The Board of Student Advisers at Harvard Law School invites you to serve as a judge for the 2019 1L Ames Moot Court Program.
In the 1L Ames program, first-year students brief and argue a fictional appellate case. Every 1L student participates in an oral argument judged by a three-member panel, ideally comprised of one practitioner, one faculty member and one upper-level student. Judges probe the legal logic of participants’ briefs and prompt students to articulate their arguments.
Practitioner judges provide a tremendous benefit to first-year students by giving constructive criticism based on their real-world experience. In addition, judging 1L Ames provides an opportunity to connect with students as they consider future job opportunities.
This year’s 1L Ames program will be held April 8-11, with arguments beginning at 7:15 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. each night.
By late March or early April, judges will be sent copies of the students’ briefs, the appellate record, a comprehensive bench memo with sample questions, and feedback forms to help students improve. During the 1L Ames program, dinner will be provided to judges before the first argument each evening, starting at 6 p.m.
If you are interested in judging, please register here. Please register by Friday, March 22.
More information about the 1L Ames Moot Court Program can be found here. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Grace Wallack, co-chair of the 1L Ames Moot Court Program, at firstname.lastname@example.org or (919) 699-5013.
2019 First-Year Ames Case Descriptions
United States v. Hark presents several appellate issues stemming from Archibald “Archie” Hark’s conviction for distributing more than 100 grams of heroin. After the jury delivered its verdict at trial, Hark moved for acquittal on the basis that federal drug enforcement officials, including Agent Paul Lopez, had induced him to deal the drugs and that, therefore, he was entrapped as a matter of law. Three days after trial, Hark moved separately for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence — several affidavits casting Agent Lopez’s testimony into doubt. The district court denied both motions. On appeal, Hark hopes to persuade the Ninth Circuit that the district court erred in rejecting his motion for acquittal for entrapment as a matter of law and in refusing to grant him a new trial. The government must persuade the court that the lower court was correct in both its rulings.
Sanchez v. MacNamara Veterinary Specialists stems from Defendant-Appellant June Sanchez's employment as a veterinarian for Plaintiff-Appellee MacNamara Veterinarian Specialists. After eight years of employment, Sanchez resigned and opened her own veterinary practice in Syracuse. MacNamara filed a contract suit, alleging that Sanchez's practice violated her employment contract, which included a restrictive covenant that limited Sanchez's ability to practice as a veterinarian in New York after leaving MacNamara. Sanchez responded that the covenant was unenforceable and brought a counterclaim alleging that the hospital had retaliated against her for reporting a fellow veterinarian's dangerous conduct, thus constructively discharging her and violating the employment contract. The trial court granted MacNamara's motion for summary judgment, and the New York Court of Appeals granted review over two issues: whether the noncompete portion of the employment contract is enforceable, and whether Sanchez adequately pleaded a cause of action for breach of her employment contract.
Please note that this program is not affiliated with the Massachusetts Bar Association and/or the Mock Trial Program.