Perhaps you are a law professor who has been asked to advise a moot court team. Maybe you teach an appellate advocacy course or run an internal moot court competition. You might be an attorney recruited to coach a team, or your school's entire moot court program might have just been dropped in your lap. No matter your role or level of experience, the Legal Writing Institute's Moot Court Advisor's Handbook is a resource of best practices for running moot court and other legal skills competitions. Drawing on the combined expertise of the Legal Writing Institute's Moot Court Committee, the handbook has chapters on administering a moot court program, running an internal moot court competition, coaching teams at external moot court competitions, and establishing your own external moot court competition. The second edition adds a new chapter on virtual competitions, updates regarding new ABA Standards relevant to legal skills competitions, and a trove of updated online resources you can customize to meet your program's needs.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Arial} This book examines the theories relevant to the development of skills necessary for effective participation in competition moots. By consideration of underlying theories the authors develop unique models of the skills of the cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains and effective team dynamics; and emphasise the importance of written submissions. The authors use this analysis to develop a unique integrated model that informs the process of coaching moot teams according to reliable principles.

Designed for anyone who has an interest in using moot court simulations as an educational exercise, How to Please the Court brings together prominent moot court faculty who share their collective years of experience in building a successful moot court program. Touching on all aspects of the moot court experience, this book guides the reader through conducting legal research, the structure of an oral argument, the tournament experience, and the successes and rewards of competition.

By re-writing US Supreme Court opinions that implicate critical dimensions of racial justice, Critical Race Judgments demonstrates that it's possible to be judge and a critical race theorist. Specific issues covered in these cases include the death penalty, employment, voting, policing, education, the environment, justice, housing, immigration, sexual orientation, segregation, and mass incarceration. While some rewritten cases – Plessy v. Ferguson (which constitutionalized Jim Crow) and Korematsu v. United States (which constitutionalized internment) – originally focused on race, many of the rewritten opinions – Lawrence v. Texas (which constitutionalized sodomy laws) and Roe v. Wade (which constitutionalized a woman's right to choose) – are used to incorporate racial justice principles in novel and important ways. This work is essential for everyone who needs to understand why critical race theory must be deployed in constitutional law to uphold and advance racial justice principles that are foundational to US democracy.

This book challenges the idea that international law looks the same from anywhere in the world. Instead, how international lawyers understand and approach their field is often deeply influenced by the national contexts in which they lived, studied, and worked. International law in the United States and in the United Kingdom looks different compared to international law in China and Russia, though some approaches (particularly Western, Anglo-American ones) are more influential outside their borders than others. Given shifts in geopolitical power and the rise of non-Western powers like China, it is increasingly important for international lawyers to understand how others coming from diverse backgrounds approach the field. By examining the international law academies and textbooks of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Roberts provides a window into these different communities of international lawyers, and she uncovers some of the similarities and differences in how they understand and approach international law.