Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Research and write skeleton arguments for a real moot problem
4 weeks
Obtain a real moot problem — from a law school moot programme, a law society competition, or one set by a qualified lawyer or academic — and research the applicable law for the assigned position. Write skeleton arguments in the numbered format used in real appellate practice: each argument point cited to primary authority, organised to address both the assigned position and the strongest counter-authorities.
Proof required
Skeleton arguments document (1500+ words) addressing the moot problem for the assigned position, at least four authority citations (cases or statutes) per argument point in correct legal citation format, organised in numbered skeleton format, including a section addressing the strongest authorities on the other side.
What gets checked
- Skeleton argument format follows real court practice — numbered points with authority citations, not essay prose
- At least four authorities per argument point in correct legal citation format
- Strongest counter-authorities are addressed — not just the authorities for the assigned position
Common mistakes
- Writing a legal essay rather than skeleton arguments — different professional formats with distinct requirements
- Not addressing counter-authorities — real appellate advocacy requires engaging the other side's best cases
- Using only secondary sources — skeleton arguments must cite primary legal authority
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Verify skeleton format — numbered points with authority citations, not essay prose
- Check citations — verify at least two by accessing the cited case or statute
- Review counter-authorities section — confirm strongest opposing authorities are addressed
Perform oral advocacy in a real moot before a qualified judge panel
2 weeks
Perform oral advocacy in a moot court setting before a panel with at least one qualified lawyer, barrister, or law academic as judge. The three acceptable settings: (1) formal law school moot programme; (2) law society or bar association moot competition; (3) moot organised by a qualified lawyer or academic who acts as judge and attests to the performance. The oral advocacy must include real judicial questioning — not a reading of skeleton arguments.
Proof required
Moot performance record covering: moot problem name, setting (law school / law society competition / qualified lawyer organised), judge panel members with credentials, at least three judicial questions posed to the candidate with responses, and the judge's summary feedback.
What gets checked
- Setting is one of the three acceptable moot settings
- At least one panel judge is a qualified lawyer, barrister, or law academic
- At least three judicial questions and real-time responses are documented
Common mistakes
- Presenting to a peer without a qualified judge — peer moots do not satisfy the constitutional proof standard
- Reading from notes throughout — moot advocacy requires responding to judicial questioning
- Judge feedback not documented — the judge's assessment is part of the moot record
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm the moot setting is one of the three acceptable types
- Verify at least one judge is a qualified lawyer, barrister, or law academic
- Review judicial Q&A — confirm at least three questions and real-time responses are documented
Reflect on advocacy performance and incorporate judge feedback
1 week
Review the judge's feedback from M2 and produce a structured advocacy improvement plan. For each significant feedback item, identify the specific advocacy skill it addresses (citation under pressure, engagement with judicial reasoning, oral argument structure, response to novel authorities), document what was done well, and specify concrete improvement actions. Demonstrate understanding of the difference between written legal argument and oral appellate advocacy.
Proof required
Advocacy reflection document (400+ words) organised around judge feedback, addressing at least four feedback items, identifying the specific advocacy skill for each, documenting what was done well, and specifying concrete improvement actions.
What gets checked
- At least four judge feedback items are addressed specifically
- Each feedback item is linked to a named advocacy skill
- Concrete improvement actions are specified — not just 'do better next time'
Common mistakes
- Reflection that only summarises feedback without analysis of why it matters for appellate advocacy
- Improvement actions that are generic — 'prepare more' is not concrete
- Not distinguishing written argument quality from oral advocacy skill — they are different disciplines
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Review reflection — confirm at least four feedback items with named advocacy skills
- Check improvement actions — confirm they are concrete
- Verify the reflection distinguishes written from oral advocacy skills