Moot Court Board News
1) We will finalize/summarize this year
2) We will hold an election for the one contested position: Internal VP (Pirtle Washer)
3) We will let the new board begin outlining its plan for the future.
The Moot Court Board would like to wish Lucas Vance, Calvin Duncan and Michael Andrew Haile good luck as they compete in the Wagner Moot Court Competition at New York Law School this week.
The Moot Court Board will be hosting its first 1L appellate oral argument competition. There will be four rounds to the competition: a preliminary quarter-final, semi-final, and championship round. There will also be a certificate and monetary award for both the first and second place competitors.
Possible competitors are encouraged to attend an informational meeting that will be held Monday, March 9, at noon (room to be announced).
A sign-up sheet will be on the moot court board door beginning March 11, and the deadline for signing up is Wednesday, March 25.
"Do we reward criminals?" Using this line, Algeria Ford began the series of arguments that would lead the team of Algeria Ford, Leah Campbell and Brian Pollock to beating out 43 other schools to reach the quarterfinals of the National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (NELMCC) at Pace Law School over the weekend. The team displayed excellent oral advocacy skills during the preliminary rounds, including recognition for Brian Pollock as Best Oralist, allowing them to advance.
Coach Cary Peter, an alumnus, helped
guide the team to the school's irst appearance in the quarterfinals at this
competition. The team ould like to thank everyone who provided assistance
by acting as judges s we prepared.
A sign up sheet has been placed on the door of the moot court board office for practice rounds to the First Year Oral Argument. All moot court members are asked to sign up as soon as possible to serve as practice round judges.
*First year students are NOT to sign up for practice rounds at this time.
The Animal Law Moot Court Competition was held at Harvard University this past weekend. The University of Louisville sent two moot court teams: Lauren Bean/Rexena Napier and Sarah Haegele/Melissa McHendrix. Additionally, Ebert Haegele competed in the closing argument competition. All competitors performed very well and impressed the judges. Final scores are not out yet, but unofficially both moot court teams went 1-1 against top teams such as Duquesne, Berkeley (Winner of Best Brief), and New Mexico.
Out of 16 teams, only four make the semi-finals and unfortunately neither UofL team advanced among such tough competition. The judges were quite impressed with UofL's preparation. Lauren Bean was complimented on her controlled demeanor and steady pace while delivering her argument. The judges were very complimentary of the policy behind Rexena Napier's argument and her quick responses to their questions. Sarah Haegele impressed the judges with her poise and ability to remain relaxed under intense pressure. The judges complimented Melissa McHendrix on her ability to withstand difficult questioning while choosing her battles wisely and refocusing the judges on her core argument.
"Daddy, they shot the dogs," uttered Ebert Haegele dramatically to begin his closing argument about two family pets that were shot. He did this in front of six jury members from the Harvard Law Community. Ebert impressed them with his level of preparation and all thought his argument was very logical. They also loved his visual aids (they looked like a million bucks). In a battle where mere points separated the competitors, Ebert was not able to advance to the finals. Overall, the University of Louisville was very well represented by this group of competitors who garnered the respect of many in the animal law community over the weekend.
Be sure to congratulate these fine competitors for their tremendous effort and preparation. Special thanks to Professors Marcosson, Liebson, and Cross for their help in the team's preparation.
“I would like to congratulate the arbitration competition team on their great performance at the ABA arbitration competition this past weekend. It was the first time each member of the team had competed, yet they managed to secure an arbitrator judge’s vote in each of the two rounds. Their evaluation forms include many positive comments. Here are some highlights. Lily Chan and Josh Speirs prepared a “well organized” opening statement and summation. They made “good use of evidence” and gave a “well done professional and ethical presentation.” Mike McIntire’s direct examination included “good chronological organization of questions and proof,” and on cross he did well by showing “possible bias.” His partner, Colleen Goodman, gave a “superior” opening with “great organization” and a “good timeline” that was “great on remedies.” All participants were repeatedly congratulated on how well-prepared their witnesses were. I have every expectation that next year Lily and Josh will make use of their experience to advance the team to the semi-finals.”