Sorry for the lack of recent updates. I have been very, very busy and to top it all off my computer is currently in the shop. This means that not only do I have less time, but when I do have free time it doesn't involve internet access.
The biggest news to report, however, is the start of Moot Court proper. The problem was released two weeks ago. The fact pattern is utterly absurd, which is a good thing. If I am going to have to live and breathe this thing for the next three months it might as well be interesting.
You know, as much as everyone says it, it is true. You can never be truly ready for something like this. Despite my best efforts to stay on top of my work and keep everything under control, the first week was utter madness.
First of all, one of the two issues in the problem is one that we have not gotten close to covering in class. Therefore, neither myself nor Moot Court Teammate (MCT) had any idea of how to approach it. The first week, very minimal work got done.
Then we met with our coach. He asked us what we thought of the problem, and we did the best we could to say somewhat intelligent things. He nodded polietly, then pointed out problems with each of our approaches. Law students are generally the people who always have an answer ready, and it is very tough to sit in an office and not have ANY of the answers ready. On the flip side, learning from a master is an unforgettable experience. Without even trying, he seems to know pretty much everything there is to know about appeallate practice, patents, and legal writing.
Anyways, after that browbeating, it was back to work. Since then, MCT and I have begun to read up on the problem and the current case law. It seems to be moving along, but it also continues to seem like there is more than we could ever handle in front of us. And the due date continues to approach.
So, as always, it is both exciting and terrifying at the same time.
Showing posts with label moot court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moot court. Show all posts
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Moot Court Update
I feel like all I ever write about anymore is Moot Court...
My coach/advisor/master of all things legal and written hailed the team to his office for a review of the practice brief. It started off well enough, with the comment "I was surprised, I didn't think you guys would be able to write at all."
Moving on from that, he explained that this is because you don't get very many opportunities to practice and perfect good legal writing in law school. And this is entirely true. As Coach pointed out, even when you do have writing assignments, they are always framed in the panic that is exams, classes, internships, and life. Therefore, you often don't get a chance to do that really deep, high level, word by word editing that you would with a work assignment. Also, the first few assignments are overwhelmed by learning a new system for citations, analysis, style, even pagination, that make it difficult to really refine your skills.
So, low expectations, well exceeded. Not so much an insult as a statement of fact.
However, he then proceeded to utterly destroy our beautiful little brief. In some major, major ways. Things like point headings, completely missing the standard of review, and a failing to apply the legal test we painstakingly described.
Two major points in our defense: First of all, this was a closed universe problem, and we simply didn't have access to cases that supported certain legal elements that were lacking in the brief. You can't discuss legal presumptions if none of the cases you have to cite to do either. Secondly, our coach is an awesome writer. Although his resume includes time at nationally prestigious firms and work on Supreme Court cases, I really had no idea just how good he was at appellate writing. I was blown away as he slowly and calmly pointed out the narrowest distinctions in the technical aspects while weaving in subtle but beautiful style points.
I am really nerding out right now, but it is somewhat inspirational to get to sit and learn from a master. I have been carrying around a brief he wrote while in practice, treating it like an idol. Seriously, I checked my bag every five minutes to make sure it was ok, but ended up leaving my jacket on the train.
My coach/advisor/master of all things legal and written hailed the team to his office for a review of the practice brief. It started off well enough, with the comment "I was surprised, I didn't think you guys would be able to write at all."
Moving on from that, he explained that this is because you don't get very many opportunities to practice and perfect good legal writing in law school. And this is entirely true. As Coach pointed out, even when you do have writing assignments, they are always framed in the panic that is exams, classes, internships, and life. Therefore, you often don't get a chance to do that really deep, high level, word by word editing that you would with a work assignment. Also, the first few assignments are overwhelmed by learning a new system for citations, analysis, style, even pagination, that make it difficult to really refine your skills.
So, low expectations, well exceeded. Not so much an insult as a statement of fact.
However, he then proceeded to utterly destroy our beautiful little brief. In some major, major ways. Things like point headings, completely missing the standard of review, and a failing to apply the legal test we painstakingly described.
Two major points in our defense: First of all, this was a closed universe problem, and we simply didn't have access to cases that supported certain legal elements that were lacking in the brief. You can't discuss legal presumptions if none of the cases you have to cite to do either. Secondly, our coach is an awesome writer. Although his resume includes time at nationally prestigious firms and work on Supreme Court cases, I really had no idea just how good he was at appellate writing. I was blown away as he slowly and calmly pointed out the narrowest distinctions in the technical aspects while weaving in subtle but beautiful style points.
I am really nerding out right now, but it is somewhat inspirational to get to sit and learn from a master. I have been carrying around a brief he wrote while in practice, treating it like an idol. Seriously, I checked my bag every five minutes to make sure it was ok, but ended up leaving my jacket on the train.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Moot Court - Practice Brief
Why the lack of updates, you ask? It's the Moot Court practice brief. My life has been utterly and completely consumed by this.
Those of you who have followed this blog may have heard me rant and rave about legal writing, and how it is a completely different beast. Those of you who are either in law school, or have previously attended, know exactly what I am talking about. Those of you who are in neither category, let me just sum it up by saying legal writing is the slowest, most deliberate, and careful writing you will ever do. I know, I know, everyone always says what they are doing is the worst. This is not the case. I will concede practical tests to nursing programs, I will concede exams to medical school, but legal writing is tough.
That doesn't mean it can't be completely exhilarating when you put something together. When the arguments start coming together in your head, when you begin to see a brief or memo take form, it is awesome.
Writing a memo with someone else is whole 'nother story. First of all, everyone has a "writing process." Mine involves procrastinating, so having a partner actually helps. I absolutely cannot be unprepared when someone is counting on me. So that is good. Plus, the research is easier, as you both read the cases, and even if I miss something, chances are MCP (that's Moot Court Teammate) will catch it. And when you sit down and start looking at the problem, you get to bounce ideas off each other.
For example, ours is a 4th Amendment issue, that is, search and seizure. We both read the cases, and the problem. I thought we should take the approach of arguing how the suspect's actions justified a more thorough search. She thought we should take the approach of arguing the government's strong interest. It turns out, we need to do both.
So that is all great, but writing with someone else? That is difficult. We came up with a decent outline, then sat next to each other, and said "Ok, what should the next sentence be?" We each dictated one, then worked out which was best. "Ok, next sentence." We each dictated one, then combined them. Needless to say, we worked for about 7 hours, and wrote 4 pages. And I thought it was pretty productive.
Now tomorrow, we have to write the last 4. Then we get to edit.
Side note: With Moot Court this week, for the first time in my life do I understand what other people mean when they say loved ones complain about them never having time. So far in my life I have always been able to balance the two, but Moot has recently made this near impossible. So to my loved ones, all I can say is sorry, and thank you for your patience. I'll be back soon.
Those of you who have followed this blog may have heard me rant and rave about legal writing, and how it is a completely different beast. Those of you who are either in law school, or have previously attended, know exactly what I am talking about. Those of you who are in neither category, let me just sum it up by saying legal writing is the slowest, most deliberate, and careful writing you will ever do. I know, I know, everyone always says what they are doing is the worst. This is not the case. I will concede practical tests to nursing programs, I will concede exams to medical school, but legal writing is tough.
That doesn't mean it can't be completely exhilarating when you put something together. When the arguments start coming together in your head, when you begin to see a brief or memo take form, it is awesome.
Writing a memo with someone else is whole 'nother story. First of all, everyone has a "writing process." Mine involves procrastinating, so having a partner actually helps. I absolutely cannot be unprepared when someone is counting on me. So that is good. Plus, the research is easier, as you both read the cases, and even if I miss something, chances are MCP (that's Moot Court Teammate) will catch it. And when you sit down and start looking at the problem, you get to bounce ideas off each other.
For example, ours is a 4th Amendment issue, that is, search and seizure. We both read the cases, and the problem. I thought we should take the approach of arguing how the suspect's actions justified a more thorough search. She thought we should take the approach of arguing the government's strong interest. It turns out, we need to do both.
So that is all great, but writing with someone else? That is difficult. We came up with a decent outline, then sat next to each other, and said "Ok, what should the next sentence be?" We each dictated one, then worked out which was best. "Ok, next sentence." We each dictated one, then combined them. Needless to say, we worked for about 7 hours, and wrote 4 pages. And I thought it was pretty productive.
Now tomorrow, we have to write the last 4. Then we get to edit.
Side note: With Moot Court this week, for the first time in my life do I understand what other people mean when they say loved ones complain about them never having time. So far in my life I have always been able to balance the two, but Moot has recently made this near impossible. So to my loved ones, all I can say is sorry, and thank you for your patience. I'll be back soon.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Moot Court - Practice Problem
Today is an exciting day, the day the Practice Problem for Moot Court was released. Our school requires students to complete a practice brief prior to the actual competition.
While at first this sounds like one of the worst ideas since fanny packs, it actually has some practicals implications. Sure, myself and my partner will be responsible for two 30- page briefs, plus a full oral argument, so why would we want to take on ANOTHER extra assignment that offers no additional credit?
Well, first of all, the practice brief is a closed problem, meaning no research outside of the cited cases. This, right away, makes the entire process easier and smoother. No need to spend the first month looking up and reading cases, the first week of which are completely useless. Nope, all the cases are presented, just read and digest. This also means that there is no worrying about making sure all the authority is good. So right there, major help.
The second is the page limit. The practice brief is a paltry 8 pages. Including a statement of facts. And only one position must be presented.
Overall, I don't think the practice brief is really designed to have us improve our legal writing skills, instead the focus seems to be on developing a system for working together as a team. Which is a much more manageable task indeed.
And with that, Moot Court has officially begun! Keep reading for more
While at first this sounds like one of the worst ideas since fanny packs, it actually has some practicals implications. Sure, myself and my partner will be responsible for two 30- page briefs, plus a full oral argument, so why would we want to take on ANOTHER extra assignment that offers no additional credit?
Well, first of all, the practice brief is a closed problem, meaning no research outside of the cited cases. This, right away, makes the entire process easier and smoother. No need to spend the first month looking up and reading cases, the first week of which are completely useless. Nope, all the cases are presented, just read and digest. This also means that there is no worrying about making sure all the authority is good. So right there, major help.
The second is the page limit. The practice brief is a paltry 8 pages. Including a statement of facts. And only one position must be presented.
Overall, I don't think the practice brief is really designed to have us improve our legal writing skills, instead the focus seems to be on developing a system for working together as a team. Which is a much more manageable task indeed.
And with that, Moot Court has officially begun! Keep reading for more
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Moot Court
2L also means participation in Moot Court for myself. As a member of the IP team, I am both excited and nervous about this opportunity.
The excitement comes from the chance to get my name out there in an inter-school competition, in front of current practitioners, and be able to show my skills. As someone who was highly involved with competitive sports growing up, I sometimes miss the adrenaline rush of really getting in there and destroying your opponent. Oral arguments do a great job, however, of providing that kind of outlet. There is something amazing about the feeling you get when you hear a question coming, and you not only know how to answer it, but to bring it back to your argument and your theme, and man, does it just feel great.
Otherwise, I am also excited that I will get to really do some in-depth work in a narrow area of the law, and to top it all off, one that I am very, very, interested in. If nothing else, I will be able to learn it inside and out. And I will get to practice my brief writing skills in a big way, since we are required to write two briefs of 30 pages each, and we are a two person team.
And yet I am very nervous. It is going to be a lot of work. During orientation/training, they provided a suggested schedule. It involved 8 hours per day, everyday, for over a month. I have no idea how I can possibly fit that into my schedule. I don't know if I have 8 hours per day that aren't already scheduled for class...
And I am a little nervous about pulling my weight. I never want to be the weak link of a team, but when the team is only two, and your teammate is on law review, scored higher in the try out competition, gets better grades than you, and has landed better internships than you, it gets tough.
Luckily, its still early. We haven't even done the practice brief at this point. Yeah, the required practice brief, in case the regular one isn't enough work already. Either way, I am pretty excited, so look for more coverage of this in the coming months.
The excitement comes from the chance to get my name out there in an inter-school competition, in front of current practitioners, and be able to show my skills. As someone who was highly involved with competitive sports growing up, I sometimes miss the adrenaline rush of really getting in there and destroying your opponent. Oral arguments do a great job, however, of providing that kind of outlet. There is something amazing about the feeling you get when you hear a question coming, and you not only know how to answer it, but to bring it back to your argument and your theme, and man, does it just feel great.
Otherwise, I am also excited that I will get to really do some in-depth work in a narrow area of the law, and to top it all off, one that I am very, very, interested in. If nothing else, I will be able to learn it inside and out. And I will get to practice my brief writing skills in a big way, since we are required to write two briefs of 30 pages each, and we are a two person team.
And yet I am very nervous. It is going to be a lot of work. During orientation/training, they provided a suggested schedule. It involved 8 hours per day, everyday, for over a month. I have no idea how I can possibly fit that into my schedule. I don't know if I have 8 hours per day that aren't already scheduled for class...
And I am a little nervous about pulling my weight. I never want to be the weak link of a team, but when the team is only two, and your teammate is on law review, scored higher in the try out competition, gets better grades than you, and has landed better internships than you, it gets tough.
Luckily, its still early. We haven't even done the practice brief at this point. Yeah, the required practice brief, in case the regular one isn't enough work already. Either way, I am pretty excited, so look for more coverage of this in the coming months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)