I object

Law students are champs at the art of argument

BY BARBARA ABEL, JOUR '64

The word “moot” usually means a point not worth arguing. In law school, the word has a much older meaning, dating to the mid-16th century and meaning a hypothetical case argued as an exercise. Five centuries later, law students are still honing their skills arguing cases in moot court  trials. And in March, the Marquette moot court team of Garet Galster, Jacob Short, Rudolph Kuss and Abraham Abgozo won the championship crown in the Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition, beating more than 65 other teams from around the country in the national trademark law competition.

How did they do it? A lot of hard work and long hours of practice. In the words of their coach, Irene Calboli, assistant professor of law: “They had to work hard and avoid basic mistakes. And they had to have an all-for-one, one-for-all team spirit.” Calboli coached teams that won regional titles the past three years. This year, she was assisted by third-year student Andrew Rossmeissl, a member of the team that placed first in the 2004 Lefkowitz Midwest Regionals, and by several Milwaukee lawyers who offered key assistance as advisers.

Trademark infringement

In this year’s Lefkowitz trademark competition, students around the country were given a a fictional case, an appeal to a U.S. District Court over the alleged unauthorized use of a trademark for a weight-loss regimen called the Gusary (anagram of sugary) Program.

The four Marquette team members all wrote sections of the brief, a condensed text that lists the main contentions of arguments on both sides of the issue, along with supporting evidence and  documentation. (Briefs are typically  filed by attorneys before arguing a case in court.) For this part of the competition, they worked without assistance from their faculty advisers. The brief was sent to the regional judges one month before the oral arguments and judged separately.

After the regional competitions held in February in four cities around the country, selected teams advanced to the nationals, which were conducted in Washington, D.C., before jurists from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, trial court judges and a jurist from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Marquette’s team was one of four teams invited to participate in the national finals.

Practicing oral arguments

When the date for the March national event was announced, the team realized that only three of them — Short, Galster and Kuss — would be able to attend the oral arguments. Abgozo had a conflict with the date.

To help her team hone its presentation, Calboli asked intellectual property attorneys from five Milwaukee-area law firms to role-play as appeals court judges while Short and Galster practiced their arguments. Like a debate competition, moot court teams must be able to argue both sides of the case and be prepared to answer penetrating questions from the panel of judges. Altogether, the team had 16 practice sessions on campus and at local law firms.

“Those attorneys were extremely helpful,” Galster says, “because they brought different perspectives and asked questions based on practical experience. They also stressed the proper way to address the court and how to keep our demeanor consistent.”

Mollie Ambrose Newcomb and a group from Boyle Fredrickson Newholm Stein & Gratz SC worked with the law students. “I’ve judged a lot of Marquette teams,” says Newcomb, an attorney who practices patent, trademark and copyright law. “They were all dedicated and well-prepared. But rarely have I seen a team as polished as this one.”

Newcomb, a 2001 graduate of Marquette Law School, participated in moot court competitions herself as a law student. She was part of a team that placed second at the Giles Sutherland Rich Regionals in Chicago in 2001, then participated in the national competition where it finished as a semifinalist.

Robert L. Titley, a partner in the Milwaukee offices of Quarles & Brady LLP and a specialist in trademark law, joined a group from that firm in evaluating the Marquette team. “It was fun,” says Titley, who earned his law degree at Duke University. “Like a lot of attorneys, I’ve wondered what it’s like to be a judge, and this gave me a taste of it. One of the students told us that one of the questions we asked them was exactly what one of the judges asked during the competition.”

Another Duke Law graduate, Kathy Schill, from the Milwaukee firm Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, also judged a practice session for the students. “We tried to toss out tough questions but they handled them well and knew the case law,” she recalls. “In one case, they even respectfully corrected a question we asked.”

In addition to winning the national championship, the four Marquette team members earned a second-place national award for their written brief.

Despite the time and research involved, Galster and Short look forward to competing again in 2005-06. Galster will compete with the trademark law team and Short with the sports law team.

“One thing moot court made me  realize,” says Short, “is that I think I have a pretty good future in litigation.”