Friday, September 18, 2009

The Honor Code, Lile Moot Court, and Above the Law

Life is funny sometimes - I got up early to work on my Moot Court packet this morning, and what do you know - Above The Law is running a story about . . . UVA Moot Court.

The thrust: some 2L(s?) are upset that the Moot Court Board making people who withdraw from the contest contact their (prospective - and I guess for some ITE very prospective) employers saying that - well - they withdrew from moot court, and if they don't do so .... well then the moot court people just might contact the employers for them!

Here's our multi-point response:

1. The first round of Lile Moot Court is not hard. In fact, it's pretty simple to turn something in to say that you did the competition; we wrote our first round brief on the Acela: it's a closed universe problem with a very low word limit - you're not looking to knock it out of the park here, just to do your best in what is a very busy time for 2Ls (callbacks, cite checks, etc.). For all the lengths that Above the Law goes to make the the Moot Court board's position seem absurd/obnoxious, it's at least worth mentioning that it's also pretty absurd to not spend 2-4 hours grinding out a short brief.

2. The Moot Court board's position is reasonable. If you put on your resume that you were doing moot court and didn't actually . . . you know, do it, then you should be required to fix that error. It's fine, I think (see below), but I don't think it's at all absurd to suggest that people who claim they are doing moot court - - - actually do moot court. Some employers actually do care about moot court (the CW being that they like to see Moot Court or a journal, although obviously doing both helps!), and we think it's unfair that students claim that credential when they don't deserve to do so.

As an aside, we know the board is "cracking down" on people who turn things in super late or super incomeplete more this year than they have in year's past, but as we are unaware of the exact specifics, I think that is fine too.

3. This is not to say that Above the Law doesn't have a point, either, though some of the arguments are off-base. I'll go through them one-by-one:
* How the hell did UVA Law not win the douche competition?

Hrmm, that's an interesting question - I'm sure the members of the moot court board, who are all listed in the site linked to in the article, whose names were linked/posted in the comments, and can be found easily, enjoy being singled out as "douches", though. Certainly, it's important to link serious and legitimate concerns about a questionable policy with ad hominem attacks combined with stereotypes about the Law School that single out the people who follow and attempt to enforce this (long-standing) rule.

* This letter reeks of no offered 3Ls who are trying to find an excuse for why their sterling resumes — replete with moot court credentials — didn’t make the cut.
The policy is a long-standing one; that the board threatened to actually contact employers may or may not be a new, but we can say with absolute certainty that the current moot court board did not invent the rule at issue.

Of course, speculating about their employment credentials is highly germane. But since we're already doing so: for our part, we have enough faith in humanity and our classmates to believe that you wouldn't go out of your way to hurt someone's job prospects just because you're unhappy with your own. But then again, our moral compass may be screwed up, going to a "douchey" law school and all.

* Do they really expect 2Ls to call up perhaps a double digit number of firms and say “hi, can I send a new resume? My old one was correct at the time, but my circumstances have changed in a minor way and now I’m afraid jackasses I go to school with will use this to sabotage my application.” The horse is out of the barn and galloping away on this one.

Is there any need to actually call - why not use email? Here's a simple method, which I think should satisfy everyone involved:

(1) Write your current / perspective employer saying that you have an updated resume;
(2) Attach a copy of your resume with moot court taken off and whatever else changed;
(3) ???;
(4) profit.
It seems like step (1) could be done with a mass email to all of the firms at which you still have applications pending. Subject: "Rule 12(f) Updated Resume, September 2009". It'd probably take about 15 minutes.
* Where in God’s name does the Lile Moot Court Board get the idea to become the resume police? Isn’t that the job of employers, not wanna-be employees?

I agree with this. As I said before, I believe that the policy is a good one, but part of the honor code means that the students are supposed to abide by it. If it's not enough to say "don't put moot court on your resume unless you actually did it," then it's not enough, and our beloved (or "douchey", depending on your views) system of an honor code is for naught. But I think - in light of some anectodal evidence and gut instinct - that most people do follow the policy. We know some people who did, voluntarily, contact their employers for not dropping moot court (or their journal for that matter). Again, it wasn't really a big deal . . . We also know people who didn't put moot court on their resume to avoid this problem, but ended up doing it anyway (again - the first round is not that bad!!)

So, to side with ATL on this one: I think that was a silly thing to say or even threaten, the honor code means that you don't treat people like babies, and that you don't threaten to do check up on someone's compliance with the honor code. (For those who don't know, this is the same reason that we are allowed to take unproctored exams, sometimes where-ever we want: the school doesn't monitor our compliance there, and moot court shouldn't here).

* Did the Lile Moot Court Board think, for a second, about the consequences of looking like mean spirited asshats in front of the entire UVA Law community?

As of today, this sentence should read "Did the Lile Moot Court Board think, for a second, about the consequences of looking like mean spirited asshats in front of the entire legal community?" Did the Above the Law editorial board consider that it looks somewhat mean-spirited itself by linking to a website with these guys' names on it and calling implying that they are douches?

Seriously guys, I know the job market is tough and competitive. But threatening your fellow students is just not the right way to go. People who put moot court on their resumes without actually participating in the competition will look really silly if an interviewer ever asks them a question about it. That is the “spot check.”
See above, although it's worth pointing out that for pre-screening purpose (a second round of OGIs starts next week), the interviewers won't have an oppotunity to do what ATL is suggesting in deciding who gets an interview.

4. Disclaimer: I am in Moot Court. And hey, I kind of like it. Well, OK, not really...

And yes, we are sorry about the typos.

UVA 3Ls Threaten to Eat Their Young [Above the Law]


Anonymous said...

Anyone have an idea of how many 2L's typically drop out of the 1st round?

Anonymous said...

First, how would the all-important "Board" ever actually know which employers to call? Its not like we've reported our callbacks/offers to the university. Second, as you said what is the point of the honor code if some drunk-on-power 3Ls feel they can babysit the rest of us? Third, the email came out of nowhere and surely seemed mean-spirited and bitter.

Anonymous said...


I heard you rambling on about this in the halls earlier today. Calm down.

Anonymous said...

UVA "honor" code FTL. What a joke.

Anonymous said...


Haven't been on campus the past two days. So no you havent.

- 1:28

Anonymous said...

This is hilarious.

169 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, September 18, 2009 1:10 PM

I wouldn't expect you to undesrtand, Mystal. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

William Minor Lile Moot Court Board

Anonymous said...

Is it that hard not to lie, cheat, or steal, 1:38?

I sure hope not, because if you do, we'll hopefully end your UVA career. Thanks for the tuition dollars, see you when we're hiring paralegals, and don't let the "Enrollment Discontinued" stamp on your transcript fool you
into thinking that every other school and employer who sees it doesn't know what that means.
Ok? Ok. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

2:20, just cuz someone disagrees with the tone of the email doesn't mean they are cheating, you d-bag.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Honor Code, is anyone checking on the 25% who "self reported minority" status in their applications for the class of 2012?

Not sure how you would confirm whether someone is a "minority," but this seems more important than enforcing Moot Court.

Anonymous said...

Well, it's true that people who withdraw should contact employers to correct their resumes, no doubt.

Still, the board had a lot of nerve threatening everyone who withdrew. If, in some way, they had evidence that a particular person was not contacting employers, they could have emailed that person.

The board has no business "spot checking" an innocent person, possibly screwing up a potential offer by injecting weirdness into their application.

Anonymous said...

4:23- well said, 100% agree!

Anonymous said...

While I want my classmates to behave honestly, contacting prospective employers in an effort to cause injury to students is unprofessional and ill-considered.

Those students who reported their withdrawal may still be harmed by the bad impression the board creates by following up with employers.

Also, even the best intentioned people make mistakes. What if the board contacted the employer of a student who didn't in fact drop out of the competition?

I don't believe the admonition that students should just act honestly justifies the Board's decision to interfere in other people's job search process.

Anonymous said...

Would anyone like to speculate what would happen after a 2L received the following phone call from a firm with which they had done a callback?

Firm Flunky: “Hi, it's Flunky! I'm afraid that while you're a very strong candidate, as you know we have very limited space in our 2010 summer class and we can afford to be choosy this year, so no offer. Also, just FYI, did you know there's someone named Definitely Dying-Douchebag calling the recruiting department at your firms to make sure we're aware you dropped moot court? Just thought you might want to know. Bye!”

Me, I think there would be a lot of bloody chiclets scattered all over the moot court offices.

Anonymous said...

I feel bad that all of the board members got a bad rep from this - some of them are really nice, and they're all working very hard on it.

Still, you gotta realize that if you send a mass-email, in any legal setting, that is extremely rude, disrespectful, and douchey, you might appear on ATL.

Anonymous said...

People need to stop emailing ATL about every complaint or issue that happens at the Law School. This, the HW incident, etc....all of this publicity just makes UVA Law look bad and reinforces unfair stereotypes about our school.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad to know that our future alumni network will have our best interests at heart and do what they can to help their fellow Virginia Law graduates.


Anonymous said...

just write the fucking briefs you lazy sacks

Anonymous said...

The next person I hear say the word "douche" around me, I'm reporting to the Dean for sexual harassment. I don't appreciate people talking about shoving things up vaginas in my presence.

Consider this your "notice" that I am offended.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Power to 10:16.

What is the deal with all of you people and the D-word? Are you all 11 years old? My god it is so infuriatingly frsutrating to have to hear that word all the time.

Also: While the posts on this website do not make UVA Law look bad, the comments always do.

Anonymous said...

7:37 - what is the "HW" incident?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

FYI, only 1 board member sent that email. It's unclear that the other board members even knew what she had done. And yes, this sucks for our school's rep. Whoever sent this to ATL is not only lazy and a quitter (really? couldn't put together a 5 page brief?), but now also a massive asshole. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Why does everyone agree that it's a good rule? It's not. It's a terrible rule. Here's why:

1) It doesn't meet its claimed objective-- people can still game the system by putting in a half-assed effort into the first round.


2) It magnifies the weaknesses of a tournament system by distributing an inordinate number of first-round byes-- a "bye" basically amounts to your opponent being one of the total slackers forced to stay in the competition. So you'll have bad competitors moving forward simply because they were up against a slacker, and you'll have solid competitors disqualified in the first round because they were up against real competition. Even if the "byes" are randomly distributed, is that the way you want to run a competition? Chance is a part of every game- but should it dictate who gets *completely disqualified* in the first round? How's that fair?

It totally blows my mind how people who actually take moot court seriously and believe in the sanctity of the competition believe that enforcing the employer-notification rule-- or having it in the first place-- is a good idea.

If they were true competitors, you would think they would believe the opposite.

Rule 12 (f) said...

"2) It magnifies the weaknesses of a tournament system by distributing an inordinate number of first-round byes-- a "bye" basically amounts to your opponent being one of the total slackers forced to stay in the competition. So you'll have bad competitors moving forward simply because they were up against a slacker, and you'll have solid competitors disqualified in the first round because they were up against real competition. Even if the "byes" are randomly distributed, is that the way you want to run a competition? Chance is a part of every game- but should it dictate who gets *completely disqualified* in the first round? How's that fair?"

This, at least, is wrong. In the first and second round, you don't advance by beating your competitor, you advance by being in the top 64 in combined brief and oral argument. It is possible - and indeed common - for both you and the person against whom you have your on- or off-brief argument to advance to the second round!

Anonymous said...

oops. sorry. i imagine there's still some advantage to being scored in the oral argument against someone who is doing terribly, but i completely take back what i said.

Anonymous said...

10:16 makes me laugh. Mahoney would tell you to go sit on it.

Anonymous said...

Nobody is taking issue with having to remove moot court from his or her resume if he or she does not compete. We're taking issue with moot court board becoming a bunch of Honor Code vigilantes.

It's called an Honor Code because the assumption is that everybody I'd adhereing to it.

When you suspect someone has violated the Honor Code you DO NOT try and rectify the wrong. You do REPORT them to the Honor Council. You do not get to break the rules just because someone else did.

Part of the reason the Honor Code is that there is typically one sanction for violating it: expulsion. If you think some one is cheating by leaving Moot Court on their resume then report them. Leave formal enforcement to the Honor Council. Your vigilantism is not only unprofessional and mean spirited, but it dilutes the honor code itself.

Everyone who had a role in the "we will call your potential employers" email should resign from Moot Court Board.

Anonymous said...

4:23 and 2:18 are exactly right. FWIW, my friends and I all talked about how shocked and appalled we were at the tone of this email... and every one of us had done the brief and planned to stay in the competition!

The Board could have sent a simple email saying, just a quick reminder that if you're not in the competition, you're on your honor to tell employers such. The part about spot-checking (which is transparently bullshit, since they don't know who our remaining job opportunities are with [hint: Arby's on Emmet]) was unnecessary and patronizing. We're not in third grade, here.

So as someone who a) is doing Lile and b) thinks people who didn't should tell employers, I still think the message from the Board was rude and inappropriate.

Anonymous said...

Also, I think Moot Court has turned into kind of a scam. (I say this as someone who did it and put it on my resume.) MCB tells people we can put it on our resumes, so (prisoner's dilemma) we all do so as not to be at a disadvantage... but nobody wants to do all that well, because that's more work... then MCB says, by the way, we're scheduling this at the worst possible time for 2Ls to do it AND charging you $50, but you can't quit now. But here's the thing:
* Lile could be held in October or November when people actually have time to care. BUT if they did that, people with offers would, in large part, just quit (and it would become apparent that firms really don't value it much). So we have to have it before most offers are made.
* The school could say, don't put this on your resumes. I suppose they're "doing us a favor" by letting us do so, but if every future-litigator at UVA does it, there's no advantage to be gained! Then we would avoid Honor Code implications... but also, almost nobody would do Moot Court because, again, the prisoner's dilemma. (See also journal tryouts.)

Then again, wouldn't a system where the people who do Lile, and the people who do secondary journals, all wanted to do those things be preferable than a system where people do things because firms claim to value them (though almost certainly do not, in any meaningful way)?

Anonymous said...

Forcing us to pay $50 for a stupid competition was bullshit.

Next time let people know how much it'll cost before we are "forced" into it.

Anonymous said...

3L here. Wow. WOW. Nobody forced you to put Lile on your resume. Or to participate. How the hell do you think these organizations fund themselves? Last year and the year before, the fee went toward housing federal judges who travel down to C'ville for the final rounds. Or, surprise, paying for the packets you all throw away after a month. Plus I think they host other competitions that require extensive traveling.

I've never heard so much incessant bitching from a class at this law school before. This school prides itself in collegiality and honesty, yet obviously enough people must've been bitching to the board to cause an email to be put out. A stupid email, sure, but probably not one sent out bc the chancellor or whoever felt like being a blowhard for no particular reason. And then you all bitched about it some more. STFU, get on with life, and build up some of the collegiality you all have managed to destroy here.

And before you say, "Then the board shouldn't have sent the email," think about what you're doing to this school's reputation and rise above the situation. Sure, people can inadvertenly be assholes. We're LAW STUDENTS, for god's sake. But NOBODY has taken it to the level of notifying ATL. Whoever did that just ruined the reputation of HIS OWN LAW SCHOOL in the process. So where's the win on that one?

Finally, it's not surprising to me that laptop and casebook thefts only began at UVA Law the year 2011 started. I'm happy I'm on my way out of this place, and I miss the 2 classes of great people who went before me. It's just not the same here anymore..

Anonymous said...

2:18 Here

On second thought my call for resignations was perhaps a little over the top. I would be happy to settle for an apology to everyone who signed up for moot court (both those who are doing it and those who withdrew) and a complete recantation of the "employer spot checking" policy.

The email that went out yesterday doesn't cut it on either front.

I'm doing Moot Court and I was insulted by the email that went out. Nasty, unprofessional and itself an affront to spirt and principles of the Honor Code.

severywhere said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
severywhere said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


see ya later, you won't be missed

Anonymous said...

5:47, you so eloquently just proved 4:34's point. fail.

Anonymous said...

2011 kid who was/is stealing comps and casebooks = smartest student.

paying off the loans one way or another...

Anonymous said...

"2011 kid who was/is stealing comps and casebooks = smartest student.

paying off the loans one way or another..."

Sounds like the only way that'll happen for the Class of 2011.

-Class of 2006 SECURE

Anonymous said...

Next year's board take heed. There are a number of simple ways to make yourself seem like the best board ever, in light of this year's controversy:

1. Time the competition correctly. A smaller number of quality participants is better than a higher number of largely irrelevant ones.

2. Along the same lines, consider disallowing all 2Ls from putting Lile Moot Court on their resumes until they have actually participated rather than explicitly encouraging them to put it down in advance.

The advantage the line offers during OGI is almost entirely created by the norm of using the line in the first place. Moreover, the competition shouldn't tolerate people who barely want to be in it in the first place. Practically *inviting* them to treat it that way counts as toleration-- and then some.

3. Reconsider implementing a drastic increase in dues without notice, especially after encouraging all 2Ls to list Moot Court on their resumes and imposing an enormous penalty for withdrawal/nonparticipation. For obvious reasons, such an increase would reflect poorly on the much revered competition.

4. Don't insult the integrity of your fellow students, even if you hear rumors that some small set of them might possess a total lack of it.

5. Don't instill in your fellow students the fear that you might actually be so stupid as to perform a "spot check" with an employer.

6. When you make a mistake, don't blame it on a small cadre of upset competitors-- their complaints will never excuse a misguided prerogative of the board.

7. Along the same lines, consider resigning if you make an absolute blunder of an executive decision, particularly if your fellow board members had nothing to do with it. This move will help ensure Lile Moot Court remains a venerable institution, and, indeed, it is to this venerable institution that your allegiance should lie.

Oh, yeah, and should you resign, please be sure to notify all potential employers that you no longer serve on the board upon your resignation. You would, of course, be on your honor to report the change-- no "spot checking" necessary.

Anonymous said...

I competed last year, and the dues were $40. I wouldn't call that a drastic increase. That said, I think all the other suggestions were pretty good. But you also gotta consider how difficult it is to schedule a month-long competition like this. October? Nope, fall break ruins it. November? Nope, Thanksgiving and people freaking out over finals. Seems like there really is no other time.

Also, I'd just like to say... People Need to Chill the Eff Out. This has been the way things were run for years now, and previous 2Ls have not been thrilled about it, sure, but dutifully read on the plane/train, wrote their briefs in hotels, and got er done. It really is a shame that 1 really, really miscalculated email (I mean, come on, everyone knows they weren't going to *ever* call firms) would send off so much ill will toward what is truthfully a great competition that people, both board and participants, put a lot of hard work into. I feel really sorry for the two justices who are running this round, because from everything I've heard thru the grapevine, they had nothing to do with this. I just hope everybody chins up and remembers that this is a great school with great people who work their butts off in various organizations for various good causes. Let's not let some stupid email, and an even more stupid ATL post by some dude who has no idea what this great institution is all about, ruin that.

Good luck to the competitors. Thank you to the justices and judges for your hard work.

Anonymous said...

Hey "2006 SECURE"

By secure do you mean you're a 3rd year associate who hasn't happened to be laid off yet? Well don't worry, if you are 3 1/2 years out of law school and still read this blog then you're definitely a loser, so you'll be laid off soon enough. At best you'll toil away and never make partner.

Class of 11 CONFIDENT

Anonymous said...


You really seem to be missing the point. There is a lot of ancillary venting going on here, but what really has people upset is the Moot Court Board threatening to go on a witch hunt.

First, assuming this were to actually happen, the mere fact that someone from Moot Court calls a firm out of the blue to make sure that John Doe 2L didn't lie to that firm on their resume is probably going to have a negative effect on John Doe's shot at getting an offer. EITE, nobody needs fellow students calling their prospective employers questioning their integrity. Even if the person in question did notify the relevant firms, the fact that the call got made could cause problems. Heaven forbid somebody notify a firm, but their new resume not make it into their file before the Moot Court Board comes a calling.

How do vigilante actions like this encourage the collegial atmosphere you're so concerned with? They simply don't, they destroy it. Stabbing fellow students in the back because a larger than usual number of larger than usual number of participants withdrew is not grounds to sabotage 2L's already limited employment prospects.

Second, what about the Honor Code? The Honor Code works for two reasons, and the way the Moot Court Board has acted undermines both of them.

The Honor Code works because we trust each other to abide by it. If we start basing our behavior on the assumption that nobody is going to abide by the Honor Code we may as well throw it out. How can we be collegial when we think our fellow students are out to get us? This is not to say that the Board should not take action if they suspect an individual 2L of deliberately failing to notify prospective employers of their withdrawal. Which brings me to the next issue.

The Honor Code works because of the single sanction and the institutional system behind it. We all know (at least constructively) how Honor Code violations are dealt with, and we all know what the punishment is: expulsion. The Honor Code works to a large degree because the stakes are so high. Imposing a different punishment waters down the Honor Code.

Skirting the procedures for convicting someone of an Honor Code violation also has major repercussions. As I mentioned above, what happens if the Moot Court Board inadvertently sinks the job prospects of someone who tried to comply but the firm failed to properly record it? The process of reporting, investigating, and adjudicating Honor Code violations exists so that people are not punished for infractions they didn't commit. If someone really did lie about Moot Court take them to Honor Council. We'll see how much good a lie does in their job search if they've been kicked out of law school. But DO NOT impugn the honor of everyone who withdrew.

And please don't be so petty as to accuse the 2L class of stealing laptops because we're legitimately upset about the total lack of respect and trust with which we're being treated.

I thought we could trust each other. I thought we were all in this together. Is it wrong for me to be so upset when one of the most respected institutions at the law school tells me otherwise?

- 2:18/4:39

Anonymous said...

Yeah I don't know if you want to brag about having graduated 3.5 years ago and you still not only read this blog, but feel the need to leave comments.

I'm happy that you still have a job, but "Not being a tool" is something you just can't buy.

Anonymous said...

Look, spot-checking will not occur. It was an empty threat. And it was a stupid one.

The real threat is - and should be - honor charges. If any students know of fellow students who have consciously decided not to notify their potential employers despite withdrawing from the competition, then they should contact an honor advisor and initiate a case.

Anonymous said...

these long diatribes from 2Ls about honor and betrayal are hilarious. 9:17 is right. it was an empty threat that applied to less than 1% of you. get over it. some of you really really need to get laid.

Anonymous said...

Down with the class of 2011!!!!

Anonymous said...

"Forced" to do Moot Court. "Forced" to do Moot Court. "Forced" to do Moot Court. "Forced" to do Moot Court. "Forced" to do Moot Court. "Forced" to do Moot Court.

See, I hope that if I say that enough times it will be obvious how patently retarded that concept is. At other law schools people fight tooth and nail for the opportunity to do any kind of Moot Court. At UVA, 3Ls take huge chunks of time out of their last year to give all 2Ls the opportunity to participate. And this is the thanks they get.

What a bunch of ungrateful little shits you people are. No wonder nobody wants to hire you.

-Not a Lile Board member, but I play one on TV

Anonymous said...

2:39 is right, the 2Ls are a bunch of whiny b*****s. What is the matter with you people? Maybe you just have no self-awareness whatsoever, and are unaware of what you look like.

Anonymous said...

I hope the 50+ 3L judges tear the 2Ls new ones this year.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

This is so simple.

1. If you withdrew (as I did), notify your prospective employers. It's the right thing to do.

2. If you are on the Moot Court Board, reflect on the fact that the email was ill-advised and try to learn from it.

3. If you aren't involved, drop it.

Anonymous said...

i 1/2 assed the brief and will 1/2 ass the oral argument.

i don't see why it was hard to just turn this stuff in

Anonymous said...

I think the economy is causing a lot of the acridness in the air.

People are pissed about not knowing the cost of Moot Court ahead of time.

People are pissed about the Moot Court doing a "threatening" witch hunt.

Hopefully the old UVA will come back in the coming years. At least the 1Ls seem to be having fun...for now

Anonymous said...

Not to be a stickler, but that's what we're trained to do and all..

I went to the info meeting at the beginning of the semester and they outright told us the fee. They also had sheets outside their office the entire time before sign-up with the same info.

There never was a "witch hunt." Some board member just sent out an email saying they were "strongly considering" spot checks. How flimsy can the language get there? That's hardly even a call to action. Just, "hey I'm thinking _really hard_ about this. Oooh."

But agreed, things are tense because of the job market. Please everybody just stop complaining and focus on oral arguments. Did you see how many people were signed up in that excel sheet? If I was the 3L organizing that shiz, I'd be feeling pretty low right now. This has been a lot of shiz talk over nothing.

Anonymous said...

I still have no idea why this was a big deal. The "threat" in the email is similar to when a parent tells their kid that they'll leave on the side of the road.

I think we're really overestimating how much a participant in one intra-school moot court competition is actually going to help a resume. This would be like putting down college football as an interest when you're actually interested in baseball. If all you have is "Moot Court Participant (1 of 250)", you're probably screwed anyway.

- William Minor Lile Moot Court, Participant

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Lile moot court board, for the best ATL shtick in ages.

V100 Hiring Partners said...


Anonymous said...

Yeah, you should be really impressed with yourself for thinking of redundant witticisms and posting them multiple times on a blog. You've got the best life ever, as evidenced by the use of your time. Good job. You're a winner. *pat pat*

Anonymous said...

12:47=clueless 1L laughing at his own joke.

Anonymous said...

Judged Lile this evening. For what it's worth only two of the ten people I saw appeared to be completely unprepared and desperate to get kicked out. So, 20% idiot rate? Not bad, Class of '11. Not bad at all.

Anonymous said...

I'm a lawyer. Been out of law school for a number of years. I've interviewed students. If I saw "Moot Court" on a resume, I'd think to myself, "That's nice," but that's it. If someone ever called me to narc on another student for fluffing a resume, I'd figure the easiest way to handle it in my busy day, in which dealing with you all is nonbillable, would be to nuke you both: one guy for being a liar (assuming he didn't tell me during the interview that the moot court info was no longer current), and the other for being a putz.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I graduated from UVA Law nearly 30 years ago, and I have never heard anybody who practices law or who does recruiting for law firms give a rat's behind about the Lile Moot Court Competition. Threatening an honor violation for not updating a resume about the Lile Moot Court Competition? That's just chicken. The NGSL is a far more meaningful law school experience.