How many students are required in a moot?

Perhaps the simplest question to answer! Traditionally a moot has four students participating, but there is no real reason why this number cannot be contracted or expanded.

A typical moot involves two teams, each with two students. One student on each team will be designated Lead and the other Junior Counsel. A simple examination of many cases demonstrates that it is not uncommon to have more than two parties to a case, and therefore a larger number of students could be involved by having three parties. This could be advantageous when attempting to teach students certain substantive or procedural issues. For example, when a case involves human rights it is not uncommon for the government to intervene and be represented. Using students in this task could be beneficial in demonstrating what interveners do. Similarly the use of amicus curiae could also be developed within mooting.

There is however no reason why each moot requires two counsel. A single student could undertake the role on each side, reducing the numbers to two. To an extent this would be even more realistic, since two grounds of appeal are not equally split between lead and junior counsel when before the appellate courts (a criticism most vocally set out by Kozinski, 1997). Similarly, it is possible to run a moot with a single student acting as appellant. If a respondent is not represented at an appeal it does not follow that an appeal will automatically succeed – it is perfectly possible that the appellate court will decide that the decision of the lower tribunal was accurate in law. A single submission moot can therefore remain of use.

Alternative roles

A way of getting a wider number of students involved is to assign alternative roles. In the USA it is not uncommon to see students being assigned to support the advocates through research etc, indeed some students specialise in research and leave the advocacy to other students (Ringel, 2004). This can only be considered beneficial, allowing a greater concentration on critical thinking and research skills. It can also be a useful way of incrementally increasing the exposure of students to mooting – they start off as observers, then become assistants, then become junior counsel before becoming lead counsel – providing a way of boosting confidence (see What are the advantages and disadvantages of using moots?) and improving performance.

The second obvious alternative role is that of the judge. Traditionally moots are judged by staff or members of the legal profession, but depending on the context there is no reason why a student could not judge, and indeed it could be beneficial to the student, who will develop different skills and knowledge from sitting as judge rather than as an advocate. This could even be placed within the incremental system discussed above, using students in years 2 or 3 to sit on first or second year moots and hence spreading mooting throughout the curriculum to help to develop different skills as students progress.

Last Modified: 26 July 2010