Coaching a Trial Competition Team - Why Do It?

Lee Coppock, the trial team fellow at Stetson University College of Law, wished to offer the following commentary for the anonymous person who wrote in to the Advocacy Agony Aunt recently.  I find it so helpful that I thought that I would begin a new thread of discussion for the group.
As you read it you will quickly see why Lee is one of the great treasures of my school.  thanks Lee!


The question for the Advocacy Agony Aunt concerned whether or not it was really worthwhile to bother with coaching trial teams given the problems with simulated experiential learning, particularly as they relate to ethics, here is Lee's response:


1.  Some of what you have heard is certainly true.  You might also have heard from others that mock trials are remarkably like "real life" at least in many respects including:

      a.  The unexpected is to be expected and preparing for those times is great practice and good preparation for the real world;

      b.  Winning takes preparation - lots of it.  AND some are more willing to pay that price than others.  Those are the ones who predictably come out on top - just like real life.

      c.  Not everyone we oppose has the same ethical views as we do.  In other words, some opposing counsel come to the arena prepared to cut throats and others come with an expectation of putting the facts in front of the trier of fact with honed advocacy skills and then let that trier of fact make a call.  When opposing counsel tries to manipulate the system, we must be prepared to expose that behavior and exact a cost for it.  It is hard to imagine a lawyer stepping into a real life arena very often without the need to do exactly that.

      d.  SOME measure of "dog and pony" can help communicate to a jury what would otherwise be boring and ineffective direct examinations or opening statements and closing arguments. 

Most of us who are committed to mock trial competitions see great value to the skills that are learned and honed when the preparation is thorough and focused. 

2.  The method of preparation depends in large measure to the level of skills and natural talents of the advocates.  For true rookies, very small things like foundations for personal knowledge when directing a witness, litanies for introducing evidence or refreshing recollection, the purpose and form of mid-trial motions - as examples, need lots of time.  The successful advocates must be able to initiate and respond (just like in real life!) almost without conscious thought.  For those advocates who are more experienced, it is good to consider carefully the more subtle tasks like the rebuttal to an objection or the nuance of a rule of evidence.  In other words, since the objective is a skilled advocate, appropriate preparation requires a commitment on the part of the coach and the student to do whatever it takes - whatever that is.

3.  There are some variations - depending on the competition and rules of the event, but it hard to visualize a circumstance when preparation as though it were a real trial would be ineffective.  Certainly one should remember that the "jury" is usually made up of lawyers - which (thankfully!) is NOT real life.  However those lawyers usually try to evaluate as though they were "Joe six-pack" jurors.  At the same time, anyone who has done this any length of time has found that those juror/lawyers have a very wide range of views and what one of them may find laudable the one sitting next to her/him finds to be a reason for harsh criticism.  Of course that also happens in real life, doesn't it?

Certainly mock trial competitions are not for every law student anymore than trying cases in real life is for every lawyer.  Having pointed out the obvious, let me hasten to add that many who have gone through the fires of competition in law school have found those experiences to be very similar and great preparation for those great arenas in the big time - a.k.a. "real life."

Yours,

Lee Coppock