Page 13 - CLT122820

NEWS DECEMBER 28, 2020 ¦ 13

Because the format is so un- a split second to make sure that I
familiar—sequential rounds of understood the question, and it en-
1-on-1 questioning, and no visual sured that the questioner was done
feedback from the Court—I tried “Rather than bemoaning before I started talking. Those aren’t
to make the feel of moot court ses- the loss of the chance things that I’ve ever consciously
sions as close to the real thing as to present argument in thought about with live arguments.

possible. My moots were audio- that historic courtroom Second, I realized about halfway

only, and we had the moot justices in person, relish the through the argument that—despite

ask questions in 3-minute rounds opportunity to be among being the Supreme Court—it really
for the first 30 minutes of the moot wasn’t all that different from a nor-
so that I could internalize what that the first lawyers ever to mal appellate argument. Since I’ve
timing felt like. Then we opened up done a ton of those, that realization
the moot questioning to a tradi- have their argument live helped calm the first argument jit-
tional free-for-all format to ensure streamed to the whole ters. And I think if you look at it that
we were still getting to chase down world,” debut advocate way, it’s not as intimidating.

Jason Harrow says.

all the tricky issues in the case.
The individual questioning re-
ally makes the experience feel less >> Lori Windham, senior coun-

sel at Becket Fund for Religious
like a single oral argument and more like sequential, Liberty, argued Fulton v. City of Philadelphia:
short, 1-on-1 arguments. That makes it even more Spend some time figuring out your physical space
important than usual to be familiar with each jus- and getting comfortable with the technology. We
tice’s separate writings in the area of law. If a Justice used the moots to test out not just arguments, but
has his or her own distinct view of the relevant doc- also headphones, speaker phones and locations. It
trine, you may spend one-ninth of your argument turned out there was too much background noise in
discussing how your case should come out under my office, which overlooked the street. So I argued
that alternate-universe precedent. from an interior conference room instead.
The chief ordinarily allows one minute to “wrap I know we’d all rather be in the courtroom. But
up” at the end of counsel’s principal argument. I’d you can also take advantage of the remote argument
planned in advance a couple of different modules to to do things that would be harder at the court. My
use then depending on what I’d been able to cover in husband and daughter were able to come into the
answer to the justices’ questions. office that morning and see the argument through
I was glad I used a high-quality headset with a boom the conference room windows.
microphone rather than a speakerphone. It meant I
didn’t have to strain to hear any Justice who might not >> Ramzi Kassem, professor at CUNY School
have been speaking directly into the phone, it let my of Law where he directs the CLEAR clinic, argued
voice come through clearly with no background noise, Tanzin v. Tanvir:
and it let me turn my head to look at notes without Face your fears. Prepare thoroughly for the hard
worrying about speaking away from the phone. questions. Trust your judgment. In that conversa-
tion with the justices, remember that you are still the
>> Nicholas Bronni, Arkansas solicitor general, expert on your case. Moot a few times in conditions
argued Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Manage- that approximate as closely as possible those of the
argument, whether it will be remote or at the court.
ment Association:
First, the telephone format presents unique chal-
lenges because so much communication is through >> Mithun Mansinghani, Oklahoma solicitor
body language. So I found it valuable to pause for a general, argued McGirt v. Oklahoma:
second before answering questions. That gave me
¦ Continued on PAGE 14

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune