By Andrew J. Stephens '06
Senior Staff Writer

On Saturday, April 9, two teams met in the final round of the 2005 William Minor Lile Moot Court Competition. Third-years Kristi Noel O'Malley and Sam Quang Le won the competition as representatives of the petitioner, the Environmental Protection Agency.

"The most amazing thing is that we did not even know each other," O'Malley said after winning. "We met for the first time as opponents in the first round."

O'Malley also won Best Oralist in the final round.

The problem posed in the final round, which was the same as in the semi-finals, was one of statutory interpretation and administrative law. A corporation, upon the purchase of a Kentucky tannery, discovered that their acquisition had been illegally dumping chemicals. The business immediately contacted the state environmental agency and the state agency and the corporation reached a settlement in which the business would clean up the pollution. A year later the federal EPA, under a recently appointed director, filed suit to recover additional monitoring and clean-up costs.

The two questions at issue in Saturday's arguments were whether the EPA could "overfile," since the state case had already been resolved, and whether the corporation was liable for government oversight costs

under the applicable statutes.

Judging the round were three federal judges: Michael Boudin from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; Jeffrey S. Sutton from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; and James C. Turk, Senior District judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

After the arguments, Le commented on the lack of questions and noted that "the bench was colder than in the semi-final round."

O'Malley and Le's opponents were fellow third-years Thomas D. Nolan III and Christopher J. Roche, who represented the respondent corporation. Each side had 30 minutes split into two 15 minute halves. Each participant argued one of the two questions presented.

O'Malley argued first, responding to the judge's questions about the unfairness of the EPA's actions in a calm and clear tone. Le followed with a more emphatic style. At one point, Sutton's questions and Le's answers drew quiet laughter from the audience.

Nolan argued first for the respondents. In an extended hypothetical, Judge Sutton quizzed Nolan about what the EPA could do if the state environmental agency offered a polluter a sweetheart deal. Then Judge Boudin jumped in and asked, "It would be odd for there to be a spill across the eastern half of Kentucky and the EPA not notice."

Sutton responded, "Fair point, but it is a big country."

Roche was the last to speak before the petitioner's rebuttal. Much of

Roche's time was spent discussing whether there is a difference between oversight costs and monitoring costs, and if there is a difference, what that

difference is and means under the statutes. Even after his time was exhausted, the judges kept Roche at the podium, pressing him on the constitutional facet of his argument.

Roche's presentation also evoked one of the most enigmatic comments from the bench of the afternoon when Judge Turk questioned whether "one person's surplusage is another person's belt and suspenders."

Following the arguments, the judges retired to deliberate. After deliberations, the judges announced O'Malley and Le as the winners and O'Malley as the Best Oralist. Judge Sutton consoled both sides with the fact that he did not make it past the sweet 16 in his law school's moot court competition and is still bitter about it.

The bench did not offer any specific comments on the oral arguments or briefs, but did offer some general comments about appellate work. Sutton said that too often lawyers just use oral arguments to read their brief to the court. According to Sutton, better lawyers, like the participants, use oral arguments to argue at a different level and emphasize principles.

During the deliberations, Marcus Brown, Chief Justice of the 2004-2005 Moot Court Board, announced the 2006 quarterfinalists, the Best Oralists from the first and second rounds, and the Moot Court Board for next year.

The eight teams moving on the quarterfinals next year are Jason Stavers and Kristin Lovera, Rebecca MacDowell and Casy Frenung, Rich Olzewski and Fred Noyes, Christina Ferrell and Eric Reitman, Jennifer Kies and Jake Ewart, Chris Kavanaugh and Mike Buchwald, Tom Lerdal and David Lobe, and Nick Margida and Patrick Eagan. The alternates are Paul Rugani and Scott Tenley. Tenley took Best Oralist for the first round and Chris Kavanaugh for the second round.