Arbitration Moot Court Competition - Some Tips for the Oral Part

On 4 March 2011 students from schools in Luxembourg, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine competed in a Warsaw Premoot for the Frankfurt Investment Arbitration Moot Court - FIAMC.

by Filip Wejman

The Warsaw Premoot for FIAMC was organized by Young Arbitration Practitioners in Poland - YAPP and the Warsaw office of K&L Gates (read more in Polish).

I have seen four oral arguments. In two sessions I sat on the panel. Each round lasted about 60 minutes, 30 mins per team. Below I offer a small, non-representative selection of tips. They pertain to the presentation of the argument, rather than to the subject matter of the problem. Most of the comments are my own, but the first two are inspired by excellent points made by colleagues from the panel. They are all quite intuitive; however it still happens that otherwise strong participants fail on them.

• Don’t show that you’re happy or unhappy with the question before you answer it. This can diminish the attention of the arbiters because they feel they already know what you’re going to say. So they follow less carefully.
• Watch out with stretching the argument, over-performing at all cost. Moot courts are more tolerant for extreme claims than real life judges. By the end of the day the panel knows it’s a game; they are looking for demonstration of skills rather than winning the underlying case. There are some intellectual risks that you can take in a moot court in order to make a brilliant argument which would be over the top in real life. In real life, at least I often found in Poland, judges are usually more happy with lawyers who are servants of the court, rather than superstars. Also, some people tend to root for the underdog. Perhaps there might be some cultural differences at work here, e.g. with Americans more generous towards a display of power by the litigators. But the fine line is there.
• Don’t provoke the arbiter to show you that he/she is smarter than you, so that the arbiter would think hard on a killer-question for you.
• Rhythm and intonation. Don’t read or speak like you’re reading. Maybe people from our region (CEE Europe) fall prey for this tendency slightly more often. This is very dangerous. It’s a complete turn-off for someone who’s listening, especially if the judge heard the same issue a couple of times before. Think of each sentence as a small nice box in which you put your argument and which you throw on the table. There needs to be space between each point that you’re making.
• Look at your colleague in the team while this person is pleading - show agreement and enthusiasm: “Yeah, he/she’s right!” This can be psychologically contagious for people in the room which is a good thing for your team.
• Videotape your practice to get rid of shyness. Record your pleadings with colleagues or alone. If necessary, use lots of video. 
• If you have a tendency to develop a strong blush in the area of your neck and below while speaking publicly, cover it with collar, scarf etc. (before you speak). Rapid intense blush looks like you’re terribly nervous or at least very emotional about your argument. Even it you’re not, this can affect how the panel perceives you, and the spirit of other people in the team.
• Don’t be mean to the other team. Arbiters are smart people -- of course! ;) -- and they will notice, even if it’s subtle. And many of them won’t like that. Instead, show class.
• Panels appreciate if you show to have time under control.

Besides, NEVER watch My Cousin Vinny before the competition. Haha!

Good luck!