Not mooting in 1L

[blueleaves20]

What is the consequence if I choose to not moot in 1L? I just really want to prioritize my grades and I also work 20 hours a week. I am stressing that this would look bad when applying for summer jobs. 

[CleanHands]

Nobody cares about moots except neurotic law students.

[blueleaves20]

9 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Nobody cares about moots except neurotic law students.

Hahaha okay noted. I guess I am only associating with said neurotic law students because everyone has made me believe it is make or break to participate.

[MapleLeafs]

20 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Nobody cares about moots except neurotic law students.

I would disagree, I did several moots in 1L and many employers viewed them positively during OCIs 

[CleanHands]

Right, I'm sure that playing dress-up as a lawyer in a fake court appearance is super impressive relative to all of the other experiences that law students tend to have on their CVs.

[MapleLeafs]

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

Right, I'm sure that playing dress-up as a lawyer in a fake court appearance is super impressive relative to all of the other experiences that law students tend to have on their CVs.

I agree that moots themselves won't get you a job, but they certainly are helpful, especially if you intend to do litigation. Though my other experiences definitely outshined the moots I did, I do think they helped one way or another. Obviously grades above all else. 

[CleanHands]

Just now, MapleLeafs said:

they certainly are helpful, especially if you intend to do litigation. 

Right, it's not like there are any opportunities to get actual litigation experience while in law school.

Oh wait...

[MapleLeafs]

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

Right, it's not like there are any opportunities to get actual litigation experience while in law school.

Oh wait...

Clinic work is definitely more valuable than moots, but you also have to realize 1L clinic positions are hard to obtain due to how competitive they are (at least at my school). With that in mind, somebody who didn't obtain that clinic position but wants to show an interest in litigation would be served well by participating in moots. 

[blueleaves20]

I do not have clinic work or moot experience but I am 1L, also unsure what I want to do yet so not sure what to do.

[QMT20]

Don't worry about it.

Moots, clinic, and anything else you participate in during law school aside from going to class can help you in the recruit. However if you're working 20 hours a week and you maintain good grades, recruiters are not going to think you can't do litigation or whatever other area of law because you didn't moot. 

Ultimately, the people in the law firms reviewing your application just want to see that you're decently intelligent and you have a good work ethic. You don't have to do moots, clinic or any other particular extracurricular in law school to show that. 

[LMP]

Chiming in to lend support to the "no need to moot" side. I've never had it come up during interviews and none of the senior litigators I've spoke to have considered them important. 

I'm aware these are just antecdotes but this isn't really a question with an objective answer. I will say that people who do moot tend to be pretty gung-ho about it, so take from that what you will.

But much like Cleanhands I tend to think of mooting as a sort of snooty cosplay. I'm not, however, in any kind of hiring position so my personal view is just that, my view.

[Whist]

To add onto what others have said, it's fine if you don't moot. Upper year moots can be somewhat competitive to get into. Some people don't ever moot just because they never get chosen for a spot, or because they never applied and don't want to. I myself haven't considered upper year mooting so far because I have multiple clinics on the go. Some clinics are harder to get into than others but you should be able to land one at some point during law school if you want to do it. I've not been asked in interviews why I'm not mooting - they ask about what's actually on my resume, not what isn't there. (Although I imagine if someone had nothing but coursework on there after three years, they might get a what-isn't-there question). I also know recent grads who never did traditional clinics either, but those people also tended to have pretty interesting pre-law background activities that carried on into their JD. 

Mooting can be fun for some people in that you get to have a pseudo-litigation experience without any of the consequences of real litigation if you screw up. But it certainly isn't necessary or inherently more impressive than other things you can do. I personally prefer clinics if I had to choose. (My school had a mandatory 1L moot, so I have done both.)

Edited October 19, 2022 by Whist

[Kimura]

Don't sweat it too much. Just focus on your grades.

Though, I'll add that I chose to do clinics over moots during law school. Anything that allows you to sink your teeth into actual client files and and get in front of clients is superior to other ECs in my opinion. To each their own I suppose. 

[FellowTraveler]

I'll take an opposite approach: everyone should do a 1L moot.

Not because it'll look good on your resume. At best, it's one among a host of things you can do to distinguish yourself as a future candidate.

You should do a 1L moot because they're easy. At least at Osgoode, the 1L moots have no research component: you're given a set of facts and arguments and you have to create your appeal case from that alone. The time commitment is incredibly low, compared to anything else you'd be doing (and especially compared to upper year moots).

In exchange, you get an opportunity to expose yourself to a legal practice you might have already written off. I personally know several people in my year who would have sworn they'd never be found dead in court. Shy, awkward, unassuming, the works. Two of them won a moot, another was an absolute force of nature in theirs. They are all now interested in exploring litigation. If the barrier to entry had been higher, that might never have happened for any of them.

If you'd consider taking a class in an area of law you have no intention of practicing, just to broaden your horizons a bit, then definitely consider devoting a few hours of prep to a 1L moot.

[reaperlaw]

It's one thing to say moots are necessary to pursue a career in litigation, they obviously are not. It's another to say they aren't useful at all. That is also obviously wrong. 

Moots have always been around but in my view, they've become more of a thing in recent years. I think that's why you sometimes hear from senior (i.e older) litigators that moots are playing dress-up or not important. But things change, and more than a few of the younger litigators I admire today were competitive mooters in law school. Success in prestigious international moots like the Vis and Jessup will also follow you for the rest of your career much like a prominent clerkship. Certainly more than most extracurriculars you can do in law school like a 1L or 2L law review position or Pro Bono Students Canada.

1L moots, whatever. It's an easy extracurricular that a large portion of your peers will have done, and I would not think very highly of a candidate if they said they didn't do their first-year moot because they wanted to focus on coursework. Extra-curriculars, particularly in first year, show that you can do more than just schoolwork. Being able to juggle multiple demands and still do well is a pretty good skill to have as an aspiring lawyer (they also show you're a real person). Even if you're working during the school year, 1L moots are not exactly a ton of work. 

 

[CleanHands]

23 hours ago, reaperlaw said:

Success in prestigious international moots like the Vis and Jessup will also follow you for the rest of your career much like a prominent clerkship.

LOL, congrats on your performance in your moot I guess.

[reaperlaw]

21 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

LOL, congrats on your performance in your moot I guess.

Aren't you thin-skinned?

I get you've been called for about three minutes and that means you know everything, but I'd suggest to you that telling law students that no one cares about moots (presumably you meant in practice, but that's unclear) is pretty terrible advice.

[CleanHands]

10 minutes ago, reaperlaw said:

Aren't you thin-skinned?

I get you've been called for about three minutes and that means you know everything, but I'd suggest to you that telling law students that no one cares about moots (presumably you meant in practice, but that's unclear) is pretty terrible advice.

I mean, since all of this is anecdotal anyways: in my (yes, admittedly limited) experience pretty much whenever someone with an SCC or appellate clerkship under their belt is introduced as a speaker at some conference or whathaveyou, that experience is mentioned. Even 20 years out.

By contrast literally the only references I've ever seen to moots from anyone post-graduation are as throwaway sentences in novel-length firm website bios of the most vainglorious fuckwit lawyers out there.

There's really no better indication that a lawyer hasn't accomplished anything of note in practice than when they feel the need to mention their "work" on a fake case back in law school.

Edited November 3, 2022 by CleanHands

[reaperlaw]

18 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I mean, since all of this is anecdotal anyways: in my (yes, admittedly limited) experience pretty much whenever someone with an SCC or appellate clerkship under their belt is introduced as a speaker at some conference or whathaveyou, that experience is mentioned. Even 20 years out.

By contrast literally the only references I've ever seen to moots from anyone post-graduation are as throwaway sentences in novel-length bios of the most vainglorious fuckwit lawyers out there.

Is there really anything more to say then the bolded? You don't even practice in the areas where you are likely to cross circles with a Vis or Jessup winner/finalist. It is simply put bad advice to say no one cares about moots and effectively imply you should not do them.

If we're exchanging anecdotes, a mentor of mine placed very well in the Vis and also had appellate clerkship and their Vis record is usually mentioned when they are introduced as a speaker. I also know a Sopinka Cup (a trial-based moot also highly regarded) winner that has a string of other prestigious achievements where the same is true for them.

I can unequivocally say that moot experience is something I and the rest of my firm can and would view as a positive demonstrator of oral advocacy interest. Even more points for those that do one of the several moots that is relevant to our practice area. And for us specifically, moots would be viewed as a better experience than legal clinics because of the oral advocacy and drafting experience. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by reaperlaw

[LMP]

51 minutes ago, reaperlaw said:

Is there really anything more to say then the bolded? You don't even practice in the areas where you are likely to cross circles with a Vis or Jessup winner/finalist. It is simply put bad advice to say no one cares about moots and effectively imply you should not do them.

If we're exchanging anecdotes, a mentor of mine placed very well in the Vis and also had appellate clerkship and their Vis record is usually mentioned when they are introduced as a speaker. I also know a Sopinka Cup (a trial-based moot also highly regarded) winner that has a string of other prestigious achievements where the same is true for them.

I can unequivocally say that moot experience is something I and the rest of my firm can and would view as a positive demonstrator of oral advocacy interest. Even more points for those that do one of the several moots that is relevant to our practice area. And for us specifically, moots would be viewed as a better experience than legal clinics because of the oral advocacy and drafting experience. 

But what about the students who don't win or at least place highly in a moot? 

I get that doing very well in a big moot is likely a plus, maybe even a very big one. But isn't that only a fraction of students? And if it isn't just a fraction, doesn't that sort of dilute the significance of winning? 

I don't ask to nitpick but rather to refocus us on the question this thread was meant to answer. Specifically the consequences of not mooting in 1L. If you're saying that the consequences are an inability to win a prestigious moot, I'd agree, but fail to see the relevance. 

I guess the distilled version of my question is: You have high praise for those who win, but what about those who don't?

[reaperlaw]

1 hour ago, LMP said:

But what about the students who don't win or at least place highly in a moot? 

I get that doing very well in a big moot is likely a plus, maybe even a very big one. But isn't that only a fraction of students? And if it isn't just a fraction, doesn't that sort of dilute the significance of winning? 

I don't ask to nitpick but rather to refocus us on the question this thread was meant to answer. Specifically the consequences of not mooting in 1L. If you're saying that the consequences are an inability to win a prestigious moot, I'd agree, but fail to see the relevance. 

I guess the distilled version of my question is: You have high praise for those who win, but what about those who don't?

Then I direct you to my posts above (in particular the final paragraph of the post you quoted), where I already explicitly answered the OPs question and referred to the positive benefits of participation in moots generally regardless of whether they are prestigious or you placed highly. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by reaperlaw

[Conge]

Moots are good things for students to do because it's another learning opportunity and may help you in the recruitment process immediately after law school (e.g., to demonstrate an interest in a certain area of litigation), but they don't matter beyond that.