In moot, participants are required to prepare comprehensive written memorials and present structured oral arguments before panels typically composed of legal academics, practising advocates, and members of the judiciary.

The format closely replicates real appellate litigation, demanding rigorous legal analysis, procedural accuracy, and professional courtroom conduct.

In contrast to conventional education, where learning is largely theoretical and assessed through lectures, examinations, and individual written assignments, moot courts emphasise the practical application of legal principles.

Students have to engage in collaborative research, develop persuasive written submissions within strict time limits, and deliver oral advocacy under intense scrutiny.

To know more about the ins and outs of Moot Court Competition, I talked with Nasreen Alam, Syed Abdullah Jabeer, and Mahia Rahman, whose team from BRAC University won the 9th Bangladesh round of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition.

According to Mahia, “a moot court is a law argument competition where students or participants practise what lawyers do in courts.”

In a moot court, participants are given a hypothetical scenario (a made-up fact pattern) that is written to look and feel like a real legal dispute. The problem is treated as if it has already been brought before a specific court or tribunal (depending on the competition), and teams argue the case as lawyers or counsel.

For example, the same dispute might be argued as if it is before the High Court Division of Bangladesh, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), or another national or international court or tribunal, depending on the specific moot court competition someone is participating in.

For Nasreen, the point of view is almost the same.

“I usually explain moot court as a simulation of real court proceedings where law students practise being lawyers.”

When I asked Jabeer about Jessup Moot Court specifically, he said,

“The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition is based on the International Court of Justice. Participants have to draft memorials from both the applicant and respondent sides based on a given set of facts and argue them orally in the oral rounds, a simulation of proceedings in real-life forums.”

The parallels

As moot court is a replica competition, it has some differences from a real courtroom scenario.

The key difference is what the process focuses on. In many real cases, lawyers spend a lot of time proving what actually happened through evidence such as documents, witnesses, cross-examination, and detailed procedural rules. In a moot court, the facts are usually treated as already fixed, and participants mainly argue the legal issues.

Nasreen considers moot court as a learning experience, while the courtroom deals with actual disputes and, as such, differs from it. Moot court competitions help in transforming theoretical legal knowledge into practical advocacy skills.

It bridges academia and practice, and mooting prepares students for professional roles through realistic exposure to multi-jurisdictional issues and high-stakes performance.

Moot Court usually runs in a few structured stages. First, the organisers publish the moot problem, usually a hypothetical dispute, along with the rules. Then the tribunal is convened before the case is filed.

After receiving the problem, each team consisting of speakers and researchers studies the facts, researches the relevant law related to the problem, and prepares written submissions, called memorials, explaining their arguments with proper legal authority.

These memorials are submitted within a fixed deadline and later scored.

After the written stage, the competition moves to the oral rounds. The team’s speakers appear before a panel of judges and argue as counsel for each side. They are given a time limit, divide the issues between them, and respond to questions from the judges throughout the pleading.

The competition normally starts with preliminary rounds, where teams argue against several opponents, and then proceeds to knockout rounds.

Winners and awards are decided based on the scoring system in the rulebook, which usually takes into account both the memorials and the oral performance.

Judges evaluate moot court participants using structured score sheets that assess legal substance, delivery, and professionalism, often totalling 100 marks across all categories. While asking this question to Beacon, he said,

“(i) Legal Analysis and Arguments (20–30%): Depth of case understanding, logical application of law to facts, and persuasive reasoning with precise citations.

(ii) Responses to Questions (15–30%): Responsiveness, quick thinking, weaving answers back to the roadmap, and handling interruptions gracefully.

(iii) Speaking Skills (10–20%): Clarity, confidence, eye contact, pace, and minimal note-reading.

(iv) Etiquette and Presentation (10–15%): Courtroom decorum, attire, professional tone, time management, and team coordination.”

Importance of teamwork

Mooting is all about fundamental teamwork. The smoother the coordination, the better the competition and the chances of winning.

“No matter how strong someone is individually, success in a moot court competition depends on how well the team collaborates,” says Nasreen.

Everyone should be clear that they are representing more than just themselves. In the national rounds, teams represent their university, and if they advance to regional or international rounds, they may also represent their country.

Mahia affirms, “The sense of responsibility usually encourages people to be more disciplined and cooperative.”

Teamwork between speakers and researchers is crucial in a moot court team, as it divides labour while ensuring seamless integration of research into advocacy.

Speakers (lead and co-) focus on oral delivery, structuring arguments, handling judges’ questions, rebuttals, and courtroom presence. They refine research into persuasive narratives. Oralists are also supposed to assist in legal research; otherwise, it becomes nearly impossible for the researcher to carry out everything, as it is a team effort.

Every competition has its own way of preparation. For Jabeer, preparation begins with forming the team, while for Nasreen, preparing as an oralist is largely centred on the oral advocacy stage of the competition.

“Once the research and written submissions are ready, the focus shifts to how effectively those arguments can be presented before the judges.”

Mahia prepares by first understanding which competition she is joining and which court or tribunal she is arguing before, because the style of argument and the sources can differ significantly.

“Try to identify the key legal issues and work out which area of law the problem falls under, and on what legal basis you can argue for your side. After that, the most important part is reading and research. Based on research, then drafting a strong memorial, following the competition rulebook closely is necessary,” says Mahia.

However, being a good mooter does not necessarily mean one will always be a good advocate in the future.

Nasreen aligns with this point of view. She said, “I’m just starting my fourth year of law school, so I’m still exploring the path to becoming an advocate who not only argues effectively but also upholds integrity, human rights, and ethical values. Because of that, I don’t think being a good mooter automatically makes someone a good advocate in a real courtroom.”

Real advocacy involves many layers beyond presenting arguments: client interaction, negotiation, understanding the broader social impact of legal decisions, and maintaining professional ethics under pressure.

On the contrary, Mahia said, “Well, I am still in my final year of undergraduate study, so I may not be the best person to say with certainty that a good mooter will automatically become a good advocate in a real courtroom. However, since I have already started gaining other professional experience alongside my studies, I have noticed that mooting has helped my advocacy, research, and communication skills immensely. Therefore, I am confident that when I eventually step into the role of an advocate in a real court, my experience as a mooter will make a positive contribution.”

Jabeer added, “A good mooter possesses some key skills required for advocacy, such as oral submission, critical thinking, legal research, fact analysis, working under tight deadlines, and under high stress. All the learned advocates with whom I have had the pleasure of speaking have confirmed that being a good mooter can lead to becoming a successful advocate.”

Mooting significantly enhances legal drafting and critical thinking by providing high-stakes practice that theory alone cannot replicate.

This synergy can build analytical depth and drafting fluency, preparing law students for litigation or advisory roles through real-world simulation.

Myths

There are many myths surrounding moot court. The biggest myth is that only naturally talented speakers, or people who already have strong public speaking experience, can do well. While public speaking exposure can help to some extent, mooters who excel are usually those who research deeply, prepare strategically, and practise consistently.

In this regard, Nasreen said, “One of the biggest myths about moot courts is that you need to be a law genius or already an expert in advocacy to do well. When I was selected for the BRAC University Jessup team as a second-year law student, I was still learning the basics of law, particularly with very little understanding of Public International Law, which the competition focuses on.”

She added that many people assume one has to be “naturally talented” to succeed, although certain skill sets can be helpful.

Jabeer expressed that “the biggest myth surrounding moot court competitions is that one has to be at least in the third or fourth year to participate. Some of the most wonderful mooters I have met, especially during the international rounds, were in their freshman year. Seniority as a requirement for mooting success is the biggest myth to me.”

Challenges on and off guard

Every competition comes with its own challenges. Preparation can reduce the chances of being completely caught off guard, but it can still happen because judges sometimes ask questions from unexpected angles.

“What matters most is how you handle it and how calmly you communicate your response. One thing I always remind myself is that you spend so much time working on the problem that you do know the case better than you think, so it is important not to panic. Take a moment, stay structured, and give the best answer you can based on the facts and the law you have prepared,” says Mahia.

There was one moment during the international rounds against the team from Uzbekistan where the president of the bench tested Nasreen.

“A judge asked a question from an angle I hadn’t fully anticipated. For a split second, it felt challenging, but I reminded myself that I had spent months preparing for the problem, understanding the facts, the law, and possible counterarguments. That confidence allowed me to answer the question calmly and confidently, without changing my expression or appearing fazed.”

Jabeer echoed similar sentiments.

To tackle off-field questions, Nasreen suggests, “If you truly don’t know the answer, honesty works better than guessing. A polite acknowledgement like, ‘I am unable to assist on that specific point at this time,’ shows composure and credibility. In moot court, maintaining calm under pressure is often more impressive than having the ‘perfect’ answer.”

Jabeer and Mahia advise aspiring mooters to begin their journey with Intra-Department Moot Court Competitions, while Nasreen suggests learning first rather than competing. Beacon suggests being consistent, focused, and trusting the process.

What the win did in Jessup and other competitions, however, was reinforce the importance of staying focused and disciplined. Preparing for the competition involved long hours of research, writing, and practice, often at the expense of personal time or social life.

“Having that preparation pay off was satisfying, but it didn’t make me view mooting as a race to victory. It confirmed that the real value lies in the learning, growth, and teamwork involved,” concluded Nasreen.