By Scott Dorfman '07
Executive Editor

Four teams of gifted oral advocates advanced to the semifinals of the Lile Moot Court competition in quarterfinal oral arguments held October 2-4 in Caplin Auditorium. The teams of Rebecca Clifford and Christopher Yeung, Matt Madden and Michael Scott, Robin Cook and Josh Kaplowitz, and Chris Jackson and Magdalena Kulik will compete in the semifinals, scheduled for Feb. 23 in Caplin Auditorium.

The teams prepared briefs and oral arguments on the administrative law question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency possesses the authority under existing law to regulate carbon monoxide emissions. Teams argued before a three-judge panel of UVA Law professors.

According to Clifford, the victory was the result of hours of preparation and brainstorming.

“We each thought up of a bunch of questions we thought the judges might ask,” Clifford said. “A lot of the content preparation for the oral argument occurred when we were writing the brief, because when one of us came up with an argument, the other would point out its weaknesses to make sure it was worth including.”

Cook said that preparation involved learning how to anticipate the arguments that the opposition would present.

“The first thing that I did was read the oppositions brief to determine how it fit with our brief and what the most contentious arguments were likely to be,” Cook said. “We tried to predict opposing counsel’s arguments as much as possible. We also practiced delivering the argument to make sure we were comfortable on our feet.”

The intense amount of preparation forced teammates to work together and deal with any personality conflicts that might arise.

“Working with your Moot Court partner is like a Brazilian wax,” Clifford said. “I am really happy with the result, but it is a bitch to get through.”

According to Cook, the questioning from judges was akin to that likely to be heard from professional judges.

“The judges were very, very smart and knew a lot about the topic,” Cook said. “The Moot Court Board did a wonderful job at getting the faculty members most knowledgeable about this particular topic to participate. That was intimidating from our perspective, but in the real world, judges know a lot about the law. The judges did a really good job at making sure that their questions were reasonable. It was a wonderful experience.”

Madden also said the judges were difficult but fair.

“Professors Dudley, Ortiz, and Heytens were superb judges and very well-prepared,” Madden said. “They posed tough questions that pressed on the weak points of our arguments. We tried to anticipate their questions, but these judges still managed to come up with creative and thought-provoking questions to test our understanding of the problem.”

Audience members attending the Oct. 2 contest between Clifford and Yeung and Jennifer Rada and Allessandra Stewart expressed satisfaction at the quality of the advocacy.

“Wow…they really blew me off my feet,” said third-year student Joseph Zihal. “What talented oralists.”