go over the problem again, and carefully examine all the issues. Try and find the facts that are relevant to each issue, and note them down. Some last pointers: 1. When you get some free time, number all the lines of each paragraph. This will help a lot when you need to write your memo and make your oral arguments. 2. Read the problem as many times as you can. You will often find some small fact or sub-issue when you read the problem for the hundredth time. 3. Remember that there will be sub-issues within each of the issues given in the problem. Once youve done some work on an issue, go back to the problem and see if any of the facts are relevant in light of something you came across in your research. The basic research starts once the problem has been read and the issues identified. The best way to
3 4

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, at numerous pages. Kung Fu Panda 2. 5|P a g e

handle research is to go about it in an organized fashion. Nothing complicated, just an extract or notes of all that you read, along with their sources this will come in handy at several points: research, memo writing and while practicing for orals. These detailed notes, when made issue-wise, as separate files, save a great amount of time while typing out the memorial. What the area of law the moot will be based on is no secret in any moot. In fact, there are specialized moots, e.g. Vis moots are all always arbitration moots, covering certain commercial laws as well. Even in intra college selection rounds, one gets to know the area in advance. That being the case, a smart thing to do would be to have a list of standard commentaries on the area. Getting this is no difficult a simple OPAC search in the library coupled with a few questions thrown to seniors, you will have the list ready. It is to be remembered that the relevant section in the library will be blocked from issuing. This is when one rushes to the photocopying machines in the library. Also, there are certain library rules stipulating what cannot be done with the books, which will be released along with the problem keep in mind to comply with these. The books that you use will be cited as authorities in the memo. Hence, keep a note of the relevant portions of the books you use, because you will be using them to support one of the arguments made. From the standard commentaries, what one arrives at is a basic understanding of the issues and a hint of the arguments to be made on both sides. After this general research, specific research involving finding specific authorities for the arguments advanced hunting for cases, articles etc. follows, subsequent to which structuring of arguments, gap-filling research etc. follow. The persuasive value of an opinion expressed in a book is way lesser than the proposition laid down by the Courts in the judgments delivered. To this extent, large parts of argument formulation would happen after a thorough reading of the cases (fully) along with the statute in consideration. This applies to domestic moots and Univ rounds, where cases are preferred to academic opinions. However, opinions of people are attached significance in moots on International law etc. and would thus form an authoritative source to get arguments from. Be it a case or a view expressed in a book, whenever relevant, it must find its way into your detailed notes. Maximum amount of research takes place online. With most of the information now being available in digital form, online resources form the major chunk of your research database. Also, information keeps getting frequently updated on the internet. It is an equalizer in international Moots, ensuring people around the world have access to the same resources. The first thing to do after reading any problem is to find out the general meaning of the words of which you dont know. You can Google these words. After which, a comprehensive online search should be carried out on the various legal issues involved. Google: It is one of the best places to begin research. You can first carry out a general search to figure out the basics in the issue. If it is a legal concept it is going to have a Wikipedia entry or a short write-up in any other websites which will give you a very preliminary understanding of the same. It is best to try out different keywords with and without quotes for better results. But, apart from this general search, more important tools in Google are Google scholar and blog search. Google scholar: This helps you search diverse resources from one place and lists articles, books, theses, cases and court opinions. It also has abstracts from a lot of books and judicial
6|P a g e

pronouncements from a variety of jurisdictions. It is easy to use. The link is www.scholar.google.co.in. It gives you an option to search either for articles or for legal opinions and journals. You need to choose one of the options and type the search word in the search box. It provides for advanced scholar search where you can search for articles by particular authors, or do similar keywords search. It also lets you choose the courts for your search under legal opinions and journals. Google Blogs: There are a number of good blogs written by eminent jurists as well as lawyers and law students. These have good discussions on legal concepts, Acts, judicial pronouncements, etc. Though blogs cannot be cited as an authority but they are very important as they highlight the most important and latest information and help and direct you towards case law and relevant provisions of the statute. An example can be of Indian Corporate Law blog run by our alumnus. So if your topic is corporate criminal liability, it has a write up on it which discusses all the landmark judgments. This does two things: gives you all the landmark judgments and also a new perspective that the practitioners in the field have. Online Databases Our college subscribes to many online databases. A brief description of each is given below outlining what each one is useful for. Manupatra: It is an Indian centric legal database which has case law and Acts in it. When you click on manupatra on the research databases page, it takes you to the home page. Click on IP Access to access it. Click on legal search and it will give three kinds of searches of which two are very important: Advanced search and Citation Search. Advanced Search: It gives the option of searching subject wise, by a particular section of an Act or by the name of the one of the parties involved in the case and allows you to limit the search by a time frame. On the left hand side there is a TOC (Table of Contents) which lists all the courts from which manupatra covers judgments. You have to choose the court(s) for whose judgments you wish to see. Multiple choices can be made. When you search by any of the above means, it gives you a list of results. You can narrow down your search by clicking on search within search results. The entire text of the judgment can be opened by clicking on it. Every judgment has a link called mentioned in which lists down all the cases that have cited this case. Also there is a list of cases in the beginning of the judgment on which this case is relies on. You can click on search results to go back to your last search. There is also the option of manu search where you can carry out direct searches based on keywords and Act search where sections of a particular Act can be looked up. www.indlaw.com is also an Indian legal database which performs the same functions as manupatra. Some people find it easier to use indlaw. They mostly give the same results and you can work with either. Westlaw: This is an international database. It has articles, cases and abstracts from different
7|P a g e

jurisdictions. When you go on the home page there is a link on the right had side and more. Clicking on it takes you to the UK westlaw website. It has multiple tabs on top. The most important tabs are Law School Classic which gives all things related to American jurisprudence, Commonwealth which gives cases and articles form Australian jurisprudence, Westlaw UK which is quintessential as its gives all English case laws and articles which are very important considering a large part of Indian law has been derived from UK and an NLS tab which has limited versions of all these. In any of the tabs you can type the keyword in the search box provided. You can do it in two ways by typing under terms and connectors where &, # and other internet connectors can be used to search and natural language where these symbols wont have technical meaning. After typing in the search keyword select the databases like UK Case Locator, UK Law Journals, etc to specify where the search should take place. It gives search results on the left and abstracts on the right hand side. You can click on the citation to get the entire text and can also save it by clicking on download. Jstor: This database is mainly used for article search. It has a huge collection of journals. It has articles on legal as well as art subjects. It gives you the option to choose journals from which you wish to search but a direct search will also give you the most relevant results first. When you click on Jstor there appears a search box where keywords/authors name can be typed and the most relevant articles will list out. Click on the link to the article which will display its first page. To save it, click on open PDF, a link provided on the upper right hand side. This will open it in PDF form in a new window from where it can be saved.

8|P a g e

STEP 2: HOW TO WRITE A MEMO

By Gautam Bhatia, Batch of 2011

To be a successful mooter, you must write good memorials. All tournaments have separate and prestigious memorial prizes. In most tournaments, memorial scores are provided a certain set weightage in marking each round (at the Jessup Moot, for instance, memorials carry 1/3 weightage in each round, making it essential to win the memos). In your University Rounds, your memorial scores will carry 1/4 weightage in your total aggregate score. Most importantly, however, your memorial will invariably be the foundation of your oral arguments. Your speaker notes will invariably be summarized from your memorial, the authorities you refer to will be in your memorial, and more often than not, you will observe judges looking through your memorial as you argue. A good memo, therefore, is an integral and indispensable part of good mooting. The elements of a memorial are rather standard. If you will peruse the sample memorial that you have been provided, you will notice the following elements, which we shall now discuss: 1. COVER PAGE: This is rather self-explanatory. Your participation code number along with the side youre arguing for, the name of the moot, the name of the parties, and the forum youre arguing before, perhaps along with the procedural provision under which youve approached that forum. What is of paramount importance to note here is that there must be no mistakes of any kind on the cover page. It is the first thing the judges and the memo checkers will look at, and the old adage of the first impression invariably being the last holds true for mooting as well. Verify, verify again, and get your friends to verify it as well, but ensure that the cover page is flawless. 2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES: The components of the index of authorities vary in accordance with the moot youre doing. Consequently, just take care to ensure that your categories are appropriately labeled and your authorities are arranged alphabetically. One technique that often helps to create a good impression in the mind of a memo checker is to insert, next to each authority in your Index, the page number(s) of the main body of your memorial where that authority has been cited. It is simple to format, and highly effective in result. 3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION: As youre well aware, the party approaching the Court (Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant/Claimant/Applicant) must, as a preliminary matter, establish that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter in question. The source of jurisdiction will lie in a particular legal provision that vests the power in the Court to hear matters of the nature that the approaching party has brought. As the approaching party, you must cite the relevant provision under which you approach the Court. As the Respondent, you can choose to either accept the jurisdiction of the Court, or to challenge it. Whatever your stance, it must be stated expressly in the Statement of Jurisdiction. In my personal experience, the Statement of Jurisdiction has invariably proved to be a banana peel, especially in domestic moots. Procedure is both tiresome and complex, and we often tend to leave it for the last hour before submission, leading to both panic and error. Accordingly, difficult though it
9|P a g e

may be, take time out in the middle of moot week to correctly understand the legal provision that applies, and how it applies, so as to prevent any last minute rush. 4. STATEMENT OF FACTS: You may or may not be provided with a word limit to write your statement of facts. In any event, a standard rule of thumb is that the Statement of Facts should under no circumstances exceed one-third the length of the problem (if possible, it should be shorter). The Statement of Facts should not miss out on any material fact, or any fact that is relevant to any argument that you or the opposing party can reasonably make. Ideally, if you can, try and introduce a subtle hint of bias into the Statement of Facts, without at any point making it appear biased. 5. ISSUES RAISED: As the name suggests, this is a point-by-point summary of the issues (at the broadest level) that are to be argued. A tip that you may want to keep in mind is to frame the issues in a manner that is slightly biased towards your party. For example, if the matter is a property dispute where you are representing Mr. X, instead of framing the issue as Who owns the property?, it might be a good idea to frame it as Does ownership of the property vest in Mr. X? 6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS: This entails summarizing your arguments under each issue. You may or may not be required to comply with a word/page limit for your summary of arguments. In either event, note that memorial checkers evaluating many memorials and with little time on their hands will often turn to your Summary of Arguments. Accordingly, keep two things in mind: first, no basic argument should be missed out in your Summary in other words, there should be no glaring omissions; and secondly, your best and most innovative arguments should certainly find a mention. 7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED: This, naturally, is the core of your memorial. The basic purpose of Arguments Advanced is to make a case for your client which is structured, lucid, persuasive and authoritative. Each of these elements is crucial, and we shall examine them in turn. a. STRUCTURE: As you will note from the sample memorial provided to you, the Arguments Advanced section is divided and sub-divided in what seems a highly confusing manner. The key to structure is to understand that your overall arguments comprise of two distinct constituent elements: prongs and levels (neither word is a term of art, and is just used here because I am most familiar with it). Let us assume that you are appearing for a client who has been defamed and has suffered from nervous shock, both of which he attributes to the actions of the defendant. At the first or broadest level of argument, you allege that the defendant is liable in tort to the plaintiff. This level consists of two prongs that the defendant is liable for defamation, and for causing nervous shock. At the second level, you must prove that the legal elements of defamation and of nervous shock have been satisfied. Therefore, you may argue that on the three prongs of a defamatory statement, its publication and its referral to the claimant, that the tort of defamation has indeed been committed. And so on. This is, of course, a rather simple example, and often the greatest challenge in memo writing is to order the levels and prongs in such a manner that a highly complex problem with multiple issues is reduced to a structural and coherent whole. As a general and flexible rule of thumb, arguments should not go beyond four or at most, five levels, since there comes a point when breaking down something too much only obfuscates instead of simplifying. Each level and each prong should be indicated with a Heading. Each prong in each level should adhere to a uniform format of numbering. For instance, Level 1 can consist of two prongs, A and B. The prongs of Level 2, separately under A and B, may be numbered I, II, III and so on. Remember, the basis idea is
10 | P a g e

clarity. The memo checker at all points should know where the particular argument he is making fits into your broad scheme of argumentation, at the broadest level. If you keep this in mind, your structure will be perfect. Another thing you might like to venture on is to introduce an introductory paragraph immediately below each heading, summarizing the arguments that you are going to make, and referring to each prong in a single sentence, rounded off with a conclusion. You might find such a technique used in your sample memorial. It consumes space, but is brilliant for clarity. b. LUCIDITY: Your memorial should be written in simple English. It is not a place to demonstrate extensive vocabulary, or a penchant for poetic expression. A standard rule of thumb is that no sentence should ever express more than one idea. Sentences should be short and impactful. The choice of words should be such that immediately and clearly conveys the argument that youre making in simple terms. c. PERSUASIVENESS: This is entirely a question of individual style. Nonetheless, a few pointers may be useful. First, do not adopt a bombastic tone. Do not, for instance, state that the defendant is guilty of a wretched and heinous crime that is fit to shock the conscience of all right-thinking individuals. Keep in mind that your language must play a supporting role to the quality of your argument. If it occupies centre-stage, pushing your argument into the background, it will harm you. Therefore, at all times, adopt a measured tone so that the strength of your argument is not tainted. This does not mean that you must be entirely dry and neutral. Indeed, that is the other extreme which you must take care to avoid. The Memorial is not an academic piece to be published in a journal. It is a series of pleadings aimed at convincing the judge of the rightness of your cause. Therefore, avoid neutral, academic phrases such as this issue is controversial, or that authority is divided Secondly, make sure that there is a logical flow between your arguments, and within each argument. By this, I not only mean that avoid inconsistencies or contradictions, but also that as a matter of legal structure, your arguments should flow in a logical sequence. For example, if youre challenging the constitutionality of an Act as well as the illegality of an action purported to have been taken under the act, the latter should follow the former. Thirdly, in order to be most persuasive, your argument should contain an analysis of both the law and how the law applies to the individual facts of your case in order to support your claim. There are different ways of going about this. Some mooters commence with an outline of the law, move on to an outline of the facts, and then demonstrate how the former applies to the latter. Others combine the two into composite arguments. The first option may be a better idea for you if youre just starting out on your mooting career, but its simply a question of finding your own comfort zone. d. AUTHORITY: How much authority to use, and where and how to use it, is something that varies not only from moot to moot, but also from individual to individual. Broadly, just bear in mind that every proposition of law must be substantiated by legal authority (the kind of authority you use will depend upon the forum e.g., a Supreme Court case in India, the treaties and scholarly writings at the ICJ etc.). The weaker or more controversial a proposition is, the more authority there should be. Once again, however, the basic rule of thumb is that your authority should buttress your argument, and not supplant it. It is also a good idea to occasionally quote authority
11 | P a g e

(e.g., lines from cases that directly support your argument) in the main body of your memorial, but this is a technique that should be applied judiciously. 8. PRAYER: This is the final part of your memorial. It requires little explanation it is simply a request to the Court to grant the reliefs that you seek, written in a manner that is dictated more by convention than any rule of reason. Please refer to your sample memorial for details.

12 | P a g e

STEP 3: WHAT TO DO BETWEEN MEMO SUBMISSION AND ORALS

By Ashwita Ambast, IVth Year

The period subsequent to submitting memorials must be devoted exclusively to securing the perfect oral round. The objectives of a mooter in this period are threefold: (i) mastering the speaking style required by the moot (ii) gaining familiarity with the material at hand and (iii) organizing large volumes of research and making it accessible during the short oral round. In order to achieve these objectives, conventionally, the following five steps are taken. 1. PREPARING A COMPENDIUM: One of the easiest first steps to take is to prepare a compendium of all the research that has been used in formulating the arguments used in your memorial. Compendia are most often used for providing material to the judges, so that the bench may have access to the materials that are being cited to ensure their authenticity. Moreover, compendia are extremely useful for preparing rebuttals to unexpected arguments raised by opponents. Creating a compendium typically entails compiling the whole text of all cases and articles and verbatim extracts of the books that you have used in your research. Each item in your compendium must necessarily have all important details associated with it. Therefore, a case entry must include the year of the case and the judge(s) who delivered the decision. Similarly, a book extract must contain the edition of the book that has been used. Admittedly, preparing a compendium may become cumbersome where extensive research has been done (which should be in most cases ). In such cases, it is essential that a comprehensive compendium is prepared atleast for difficult arguments contrary to the settled position of law and arguments that involve an unconventional reading of cases as the bench is most likely to question the strength of such arguments. Naturally, prior to taking a compendium to an oral round, it is essential to highlight and flag the text carefully for ease of access. 2. COMPILING MATERIALS: As compendia more often than not tend to get bulky and difficult to use, it is advisable to prepare a set of materials for the use of the speaker. Materials comprise of the relevant extracts of all the research that has been done on the problem. Typically, materials will comprise of the operative paragraphs of cases and articles and specific pages of books. The materials must also contain the full content of the statutory provisions that are being referred to, as it may be necessary to refer to the exact phrasing of the pertinent provisions during the oral round. For the purposes of convenience, materials are generally arranged according to the arguments that are being forwarded. 3. CREATING SPEAKER NOTES: Creating speaker notes is the most important part of the pre oral preparation and is ironically, the material on which least guidance can be provided. Speaker notes is the document most often referred to by speakers during the oral round. Many speakers prefer to incorporate the materials (explained in point 2) in the speaker notes while others prefer to keep their speaker notes brief. However, it is common for speaker notes across the board to contain a structure of arguments and the facts and citation details of the cases that will be cited in the oral
13 | P a g e

round. 4. PRACTICE ORAL ROUNDS: A practice oral round as the name indicates is a simulation of the actual oral round and is typically conducted by strategists or individuals who have participated in the same moot in the past. Most teams opt to begin oral practices disregarding the actual time limit for the round. In these untimed rounds, speakers can go through each issue being argued comprehensively. Practice oral rounds are then progressively reduced in length to suit the time provided in the competition. Through these, the speaker can master (i) moving on smoothly from sticky issues (ii) comfortably incorporating authorities into the speech (iii) covering issues as efficiently as possible and choosing the issues which the speaker is most comfortable arguing (iv) the order and sequence in which the arguments must be made (v) the speaking style which is demanded by the specific moot. One must hence be prepared to do additional research in areas where deficiencies in research are noted by individuals taking the orals. Accordingly, the speaker notes and other materials must be varied as well. During practice orals, it is also helpful for the researchers to take note of the rebuttals that can be raised to the speech being made by the speaker, with the relevant authorities that may be cited. This makes the entire team more prompt and responsive during the actual rounds. 5. ARMING YOURSELF FOR DIFFICULT QUESTIONS: While undergoing practice oral rounds, it is imperative to be attentive to the questions being asked by judges and to create a bank of all such questions. Answers may then be prepared for the difficult/frequently asked questions, accompanied by smooth ways to move on to easier arguments. It has been found that this is a big time-saver during the competition.

14 | P a g e

STEP 4: THE ORALS

By Gautam Bhatia (you know him by now )

So youve spent days and sleepless nights reading and researching, until you know all the law that there is to know. Youve crafted and submitted your memorials. Your speaker-notes are ready, so is your Quotes page, and youve had your practice rounds with your friends. And now you stand on the cusp of your actual oral round which will, for the most part, determine how you fare in the competition. To stake so much effort on fifteen or twenty minutes of chance seems an enterprise fraught with risk and randomness. Nonetheless, if you keep certain basic principles in mind (and, speaking from personal experience, these principles are easy to understand but extremely hard to consciously put into practice, especially in the middle of a round), you will at least give yourself the best possible chance of being able to convey all the law that you know, and youll be able to communicate to the bench the subtleties of the arguments that youve spent so much time over. 1. HOW TO ADDRESS THE BENCH: First up: Judges in every Court have their peculiar designations, which you must know. A judge of the Indian Supreme Court or any of the High Courts is traditionally addressed either as My Lord or Your Lordship. A judge of the ICJ is addressed as Your Excellency. And so on. It is crucial not to err on this point, as it is something extremely basic and is expected to come automatically to you. 2. COURT MANNERS: A Court any Court is steeped in tradition and history. Its function that of upholding the rule of law and dispensing justice is amongst the most important political functions that a wing of the State must perform. Black robes and suits apart, therefore, the process of mooting demands a certain amount of gravitas. This is not to say, of course, that you must be wooden or stiff. What you must do, however, is to conduct yourself in a manner that befits the forum a High Court of a State, the Supreme Court of India, the ICJ, or even a higher Court of a fictional country. This is fundamentally where mooting defers from a debate or a discussion. The foundation of advocacy is a deep respect for the judicial system, the forum and the activity. The following guidelines may serve as examples. Small and petty though they may appear, any mooter will tell you that they make a substantial difference. a. Stand up straight at the podium. b. The moment one of the judges begins to ask a question, stop speaking. Let him finish his question, give a pause, and then answer. Occasionally, after answering, ask his permission to proceed (although this is a trick that should not be overused). c. Do not point at any of the judges. Hand movement, indeed, should be as restricted as possible. d. Do not raise your voice unduly, and do not appear aggressive or over-assertive, unless its part of a previously thought-out strategy. 3. ENGAGEMENT AND READING THE BENCH: This is that part of advocacy which is the most difficult to explain, as well as to implement. Ultimately, the success of a mooter is measured not by his amount
15 | P a g e

of research (although that forms the base), but how well he can engage with the bench in other words, how closely he can get the bench to pay attention to him, to follow what hes saying, and to ensure that they are interested in his arguments and attempt to understand them because only then will they ever be convinced. There are no rules for engagement but again, a few guidelines may be useful: a. Speak slowly. b. Try to avoid speaking in a monotone. Place adequate emphasis and stress on the important words in each sentence, such as the liability for defamation, My Lords, is dependant upon the following three-pronged test c. Try and speak without looking down at your notes. You need to be exceptionally well-prepared to pull this off, but if you can, it creates an outstanding impression in the mind of the judge. d. Maintain regular eye-contact with all the judges, and not just the ones who are active or asking questions e. Draw the Bench into your arguments by using leading phrases such as Your Lordships may well ask me, or At this point, Your Excellencies will no doubt observe f. At certain times, especially when summing up arguments, a small dose of rhetoric often wakes up a sleepy bench g. Lastly, and most importantly, how well you can engage on particular day depends on how well you can read the particular bench youre before. Often, you will have time to watch and reach the bench while someone is arguing before you. Sometimes you will be the first person to argue, and will have to adjust during the round. In either event, keep in mind that different benches and different judges are often partial towards different types and different styles of mooting. Some judges appreciate a deluge of case-law. Some appreciate strong conceptual, firstprinciple based arguments. Some judges have a substantial ego, and want servility from the advocate. Some, on the other hand, have no such hang-ups. Some will enjoy an aggressive, hostile fight with the advocate, while some will want to be persuaded. It is your responsibility to adequately gauge the bench early enough into your round to be able to modify the way youre arguing (within limits of course dont adopt a radically different style that you cannot pull off). 4. USE OF AUTHORITY: Just as in writing a memorial, authority can be your biggest asset, as well as an albatross around your neck. The basic thumb rule remains the same authority should complement your arguments, and not supplant them. Keep in mind: a. You can use authority at the beginning of an argument or at the end. Using it at the beginning forestalls certain questions. Using it at the end often allows you to draw the judge into asking a question you want to be asked, so you can provide an answer pat with authority. When to use authority is something that you must determine on an argument-by-argument basis. b. The use of authority directly in answer to a question is a double-edged sword. If the question is one that can reasonably be answered by citing authority, go right ahead. But if the question is one that is conceptual, or based on first principles, than answering with authority and without reason appears evasive (and theres nothing that annoys a judge more than evasion). Once again, this is a judgment call that you need to make on the spot. c. When youre using authority, dont simply say It has been held in X v. Y that It sounds twice as impressive to a Judge if you say The very question that Your Lordship has posed to me was answered by Lord Justice A, in paragraph 44 of X v. Y, where his Lordship opined that In other
16 | P a g e

words, use authority impressively but be careful not to overwhelm the judge with a deluge of case names, leaving him no time to react or understand. 5. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS: Any reasonably active bench will ask plenty of questions. For a substantial period of time, your round will cease to be a presentation of your argument, and will become a question-and-answer session with the bench. Responsiveness, therefore, is as important as direct engagement. a. Remember, always, that when a Judge asks you a question, he has an unarticulated premise in mind which he wants you to address, and which may not appear directly through the question. For example, commonly in nervous shock cases, the Judges are concerned that if they rule in the Plaintiffs favour, it will open the floodgates to a host of similar, and often frivolous, claims. Rarely, however, will a good judge ask you directly, Counsel, will this not open the floodgates? Instead, if you are, for instance, arguing that nervous shock suffered by watching the delayed broadcast of an accident on TV should be admitted by the Courts, the Judge might ask you, far more subtly, So Counsel, what if you receive news of an accident through a letter? Here, the question relates to a specific fact situation. The motive for the question, however, stems out of the Judges concern that the plaintiff seeks to widen the scope of nervous shock to an impermissible degree. Your answer, therefore, must not only address the specific hypothetical posed to you, but must also address the broader motive discussed above. While this sounds highly technical and complex, it is something that you should just keep in mind for now, as it can only be learnt through experience. b. As pointed out above, the one thing that you must be on your guard at all times against, is evasion. This happens especially when the Judge asks us, Counsel, yes or no?, and both he and we know that the correct answer goes against us. It is at that time almost irresistibly tempting to start with why, although the correct answer apparently goes against me, I can nonetheless provide you with reasons why it doesnt actually go against me. Resist the temptation. Answer, Your Lordship, yes (or no, as the case may be), pause, and then continue, However No Judge will interrupt you then. However, if you commence with Your Lordship, but, odds on the judge will get angry, and wont let you proceed either. c. Often, the Judge will ask you a question that has no bearing to what youre arguing, and is something that actually forms part of another argument. Here again, merely to tell the Judge that you will deal with it later will sound like an evasion. Instead say, Your Lordship, while that issue will be dealt with in my submission on ____, let me briefly answer Your Lordships question. Then answer it in a sentence. d. Questions arent only about avoiding pitfalls, though. One very useful purpose they serve is to allow you to move from arguments, especially when you find yourself going in a circle. For instance, you can quickly answer a question, and while the Judge is pondering over your answer, say And that brings me to my next point, which is It must, of course, be done subtly. 6. TIME MANAGEMENT: I have never seen a mooter who has been able to argue all the issues in his memorial. There simply isnt enough time. The best mooters, therefore, are not those who argue everything, but those who pick their issues carefully, and argue them well. To this end, please note: a. Pick the important issues, those that you simply must argue, before you go in for your round. b. Flexibility is supremely important. You will go into the round with a structure in your head, all planned out to the last detail. However, the Judge might have something entirely different in
17 | P a g e

mind, so be prepared to throw out that planned structure at a moments notice, and be prepared to play it by the ear. As a senior of mine once told me, Dont fall in love with your structure, and dont fall in love with your arguments to the detriment of your round. c. Move on. One of the biggest problems that I had throughout my mooting career, a problem shared by many of my colleagues, was knowing when to move. Often, no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, the Judge will simply refuse to let you convince him. At some point, you need to move on to your next argument. The difficulty is in finding that right balance that ensures that neither have you moved on to soon, leaving an argument inadequately addressed, and nor too late, leaving no time to adequately address the other arguments. Once again, this is something that cannot be taught, but must be learnt through experience. Above all else, never give up. In a twenty minute round, you may have a terrible fifteen minutes, and then in your last five minutes make an argument that wins you the round. Often, it will seem to you that the Judges dont agree with a word you say, and what is worse, they are dismissing your best arguments without even listening to you. But most times, they will only be testing you, to see how you respond to a pressure situation. Some Judges simply like acting like pricks, just because they can. You may be boiling inside, but never let your frustration show, as you will only lose points for your troubles. The imbalance of power between Judge and Mooter is something that disappears entirely in the big international moots, but its something that unfortunately must be dealt with in your Univ Rounds and national moots. Nonetheless, those fifteen or twenty minutes youre actually on your feet and arguing, will probably be the most incredible fifteen minutes of the moot, and objectively, tremendous fun. So enjoy them, and the very best of luck!

MOOT MYTHS DISPELLED BY SHANTANU NARAVANE, BATCH OF 2010

Myth 1: A good oral round is about being a good orator. It is not. A good oral round is about arguing your best argument, in the simplest and most persuasive manner. It is about playing to your strengths, and arguing for the judges. Though I cannot go into the details of the oral rounds here, one thing to be remembered above all is that, finally, it is the judges who mark you, and there is no point having a good argument if you cannot put it across and convince them of its merit. Myth 2: Oral rounds are about what happens in the Moot Court Hall. Although the final argument is seen in the Moot Court Hall, majority of the work for the round is to be done outside the Hall. A good round is all about preparation, having thought out your issues, having a structure in your head, having thought of the best way to put arguments etc. Mentally running through the arguments, or saying them out aloud to yourself helps a lot, to give you an idea of how best to make them sound solid and convincing. Also, rest a bit the day before your round. Having put in a week of hard work, it is important to be mentally relaxed for the round and all-nighters or frenetic last minute reading is a bad idea. Myth 3: The judges are out there to give you a tough time. While this may be true of a few rare judges, most are out there to evaluate how much work you have done and how well you can put forth your argument. They may get aggressive at times to rattle you, but often may be trying to help you out by guiding you to the right answer. So dont stop thinking when on your feet in the hall, and stay in control of your round, no matter what the judges say or do. And most importantly, no matter what, do not lose it at the judges. Even the worst round may land you in the top 5, and you dont want to lose that chance in a show of anger. 18 | P a g e

15 DAYS AND 15 NIGHTS: A TIMELINE

By Aditya Bandopadhyay, Batch of 2009

Before the problem is released: (1) MCS organizes a few sessions on how to go about researching, writing memorials, preparing for the oral rounds, etc. Sounds obvious but GO for these sessions. With the number of orientations first-years have, people tend to skip the non-compulsory ones. Dont miss out *and ask plenty of questions better now than when youre standing before the judges+. (2) Give some thought to who youre firming with helps to have a group of around 3-5 people, especially when its your first time mooting. (3) Pay attention in your Westlaw and Manupatra briefings theyre organized separately by ASP/ El-Tech your ability to use these databases well can make a big difference to the quality of your moot-research. Day of problem release/Day Zero: Problem usually releases in the afternoon. Read the problem. Take a deep breath. Read the problem again. Bitch about it to your friends. Then read it again. Seriously. You need to read the problem, and LOTS of times. In fact, through the 2 weeks, when youre tired/bored/confused/suicidal read the problem again [Get 3-4 photocopies, useful for scribbling and for distributing to those oh-so-helpful-seniors-youre-going-to-con-into-helping-you]. A few hours after problem-release, meet up with your firm. Discuss first impressions of the problem [A good, albeit slow, way to do this is to actually read the problem aloud when youre sitting together, and stop after every couple of lines to discuss]. What are the issues that each side needs to argue? What areas of law do you think these entail? Divide up the issues to research on, and try to have at least two people working together on everything (as in, one person can obviously take up more than one issue, but try not to have just one person working on an issue if he/she shirks work, youre all screwed). Days 1-9: Spend most of your time researching on your (and other peoples) issues. Xerox abundantly. Ask/meet up with seniors to talk about issues [inter alia, ask them about what the classic books/cases on each area of law are so you have a better idea of where to look]. Try to meet up with your whole firm, assuming its a manageable number of people, once or twice a day. Discuss what each of you has done. What the law is, what the major sources for the arguments are, which cases have been/need to be read, distribute copies of the research youve all done basically get everyone up to speed on each issue [Ok, two major pieces of advice here first, read cases, as far as possible (which is like 90% of the time), in original and in full. Secondly, issues will centre around certain sections in different Bare Acts read not only the relevant sections but also as many others as possible, from each of the Acts. Reason (for both) background knowledge is critical+. If youre super-organised (read: girl, or Niranjan in his first year ) start typing out some of your frills (Statement of Facts, Jurisdiction, etc.) in your free time. Day 10: Aim to start typing by the end of the day. Dont be too crushed when you fail to do so. But seriously, research time is coming to an end. Tie up loose ends such as reading research on issues that other people worked on and you havent understood. Talk to a few *but not too many+ seniors again to gauge whether youre constructing your arguments properly, to find out if theres
19 | P a g e

something very wrong with them,5 etc. Also, most firms tend to drift apart around this time, as people start focusing more on their individual memos [though if you get along particularly well with 1 or 2 people on your firm, the 2/3 of you will probably still end up discussing stuff. A lot]. Last 4 Days: Must. Start. Typing. Today. Really. How to write and structure your arguments [IRAC, essentially] would have been discussed in the previously-mentioned sessions. You dont actually need the whole four days to type your memorial but if you start around now, youll have enough time to rectify this situation OMG I know absolutely nothing about this issue/ my arguments are all wrong/ theres this absolutely critical case I didnt know about/ this makes no sense by doing additional research [or asking seniors] wherever required. One other thing to keep in mind dont leave all your frills till the end. If youre struggling to finish (i.e. youre not a super-organised girl or Niranjan in his first year ), then theres always the temptation to cog these bits (well, at least these bits) from some-one else, which usually has very bad consequences. So try and do as much of these as you can, before hand [besides nothing creates quite as bad an impression in the mind of a memorial judge as a poorly formatted, error-filled memorial and vice versa].

First-year: So Well Basically What I want to say is that because X is not his child, theres no question ofSenior: Waaaait a minute WHAT did you just say?! Of course X is his child, it says so right here Mr. Whatshisname had a son, X The FACT-SHEET (read: Holy Bible/ Koran/ Gita) says so! First-year: Yes, but that doesnt prove X is his son, does it? What if X is illegitimate or something? (Besides in my dreams a Baba came to me and told me that judges love ingenious arguments) Senior: /palmface 20 | P a g e

MY APPROACH TO MOOTING
By V. Niranjan, Batch of 2010

Broadly, there are two schools of thought on mooting. One is that it is necessary to read every single relevant case/statute/article that time permits one to read, while the other is that one can pick and choose in advance what to read, and also read summaries etc. I belong to the first school. So the following description of how moot preparation and arguments typically work is within that framework. Another disclaimer is that approaches to mooting vary, and what I describe below is something that can work as well or badly as many other styles. In the interests of simplicity, let us consider memorials and oral arguments separately. There are three steps in writing a very good-excellent memorial: first, identify the issues before the court. An issue is not the same thing as an argument. It is broader questions like did the defendant breach the contract is an issue, whereas breach of contract requires material deviation from the terms of the contract is an argument. Often, the moot problem will list the issues before the court. If the problem specifies that no other issue can be raised, arguments are confined to the issues set out in the problem. In identifying the issues, it is also important to establish whether the court hearing the matter has jurisdiction sometimes, authors of problems dont consider this carefully, and you may able to take advantage of that omission. Sometimes it is intended to be an issue and on other occasions the problem specifically states that no jurisdictional arguments are to be raised. It is good practice, though, to establish this one way or another, because jurisdiction is sometimes important even if it is not an issue, as it may affect the power of the court to pass certain orders. Secondly, make a list of what you need to prove in order to convince the court to accept that each of these issues must be decided in your favour *List I+. This is when research really begins. Now the task is to develop arguments that prove the List I propositions. In order to develop these arguments, you will need to consider the statutes that apply to the question at hand, and the authorities that are relevant. This is by far the most important the part of the moot and a lot turns on this stage. You will need to be able to back up your argument with previous cases, and the use of cases is what distinguishes a very good mooter from a brilliant one. Cases should be read with extreme care, and every word is potentially crucial. While reading a case, it is important to look particularly for two things whether that case conflicts (is inconsistent with) other cases, and if so, how you plan to reconcile them, and in any event, whether there are any unstated assumptions in the case that may support you. The second part is usually developed over time by just reading more and more cases carefully. As you read these cases and statutes, it is useful to make detailed notes. The best way of doing this is to create one file for each argument that is going to establish your List I proposition and record what each authority says about that argument in that file. This enables you to get all authorities for one argument in one file. The third stage is the actual writing of the memorial. At this stage, you already know what you are arguing, and know what authorities to use, and how. The most crucial thing here is structure in a complicated moot, you will have several issues, and several arguments for each, and it is important
21 | P a g e

that the order in which you make those arguments is such that each flows from the other, and is never repetitive. The easiest way to do this, generally, is to make a separate heading for each of your separate heading for each of your List I propositions, and then more sub-headings as necessary. Once this is done, it is just a matter of writing the argument with the cases that you have. As far as language is concerned, it is useful to closely parallel the language used in actual pleadings, and avoid non-legal ways of expressing legal things. Ill take a simple example to illustrate this process. Suppose Mr. A institutes a suit in the Madras High Court against Dr. B to recover damages for medical negligence, and suppose Dr. B had made an error of judgment in performing a complicated surgery on Mr. A. Suppose you are arguing for Mr. A. Stage 1 is to make a list of the issues: (1) Does the Madras High Court have jurisdiction to hear the matter? (2) Do Dr. Bs acts constitute medical negligence? (3) Did such negligence cause damage to Mr. A? Stage 2 is making the List I propositions: here, if you arguing for Mr. A, you need to establish the answer to all three of the above questions is yes, and if you are arguing for Dr. B, you succeed if you show that any of the three questions is answered no. Pick up a standard book on medical negligence to ascertain what the legal ingredients of medical negligence are. Those will be your List 1 propositions for medical negligence, and your task will be to find cases and statute that support your contention that each ingredient of medical negligence is fulfilled. Similarly, pick up a book on civil procedure to identify the ingredients of the High Courts jurisdiction those will be the List 1 propositions for that issue. Once you do this, you find and read all the cases that are relevant to proving your List 1 propositions. Then comes Stage 3, where you collate this information which is then used in preparing the memorial. As far as the oral round is concerned, the most important thing is to know your memorial inside out. Every case should have been read. That will make the oral round much easier, since the judge will typically not have as much specific knowledge as the participant. Each person has his own style of argument, and it is important not to alter ones natural style, keeping in mind that the ultimate object is to persuade the judge to your point of view, using legal arguments and cases. It is extremely impressive if you can argue without referring to your memorial, cite cases from memory and so on. This sounds more difficult than it really is, for if you have read a case in the week before arguments and have thought about it, chances are that you will remember its name! Other than this, most people develop their own ways of dealing with oral argument, mostly by experience. In short, mooting is enormous fun and I cant think of any activity in law school that even comes close. The raw excitement of arguing what you have created before a good judge and persuading him that that is the correct position of law is unparalleled.

22 | P a g e