“So you have lost a moot… now what?”

On 14th October, I took part in a planning moot and lost. At the time I was embarrassed and disheartened - especially as planning is an area of law that I wish to practice in when I qualify, and I feel that there is greater pressure on myself since being awarded my scholarship.

I shared the feedback from the judge to the Budding Bar and we agreed to focus our next session on:

1. How to prepare effectively for mooting;

2. How to write an effective speaking note;

3. How to not sound scripted.

We began the discussion with James and Zita sharing a diagram which would be relevant from law school, to over 30 years call:

1. Consensus: this is the agreed reality, the ‘plan’, however this is the final part of preparation.

2. Dreaming: Planning and goal setting; asking “what do you think” to yourself, team members, peers and clients; and that it is ‘suite of possibilities’ which demands blue sky thinking

3. Sentient Essence: the engine that drives us

This is a process that we all unknowingly go through when planning a project.

Following this, James emphasised story telling. Simply stating that ‘if you get the story right, the judge already has the answer’. Describing story telling as a due process that will support your argument through human reasoning. If you make your argument sound like the right decision, then you can manipulate the law around it and it is likely that many will agree with you.

Within the moot I took part in, the two stories were: (1) a lady who wished to appeal an unfortunate planning permission application that was granted without her knowledge; and (2) a local government authority who took all reasonable procedural steps to ensure that their application was well explained, reasoned and justified. Once you understand the bare bones of the story, you can add the body of your argument with existing case law and legislation to support it - whether this be distinguishing the facts of case law or applying them.

First, we conversed about how to start a moot. Surprisingly, the most common expression was “word vomit”. There was a general consensus to just get something on paper and edit later. I personally place a great emphasis at the beginning understanding the facts of the case, as just one sentence can change the outcome of your moot entirely. Serena and Beatrice shared to start with annotating and reading multiple times the provided case law - it is there for a reason!

We then discussed skeleton arguments and how they should actually be used. The quintessential aspect of a skeleton argument is the term ‘skeleton’; it is supposed to be technical, persuasive, informed but also, and most importantly, concise (and brief!). We have all heard the same story over and over again of barristers who have submitted a 30 page skeleton that the judge simply won’t read, skims or rejects.

The root of what you say is in your skeleton, but the skeleton is the mere bones of your argument and your speech is the flesh of it.

James also interestingly mentioned the concept of ‘thinking on your feet’. Whilst it is an essential skill for a barrister, if it happens often or takes a great deal of time then it is likely to be an indication of poor preparation on the advocate’s part. The barrister’s job is to anticipate potential queries or issues and therefore should prepare for them when possible. This is directly applicable to mooting: 10-15 marks are awarded based on how you respond to judicial intervention alone, therefore it is essential to prepare for potential questions they may throw at you.

‘Whatever I think the case may be, it may not be the answer or even part of it.’

This statement is really important in advocacy. Sometimes the facts and/or the story of the case is not on your side; you can only work within the parameters of existing case law and legislation before you may get your answer wrong, and fantastic advocacy can only take you so far. Stay on track and be reasonable.

Speaking Notes:

Turning to speaking notes, James said that it should be a rehearsal of what you will say. It is a back up plan and not something that you will read like a script when delivering your submissions. James expressed for speaking notes to be written exactly how we would say it in real life, using colloquial language (well, somewhat). He emphasised for us to use language that comes naturally to us and to not use language solely for the purpose of sounding intelligent, as this could make our submissions insincere. James also shared some of his favourite terms for persuasive advocacy: “if there ever was a reason ____*your point*____ is one”, “this is completely normal issue - it is orthodox” and signposting: “there are *x* amount of remarkable features”, “now we will move onto this”. Essentially you are listing a framework you would like the judge to follow with your case; you should march in the journey you want the judge to take, and this alone is very effective persuasion.

Lastly, you have to demonstrate to the court why they should care about your issue, relating back to storytelling, it is partially about logic and it is somewhat about the technicalities of the case, but the story is the most important aspect.

I discussed my struggle with speaking notes in that I rely on them too much. Zita highlighted that I was making the speaking note more important than my actual voice: I was placing too much reliance upon it, when instead I need to trust myself and my hard work. Zita reminded me that the speaking note is simply a safety net or a back up plan.

Our last session highlighted to me what the meaning of extra-curricular’s, such as mooting, are. They exist to develop your skills (research, written and oral advocacy), they are not just there to show off, they are a learning curve. I fortunately learnt a lot from the moot and this session, and I cannot wait until the next one. All I can do is try my absolute best and that right now that is all that matters.

Alexi Norris