Law School

The following briefs were written by students for past moot court competitions. Because the briefs appear in unedited form (i.e., exactly as they were submitted), their structure and form may differ slightly from the requirements of the LexisNexis competition. Please consult the rules of the LexisNexis Competition if you have any questions.

• Brief #1 (pdf) Brief from the 2004 LexisNexis Competition that won the best brief award
• Brief #2 (pdf) A UC brief from a national moot court competition that won first place overall
• Brief #3 (pdf) Brief from the 2005 LexisNexis Competition that won the best brief award
• Brief #4 (pdf) A UC brief from a 2005 national moot court competition that won 1st place overall
• Brief #5 (pdf) 2006 best brief for the lexis competition
• Brief #6 (pdf) Additionsl sample brief from the 2006 Lexis-Nexis Court Competition

Please note that Brief #2 and Brief #4 were each written by a two-person team. Also, additional briefs can be found on the websites for various national moot court competitions. I would suggest checking out the site below if you want to get a better feel for what goes into an appellate brief. UC Moot Court regularly competes in this competition.

Evan A. Evans Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition (sponsored by the University of Wisconsin Law School) (you may want to first look at the results to see which teams won the best brief awards))

Participant Name: ___________________________
Date: _____________________

I. COMMAND OF ISSUES:
( Maximum Points = 30) _______________
A. Superficial knowledge of law and facts.(1-6 points)
B. Some knowledge of law and facts but uncomfortable with them. (7-12 points)
C. Adequate understanding of law and facts but hesitant.13-18 points)
D. Good understanding of law and facts, but misses fine distinctions. (19-24 points)
E. Full understanding of law and facts including fine distinction and subtleties. (25-30 points)

II. ORGANIZATION AND REASONING:
(Maximum Points = 20) _______________
A. No organization, confusing and illogical.(1-4 points)
B. Somewhat organized, but clearly below average.(5-8 points)
C. More organized but with a difficult outline to follow.(9-12 points)
D. Coherent with a cohesive outline and a clear presentation of points.(13-16 points)
E. Concise and logical with a flowing outline and an outstanding presentation of points.(17-20 points)

III. ABILITY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS:
(Maximum Points = 20) _______________
A. Very evasive, fails to address question and fails to cite authority.(1-4 points)
B. Attempts to answer question and ultimately gives some answer. (5-8 points)
C. Gives adequate answer. (9-12 points)
D. Gives appropriate answer and possibly cites authority, but without smooth transition back into
the argument. (13-16 points)
E. Clear and concise answers, uses authority effectively and smooth transition back into the
main argument. (17-20 points)

IV. PERSUASIVENESS:
(Maximum Points = 20) _______________
A. Conveyed no real belief in position argued.(1-4 points)
B. Monotonous and/or reading from notes.(5-8 points)
C. Adequately persuasive but overly argumentative or conversational.(9-12 points)
D. Persuasive but fails to display a true sense of conviction.(13-16 points)
E. Very persuasive and conveys sincere belief in position well.(17-20 points)

V. COURTROOM MANNER AND APPEARANCE:
(Maximum Points = 10) _______________
A. Generally inarticulate, very nervous or overly casual.(1-2 points)
B. Significant physical signs of nervousness and poor eye contact.(3-4 points)
C. Some signs of nervousness that do not affect overall performance, adequate eye contact and adequately observant of decorum.(5-6 points)
D. Confident, calm, good eye contact and respectful.(7-8 points)
E. Confident, smooth, exceptional eye contact and very respectful.(9-10 points)

TOTAL SCORE _______________
NB: Judges may deduct a maximum of 2 points for unprofessional appearance.