The American Collegiate Moot Court Association strives to educate undergraduates about the American legal system through participation in moot court, a simulated oral argument before an appellate court. Its competition structure, however, suffers from defects that undermine the educational value of the event. This article argues that the ACMCA ought to adopt certain reforms in its operational structure, including geographically locking its regional competitions, abandoning its practice of power-matching preliminary rounds, and rewriting its judging ballot. These goals would not only enhance the quality of the legal education received by its participants, but improve students’ forensic learning experience as well.
Author Biography
J.D. Candidate, 2014, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, New York, New York; B.A., Liberal Arts & Sciences (Concentrations in Law & Society and Spanish), and Henry Morrison Flagler Scholar, 2011, Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida; Founder and President, 2007 – 2011, Florida Atlantic University Debate Team. I thank Glen-Peter Ahlers II, Sen. Robert Colonel, Prof. Rachel Luria, Travis Moore, and Meridith Wailes for their feedback on an earlier version of this article. I am also grateful to Dr. Michael Harrawood and Prime Minister Philip Olsen for their commentary on this draft. Finally, I am indebted to Alan Sr. and Gigi Gray, Mike Gray, Dr. Mark Tunick, Wesley Mathieu, Robert Bruton, and Pedro Cahue for all of their support and encouragement throughout the process.
Recommended Citation
Gray, A. R.
(2012).
Better Pleasing the Court: How the American Collegiate Moot Court Association Can Improve its Competition.
National Forensic Journal, 29(2).
https://doi.org/10.56816/0749-1042.1067
