I.          Organization of the Competition

 

            The Roger J. Traynor California Appellate Advocacy Moot Court Competition is an annual appellate moot court competition. The competition takes place at a host law school designated on a rotating basis. The competition was developed and conducted for nearly 30 years by the California Young Lawyers Association of the State Bar of California. Beginning in 1999, under an arrangement with the State Bar of California, the competition was sponsored and administered by the Witkin Legal Institute. The competition is now jointly sponsored by the Witkin Legal Institute and The Rutter Group, who are pleased to continue the proud tradition developed by CYLA.

 

            The competition is administered by Satin Legal, Inc. You may contact either Heather Satin or Raechel Stocks at:

           

             Satin Legal, Inc. 

             900 Ski Run Blvd. Suite 201A

            South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

           

            info@trayormoot.org

 

            (530) 539-4016

 

            The competition is open to all law schools in the State of California. The administrator reserves the right to permit out-of-state schools to participate as well, space permitting. The administrator is responsible for preparing and distributing the record, scheduling the rounds, scheduling the submission of briefs, and pairing the opponents. The host school is responsible for providing the facilities for the competition. Judges are members of the appellate bench and bar and are invited by the sponsors. Brief graders are experienced appellate practitioners.

 

            The competition consists of three rounds.  All teams participate in the first two rounds of oral argument. The top two teams as described in Part VIII of these rules advance to the final round.

 

II.         Teams

 

            Each law school may enter one team in the competition, composed of two or three students who are currently enrolled and in good standing. Substitution in the membership of a team after the submission of briefs is prohibited except on written approval of the administrator.

 

III.        Limitations on Faculty and Other Participation

 

            The purpose of the competition is to develop appellate advocacy skills and experience through the students’ own analysis and work. The brief must be entirely written and edited exclusively by the team members. Faculty members or others may not write or edit any part of the brief. Teams may receive only the following limited assistance: (i) general discussions of the issues between team members and others; (ii) evaluation and general critiques of drafts of the brief; and (iii) practice oral arguments followed by evaluations and critiques.

 

 

IV.        Tape Recording and Attendance at Rounds

 

            A team may record its own oral argument if desired. No team may record or attend the oral argument of another team until the attending team has been eliminated from further argument. No person may attend an oral argument for the purpose of advising a team about the substance of another team’s argument or the questions asked by the judges.

 

V.         The Record

 

            The record consists of all those pleadings, motions, affidavits, declarations, findings, transcripts of testimony, opinions, or other documents necessary to present a case for appellate review. The administrator will provide the record. The record is drawn from a real case. Any attempt by any person, directly or indirectly, to contact the attorneys or the parties, to examine the case file or briefs, or to locate the unpublished opinion in the case on which the problem is based is prohibited and will result in disqualification of the entire team.

 

VI.        Briefs

 

            A.         General Requirements

            Each team must submit a written brief arguing one side of the case. The side of the case to be argued in the written brief will be assigned to the school by the administrator at the time of registration for the competition. However, teams are required to argue both sides of the case at oral argument. Briefs may not be revised or otherwise modified after they are filed.

 

            B.         Length and Form of Briefs

            Briefs may not exceed 8400 words, excluding topical index and table of authorities. The brief must include a certificate stating the number of words. The certificate may rely on the computer program used to prepare the brief. Briefs must be double-spaced. Type size must be 13-point type or larger. Margins must be at least 1 inch. Except as provided otherwise in these rules, the content, form, and reproduction of briefs must be in compliance with Rules 8.40 and 8.204 of the California Rules of Court. Briefs must follow the California Style Manual. The name of the school and the names of the students should appear on the cover of the brief only. The name of the school and the names of the students should not appear elsewhere on the brief.

 

            C.         Certification of Familiarity with Competition Rules

            Team members must certify that they have read and are familiar with the competition rules and appendices. With their briefs, teams must submit the following statement, signed by all student participants and the faculty advisor:     “We have read and followed the competition rules and appendices. We have not looked at any unpublished opinion.”

 

            D.        Filing of Briefs; Filing Date

            On or before the filing date, each team must submit four copies of its brief. Briefs must reach the administrator’s office (below) no later than the February 26, 2016 filing date. Failure to file a timely brief will result in disqualification of a team.   Kindly mail or deliver to:

 

            Satin Legal, Inc. 

            900 Ski Run Blvd. Suite 201A

            South Lake Tahoe, CA  96150

           

VII.       Oral Argument

 

            A.         Time and Place

            The administrator will designate the time and place within the host school at which the competition will be held.

 

            B.         Pairing of Teams for Argument

            The administrator will pair teams for rounds one and two. In the event that an odd number of teams enters the competition, a team selected by the administrator will argue the appellant’s case without an opponent. Teams are required to argue both sides of the case, one side at round one and the other side at round two of oral argument.

 

            C.         Participants in the Argument

            In any round only two members of a team may participate in the argument. When a team consists of three members, the decision as to which two members of the team will argue in any round rests with the team. Substitution may be made between rounds only.

 

            D.        Time Allowed for Argument

            Oral argument in each round is limited to a total of thirty minutes per team. In each argument, no team member may argue longer than fifteen minutes. Appellants argue first and may reserve a maximum of five minutes for rebuttal after the close of respondent’s case. Only one advocate may reserve rebuttal time and the advocate who reserves rebuttal time must be the one to use it. One advocate may not share his or her time with the other. If a judge has not finished posing a question to an advocate, the judge may in his or her discretion finish the question and allow the advocate to respond briefly to the question after it has been fully posed.

 

 

VIII.      Scoring

 

            A.         General Rules

            Briefs and oral arguments are scored on the basis of quality of presentation and arguments, not on the merits of the case.

 

            B.         Scoring of Briefs

            Briefs are judged and graded by two appellate experts who are familiar with the case. The final brief score is the combined average of the scores of the graders. Brief scores are not announced prior to the competition. Appendix I sets forth grading guidelines for briefs.

 

            C.         Scoring of Oral Arguments

            Oral arguments are scored on the basis of each team’s objective performance, rather than as a contest between the teams arguing against each other. All teams will argue in rounds one and two.

 

            Oral arguments are judged and graded by the judges before whom each argument is presented. There may be two or three judges per argument, except that the final round will have three judges. Appendix II sets forth guidelines for judging oral arguments.

 

            Arguments are graded and judged on a scale of 100. Each team member receives a score for his or her argument from each judge. The team score from that judge is the sum of the two individual member’s scores, divided by two. To calculate the team’s final score, the score of each judge is added together for a total numerical score, then divided by the number of judges.

 

            D.        Advancement to Final Round

            Team scores for both rounds of oral argument are combined for purposes of advancement to the final round. Success at the competition depends on both brief writing and oral advocacy skills. Oral advocacy alone is not sufficient to advance to the final round. To advance to the final round, a team must (1) have a brief score in the top 75%, and (2) have the highest or next highest combined oral argument score. The winner of the final round is based solely on the oral argument score in that round.

 

IX.        Infractions

 

             Any attempt by any person, directly or indirectly, to contact the attorneys or the parties, to examine the case file or briefs, or to locate the unpublished opinion in the case on which the problem is based is prohibited and will result in disqualification of the entire team.

 

            All claims of infractions, including violations of these rules, must be made in writing to the administrator. In the discretion of the administrator, an appropriate penalty may be assessed against a team for an infraction or violation of these rules. The punishment will be based on the nature of the infraction.

 

X.         Other Rules

 

            In addition to these rules, the administrator may make any other rules deemed advisable for the conduct of the competition, provided that they are not inconsistent with the intent of these rules. Questions concerning interpretation of these rules must be directed in writing to the administrator.

 

XI.        Important Information for Faculty and Students

 

            Appendix III includes important information about the structure and philosophy of the competition.

 

 

XII.       Awards

 

            The following awards are made at the close of the Competition:

 

            A.         Oral Argument: The Roger J. Traynor Award

• First Place to the team presenting the best oral argument in the final round.

• Second Place to the other team in the final round.

 

            B.         Brief Writing: William A. Rutter Award

• First Place to the team receiving the highest score from the brief graders. 

• Second Place to the team receiving the second highest score from the brief graders.

 

            C.         Excellence in Appellate Advocacy: The Bernard E. Witkin Award

• First Place to the team with the highest combined total points as follows: 50% brief; 50% combined oral argument score in rounds one and two.

• Second Place to the team with the next highest combined total points as follows: 50% brief; 50% combined oral argument score in rounds one and two.

• The Witkin Award is limited to teams who rank in the top 75% on both the brief score and the oral argument score.

 

 

Rules Appendix I

Grading Guidelines for Briefs

 

 

            Briefs are scored on the basis of quality of presentation and arguments, not on the merits of the case. The maximum possible score is 100 points.

 

 

I.  Introduction and Statement of the Case:        0-20 points

 

• Does the brief frame the issues concisely and intelligibly?

• Does it summarize the argument persuasively?

• Is it well written?

• Does it create interest?

• Does it lead the reader to want to keep reading?

• Does it present a credible position?

• Does it make the reader want to rule in favor of this side?

 

 

II.  Statement of Facts:  0-30 points

 

• Does the brief make good use of facts?

• Does it defuse bad facts?

• Does it faithfully cite to the record?

• Is it well organized?

• Does it tell a compelling story?

• Does it have a theme?

• Is it persuasive in its own right?

• Does it include only relevant material?

• Does it foreshadow the legal arguments?

• Is there too much editorializing?

 

 

 

III.  Legal Argument:    0-40 points

 

  •   Does the brief make good use of the relevant decisions?

• Does it work with the facts of the decisions or just state abstract principles?

• Does it make appropriate references to pages in the decisions?

• Does it make reasoned argument or bald, unsupported conclusions?

• Does it weave the facts of the case into the argument?

• Is the organization logical?

• Do the headings advance the argument?

• Is it persuasive?

• Is it accurate?

• Does it account for the weaknesses in the case?

• How does it handle unfavorable authorities?

 

 

IV.  Style and Professionalism:     0-10 points

 

• Does the brief use proper grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and punctuation?

• Does it set the right tone?

• Is the overall presentation clear?

• Is it respectful?

• Does it correctly cite the decisions and the record?

• Is it neat?

• Is it technically precise?

• Does it comply with the Competition rules?

 

 

Rules Appendix II

Grading Guidelines for Oral Argument

 

 

            Oral argument is scored on the basis of the objective quality of the substantive arguments relative to the advocate’s position and on the effectiveness of presentation, not on the merits of the outcome of the case. The maximum possible score is 100 points.

 

 

I.  Opening:   up to 10 points

 

• Does the advocate go directly to the heart of the appeal or waste time reciting unnecessary matters?

• Does the advocate quickly summarize the party’s basic position?

• Does the tone and manner of presentation immediately give the court confidence that the advocate has a command over the case?

• Is there an ease of presentation that engages the court and makes the justices eager to enter into a dialogue with the advocate?

• Does the opening make the court believe that the advocate will be candid and address the difficulties of the problem, rather than overzealous in support of a position?

• Does the advocate read from a prepared statement, use notes wisely, or appear to speak spontaneously, reflecting command of the situation?

• Does the respondent’s opening highlight weaknesses in the appellant’s presentation or start from a prepared script as if the appellant had not argued?

 

II.  Presentation of the Substantive Arguments:            up to 40 points

 

• Does the argument have a theme?

• Does the advocate make reasoned arguments or state conclusions without analysis?

• Does the advocate focus on the important questions raised by the case or become mired in unnecessary detail?

• Is the argument well organized?

• Does the advocate understand the legal issues?

• Does the advocate discuss the facts in the decisions in an appropriate manner or pay too much attention to immaterial details?

• Is the advocate familiar with the record?

• Does the advocate understand what parts of the record are most helpful to his or her client’s position?

• How well does the advocate handle the unfavorable parts of the record?

• Does the advocate know how to move on to a different subject?

• Does the advocate make good use of notes?

• Does the argument leave the court wishing for more time to explore issues further with an engaging advocate, or leave the court grateful that the argument is over?

 

 

III. Responding to Questions from the Court on the Substantive Arguments:  up to 35 points

 

• Is the advocate prepared for questions or surprised and unable to answer?

• Does the advocate respond directly and immediately to each question?

• Does the advocate make concessions when necessary and then explain why the concession is not fatal?

• Does the advocate exhibit flexibility and use the questions to advance his or her client’s position?

• Does the advocate get rattled by questions or utilize them as occasions for entering dialogue?

• Does the advocate know when to stop?

• How well does the advocate move back to what he or she wants to say?

• What does the advocate do if he or she does not understand the question?

 

IV.  Demeanor and Closing/Rebuttal:      up to 15 points

 

• Is the advocate’s presentation smooth and confident, or hesitant and fumbling?

• Does the advocate appear poised and ready to enter dialogue or nervous, unprepared, and unwilling to enter dialogue?

• Do the advocate’s voice and manner of presentation engage the listener?

• Does the advocate vary his or her inflection and tone appropriately or is the presentation dull and uninspiring?

• Is the advocate overly rhetorical or sarcastic?

• What does the advocate’s body language indicate?

• Does the advocate make, and keep, eye contact with the justices as appropriate?

• Is the advocate respectful of the court?

• Is the advocate dressed appropriately?

• Does the advocate make good use of what transpired during the argument to create an effective closing or rely on a prepared statement?

• Does the argument end on a good note or just fade away?

• Does the appellant use rebuttal effectively by capitalizing on weaknesses in the respondent’s presentation and addressing any helpful questions raised by the court?

 

 

Rules Appendix III

Important Information for Faculty and Students

 

The Problem

            The problem is drawn from a real case in the California Court of Appeal. We have selected a case from that court because it is the appellate court in which the vast majority of California lawyers appear most frequently. Therefore, it is of greatest practical value to the students to brief and argue a case from that court. The issues in the actual case were closely contested, and neither side is favored for purposes of the problem.

 

            Any attempt by any person, directly or indirectly, to contact the attorneys or the parties, to examine the case file or briefs, or to locate the unpublished opinion in the case on which the problem is based is prohibited and will result in disqualification of the entire team.

 

 

Record and Table of Authorities

            The Traynor competition sometimes uses a “closed” universe of cases in which research is limited to a designated table of authorities. This is designed to allow the student participants (1) to focus on analyzing the key cases that are relevant to the problem, and (2) to have ample time to prepare a high quality brief by rewriting and editing their work until it is the best product of which they are capable. Sometimes, the competition uses an “open” universe of cases in which research is not limited to designated cases and there is no table of authorities. Briefs may cite and participants may argue any relevant published cases. This year the universe is “open.”

 

            Because the record used in the competition is based on an actual case and because unpublished opinions are easily accessible in computer databases, participants are prohibited from reading any unpublished opinion for any purpose. Oral argument judges will receive the record and a bench memorandum discussing the main California published decisions and statutes relevant to the problem.

 

            The oral argument portion of the competition consists of three rounds of argument. All teams participate in round one on Saturday morning and round two on Saturday afternoon. Two teams advance to the final round on Sunday morning. All participants are invited to attend the final round.

 

            Oral advocacy alone is not sufficient to advance to the final round. To advance to the final round, a team must have (1) a brief score in the top 75%, and (2) the highest or next highest combined oral argument score. The competition has been structured in this way for three primary reasons: (a) to recognize the central role that briefs play in appellate advocacy, by using the brief score as a significant component of advancement to the final round; (b) to ensure that the best teams advance, by using a qualifying system rather than an elimination system; and (c) to enable the competition to limit the judges to persons who are highly skilled and experienced in appellate practice.

 

Sharing of Briefs Prohibited

            The competition uses a qualifying system rather than an elimination system, and the competitors argue both sides of the case. In order to assure that each oral argument is solely the work of the student presenting it, briefs must not be shared with any other school. A high-quality illustrative brief on each side may be distributed to the judges before oral argument and provided to the schools after the competition.

 

Number of Student Participants

            Each team may include two or three students. Because there are only two rounds of oral argument before the final round, and because only two students argue for the same side during a round of argument, it is not possible for all students on teams with three students to argue twice.

 

 

Limitations on Faculty Participation

            The purpose of the competition is to develop appellate advocacy skills and experience through the students’ own analysis and work. Teams may only receive limited assistance from others in writing the brief or preparing oral argument. This means that the brief should be entirely student written and edited. Faculty members and others may not write or edit any part of the brief. General discussions of the issues between team members and others, evaluation and general critiques of the brief, and practice arguments between students in the same school are allowed.

 

 

Awards and Prizes

            There are a number of awards and cash prizes associated with the Competition:

 

·      The Roger J. Traynor Award for Best Oral Argument is based on scores awarded by the judges in the final round of oral arguments.

·      The William A. Rutter Award for Brief Writing based on scores awarded by brief graders on written briefs submitted to the competition. 

·      The Bernard E. Witkin Award for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy is based 50% on brief scores and 50% on oral argument scores in rounds one and two, but is limited to teams who placed in the top 75% on both brief and oral argument scores. All student competitors receive a discount voucher to purchase elements of the Witkin Library.