Be prepared to discuss and reference the law to support your argument. The judges will want to know what the law is; not what your personal opinion is. Avoid sentences that begin, “I believe” or “I feel.” In some cases, judges might ask your personal opinion. If so, give it and concurrently try to think of what legal aspect they are asking you to identify. They are trying to be helpful.

Being nervous is normal. Best to err on the side of caution and appear nervous and sober than to appear drunk with slurred speech.

If a judge begins speaking, instantly stop speaking. Listen to their remarks. Occasionally, multiple judges will ask you different questions at the same time. Do not interrupt. Try to identify the legal or factual issue being raised. Always appear ready to speak again and resist all urge to start speaking before a judge has finished.

If only it were true . . .

Your competitors might brag about how the judge didn’t recognize when they made up information. It may make them feel better and, at the same time, mislead you into believing that dreams can come true.

Do not bluff. You are being judged on your accuracy. It is far better to admit an uncertainty or lack of knowledge than to be caught misrepresenting facts or the law to the Court. Think, in advance, of phrases you might use when you do not know the answer. One clue that they know you are bluffing is if the judge asks you to consider the legal point at hand in light of your asserted fact. If a judge asks, “Are you SURE?” — it’s time to be very worried. You have one heartbeat to make a decision: continue bluffing or admit uncertainty. Your decision will determine whether you get penalized or praised for a good recovery.

Judges do not always tell you directly that they know you are bluffing, particularly if the asserted fact is so egregiously fake or inconsistent with the actual facts.

The Court can interpret, apply, and, in some circumstances, invalidate laws, but it cannot make law.

As a general rule, avoid humor. Your sense of humor could be misunderstood or misconstrued by one or more judges on the bench. That is not to say it is forbidden. Humor can have its place in the discussion but very infrequently.

“May it please the Court” is used as an opening statement. I was not able to find the origins of the phrase and why it is still used. The phrase generally is followed by introducing yourself, the party you represent, and, if you speak first, your co-attorney. After the introduction, avoid using the phrase to begin your response to questions from the bench. Try to limit its use to the beginning of your argument and your rebuttal.

“May I please the Court?” is an incorrect phrase that leverages humor. For non-native English speakers, the phrase can be misconstrued. Structurally the statement is asking what you may do to make the Court happy. At best, the phrase implies that you are more like the person taking an order at a fast food establishment than an attorney before the bench. For most judges, the thought in their head is: “Yes, you can answer all my questions accurately and succinctly.”

Judges like fun, just not in their courtroom. Wear conservative clothing appropriate to a business environment.

Analogies have their place in the discussion with the bench, but they usually are not related to sports.

Judges may ask you to consider whether a hypothetical situation illustrates your point. Many times, these so-called ‘hypothetical’ situations are very, very, very close to actual cases. The judges are trying to help you identify the case.

See Tip 12.

If the rules do not allow it, do not risk it! Thumbs moving under the table are noticeable, despite your long sleeves.

This would make me laugh heartily if it ever would happen. You would get 1 point for novelty and -99 for disrespect to the Court.

I recently judged a competition in which the student attorneys were purposefully asked during their oral arguments to engage in bribery of a judge or official. They received points if they identified that it would be unethical (and unlawful had the situation been real).

Appropriate flattery is limited to referring to comments or questions posed by “your esteemed colleague on the bench” or by the “distinguished judge earlier.”

Generally, a judge is called “Your Honor.” For Jessup and other international law competitions, it is appropriate to call the judges “Your Excellency.”

Repeated use of “Your Excellency” can be annoying, rather than flattering. Try to limit its use to your introduction, the beginning of your rebuttal or re-rebuttal, and a few times during your ‘conversation’ with the bench.

No kidding, this actually happened. Politicians may use this tactic, but attorneys are best using words to make their point.

Try to use minimal hand gestures. As a judge told one male competitor who used sweeping arm gestures: “Your goal is to inform us, not to scare us.” Some competitors find it comfortable to hold onto the lectern to steady their hands at the beginning.

Similarly, your movements in the courtroom are limited to your chair and the lectern. You need permission from the court BEFORE you approach the lectern. When in doubt, ask in a normal tone of voice — not a soft voice — whether you may approach the lectern. Once there, do not stray from the lectern. You do not have permission to pace back and forth while speaking. When you are finished speaking, wait until a judge says “thank you” or gives a nod before returning to your chair.

Even if you think the judge is incorrect, avoid blurting out: “You are wrong, Judge.” Most of the time, the judge is trying to help you.

Think in advance of which elements you may be willing to concede because they are minor and obviously not in your favor. The judge may be pushing you to admit the concession in favor of the other side. If so, do not consider this a defeat. It demonstrates advocacy skills when you can concede the small points and then effectively argue the larger, more important legal issues in your favor. Such concessions, when followed by getting back to your primary arguments, illustrate that you have prioritized your legal arguments.

If you feel strongly that the judge is testing you, think of how to advance your argument through affirmative statements rather than attacks. Avoid raising your voice and getting aggressive – or combative – with the bench. Judges will keep going until they see your veins begin to pop. A better approach is to discuss briefly the legal point raised by the judge, and then transition to your argument. For example, consider saying: “Thus, your observation focuses on XYZ, whereas the key legal issue for my client is whether ABC is more important than XYZ,” or “Even if LegalPrincipleA provides DEF, LegalPrincipleB should be given equal, if not greater weight, because . . . ”

I have never seen a good bluff in this situation. Those who bluffed were left to describe what they knew, which usually was little yet took a very long time. Competitors who did not bluff were subsequently provided a brief summary of the case and fared much better overall.

Fainting is a risk. The best way to avoid it is to eat properly and get sufficient sleep beforehand. Do not skip meals. If you faint, you faint. Make a good recovery, as best as you can. Later, laugh, eat, sleep, and feel better. Better to faint in a moot court than a real court with a real client. If your teammate faints, don’t get angry. (See Tip 21). Get him/her food and water. It could have been you! And yes, teams have advanced, sometimes because the person fainted (which gave them more time to think about a difficult question posed by the bench).

When you see “STOP” — do just that STOP. That means that you need to stop if you are mid-word or mid-sentence, or have your mouth open. This shows respect to the Court. After pausing in a frozen position for 1-2 seconds, you may then ask the Court if you may complete your sentence or have additional time to conclude.

When one team member is speaking, the other one should write down any questions posed by the bench that are unfamiliar. Even if you do not have time to research between rounds, you likely can look up a few key questions that evening and thus be better prepared for the next day.

Usually, the research is limited to one or two landmark cases. At minimum, be aware of the case(s) and the key legal issues.

Teamwork, and lack thereof, shows. Your attitude toward your teammates matters and does influence judges’ perceptions of your advocacy skills.

Lastly, although a moot court competition is primarily about improving your legal and advocacy skills in a simulated case and courtroom, it is also about relationships and working professionally with others. Keep things in perspective, be supportive of each other, and reach out to make friends with other teams. You will likely encounter these same faces throughout your career.