Four Students Compete Before Federal Judges in Moot Court Finals
It took nearly six months of research, writing, practicing, and competing to find themselves here – four Hinton Moot Court finalists in front of three real-life federal judges, with 15 minutes each to make a complicated legal argument. More than 100 people crowded into the Law School courtroom on April 30 to see it happen.
In the end, James Kraehenbuehl, ’12, and Neil Conrad, ’13, emerged the winners of the Edward W. Hinton Memorial Cup for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy. Runners-up Matthew Rozen, ’12, and Peter Davis, ’12, took home the Karl N. Llewellyn Memorial Cup for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy. Federal Judges William H. Pryor Jr. (11th Circuit Court of Appeals), Sandra S. Ikuta (9th Circuit), and David F. Hamilton (7th Circuit) peppered the competitors with questions to test their arguments.
The four students beat out a group of about 100 second- and third-year law students who started the moot court competition in the fall. Of them, 12 made it to a semifinal round in February. Each time, the competitors were given real-life cases to argue, brief, or both, depending on the round. And the Hinton Moot Court Board made sure the case law involved was anything but standard classroom fare. (Alien Tort Statute, anyone? That was the law at hand in the semifinals.)
The top four students were divided into teams and given their final case, Adar v. Smith, which tackles difficult questions of civil rights and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the clause that requires states respect judgments of other states. Rozen and Davis were the petitioners, and Kraehenbuehl and Conrad were the respondents. Rozen and Kraehenbuehl debated one issue of the case, and Conrad and Davis the other. Each team had prepared a written brief to submit to the judges as well.
During the final round, the competitors found themselves before “a relatively hot bench,” meaning one with lots of challenging questions, said Nick Tarasen, a member of the board.
The questions Kraehenbuehl and Conrad received were largely ones they’d thought about, they said. Still, once you start your argument, “you never know when you’re going to get interrupted,” said Conrad, who said the competition taught him that lawyers “need to be able to tell a story.”
Kraehenbuehl liked delving into relatively obscure legal questions.
“It’s kind of fun because what you get is some area of the law you never thought about,” he said. “If you’re interested in the law, learning about these things and writing about it is an exciting process.”
Conrad was happy for a “break” from the theoretical work of law classes. Instead, this felt like work he might do as a practicing attorney, he said. Both students plan to do litigation once they begin their careers and would like to go into appellate advocacy in the long run.
Rozen, one of the runners-up, also felt the experience will be helpful down the road.
“I think having been through the experience – and especially having my first argument in front of an appellate panel out of the way – will give me a lot of confidence going forward in similar situations,” he said.
The finalists learned their case would be Adar v. Smith during spring break. In Adar, a same-sex couple adopted an infant in New York and wanted a revised birth certificate in the child’s birth state of Louisiana. Because Louisiana does not permit unmarried couples to jointly adopt, the state will not offer a birth certificate with both parents’ names on it. The legal questions are twofold, Tarasen said: First, can one bring a Section 1983 (civil rights) action for a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause? And if one can, did the Louisiana registrar violate the clause by refusing to issue a birth certificate with both names? Krahenbuehl and Conrad argued for Louisiana’s registrar, the side who also prevailed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The judges in the moot competition were reminded to judge based on strength of arguments and briefs, not the merits of the case.
“It’s a hard case,” Tarasen said. “The precedents are not clear.”
Kraehenbuehl and Conrad’s strategy was to first read the case and all the lower court opinions, plus 80 to 100 related cases cited in those opinions. After that, they took about two weeks to compose their brief. Then it was time to prepare oral arguments and search them for weaknesses. They “mooted,” or practiced, with other students, with professors, and with practicing attorneys. In the last five days before the finals, Kraehenbuehl and Conrad spent at least five hours a day going over their arguments together. Rozen and Davis completed a similarly grueling preparation schedule.
Even when not officially practicing, it was hard to escape thinking about moot court, Kraehenbuehl said.
“You wake up and you’re thinking of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”