I spent an afternoon recently judging a couple rounds of the E. Earle Zehmer Moot Court competition. This was the 37th annual, and I have been involved in about 1/2 of those. I am usually the "alternate" judge waiting on the bench to be called in. It is a great experience, and I would never want to displace an adjudicator who wants to participate. So, each year, I ride the bench waiting for them to call me up from the bullpen.
The problem this year was written by Tennessee Judge Tim Conners and focused on multiple aspects of workers' compensation litigation. Kudos to Judge Conners for the time and effort that is required. I have written a couple of moot court problems over the years, in various competitions, and it is a larger task than one might think.
This one is twisted around the characterization of a witness as consulting or testifying. There are arguments to be made and inferences to be drawn. It also includes issues of judicial discretion and the challenging standard of review for such issues, called "abuse of discretion." See Abuse of Discretion (June 2018). Interwoven with these are other issues and challenges designed to stimulate thought and debate. The point of the competition is that - debate.
Students can learn much from debate, challenge, and adversity.
I had an experience years ago with a student who felt mistreated in a competition setting. A volunteer judge was perceived as overly focused on this student rather than some other student. The complaining student jumped to the explanation - "it's because I am ______________." There is this sentiment today that everything has to do with some "ism" or another. I am confident that the world is full of "isms," prejudices, and unfairness. Life, they say, is not fair.
In fact, author Travis Bradberry said:
"Everyone knows that life isn't fair. Saying it's not fair suggests that you think life is supposed to be fair, which makes you look immature and naive."
That may sting a little, but it is worth considering. But then I wonder if that means I should not say life is not fair?
I had the opportunity in that particular setting to speak with participants, judges, coaches, and observers. I gathered perspectives, perceptions, and conclusions. It was an amazing experience for me simply due to the breadth and depth of feelings, assumptions, and judgments that I encountered. It is fair to say that various people can watch an identical series of events and yet have different reactions, thoughts, and verdicts. It was a fascinating experience.
In the end, I concluded there that the student in that setting had the misfortune to draw the more controversial of the two challenges in the competition problem, and worse, drew the most difficult side of that question. Make no mistake, lawyers are adept at making their stand, but they do not always have great facts or law on their side. Often, they even lack sound policy arguments or rationale for the outcome for which they are advocating.
However, their job is to ignore those weaknesses and represent their client. Easy to say, but sometimes uncomfortable to do. Lawyers have to get used to such circumstances. Sometimes the facts and law are on your side and other times you are simply the underdog (meaning no disrespect in any manner to canines of any description).
When you are the underdog, it may seem as if you are getting all the attention. It may be that the particular weakness of your case draws many more questions. That is likely to have nothing to do with any "ism," but perhaps "skepticism." You may hate skepticism if you wish, but it shall persist so long as humans do. Anticipate it, prepare for it, and battle it. But know that you will not win every argument. No one can.
Lawyers need to both expect and accept that. They must prepare for the "skepticism" and prepare to meet it. That is the burden of representing your client. That is the job.
Back to the 2024 competition. I judged two rounds. That meant eight students. I was utterly impressed by each. They were articulate, logical, focused, and enthusiastic. They were obviously bright and engaged. Their preparation, eye contact, and presentation were nearly flawless. Everyone can likely improve in any avocation. Well, maybe not Simone Biles, but as they say the exception proves the rule.
Nonetheless, even Ms. Biles seems to persistently do things better and more impressively each time she competes. That potential for improvement is a major point for these law students, and it is not lost on them. I therefore enjoy providing critiques and comments after the rounds. I hope that I am teaching them something as well as encouraging their great skills and growing expertise.
The eight this year were amazing. I would not want to argue against any of them, and that says much for the promise of our future. We hear repeatedly about the failings of the next generation. That group includes some slackers and challenges, what generation ever didn't? But, these eight prove to me again that there is great promise in our young people today and tomorrow indeed looks bright.
I cannot congratulate the Zehmer Moot Court organizers heartily enough. Each year, Judge Jacqueline Steele, Tracy Hyde, Esq., Elaura Hodgetts, Esq., and Amie DeGuzman, Esq. do an amazing job organizing, publicizing, and producing this. I am certain there is a raft of people who assist them, and regret that I am not sufficiently aware to note those others here.
The preliminaries are all by Zoom, and the Tech/IT team at Florida State University School of Law is a persistent presence in that regard. Each year, those tech experts manage the various challenges of Zoom-rooms, rotating attendees, and other complications. It is indeed a complex undertaking and one which they handle seamlessly.
Why is it complex? The organizers tell me that this year there were 23 teams (of two students each) in the preliminary round, arguing before 36 judges. There are also timekeepers, coaches, and more. That is a great many logging in, moving about, and interacting in a virtual environment. Frankly, some are tech-savvy and others are as challenged as me. I would guess well over 100 people logged in. It is heartwarming to see the law school supporting competitions like this.
The General Chair of the Workers' Compensation Institute (WCI), James McConnaughhay, noted his congratulations to Judge Steele and her team after the competition. He reminded us this is an annual "major nationwide legal event certainly unmatched in the WC (workers' compensation) community in the US." That is indisputable.
However, I would argue, that it is unmatched period. I am aware of no other such competition in which the judging is all provided by actual adjudicators. Those student competitors were given an amazing opportunity in that regard. And, to be fair, we were all just as fortunate to witness their skill, acumen, and expertise.
Another year, another opportunity. As I reflect on my participation in over thirty annual WCI conferences, I can say without reservation that this competition has been among the most amazing, memorable, and worthwhile experiences. At the WCI in August, the competition continues in a live setting. I encourage you to attend, observe, and see the promise that these young people hold.
E. Earle Zehmer National Moot Court Competition
Quarterfinal and Semi-Final Rounds
Grand Ballrooms 11-14.
Monday, August 19, 2024: 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
E. Earle Zehmer National Moot Court Competition
Monday, August 19, 2024: 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
E. Earle Zehmer National Moot Court Competition
Final Arguments
Palms Ballroom – Canary.
