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.

To know more about the whole of mooting, I talked to Ridwan Kabir Beacon, a second-year student studying in the Department of Law at the University of Dhaka, and Sihon Sultana Umi, doing her LLM (Master’s) in the Department of Law at Bangladesh University of Professionals, who bagged the Best Advocate (Mooter) award in the Prof. N.R. Madhavan Menon World Jural Conclave Mooting Competition 2023. She is also an ILSA-certified judge and recently participated as a judge in the 2026 Jessup’s national rounds of Vietnam, Nigeria, the Caribbean, and Latin America.

According to Umi, mooting is a simulated courtroom exercise where law students step into the shoes of lawyers and argue fictional legal cases. But the issues they deal with are not random; most moot problems are based on contemporary global concerns and conflicts, or on areas where law is still evolving (what we call growing jurisprudence).

At the national level, moot courts usually focus on domestic laws. The format closely resembles how cases are argued in our own courts. At the international level, however, things are a bit different. Most international moots are designed as simulations of courts like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Criminal Court (ICC). Here, students engage with complex issues like state responsibility, human rights, war crimes, ecocide, genocide, statelessness, indigenous rights, and other important international disputes.

In simple terms, moot court is where law students learn to be lawyers before they become one.

Beacon said, “Participants draft written memorials (submissions for both petitioner and respondent sides) and deliver oral arguments before panels of judges, typically comprising academics, lawyers, or even lower court and appellate division judges.”

The differences between the two courtrooms

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. At first glance, a moot court looks very similar to a real courtroom, but the key differences lie in purpose, stakes, and roles.

Umi said, “In real courtrooms, cases involve actual disputes between parties, and the outcome has real legal consequences. Lawyers represent only one side, which is their client, and argue solely in that client’s interest. The judge’s decision directly affects people’s rights, while moot court is purely academic and training-based. There are no real parties or consequences. The focus is on learning, developing legal research, argumentation, and advocacy skills.”

What makes mooting truly unique is that, in real life, a lawyer argues only one side, which is the side of their client, either applicant or defendant. But in moot court, to progress in the competition, a participant must argue both sides of the case. In one round, they may represent the applicant, and shortly after, they must switch roles and argue for the defendant, sometimes within minutes!

The stages

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, and explains 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. They 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.

“Moot court unfolds in distinct, sequential stages that transform raw legal knowledge into polished advocacy, as I have experienced,” said Beacon.

Judging

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

Preparing for a moot court case is a rigorous, multi-stage process that requires laser-sharp focus, extensive research, discipline, and teamwork.

For Umi, she prepares herself in four steps, which are understanding the rules and facts, research and legal analysis, drafting memorials, and lastly oral preparation.

“Before the actual rounds, oralists should practise presenting their arguments, make a list of anticipated questions that may come from the judges, identify challenges or shortcomings, and prepare a flexible script to guide them during their submission so that they don’t leave any important points out. But they should not adhere too rigidly to the script.”

For Beacon, he prepares himself in five strategic stages, such as problem analysis, intensive research, memorial drafting, oral argument development, and mock practice and refinement.

Common myths

Success in moot court competitions influences future legal careers in multiple transformative ways. Upon asking Beacon this question, he said:

“Achievements like wins or rankings stand out on CVs, signalling rigour to law firms, judges, and academia. Recruiters prioritise mooters for clerkships, internships, and entry-level positions.”

Competitions connect students with judges, lawyers, and peers, fostering mentorships, recommendations, and job leads that shape career trajectories.

There are many myths circulating about Moot Court competitions. One of the biggest myths about moot courts is that they are the same as debating. Many people assume that mooting is simply a form of debate, but in reality, they are completely different.

“The fundamental difference lies in their structure and purpose. Debating is primarily about persuasion, convincing an audience of a particular viewpoint, often valuing rhetoric and presentation. Mooting, on the other hand, is a structured legal exercise where arguments must be rooted in law, precedent, and legal reasoning. In mooting, judges actively engage with the participants through questions, and a mooter must respond not just persuasively but legally and strategically in real time,” explained Umi.

One of the core foundations of mooting is, therefore, negotiation with the judges, anticipating their concerns, addressing their queries, and guiding the discussion while staying anchored in legal analysis.

“Mooting is not strictly bound by the script; rather, it flows from one point to another, wherever the questions may take you. This nuanced interaction makes mooting a unique skill distinct from debate,” said Umi.

Reality check

Being a good mooter does not mean one will always be a good advocate in the near future. Mooting significantly enhances legal drafting and critical thinking by providing high-stakes practice that theory alone cannot replicate.

“Participants draft memorials under strict rules, honing precision in structure, citations, and persuasive language while linking facts to law. Iterative revisions teach concise, professional writing mirroring real pleadings. Analysing novel problems from both sides sharpens issue-spotting, logical reasoning, and counterargument evaluation. Responding to judge queries or opponent rebuttals forces rapid, evidence-based adaptation,” says Beacon.

Umi also expresses the same idea.

“Being a good mooter is certainly a strong foundation for advocacy, but it does not automatically make someone a great advocate in real courts. Mooting and courtroom practice share several essential skills like legal research, structured argumentation, public speaking, analytical thinking, and the ability to anticipate counterarguments. Excelling in moots demonstrates that a student can understand complex legal issues, argue logically, and respond under pressure, which are all crucial for advocacy.”

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

Bridging the gap

Moot court competitions transform theoretical legal knowledge into practical advocacy skills by immersing law students in simulated courtroom scenarios. Beacon said, “Participants apply classroom concepts like statutes and case law to draft memorials and argue cases, mirroring real litigation. This hands-on process reveals how theory operates under procedural constraints and time pressure, unlike passive lectures.” Mooting honours research, persuasive writing, oral advocacy, and quick rebuttals to judges’ questions, which require critical thinking and teamwork.

“We gain courtroom etiquette, ethics awareness, and confidence absent from the regular curriculum of Bangladeshi law schools,” he said.

By bridging academia and practice, moots prepare students for professional roles through realistic exposure to multi-jurisdictional issues and high-stakes performance.

Preparation can reduce the chances of being completely caught off guard, but it can still happen because judges sometimes ask questions from an unexpected angle.

When I asked Umi about any scenario which might have caught her off guard, she said, “Yes! Multiple times! When I participated in the international rounds of the Jessup Moot, which is considered the World Cup of Mooting, in Washington, I was truly shocked by the experience. The judges had a style of questioning that was vastly different from what I had encountered in Bangladesh or South Asia. Their questions were sharp, unpredictable, and demanded quick, strategic thinking. The way of submission by the international teams was also somewhat different from here.

In mooting, unexpected questions are always part of the process. While some basic questions could be anticipated and noted before the round, most questions remained completely unpredictable, requiring immediate thought and strategic responses. A good mooter trains him or herself to handle such situations calmly and strategically. Personally, for me, I used to follow certain techniques while dealing with such situations.

For example, if I did not know the answer to a judge’s question, I did not try to beat around the bush, because it does not sit well with the judge’s bench. So, I used to say: Your Excellency, I beg your pardon, I cannot assist the Court on this matter. This honest and respectful approach is always appreciated.

Again, there are situations where a judge may challenge a point of my argument, and agreeing with them could undermine my own case. In such cases, strategic phrasing is important. I often responded with:

“Your Excellency, I understand your concern; however…,” and then I continued presenting my perspective or argument while remaining respectful and addressing their concern as well.

By the way, in international moots, we address judges as Your Excellency.”

Apart from the questions, sometimes, there may be some issues or incidents that are factually or legally weak, and there is no way of justifying them.

Beacon is also not indifferent in this regard. He also faced such issues off guard several times.

Jessup

Jessup is regarded as the World Cup of mooting and arguably of the legal field itself.

It offers a rare opportunity to represent one’s country on a global stage, standing alongside students from some of the world’s most prestigious law schools, such as the University of Oxford, Harvard Law School, Leiden University, and so on.

Beyond competition, Jessup is a transformative experience. It exposes one to diverse cultures, enhances one’s advocacy skills, and allows one to build an international network. More importantly, it pushes you beyond your limits and helps you discover your true potential.

“For any law student, Jessup is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, one that shapes not just your career, but your perspective as a global legal professional,” said Umi.

Upon asking how Umi prepared herself for Jessup, she said, “When I began my journey with Jessup in 2024, I had just completed my second year of law school, and notably, I had not yet formally studied International Law as part of my curriculum. This meant I had to rely heavily on self-study to build a foundational understanding of complex legal concepts.”

Before Jessup, she participated in the Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon Global Mooting Competition in 2023, where over 60 Indian and international teams competed. She was honoured to be recognised as the Best Student Advocate (Female), becoming the only Bangladeshi to receive this distinction, while her team also qualified for the Top 8.

This experience gave me an initial exposure to international law and mooting and provided a significant advantage when I was later selected for the Jessup 2024 team.

“My preparation for Jessup began with an intensive focus on the facts. I strongly believe that mooting becomes significantly easier if one has complete command over the facts. Being able to analyse and navigate the compromise effectively is often more crucial than prior knowledge of the law itself. After mastering the facts, I approached the issues methodically, building my understanding from the ground up.”

Throughout this journey, she remains deeply grateful to her coach, Assistant Professor Md. Abu Bakar Siddique, and her team’s lead researcher, Md. Sohanur Rahman, whose guidance and encouragement helped unlock her full potential.

“I am especially indebted to our researcher, Mr Rahman, who was a constant source of support, much like a steady hand guiding someone learning to walk for the first time. I truly believe that our team’s research strength and overall success owe a great deal to our coach and him.”

Unfortunately, due to visa complications, both their coach and lead researcher were unable to join them in the United States. Despite the time difference, they continued to support them relentlessly from Bangladesh.

“I am also very grateful to my co-speaker, on whom I relied greatly during the international rounds.”

After countless sleepless nights, balancing academic exams alongside rigorous research and preparation, they ultimately became national champions and emerged as one of the top-performing Bangladeshi teams in the international rounds of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition.

Advice for the intimidated

Mooting is challenging but deeply rewarding. Start by diving fully into the moot problem. But if prepared in a strategic way, it can make it easier. Our interviewees suggested some advice.

“Lead with your strongest arguments; first impressions matter, both on paper and in court. Oral rounds are where preparation meets performance. Don’t memorise; understand your arguments so well that you can adapt on the spot.
Practise potential questions, learn to handle surprises, and be ready to acknowledge weaknesses gracefully. Master courtroom etiquette like introductions, addressing the bench and your opponents, managing time limits, and also remembering that concluding your arguments is just as important as your legal knowledge. Speak clearly, control your pace, and stay composed. Judges respect confidence, yes, but also humility and professionalism,” says Umi.

Beacon suggests being consistent and focused.

“The one word which I would say is: consistency. Stay consistent if it’s your first moot. Focus more on learning and enjoying it. Trust me, it will give you lifelong learning of how things work in the courtroom.”

Both our interviewees came to a common point that teamwork is the key. Without proper synchronisation, winning a moot court is merely a delusion.

Finally, what remains in the end is the journey itself.

“The weight of preparation, even during final exams, the friends that you made, the 2 am team panic sessions, the restlessness before submission, the fleeting triumphs, and the quiet realisation that, in small ways, you are becoming the lawyer you once only dreamed of. It’s never the score that stays with you, but the pride of knowing you had the courage to speak and grow. And somewhere along the way, you find yourself braver than you ever imagined,” said Umi.

While Beacon said to trust the process.

“Choose your teammates wisely and, most importantly, trust the process. Best of luck,” concluded Beacon.