After a year long hiatus, I am so excited to be writing for our blog once again. It has been a busy year, but that means I have lots of unsolicited advice to give and experiences to talk about. For my big return, I wanted to share my experience mooting in my third year, and hopefully inspire you to try it out at least once during your law school career. Let’s start with the basics- what is a moot? A moot is a competition (usually in the context of an appeal) that simulates a court hearing. Each mooter is invited to present submissions or arguments on behalf of their client and a panel of judges ask questions of the mooters. In most competitions, there are two sides, each represented by two oralists. A moot problem can be set in numerous areas of law but usually is concerned with contentious legal issues or an unsettled area of law so it may require a bit of creativity and some research. Depending on the moot, there may also be a written component, requiring you to submit a factum, also known as your written submissions. My experience with mooting My experience goes way back to my first year in law school, when Veena convinced me to do the Frozen Open Osgoode Moot. Big shoutout to Veena– without her I probably would have never been brave enough to participate in any moot competition. I found the experience to be super fun and it sparked my interest in mooting, and litigation generally. This year I was fortunate to participate in the BLSA Canada’s Julius Alexander Isaac Moot. By way of background, the competition is named after the late Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Julius Alexander Isaac, who was the first Black judge to sit on the Federal Court of Canada. The Isaac Moot is focused on issues of equity and diversity, often incorporating elements of critical race theory into the problem, a subject area that I found to be incredibly eye opening and I would encourage anyone, especially those that want to pursue a career in the legal field, to take the time to explore the issues raised by critical race theorists. (I would recommend the work of Desmond Cole, a Canadian journalist and author, who has written extensively about the oppression of Black Canadians through the lens of critical race theory). While in the past the moot often dealt with constitutional questions, this year’s problem revolved around the Canadian Judicial Council’s decision to not sanction Justice David Spiro for his intervention in the hiring process of Dr. Valentina Azarova at the University of Toronto’s International Human Rights Program, due to her prior scholarship examining the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories. Not only was this a complex problem, but it truly prompted me and my teammates to question our understanding of the role that judges play within our community and grapple with the racial underpinnings of this case. The best part about this moot is that we are not constrained to pure legal doctrine and arguments based on case law. Rather, we were able to engage with theory and advance arguments that pulled from the lived experiences of racialized minorities. My teammate, Priyanka Sharma, summed up the problem perfectly: The biggest challenge for me was advocating for a position that I frankly did not believe in when I first started the moot. In some ways, I am grateful that I was assigned to a position that I initially opposed because it challenged my personal opinions and pushed me to think outside of the box. With the help of my incredibly talented teammates and coaches, I was able to develop creative ways and strategies to advocate for our position, skills that I hope to carry with me as I move forward. This was such a rewarding experience for so many reasons and I am beyond grateful for my team and coaches who made the experience a memorable one. So, why should you participate in a moot?
Lucinda Chitapain Comments are closed.
|
Legally BrownThree Osgoode Hall Law students sharing their lived experiences and providing *unsolicited* advice. Archives
December 2021
Categories
All
|