India’s second-ever Philip C Jessup International Law Moot victory, brought home by NLSIU Bangalore again after 14 years, has done good things for the already healthy mooting culture at the college, shared 2013 Jessup winners Geetha Hariharan and Akshaya Ramadurai about the mornings after their historic win.
“As soon as we landed we heard cheers of ‘NLS!! NLS!!’. There were big posters. There were parties all around and we received many treats,” Ramadurai recounted about when they landed back at Bangalore airport.
“Almost half the college was at the airport. VC and professors were there.”
And it started even before they arrived: moot court society convenor Dheer Bhatnagar told the New Indian Express that “all of us were in front of our computers waiting for an update as there was no live streaming. One could tell we won it when the entire hostel erupted in celebratory shouts. It was unprecedented. Students were out till 5am celebrating”.
Regular life and classes will resume on Monday, though as most of the star mooters are fifth years, they have lower attendance requirements and might just get a tiny bit of well-deserved rest.
Academic mooting
Their win has done more than just give cause for joy - it has even revived academic interest in the exercise that some students saw as an unduly long drawn process earlier, claim the winners.
“People look at it as a process that goes on for half a year and some people are put off by that,” explained Ramadurai. “[But] keep going, it’s worth the effort.”
“Many people have told me they have been inspired to moot again. Students in the fourth year now want to go for Jessup next year.”
Hariharan added: “Mooting is generally seen at NLS as an academic pursuit that people love and are very passionate about.”
Ramadurai told Team MPL that they began preparing for the moot in the last week of September 2012 and it helped that four members of the team were in the final year with fewer classes to attend.
Expectations managed
Six months of preoccupation with one thing and the dream of winning what is often dubbed the world cup of mooting, can not have been a cakewalk. How did the team cope with the accompanying pressure?
“The thought never really came into our mind. We took it one round at a time. We didn’t realise we were in the finals till we saw the cup,” said Ramadurai.
But she admitted that the quarter final against the University of California did worry them a bit, and facing three-time finalist Columbia Law School was daunting.
Hariharan added this year’s finalists, Singapore Management University, to the list of intimidators.
The world cup refs
Facing the best international mooting colleges, which requires six months of preparation, can do with judges who engage commensurately, and the team sounded pretty satisfied there – the final saw sitting International Court of Justice judges (ICJ) preside.
“We could advance nuanced arguments and the depth of research we were able to display was proportional to the level of judges,” said Ramadurai. “They would talk to us, ask us for feedback, and tell us about their experience at Jessup. The discussions were very enlightening.”
Hariharan noted that some Jessup judges had been on the bench since the 1980s.
The rest of NLS’ star team – Shreya Jain and – now officially the world’s second-best oralist Raag Yadava – were not reachable at the moment for an interview.
For more on Jessup in the meantime, do read Team MPL’s interview with NLS’ moot court society head Dheer Bhatnagar.
Scores of housekeeping
The Jessup feat has put NLSIU in an even stronger position to win the Mooting Premier League (MPL) 4 sponsored by Herbert Smith Freehills, although its second place mooting rival, NLU Delhi, also performed outstandingly at Jessup, followed that up with a win of the Tier 2 Oxford Price Media Moot, and the scores are now within levelling distance (plus, we’ve received word of NLU Delhi success at the NLSIU Arbitration moot too).
Read Team MPL’s analysis of the scoreboard in the final leg.
The existing MPL scoring system for Tier 1 moots such as Jessup awards 10 honourable mention (HM) points for any speakers in the top 60 or so, as well as 10 HM points each for the top 32 teams and memorials. Do read our detailed deliberations and rationale for the system from 2011.
MPL 4 Quicklinks:
This year, Indian teams have performed particularly well at Jessup: apart from NLS’ win and Yadava’s second-best oralist citation, NLU Delhi broke into the top 19, picked up the third best memorial and 21st-best oralist.
There have been reasonable calls to make an exception to recognise NLSIU’s unprecedented feat, and award more than just 10 points for very high citations. (Several other citations that may attract honourable mentions are yet to be revealed – Yadava for one, apparently also picked up the Stephen M Schwedel prize for best oralist in the finals)
So we held two polls – one asking whether NLSIU should be given up to 15 additional points for second-best oralist, and another asking the same in respect of NLU Delhi’s third-best memo citation.
The top option by far in both was to award maximum additional points in each case.
However, understandably, an apparent majority of voters in favour of upgrading NLS and NLU Delhi, were actually from NLS and NLU D respectively.
So, the most fair options appear to be:
- to give both colleges a total of 25 points for the high-ranking HM citations, which would make them equivalent in points to a semi-finalist place in a Tier 1 moot, or
- to give neither college any extra points this season but to amend the scoring system for the next MPL season to reward and encourage future Indian mooting glories.
The latter option seems fairer, if honouring the Rule of Law’s bias against retrospective rulemaking. And although third-ranked NUJS Kolkata is more than 100 points behind NLU Delhi right now, why increase that gap further with a controversial decision?
If everyone is ok with this reasoning, next season let’s reward top eight oralists and the top four memos at Tier 1 moots such as Jessup with 20 points (equivalent to quarter finals, and double that of other HMs)?
Happy mooting,
Team MPL
Jessup update: NLS Geetha Hariharan gets 29th-best oralist, NLU Delhi's Deepika Sriram and Naman Joshi win 21st and 30th-best oralist respectively [link to speakers / Jessup results microsite]
International law firm Herbert Smith Freehills is sponsoring the Mooting Premier League (MPL) and will contribute a prize pool of Rs 60,000 for the top three winning colleges.
Mooting Premier League 4 season standings
Pos | Law school | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | Org | W | R/u | S/F | B S | B M/R | HM | Pts | Details |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | NLSIU Bangalore | 170 | 80 | 24 | 28 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 302 | Rizvi Moot (Semis); Surana Trial - South (Gold); Manfred Lachs Space Moot World Rounds (Gold, memo, speaker); Stetson South India (Gold); Oxford Media Law National Qualifiers (Silver, speaker); KK Luthra Criminal (semis); Jessup South Rounds (Gold, memo, speaker); GIMC (silver); Kerala Law Academy (semis) NUJS Herbert Smith (Best Memo) NLU-J Antitrust Moot (Runners Up) (Best Researcher) (Best Memo); Vis, Vienna (Honorable Mention- Speaker) Jessup World Rounds (Winners) (Honorable Mentions- 2nd Best Oralist, Best Speaker in Finals) | ||
2 | NLU Delhi | 30 | 90 | 90 | 16 | 22 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 249 | HMMCC (Semis); Henry Dunant (gold); NLU Delhi Corp Moot (organiser); NLIU Juris Corp (Semis); Oxford Media Law National Qualifiers (Gold, memo); Commonwealth Moot Nat'l (semis); Stetson North Rounds (silver, speaker), Jessup North (Gold); Kerala Law Academy (silver) NUJS Herbert Smith (Semis) NLU-J Antitrust Moot (Semifinalist); Red Cross Moot (Winners)(Best Speaker) ; Oxford IPR Moot (Runners Up); Leiden Sarin Air Law Moot (Best Speaker)(Honourable Mention for Best Applicant Team) Jessup World Rounds (Honorable Mentions - 19th Best Team, 21st Best Speaker, 3rd best Memo); Oxford Media Moot (Win, 2nd & 3rd oralist for HM) |
3 | NUJS Kolkata | 25 | 45 | 16 | 48 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 136 | HMMCC (Best team)(speaker) (Nani Palkhivala (silver); (BR Sawhney (speaker);(SLCU Moot (Gold, speaker); Surana Trial North East: (silver); (KK Luthra) (speaker); DM Harish (semis & speaker); NUJS Herbert Smith (org); ELSA WTO Asian Rounds (Best Speaker) (Semis); Vis (East), Hong Kong, (Honorable Mention- Best Pan-Asian Team); Vis, Vienna (Honorable Mention- Respondent Memo and Octa Finalists) | ||
4 | NLU Jodhpur | 20 | 30 | 35 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 116 | (Henry Dunant) (silver); (Surana Trial Adv - North) (semis); (B.R Sawhney Moot) (semis) ; (NLIU Juris Corp) (Semis); (Oxford Media Law National Qualifiers) (Semis);(Commonwealth Moot National Rounds) (Gold) (speaker), Jessup North (semis, speaker);(KK Luthra) (Gold); ULC Bangalore (silver); NUJS Herbert Smith (Runners Up) (Best Speaker) NLU-J Antitrust Moot (Organizers); Vis East, Hong Kong (Honorable Mention - Respondent Memorandum, Honourable Mention, 2nd Best Oralist) | ||
5 | Symbiosis, Pune | 40 | 35 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 90 | (NLIU Juris Corp) Best Researcher; Kerala Law Academy (gold); Surana Corporate Moot (Semis) Amity Moot (Runners Up); GH Raisoni Moot (Winners) (Best Researcher); Vis (East) Hong Kong (Quarter Finalists) ( 2 Honorable Mentions for Speakers) | ||||
6 | ILS Pune | 10 | 15 | 5 | 27 | 33 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 90 | (HMMCC) (Best researcher); (SLCU Moot) (silver); (NLIU Juris Corp) (gold); (Stetson South India)(Semis); DM Harish (semis) Surana Corporate Moot (Best Oralist) (Semis); ULC Bangalore (orator); GH Raisoni (Semis) ; NLU-J Antitrust Moot (Winners); Vis, Vienna (Honorable Mention- Respndent Memorandum) | |
7 | RMLNLU Lucknow | 30 | 30 | 4 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 84 | (NLU Delhi Corp Moot) (gold, best researcher); (Surana Trial Adv - North) (memo);(Stetson North Rounds) (Gold), Jessup North (silver);GNLU International Moot (semifinalists); Stetson World Rounds (Semi Finalists) ( Honourable Mention - 2nd Best Memorial, 5th Best Speaker, 6th Best Speaker) | |||
8 | HNLU Raipur | 10 | 32 | 41 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 84 | Nani Palkhivala (Best Researcher); (Pro Bono) (Runner's Up, speaker, Best researcher, memo) (Rizvi Moot) (silver) (Justice Hidayatullah Moot) (organizer) (Stetson North Rounds) (memo); Surana Trial North East (winner, speaker) (KK Luthra) (memo); Kerala Law Academy (semis) Amity Moot (Best Memo) NUJS Herbert Smith (Semis) | |||
9 | Nalsar Hyderabad | 30 | 5 | 8 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 69 | (HMMCC (silver); (Rizvi Moot) (Best team); (B.R Sawhney Moot) (organisers); (NLIU Juris Corp) (speaker);(FDI Moot (memo);(Commonwealth Moot National Rounds) (memo); Jessup South (Semifinalists); Vis (East), Hong Kong (Honorable Mention- Claimant Memo); Vis, Vienna (Honorable Mentions- Speaker, Claimant Memorandum) | |||
10 | GNLU Gandhinagar | 5 | 30 | 21 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 58 | (Nani Palkhivala) (best team); (NLU Delhi Corp Moot) (Best team);(FDI Moot) (Honourable Mention);Jessup North (semis); GNLU International Moot (organizers) Surana Corporate Moot (Gold); GH Raisoni Moot (Runners Up)(Best Mooter) NLU-J Antitrust Moot (Semifinalist); Frankfurt Investment Arbitration Moot (Semifinalists) | ||||
11 | RGNUL Patiala | 20 | 32 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 57 | (HMMCC (silver); (Rizvi Moot) (Best team); (B.R Sawhney Moot) (organisers); (NLIU Juris Corp) (speaker);(FDI Moot (memo);(Commonwealth Moot National Rounds) (memo); Jessup South (Semifinalists); Vis (East), Hong Kong (Honorable Mention- Claimant Memo); Vis,Vienna (Honorable Mentions- Speaker. | ||||||
12 | Jindal Global Law School | 20 | 8 | 15 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 43 | (Nani Palkhivala) (memo)(Henry Dunant) (best researcher, semis); (Surana Trial Adv - North) (gold); (Oxford Media Law National Qualifiers)(Semis); NLU-J Antitrust Moot (Best Speaker) | |||||
13 | NUALS Kochi | 10 | 23 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 38 | (NLU Delhi Corp Moot) (silver); (Stetson South) (memo); Kerala Law Academy (memo) Amity Moot (Winners) | ||||||
14 | Faculty of Law, Jamia Milia Islamia University | 10 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 28 | Nani Palkhivala (speaker); Henry Dunant (memo); Surana Trial adv-North (Silver, speaker) | ||||||
15 | GLC Mumbai | 10 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 26 | (Surana Trial Advocacy South) (silver) (NLU Delhi Corp Law Moot) (Semifinalist); Jessup South Rounds (silver); GNLU International Moot (memo) | |||||||
16 | NLUO Cuttack | 12 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 25 | B.R Sawhney Moot (memo); NLIU Juris Corp (memo); GH Raisoni Moot (Best Memo) (Semis);Amity Moot (Semifinalists) ; |
For more information please refer to the MPL 4 rulebook.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Also, Raag's Schwebel nomination is up on the Jessup website. Please add points for that too.
It's going fine, bro. Publications and paper presentations are going fine. People are interested in editorial work, and even today editorial work is the most coveted thing in lawschool and NLSIR membership is the most desired membership :)
Good question. From 6+ years in litigation I can say that moot court competitions hold nil value in the bad world of litigation (at least). In fact theres a reverse trend with great debaters and mooters lagging behind many others in evaluations and professional ability. Kinda like the time in 1st year of law school when former school captains and head girls often did pretty badly. Truth be told, the whole moot court model bears no resemblance to real life.
so what is this mootcourt all about really? A legal problem is set in the form of a suit, usually combining several complex issues, usually researched to be something not having a precedent. A contestant has to take sides and write up a brief for one or both of the sides in the problem, and afterwards be interviewed by a panel of judges whose aim is to test the knowledge of the contestant.
Now consider this, in the real world....
Are you an island unto yourself while preparing a pleading? No way!
is there a word limit on pleadings? No
Can a lawyer spend weeks or months preparing a single pleading? Possible but usually unlikely as real litigation is dynamic and developments do not wait for any person
Are facts undisputed? No, unless we are speaking only of appellate forums.
Are judges, arbitrators or presiding officers routinely insulting, cruel, egoistical or sadistic? No. in fact most are very courteous.
Are cases decided on a single question or answer? Never, that happens only in TV shows like Suits.
I know of no instance in the real world where someone will go apeshit trying to humiliate you or ask all kinds of idiotic questions designed apparently to "test confidence". My verdict is that this whole mooting culture is childish masochism for the sake of masochism. Theres no useful skill set imparted except how to do "research" on a subject for weeks, sometimes months and ostensibly keep "cool" for a few minutes while someone takes relish in "jacking", "fucking" or "beating" the hell out of you (thankfully only metaphorically )just so we can brag about it for the rest of our lives. It’s like banging your head against a wall for days just so you can later brag that you banged your head against a wall for days.
Im sorry for all the time i wasted in law school on moots. Time that could have been better spent on improving my grades and spending time with the faculty. Im ashamed I got a few projects waived off on grounds that I was mooting and pretty much think its unfair to non-mooters. After all its law school, not moot school.
However for those applying for LLMs etc it may have some use which I don't deny.
Whether as a speaker or researcher (and I have been both), there is a lot of research to be done in a moot. I was lucky enough to be a part of highly motivated teams and we worked very hard. While researching, you come across a thousand things that you may never use in your memo, which nevertheless are useful pieces of information. I can name at least 3 different instances when info i ran across while researching for moots, helped me meet deadlines at work or indicated the correct direction to take.
Maybe you would like to write a paper but can't think of a topic. I was in your position, but by the time I had finished working on 2 moots I had several topics in mind. I wrote on 2 of them and was published. When I interviewed with my current firm, most of the interview was spent discussing one of those papers. Researching for a moot can help give direction to paper-writing.
I have always spoken fast and somewhat incoherently. Regular oral practice (haha) helped me pay attention to how I speak. Now I speak more slowly and am more organised in my thoughts. I believe I am more articulate.
I tend to look at mooting as a mental and physical exercise rather than a simulation of the real world. It takes the challenges you face the real world and intensifies them. It suffers from a major disadvantage in that it is extremely theoretical, but think of it this way - street smarts you can pick up along the way. Everyone does, once they graduate and start working. But if your basic (and I mean really basic) knowledge of law sucks, no one can help you. Mooting can encourage you to learn your law better.
Do not look at it as a panacea for all CV-ills, though. Things don't work that way.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first