Interested in litigation/mooting but no experience - HELP

[lawjunkie]

hey everyone! i am interested in litigation and i am 2L but I have never done any moots or mock trials... I am embrassed that I have not and put it off for this long. i would love to see what's about and get involved. Any tips? I am super nervous to do a moot with all these seasoned mooters who are probably way more experienced than me - that's why i haven't joined any moots 

[CleanHands]

5 minutes ago, lawjunkie said:

I am super nervous to do a moot with all these seasoned mooters who are probably way more experienced than me - that's why i haven't joined any moots 

It doesn't get easier in an actual courtroom (running your first trial against opposing counsel with 20 years experience makes the concept of "seasoned mooter" law students seem like quite a joke).

Speaking of which, if you are interested in litigation, why are you contemplating obtaining fake litigation experience rather than real litigation experience? My tip is to get actual court experience instead (will depend on your school but there should be relevant volunteering and clinical opportunities).

Edited January 26, 2022 by CleanHands

[lawjunkie]

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

It doesn't get easier in an actual courtroom.

Speaking of which, if you are interested in litigation, why are you contemplating obtaining fake litigation experience rather than real litigation experience? My tip is to get actual court experience instead (will depend on your school but there should be relevant volunteering and clinical opportunities).

This is an amazing idea! thank you so much....I honestly never thought of this. I'll reach out to some firms and my school 🙂 wow thanks 

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

It doesn't get easier in an actual courtroom.

Speaking of which, if you are interested in litigation, why are you contemplating obtaining fake litigation experience rather than real litigation experience? My tip is to get actual court experience instead (will depend on your school but there should be relevant volunteering and clinical opportunities).

sorry to ask, do you need mooting experience before getting actual courtroom exp

[CleanHands]

Just now, lawjunkie said:

This is an amazing idea! thank you so much....I honestly never thought of this. I'll reach out to some firms and my school 🙂 wow thanks 

Haha I didn't really do anything, but I checked your profile and it looks like you are going to Oz, so you're well-placed with access to the broadest selection of clinical opportunities of any law school in the country. Good luck.

2 minutes ago, lawjunkie said:

sorry to ask, do you need mooting experience before getting actual courtroom exp

No need to apologize, but the answer is definitely "no." On the contrary, I find that a lot of actual litigators are kind of contemptuous of the concept of moots (that may just be my practice area though).

I got some court experience as a law student before COVID hit, at least. In both a volunteering and clinical capacity. Never did a moot aside from the mandatory 1L moot at my school. Almost universally the students I know who got the most court experience did not moot (as that would have taken time and effort away from getting actual court experience).

[BlockedQuebecois]

8 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Speaking of which, if you are interested in litigation, why are you contemplating obtaining fake litigation experience rather than real litigation experience?

Fake litigation is more fun. I don't want to stand in front of a judge and protect someone's rights. I want to never step foot in a courtroom and only protect the rights of some hypothetical "person"—why do you think I chose commercial litigation? 

OP, I agree with CleanHands. If you can get into a clinic that gets you on your feet, that's way more practical and just as impressive as a moot. As an addendum to that, however, it looks like you're at Osgoode. Oz does (or used to do) a moot in February called FOOM, which was open to 1L students as well as upper years who hadn't mooted previously. It's a low stakes moot with relatively little prep. Sign up for that, and if you find it enjoyable you can always apply for the competitive moots in April. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois

[StephenToast]

26 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Fake litigation is more fun. I don't want to stand in front of a judge and protect someone's rights. I want to never step foot in a courtroom and only protect the rights of some hypothetical "person"—why do you think I chose commercial litigation? 

OP, I agree with CleanHands. If you can get into a clinic that gets you on your feet, that's way more practical and just as impressive as a moot. As an addendum to that, however, it looks like you're at Osgoode. Oz does (or used to do) a moot in February called FOOM, which was open to 1L students as well as upper years who hadn't mooted previously. It's a low stakes moot with relatively little prep. Sign up for that, and if you find it enjoyable you can always apply for the competitive moots in April. 

Unfortunately this year's FOOM is only open to 1Ls and it's happening this Friday.

[123]

40 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

No need to apologize, but the answer is definitely "no." On the contrary, I find that a lot of actual litigators are kind of contemptuous of the concept of moots (that may just be my practice area though).

I don’t know if I’m contemptuous. Most moots just spend a lot of time working on a couple of narrow litigation skills in an artificial environment.

There’s a lot more to litigation than just polished memoranda and oral argument. The actual courtroom advocacy is the tip of the iceberg in litigation. It’s what people see, but a lot of the real work happens outside of preparing and making arguments. Good clinics are an opportunity to do that other stuff. They allow students to pick up a breadth of the basic experience and skills you’ll need to build and resolve cases, including client interviewing, client management, document gathering, building the record, making tactical decisions around motions and preliminary issues, deciding what evidence to call in a hearing/trial to support your key arguments, preparing your lay witnesses, working with expert witnesses like doctors, etc.

Even you’re interested in appellate litigation, there’s a substantial benefit to understanding how cases actually evolve and resolve. Clinics will help with that. Moots, because they work with pretend parties and facts, won’t do any of that for you. 

Quote

seasoned mooter

As a second year call who would not describe themselves as “seasoned,” I agree with @CleanHands: this is adorable ☺️ 

Edited January 26, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Aureliuse]

I can tell you that real life court (trial/motion/questioning) experience is so different from law school. It's better to start "blank" and learn well on your own than to come with preconceived notions of "what to do." Better yet, watch seasoned litigators at work in court.

In law school, you are in a "sanitized" environment where you can at least expect a modest degree of civility when making submissions.

I think most of us learn on the spot in court. I had plenty of "well, that didn't work" or "oof, that backfired hard" or "that was a pie in my face" moments. You live and you learn. Nothing can be a better substitute than actual courtroom experience.

In real courtrooms (including Zoom), you get to experience something like this - at least if you choose to practice family law 🤣:

Quote

[5]                Add to the recipe for disaster one further ingredient – a self-represented litigant.  One who manages to try the patience of the Judge to a degree that is beyond description.  Frequent interruptions of others who are speaking, including myself.  Huffs and puffs from the counsel table while others are testifying.  Sighs.  Shaking of the head in disgust or disagreement.  Verbal outbursts, while seated, from the counsel table while others are testifying.  A ringing cellular telephone in the Courtroom, more than once.  Documents that cannot be found.  Special (and unreasonable) requests for things like immediate recordings or transcripts of entire day’s proceedings and the ability to stay inside the sealed Courtroom after hours to work.  Crying.  Complaining about having no legal representative.  Complaining about having too many boxes of documents.  Complaining about not having enough time to prepare.  Engaging in frequent lengthy diatribes with the Court.  Asking witnesses irrelevant questions.  Asking witnesses the same question over and over and over again.  Asking convoluted, incomprehensible, compound, disjointed and extremely lengthy questions in cross-examination, after receiving much assistance from the Court to try to avoid that.  Getting bogged-down in the tiniest of details from eons ago, despite repeated warnings from the Court to focus on the key issues at trial.  Giving evidence from the counsel table.  Editorializing during cross-examination of opposing witnesses.  Failing or refusing to comply with repeated suggestions by the Court as to what issues to focus on in cross-examination.  Failing or refusing to comply with clear and repeated warnings from the Court, to the point where costs were ordered, twice, to sanction verbal outbursts.  An opening statement that needed to be rescued by this Court in order to have any relevance at all.  Evidence-in-chief from the witness box that required constant reminders by this Court to stay on focus and to talk about facts that are relevant to the issues to be decided. Evidence in cross-examination that was long-winded, repetitive, and often delivered with a snarky and sharp tone, despite a concerted effort by counsel for the opposing party to be polite and straightforward.  Direct examinations that meandered and were chock-full of improper questions.  Being late for Court.  Flagrantly disobeying rulings of the Court by, for example, continuing to speak about something in the witness box that the Court had just ruled was improper and shall not be discussed.  And, finally, despite this Court spending more than one hour discussing the purpose of a closing address and answering numerous questions on that topic, and after having the ensuing weekend to prepare the closing argument, delivering one that was largely irrelevant and improper.

[6]                The trial was exhausting.  It cannot be described in words; thankfully, the transcript will reveal the entire story.  It was an excruciating experience for everyone involved.  I have never witnessed anything like it.  Even the Court’s attempt to extract from the self-represented litigant what she ultimately wants at the end of the day was an exercise in near futility.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc6958/2018onsc6958.html?autocompleteStr=(2018) ONSC 6958&autocompletePos=1

Nonetheless, I recommend two excellent books every future litigator should have:

Ontario Courtroom Procedure, 5th Edition (or your province's equivalent) - this tells you how to make proper objections, how to deal with angry judges, how to address every party in court, how to make submissions, where to sit/stand etc. 

Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant - The Law of Evidence, 5th Edition - procedural and evidentiary issues are found here.

Another good book: Sopinka on the Trial of an Action, 4th Edition

[t3ctonics]

If you want to do a moot, just go for it. There's no experience I'd consider necessary other than what you've already learned in law school. However, if the goal is to get useful experience for litigation, I agree with the advice to volunteer with a law clinic. You may be able to do both.

I did a mandatory first year moot as well as a trial advocacy course that included a mock Chambers application, and I did non-court volunteer work with PBSC, but I didn't do a clinic. When I was a junior litigator my colleagues with actual court experience from clinics were much more comfortable going to court than me. I ended up getting a fair bit more time on my feet than the other litigation associates in my office (initially just due to how some early work assignments shook out), so I still got comfortable with it fairly quickly, but I did feel like I started out behind. As a junior litigator you want to get a good handle on all the procedural stuff early on, because all of that is just the framework you have to work within on the substantive issues. If you're unfamiliar with courtroom procedure you'll be worrying about all the little things when you want to be focusing on the meat of the case. Nothing helps with that better than actually spending time in the courtroom.

Hell, I'd say even just going to watch docket court or random Chambers applications gives you more practical litigation experience than doing a moot, especially an appellate moot. Watching a trial would be ideal, especially for something like a minor municipal or provincial court offence where you can observe the whole trial in a single sitting and quite possibly get a decision from the bench.