ࡱ> PQOܥhc eFzFwnnnnnnnL,?*,,,,,,kXÛ@,n>A ,nnnnF=[nnnn* UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT IN AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Dr. Charles R. Knerr Department of Political Science University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas 76019 and Mr. Andrew Sommerman Adjunct Professor The Honors College University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas 76019 Prepared for Presentation at the PAD Annual Pre law Conference Washington, D.C. November 4-6, 2004 CONTACTING THE AUTHORS Dr. Charles R. Knerr Department of Political Science University of Texas at Arlington P.O. Box 19539 Arlington, Texas 76019 Voice: 817-272-3985 FAX: 817-272-2525 e: knerr@uta.edu e: crknerr@aol.com Mr. Andrew Sommerman Honors College The University of Texas at Arlington P.O. Box 19222 Arlington, Texas 76019 Voice: 214-720-0720 FAX: 214-720-0184 e: andrew@textrial.com Simulations of appellate court proceedings, also known as "moot court" and "mock Supreme Court," are widely utilized around the world as an educational tool (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers 2001). Inter-collegiate moot court tournaments are currently conducted in a number of European countries, such as Sweden (Sundberg). Undergraduate tournaments are also regularly organized in Australia (Bentley, 1996; Lynch, 1996; Keyes and Whincop), New Zealand, and Canada (Williams and Walker, 1995), and in many other areas of the world. (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers). Moot court has reportedly been a feature of the education landscape for hundreds of years, with origins in pre-medieval England. (Lynch; Martineau, 1989, 1985; Rachid and Knerr). Moot court is apparently required in the curriculum of all American law schools. Inter-collegiate tournaments are regularly organized concerning a variety of legal issues: communication law, environmental law, the First Amendment, mass media law, and so forth. (Dickerson). A body of commentary pertaining to law school moot court exists (Dickerson; Almond; Hernandez; Greene; Kozinski, 1997; Rychlak; Low; Martineau; McCarter; Gaubatz; Levine; Cady). American undergraduate moot court is not as well known as the law school form. Nonetheless, a stream of commentary exists describing various classroom approaches to undergraduate moot court (Carlson and Skaggs; Collins; Cooper; Deardorff and Aliotta; Dhooge; Canon; Hensley; Gizzi Guliuzza; Lenchner; Claude and Parker; Smith; Whitaker). In "scholastic moot court" students of a single undergraduate class, such as Constitutional, International, or Business Law, or a Communications/Speech class (among other academic subjects), are required to participate as a condition of successfully completing that class. A second, smaller stream of commentary and research exists regarding American undergraduate moot court tournaments -- see Chan; Collins and Rogoff; Curran, Takata, and Acone; Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers; Knerr; Weaver; Weizer. Tournaments involve undergraduate students voluntarily competing for trophies or other personal rewards. Nearly two dozen campus-wide, statewide, regional, or national tournaments are regularly organized across the U.S.: in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers). THE AMERICAN COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT ASSOCIATION In the Spring of 2000, the American Collegiate Moot Court Association was established by the authors: The ultimate goal of the American Collegiate Moot Court Association (ACMA) is to build a system of top-quality undergraduate moot court competitions in America. Achieving this goal requires the meeting of specific objectives, including the following: a carefully drafted problem with associated authority list, clear, comprehensive, equitable, and uniform rules refined through experience; well-planned, publicized, and directed tournaments; and informed and uniform judging. The first national undergraduate moot court tournament was organized in January 2001 at the campus of the University of Texas at Arlington; nineteen two person teams from six states competed. Growth has been very rapid since these modest beginnings. During the 2004-2005 academic year, five regional tournaments are scheduled. (See Appendix.) The national tournament will likely attract seventy two person teams, and additional regional tournaments will be added in academic year 2005-2006. And a handbook of undergraduate moot court has been published. (Weizer, 2004). COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MOOT COURT: AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH AND COMMENTARY No known empirical study has been conducted which systematically evaluates the costs and benefits of American moot court. However, Australian undergraduate faculty have generated interesting data regarding the value of undergraduate moot court "down under. Professor Andrew Lynch (1996) employed focus groups in a study of under-graduate law students, and found moot court participants: (1) gain practical preparation for the real world; (2) learn from peers and develop group skills; (3) suffer fear and enjoy elation; and (4) learn a large amount of substantive law. In the second study, Professor Mary Keyes and Michael Whincop (1997) surveyed one hundred students completing a three week long experimental "formative moot" involving only written briefs (no oral argument). The authors concluded the students benefited from (1) performing legal research, (2) learned how to apply principles to a factual situation, (3) formulated written delivery, (4) developed persuasion skills, (5) learned how to "run" a case, and (6) developed group coordination skills. Professor Duncan Bentley (1996), a professor at the Bond University School of Law, Australia, reports his moot court in a tax classroom improves students' problem solving skills, legal analysis and reasoning, legal research skills, and communication skills. Professor Duncan, however, offers only his personal impressions of the benefits of undergraduate moot court; no empirical data is offered to support his claims. AMERICAN LAW SCHOOL MOOT COURT: COSTS AND BENEFITS Although all American law schools apparently require moot court in their curricula, no known study has been undertaken which examines the costs and benefits of partici-pation. Nonetheless, several American law faculty have offered commentary based upon anecdotal evidence--their personal observations and impressions--that moot court benefits their students. Improved oral communication skills is mentioned by several observers as a benefit of law school moot court. (Dickerson, Hernandez, Greene, Kozinski (1997), and McCarter). According to Professor Hernandez: Moot court provides valuable experience in appellate oral advocacy. Moot court programs clearly simulate appellate arguments in the real world. . . . The process of answering questions and reasoning through issues is precisely the same as in practice. (at 73) Enhanced legal writing skills has also been cited by several of these law school faculty. (Dickerson; Hernandez, Greene, and McCarter). According to Professor Hernandez: Law students do not have adequate opportunities to sharpen their persuasive writing skills, even at schools where legal writing and skills are more heavily empha- sized than under the traditional legal education model. Most law classes are graded solely on a final exam, and exams, of course, do little to improve writing skills. (at 72). Improved legal analytical skills has been mentioned by several law school moot court commentators (Dickinson, McCarter, Kozinski (1997), and Gaubatz). As noted by Professor Gaubatz: The sort of analysis and synthesis implicit in arguing any appeal is the meat of legal education in the normal class- room. In the latter, however, the give and take between the teacher and the reciter can lose a lot in translation to the more passive student listener. But in moot court the student has several weeks to dig into an analytic problem. He or she can slowly develop an understanding of the uses to which prior authority can be put. Potential analogies can be posited and restructured again and again until the finest of distinctions are apparent. . . . In moot court, cases and their use are the problem, not merely the medium for education. (at 89) Improved legal research skills has been claimed by several commentators to be a benefit of participating in law school moot court. (Dickerson, Greene, McCarter). As Greene notes: For many students, moot court can be their first experience doing a substantive legal research project. Before you do that first big project, you have no idea how to tune your research skills. Moot court forces you to do research until you find the answers you need to make your legal argument. This skill is precisely what you need to develop as a lawyer, whether you will be preparing a motion, a brief, a research memo for a senior partner, or the legal bits and pieces of your presentation at a hearing. (at 6) Increased self-confidence has been claimed by several law school professors as a benefit of moot court. (Dickerson, Hernandez, and McCarter). As Hernandez notes: I have seen people literally transformed for the better by their experience in moot court. Students who were petrified by the thought of speaking in public, much less making an oral argument before a panel of real judges under adversarial fire, suddenly come alive in the heat of battle. (at 77). Enhanced employment opportunity after graduation has been cited by several commentators (Dickerson, Greene, Hernandez, and Kozinski). Even Kozinski (1991), a sharp critic of certain aspects of law school moot court, notes: Judges would all prefer to know precisely how a particular law student will do during the full six semesters he spends in law school. If a decision could magically be delayed until after graduation, we would have all of an applicant's grades. . . . Did she do an excellent job as a law review editor? Did she publish, and if so, what does the product look like? Did he compete in moot court and, if so, how high did he place? . . . . All of these would be mighty helpful hints when picking clerks. (at 1710) Other benefits purported to be associated with law school moot court include: enhanced relations with alumni and the local legal community {Martineau (1981); Gaubatz}; an increased passion or zest for the practice of law (McCarter); improved teamwork skills (Dickerson); and improved time management skills (Dickerson). No commentary can be identified which discusses the costs of moot court: to participants, to faculty, to the law school generally, or to the legal community. AMERICAN UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT: BENEFITS AND COSTS No known empirical study has been conducted which examines the benefits and costs of American undergraduate moot court. Moreover, great variation in the conduct of this form of moot court can be noted. For example, some undergraduate classroom moot courts and tournaments -- such as the Texas and the University of California Berkeley tournaments--require only oral presentations; briefs are not submitted as commonly found in law school moot court programs. (Chan; Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers). And, in some of the scholastic forms of moot court, undergraduate students serve as judges, clerks, even court reporters. Thus, generalizations are treacherous, or at best, tenuous. In some scholastic simulations and tournaments a real case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is used; these examples of appellate simulation could not properly be called "moot" court. However, faculty involved in both forms of undergraduate appellate simulation-- tournaments and scholastic -- have offered some commentary, entirely anecdotal in nature, regarding the benefits and costs. Improved oral communication skills have been reported by a number of undergraduate professors (Chan; Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers; Dhooge; Hensley; Collins and Rogoff; and Cooper). Improved legal research skills have been claimed to be a benefit of undergraduate moot court (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers; Tankel and Sherr; Cooper; Whitaker). Several faculty -- those who require the sub-mission of briefs--have asserted that legal writing skills improve as a result of participation (Tankel and Sherr; Dhooge; Hensley; Guluizza; Collins and Rogoff; Cooper). Four faculty report moot court participants enjoy enhanced rates of acceptance into graduate school or law school (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers; Collins and Rogoff, and Collins). Seven commentators (Chan; Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers, 2001; Hensley; Claude and Parker), report enhanced legal analytical skills as a by product of participation. Enhanced relations with alumni are claimed by several faculty (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers; Dhooge). Other benefits reported by commentators include: enhanced knowledge of legal decision making processes (Gizzi; Chan; Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers; Whitaker); motivation to excel by peer pressure (rather than by faculty) (Whitaker); moot court makes the law come alive and reduces the monotony of the classroom lecture/discussion format (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers, comments of Professor Rogers regarding her scholastic moots.) Chan and Knerr, Sommerman and Rogers report many students exhibit increased levels of self-confidence from involvement in moot court tournaments. The costs of participation have also been examined by several undergraduate faculty. The time-consuming nature of undergraduate moot has been raised by several faculty (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers; Cooper, 1977). The costs of travel to and from tournaments for students and faculty and the loss of income for working students has been mentioned (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers). Stress of competition has been reported as a cost (Chan; Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers). Finally, Professor Suzy Rogers notes: "It may be debatable as to whether this is a cost or a benefit, but some students report a side effect of moot court participation: they have ruled out law as a career choice." (Knerr, Sommerman, and Rogers). RESEARCH AGENDA Data needs to be gathered which clearly delineates benefits and costs to all participants. For example, not all students participating in undergraduate moot court pursue a career in law and actually attend law school. Do graduate school bound students accrue fewer benefits than those who attend law school? Do undergraduates who participate in moot court perform better in law school than those who do not participate? Another question centers on the differences between scholastic and tournament forms: is one approach more beneficial than the other? Another issue is written briefs: do students enjoy greater benefits when required to write a brief than students who are only required to prepare oral argument? Yet another issue is student evaluations: are students in classrooms with moot courts more satisfied than students in similar classes without moot courts? Data needs to be gathered to bolster understanding of the value of appellate simulation. REFERENCES Almond, Harry H. Jr. "Strengthening the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition," ISLA Journal of International and Comparative Law 4: 635- 667 (Spring 1998). Bentley, Duncan. "Mooting in an Undergraduate Tax Program," Legal Education Review 7: 97-124 (Spring 1996). Cady, Thomas C. The Moot Court Program at the West Virginia College of Law," West Virginia Law Review. 70:40-46 (1967). Canon, Bradley C. "Simulating the Certiorari Process," Law and Courts 8:3-6 (1997). Carlson, J. Lon and Neil T. Skaggs. "Learning by Trial and Error: A Case for Moot Courts," Journal of Economic Education 31:145-155 (Spring 2000). Chan, Steven. "For and By the Students: The Cal Pre-law Association Moot Court Program at the University of California, Berkeley." Unpublished Paper Presented at the Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting: (Las Vegas: March 15-17, 2001). Claude, Richard and Paul E. Parker, "A Moot Court for Constitutional Issues," News for Teachers of Political Science 43:7, 12 (1984). Collins, Edward and Martin Rogoff, "Uses of an Inter-Scholastic Moot Court Competition in the Teaching of International Law," P.S. Political Science 24: 516-520 (No. 3, 1991). Collins, Edward. "The Use of Jessup International Moot Court Cases in Political Science Departments," American Journal of International Law 90: 809-811 (1983). Cooper, Phillip J. "Undergraduate Moot Court: A Simulation for Undergraduate Courses in Political Science," Teaching Political Science 7:105-118 (October 1979). Curran, Jeanne, Susan Takata, and Patricia Acone, "Moot Court: Thinking on Your Feet." Unpublished paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Washington, D.C.: August 31- September 3, 2000). Deardorff, Michelle Donaldson and Jilda Aliotta, "Playing Justice: The Role of Simulation in Teaching and Assessing the Teaching of Public Law." Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Washington, D.C.: August 31-September 3, 2000). Dhooge, Lucien J. "Appellate Argumentation in the Business Law Classroom," Journal of Legal Studies Education 17: 253-281 (1999). Dickerson, Darby. "In Re Moot Court," Stetson Law Review 29: 1217-1227 (2000). Gaubatz, John T. "Moot Court in the Modern Law School, Journal of Legal Education 31: 87-107 (1981). Gizzi, Michael. "Scholastic Moot Court in the Constitutional Law Class: A Teaching Portfolio Case Study." Unpublished Paper Presented at the Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting. (Las Vegas, March 14-17, 2001). Greene, Jonathan. "Moot Court Can Hone Skills that will Stand You in Good Stead When You Are Out Practicing Law," Student Lawyer 27: 6, 8 (January 1998). Guliuzza, Frank III. "In Classroom Debating in Public Law Classes as a Complement to the Socratic Method," P.S. Political Science 22: 703-705 (1991). Gygar, T and Anthony Cassimatis Mooting Manual. Butterworths Skills Series - - Butterworths, Australia, 1997, ISBN 0-409-30826-9. Hensley, Thomas H. "Come to the Edge: Role Playing in a Constitutional Law Class," PS: Political Science and Politics, 25: 64-68 (No.1, March 1994). Hernandez, Michael V. "In Defense of Moot Court: A Response to `In Praise of Moot Court--Not,'" Review of Litigation 17: 69-89 (1998). Kenety, William H. "Observations on Teaching Appellate Advocacy, 45 Journal of Legal Education 45: 582-586 (No. 4 December 1995). Keyes, Mary and Michael Wincop, "The Moot Reconceived: Some Theory and Evidence On Legal Skills," Legal Education Review 8: 1-41 (1997). Knerr, Charles R., Andrew B. Sommerman, and Suzy K. Rogers, "Undergraduate Appellate Simulation in American Colleges," Journal of Legal Education Studies, 19:1 (Winter/Spring 2001), pp. 27-62. Kozinski, Alex. " In Praise of Law School Moot Court--Not," Columbia Law Review 97:178-197 (1997). Kozinksi, Alex. "Confessions of a Bad Apple," Yale Law Review 100: 1707-1720 (1991). Lenchner, Paul. "Introducing American Government Through a You-Be-the- Judge Exercise," The Political Science Teacher 2:11-12 (Spring 1989). Levine, Henry. D. "Evaluating the Ames Experience: Student Response to the First Year Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School," Journal of Legal Education 28: 216-222 (1976). Low, Andrew M. "Moot Court, " Colorado Lawyer 22: 2371-2372 (Nov. 1993). Lynch, Andrew. "Why Do We Moot? Exploring the Role of Mooting in Legal Education," Legal Education Review 7: 65-96 (Spring 1996). Martineau, Robert J. 1985 Fundamentals of Modern Appellate Advocacy 25-36 (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney, 1985). Martineau, Robert J. "If Moot Court Has All the Relevance of a High School Debating Team, Why Do Law Students Cling Tightly to It?" Student Lawyer 16: 42-43 (September 1987). Martineau, Robert J. "Appellate Litigation Its Place in the law School Curriculum," Journal of Legal Education 39: 71-86 (No.1 March 1989). Martineau, Robert J. "Moot Court: Too Much Moot and Not Enough Court," American Bar Association Journal 67: 1294-1297 (October 1981). McCarter, Charles Chase. "Questions and Answers Regarding Moot Court," Stetson Law Review XII: 759-767 (1983). Rachid, Mohammad and Charles Knerr, "Brief History of Moot Court: Britain and U.S." Unpublished paper presented at the Southwestern Political Science Association Annual Meeting (Galveston, Texas: March 16-20, 2000). Rychlak, Ronald J. "Effective Appellate Advocacy: Tips From the Teams," Mississippi Law Journal 66: 527-546 (1997). Smith, Lindsley. "The Undergraduate Legal Education Course," American Communication Journal 2:1-18 (No. 2, 1999). Sullivan, J. Thomas. "Teaching Appellate Advocacy in an Appellate Clinical Law Program," Stetson Law Review 22: 1277-1307 (1992). Sundberg, Jacob W. F. "Comparative Note: Moot Court: An American Idea is a Nordic Setting," Justice System Journal 19: 229-233 (1997). Tankel, Jonathan D. & Mitchell Sherr. Friends of the Court: Group Presentation in a Communication Law Class. Unpublished paper presented at the National Communications Association Annual Meeting, Seattle (Novem- ber 11, 2000). Weaver, Mark. "Preparing Students for a Moot Court Tournament." Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Washington, D.C.: August 31-September 3, 2000). Weizer, Paul (ed.) How to Please the Court: Moot Court Handbook. Peter Lang, New York: 2004. Whitaker, Steve. "A Role-Playing Simulation of the United States Supreme Court," Teaching Political Science 1:47-58 (No. 1, October 1973). Williams, Sharon and Janet Walker. A Practical Guide to Mooting. Edmund Montgomery Publications: Toronto 1995. APPENDIX AMERICAN UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT TOURNAMENT CONTACT INFORMATION AMERICAN COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT ASSOCIATION NATIONAL TOURNAMENT Contact: Dr. Charles R. Knerr Department of Political Science University of Texas at Arlington P.O. Box 19539 Arlington, Texas 76019 Voice: 817-272-3985 FAX: 817-272-2525 e: knerr@uta.edu e: crknerr@aol.com http://honors.uta.edu/acma/ NORTH EASTERN ACMA UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT TOURNAMENT: Contact: Professor Paul Weizer Fitchburg State College 160 Pearl Street Fitchburg, MA 01420 pweizer@fsc.edu Voice: (978) 665-3272 Fax: (978) 665-4530 SOUTHEASTERN ACMA UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT TOURNAMENT: Contact: Professor John Kearnes Armstrong Atlantic State University Department of Criminal Justice, Social and Political Science Savannah, GA 31419 kearnejo@mail.armstrong.edu 912 921-5678 http://www.cjsocpols.armstrong.edu/kearnes/mootcourt/seugmootcrt.htm SOUTHWESTERN ACMA UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT TOURNAMENT: Contact: Professor Kimi King, Department of Political Science University of North Texas P.O. Box 305340 Denton, TX 76203-5340 kking@unt.edu Voice: 940-565-6984 Fax: 940-565-4818 kking@unt.edu http://www.psci.unt.edu/mootcourt/Tumca/TUMCAHOME.htm MID-WESTERN ACMA UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT TOURNAMENT Contact: Professor Mark Weaver Department of Political Science College of Wooster Wooster, OH 44691 mweaver@wooster.edu Voice: 330-263-2416 FAX: 330-263-2614 WESTERN ACMA UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT TOURNAMENT Contact: Professor Renee Cramer Dept. of Political Science Cal State Long Beach 1250 Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach CA 90840-4605 rcramer@csulb.edu 562- 985-4111 OTHER STATE WIDE AND LOCAL TOURNAMENTS Arkansas State Wide Tournaments Contact: Professor Scott Roulier Lyon College P.O. Box 2317 2300 Highland Road Batesville, AR 72503 sroulier@lyon.edu 870-698-4345 Stanley Mosk Undergraduate Moot Court Tournament (Cal State University at Dominguez Hills): http://www.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/moothome.htm" http://www.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/moothome.htm California Pre-Law Association Moot Court Tournament http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~cpla/programs_services.html Cal State Chico Campus wide Tournaments Contact: Dr. Dane Cameron Department of Political Science Cal State Chico Chico, CA 95929 Fax: 530-898-6478 Fax 530-893-0135 Illinois State-wide Tournaments (Model Illinois Government): http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/MIG/Moot/mootcrt.html" Wabash College (Indiana) Tournament: http://www.wabash.edu/depart/speech/mootco~1.htm" William McKnight Moot Court Competition Cornell Law School (New York) http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/blsa/info.html Oklahoma Inter-collegiate Legislature Moot Court: Contact: Dr. Chris Markwood . Department of Political Science University of Central Oklahoma 104 Liberal Arts Edmund, Ok 73034 markwood@ucok.edu 405-974-3823 (FAX) Teaching Human Rights on Line: http://oz.uc.edu/thro/index.html Tennessee Inter-collegiate Legislature Moot Court: http://tislonline.org Texas Undergraduate Moot Court Association: http://www.psci.unt.edu/mootcourt/problem_f01.ht The Texas Undergraduate Moot Court Association sponsors and organizes tournaments each fall at the Texas Tech Law School and each spring at Baylor Law School and Texas Wesleyan Law School. `/=E+B<IN]cx,eqnJK: #?#~''+++y--112L2U2r222/8R88 9::;;f<<<<==&>J>>?c??sFFG(GGGHHHH[JJ#K;KKLLLOOP.PPPWRfR ScU]UVcUbcUcUUcUc [ S7SSSSS^TTU-UUUWVnVWDWWW X0XXXYYYZZZZZ[[u\\ ]*]]]_/___.`A``` c;cgciccc2dPdQdddd#e-eeeeffff-g0g1gighhhhhiiiii U^bcU^cUbcUbcUbcUbcUc UcUck$ UVck$cUcUVcPii9j>jujvj}jjok llllQlSlZl/mbmdmkm(n)nfn{p~pxuuwwyEzFzgzuUc U^bcUbcUbcUbcUcU^cUc^bcc *+EFGHJab!"78J]~-'()*+BCc  !6J^_`abcxy !"#$-$%,5(  vmnJK*,_ P O5 8!!*!! "o""###($z$$"%w%%&t&&%'v'w'' (1((('){))"*v**++++J,,,)-l-m-Z...5/,5///0]000E1e12]3^3_33333(88j:v>OAlAmAAAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE,EEEEEWFFFFGAGBGGGGH1H2HHHH*I~IIINJJJJ[[[\\Z\\\\H]I]]]]^h^^^ _C_D____-_`X````Eaaa b bWbbbbHcgchcicjcc d dYdZddddddddddde#e$eieeee)eefvffffffff0g1ghhqii:j;j?@$!5/ESNnW_en;wFzABCDEFGHIJKL6ColorPosColorSetStylePosStyleSet-1-1-1-1@?Times New Roman Symbol "Arial "Verdana"h&&AYb2@ UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURTUnknown Kevin Calder  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNS[Root Entry F=[R@WordDocumentCompObjjSummaryInformation(  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qOh+'0 $ L X dpx UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURTUnknownk0Normal Kevin Calder2Microsoft Word for Windows 95@DocumentSummaryInformation8   FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qCalder Corporation2  UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURTF#@\Z[@\Z[AYb՜.+,0@Hdl t| Calder Corporation2  UNDERGRADUATE MOOT COURT