Law.com has The Best Moot Court Aren't Rehearsals -- Arnold & Porter appellate partner Reeves Anderson says hearing "Counsel, help me understand ..." from the bench changed how he prepares for oral argument.
- Rather than treating preparation as a chance to perfect answers, Anderson treats it as a chance to uncover the questions that still need answering. .... finding blind spots.
- Judges aren't asking lawyers to recite a polished section of their brief. They are identifying something that isn't quite clicking: an assumption that hasn't been tested, a consequence that hasn't been explored or a tension that hasn't been resolved.
- The goal, he said, is not to confirm that your presentation works. It's to discover where it doesn't.
- “Appellate judges are not limited to the case in front of them. They're thinking about the next case,”
- Where do people get hung up?
- Which explanation seems obvious to you but confusing to everyone else?
- What issue keeps surfacing no matter how many times you try to redirect the discussion?
- The purpose of a moot court isn't merely to simulate questions. It's to understand how other smart people experience your argument. What confuses them? What concerns them? What do they find persuasive? What makes them skeptical?
- If the most important question in appellate advocacy starts with "Counsel, help me understand,” the best moot courts help you discover what needs explaining before you face the actual bench.
Posts
