Are we MAD? Introducing mooting and debating at a law firm

In the summer of 2002 Chris Ashford moved from lecturing to become Legal Education Officer at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors. Following his previous article on the move from teaching to practice, in this article from the Autumn 2003 issue of Directions Chris describes a novel approach to the development of legal argument skills in a law firm.

Mooting and debating groups form a key role in the extracurricular activities of law students and are being increasingly incorporated into LLB programmes. By comparison, practice is often regarded as a provider of advocacy training, focusing on the practical issues and developing lawyers’ public speaking skills and technical knowledge.

Irwin Mitchell is currently embarking on an experiment to integrate these two worlds into one, offering fee earners the chance to undertake an exercise normally reserved for traditional LLB route students.

The art of the moot has been traced back to around 1485, where moots organised by the Inns of Court were viewed as an exercise in pleadings. Today’s moots focus upon specific points of law, and although a moot court attempts to replicate a courtroom so far as is possible, it remains ultimately an artificial academic creation. Advocacy has sometimes been used as a collective term for mooting or skills-based activity, but in reality it has a distinct practical meaning and should not be confused with the artificial creation of a moot.

Debating is an opportunity for participants to unburden themselves of their views on issues of topicality or of profound moral, legal or political importance and implication. Topics such as the bombing of Iraq can be interchanged with whether nudist beaches should be restricted to women with size 10 waists or below. Both incite the same strong views and passion and both achieve the same legal education aim; an argument must be prepared and presented and research undertaken. Such sessions are not designed to test the debater’s knowledge of international law or beach regulations, but rather their ability to stand in front of an audience and be able to argue a case confidently, dealing with questions and opposition with ease. Such skills are also essential in an advocacy scenario.

The Irwin Mitchell Mooting, Advocacy and Debating (MAD) group will initially be drawn from one area of the firm, the insurance services department. The fee earners within this department, predominantly legal clerks, come from a range of backgrounds; many have no formal legal qualifications and are currently undertaking the ILEX qualification. Thus, some can be seen as being at a comparable standard to those on a degree programme, whilst others are working towards that academic level. However, our potential participants are distinct from pure academic students in that material from a session can be utilised the following day.

The sessions will operate on a fortnightly basis, rotating initially between advocacy skills and debating. After an four months or so mooting will be integrated into the cycle, with advocacy skills being repeated at regular intervals.

The advocacy sessions will be more practical than the ‘academic’ debates, consisting of workshops on the ‘how to’ of advocacy and ‘hands-on’ mock scenarios focusing on specific points. Skills will vary from the more complex, such as effectively briefing counsel, through to the simple but essential, such as knowing where to sit in a courtroom.

The debates will utilise the British Parliamentary form, consisting of two pairs, a government and an opposition. Each speaker will be allocated five minutes. However, the real joy of a debate is that everyone can get involved. This is usually achieved through floor speeches, and the MAD group aims to continue in this strong tradition. Floor speeches can be made either in proposition, opposition, or indeed as a ‘cross bencher’. These floor speeches will be limited to three minutes in length. Use will be allowed of ‘points of order’, in the event of the rules and conventions of debating being seriously broken. The final stage of a debate, the vote, will take place with a simple show of hands.

The mooting sessions will adopt the model commonly seen in English law schools. There will be two pairs of speakers, with ten minutes allocated to senior counsel and five minutes to junior counsel. The moot will be presided over by a judge, aided by a ‘clerk’, responsible for notifying the mooters of time limits.

The MAD group will not force individuals to attend. Just as students must be convinced why they should take time out of their academic schedule to attend what can be a time consuming and demanding activity so must fee earners be convinced they should leave their desks and take time out from their working schedule.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010