Guide to mooting assignments

For expert support from a UK-qualified legal professional with every type of law assignment, visit our dedicated law assignment help page.

What is mooting? Mooting meaning:

In law, mooting is a simulated appellate hearing where students act as barristers, presenting oral and written submissions on a fictional legal issue.

Unlike a trial, a moot focuses solely on applying law to agreed facts, not on hearing evidence or deciding factual disputes.

Understanding mooting assignments

Mooting assignments are designed to simulate appellate court advocacy, allowing law students to practice legal argumentation in a realistic setting.

In a “moot”, students are split into two sides – usually appellant and respondent – and argue a fictional appeal case.

Each side analyses the problem and conducts legal research on the relevant law. They then present both written and oral submissions to support their case (Choudhury 2023).

The exercise mirrors an appeal hearing, so it helps develop skills in legal research, written advocacy and oral persuasion.

Indeed, mooting is highly regarded for building confidence and courtroom etiquette, and it offers insight into appellate practice. Because the written and oral components are typically graded separately, you must excel in both the skeleton argument (written brief) and the oral argument.

Written submissions (skeleton arguments)

A skeleton argument is the written brief submitted before the moot, outlining the essence of your case. Its primary purpose is to provide the judge with a clear, concise summary of your case (Solicitors Regulation Authority 2022).

In practice, the skeleton is often only one or two pages long, so you should focus on the key points. It is called a “skeleton” for a reason. It should contain only the bare bones of your argument, not every detail (2 Temple Gardens n.d.).

In moot competitions, teams usually exchange skeleton arguments in advance. This gives both the judge and the opposing side a roadmap of the case.

You should include only your main arguments and the most relevant legal authorities, presented in a logical structure (Choudhury 2023). Excessive detail or extraneous points will dilute the clarity of your submission; therefore, keep it succinct.

The written submission will act as the framework for your oral argument, and if done well it guides the oral presentation effectively (Choudhury 2023).

Analysing the problem and researching the law

Thorough preparation is essential before you begin drafting the skeleton argument.

Start by carefully analysing the moot problem to identify the issues that the court must decide.

Moot problems usually take the form of an appeal with one or more points of law (grounds of appeal) in dispute. You must be prepared to address each ground in turn.

Determine exactly what legal questions are raised. For example, consider whether the issue is about interpreting a contract term or about whether a certain evidential rule applies.

Once you have listed the specific issues, consider the positions of each side. In a moot you typically represent either the appellant (who is challenging the lower court’s decision) or the respondent (defending that decision). Clarify which side you are on and what outcome you seek (e.g. overturning or upholding the judgment).

Next, conduct focused legal research on each issue. Read the relevant statutes and leading cases that govern those points of law. Aim to find the strongest authorities that support your side’s position. It is better to rely on a few powerful cases or statutory provisions and understand them in depth. This approach is more effective than citing many minor cases indiscriminately (Choudhury 2023).

Make sure to also note any key authorities that go against your argument. You may need to distinguish or address these in your submissions. As you research, continually relate the law back to the moot problem’s facts. Identify which facts (given in the problem scenario) are most favorable to your client, and how the law applies to those facts. By the end of your research phase, you should have a solid grasp of the legal framework. You should also have a list of authorities for each issue.

It is helpful to formulate a case theory – an overarching narrative of why your client should win – that ties together your points. Every argument in your skeleton should support that theory. Moreover, be mindful of any specific moot rules.

Many competitions limit the number of cases you can cite (often around three per side). They also impose strict page or word limits on the skeleton argument. Check your moot’s rules on these points.

Structuring and writing the skeleton argument

Before writing, decide on a clear structure for your skeleton argument. A logical structure not only helps the judge follow your reasoning, but also keeps your writing focused.

A common approach is to break the skeleton into numbered sections or paragraphs, covering:

1. Introduction,
2. Issues,
3. Legal arguments, and
4. Conclusion.

You may also include a brief facts section if needed. However, typically the moot judge is already familiar with the case background, so a detailed recitation of facts is unnecessary.

Introduction:

Begin with a short introduction that states who you represent (appellant or respondent) and what outcome you are seeking.

For example, “The Appellant respectfully submits that the conviction should be quashed…” or “The Respondent contends that the appeal should be dismissed…”.

In an appellate moot, the introduction can also briefly outline the grounds of appeal. If applicable, you might list the authorities you will rely upon. Keep the introduction succinct – just a few sentences to set the stage.

Issues:

Clearly state the legal issues or questions that the court must decide. Number each issue (e.g. Issue 1, Issue 2) and phrase them as questions if possible (“Whether the exclusion clause is effective to bar the claim for negligence”). This shows the judge exactly what points are in dispute. Focusing the issues helps structure the rest of your argument.

Legal arguments (submissions):

This is the core of the skeleton. Under each issue, lay out your submissions – the legal arguments applying relevant law to the facts of your case.

It is usually effective to address one issue at a time, and within each issue, present your points in a logical order.

Start with your strongest argument first (Solicitors Regulation Authority 2022). If you have multiple sub-points, use bullet points or numbered sub-paragraphs for clarity.

For each major point, cite the authority that supports it. Provide the case name (with year and court if available) or statute section. Add a very short parenthetical note if needed to indicate how it supports your point.

Remember that the skeleton is a summary. Do not write long quotations from cases. Instead, paraphrase or use a few key words from the judgment to hint at its holding. For example, you might write:

“As established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers.”

By outlining the argument in this way, you convey the legal basis without overwhelming detail.

Each argument in your skeleton should explicitly connect the law to the facts of the moot scenario. For instance, if one issue is whether an exclusion clause is valid, you could write a point such as:

“The clause is not incorporated into the contract because the company failed to adequately communicate it to the consumer (Authority: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]).”

This illustrates how your skeleton argument should connect the legal principle to the key facts of the scenario.

If you suspect the opposing side will raise certain counter-points, you can plan to address them (either briefly in the skeleton or during oral argument). However, only include such rebuttal points in the written brief if you can do so very concisely – otherwise save them for the oral presentation.

Counter-arguments:

If time and space permit, consider acknowledging the key counter-arguments that the opposing side might raise, and briefly note why they do not prevail. This shows you have thought about the case holistically.

For example, you might write: “The Respondent may argue X; however, that is distinguishable because Y.” Include such rebuttal points only if you can do so very concisely – otherwise save them for the oral argument.

Conclusion:

End the skeleton argument with a short conclusion reiterating what you want the court to do. This is often called the “prayer” or relief sought. For example, the Appellant’s conclusion might read: “For the above reasons, the Appellant respectfully asks this Honourable Court to allow the appeal and set aside the lower court’s order.” This succinctly reiterates the outcome you seek.

Throughout the skeleton, maintain a formal and respectful tone. In a skeleton argument, the standard is to refer to the judge impersonally as “the Court”. Example: “The Court is invited to find…”

“My Lord” / “My Lady” is reserved for oral argument, when you are directly addressing the judge.

Avoid casual language. Ensure your document is formatted neatly: most moots expect skeletal arguments to have numbered paragraphs, clear headings, adequate spacing (~12-pt font and 1.5 spacing), and headings for each section. Include your name (and your moot role, e.g. “Counsel for the Appellant”) and the date on the document, typically at the end.

Also include the case heading on the first page (for example, the court name, case name, and “Skeleton Argument of the Appellant”) as per moot or court conventions (Solicitors Regulation Authority 2022). Check that citations are accurate and properly formatted, using the required legal citation style.

Also, be aware that instead of ‘v’, in civil cases you say “and” and in criminal cases you say “against” for case names.

Make sure you cite all sources of law you rely on, and do not introduce an authority in oral argument that is not in your written submission (SOAS Law Society n.d.). Adding weak points will not strengthen your case. It is more effective to jettison marginal arguments and focus on the strong ones (Slapper and Kelly 2016).

Ultimately, a well-written skeleton argument is clear, well-organised, and persuasive. It provides an excellent foundation for the oral phase of the moot.

Oral argument

In the moot’s oral argument, you step into the role of advocate and present your case to the judges verbally. This portion simulates the appellate hearing itself, where you must persuade through spoken advocacy and answer any questions from the bench.

Oral advocacy is often weighted heavily in marking, so thorough preparation and effective delivery are essential. Unlike the written brief submitted beforehand, the oral submission is your live performance. It tests not only your legal knowledge but also your public speaking skills, clarity of thought and ability to think on your feet.

Preparation and practice for oral advocacy

Preparation is the cornerstone of a successful oral argument. Begin by mastering the content of your case: know your skeleton argument inside-out, along with the details of the facts and authorities. You should be able to recall the main points of your submissions without reading verbatim.

A useful exercise is to distill each of your submissions down to a single sentence (2 Temple Gardens n.d.). If you cannot sum up an argument in one or two sentences, you may need to clarify your understanding. By the time of the moot, you should have a clear mental roadmap of your argument.

Practise your oral submissions multiple times in advance. It is highly recommended to do one or more mock moots or run-throughs. If you have a mooting partner (e.g. a junior or senior co-counsel on your side), practice together.

Take turns presenting your arguments and give each other feedback. You could even ask a friend or mentor to act as the judge. Have them interrupt you with questions so that you can practise your responses (2 Temple Gardens n.d.).

This kind of practice will not only improve your fluency but also build confidence. The more familiar you are with your material, the less nervous you will feel – and that confidence will translate into a more persuasive delivery (Choudhury 2023).

Additionally, anticipate the questions or challenges the moot judge might raise. Think critically about the weaknesses in your case and how the opponent will counter your points.

For each likely question, prepare a response. For instance, if you suspect the judge will question the relevance of a certain case, be ready to explain why that precedent is applicable. Judges are often impressed if you can respond to a question by referring to your skeleton argument (2 Temple Gardens n.d.).

However, do not script full answers to every anticipated question. You must remain flexible and respond to the actual questions the judge asks, rather than reciting a pre-written answer.

Finally, ensure you are familiar with the overall moot format and any time limits. Moot speeches are typically timed (e.g. 10 minutes for senior counsel, 8 minutes for junior counsel, plus a short rebuttal or surrebuttal). Plan how to allocate your time among your points. Practice with a timer to make sure you can cover your major points within the limit.

Also, prepare your notes for oral presentation. These should be an outline or cue cards highlighting the structure and key phrases, not a full speech (Slapper and Kelly 2016). Many experienced mooters warn that reading from a script makes your delivery dull and inflexible. Instead, use brief notes just to jog your memory. This allows you to speak naturally and adapt to the flow of the moot.

Structuring the oral submissions

A well-structured oral argument helps the judges follow your reasoning and underscores your professionalism. At the start of your speech, you must introduce yourself and your role. For example, the appellant’s first speaker might begin: “May it please the court, my name is [Name], counsel for the Appellant.” You should also introduce your colleague and their role if you have a co-counsel.

After the introductions, it is good practice to provide a roadmap of your submissions. Briefly outline the points you will cover – for instance: “I will make two submissions. First, that the contract was not validly formed. Second, that even if it was, the exclusion clause cannot defeat our claim.” This overview helps the bench understand where you are heading.

When making the body of your argument, use clear signposting between points. Explicitly announce when you are moving from one issue to the next (“Turning now to my second submission, which concerns the exclusion clause…”). This ensures the judge can follow the transitions.

Start with your strongest point (Slapper and Kelly 2016). This ensures your best argument is heard while you have ample time. If something unexpected happens – for example, if time is running short or the judge clearly indicates they are already convinced on a point – you must be ready to adapt.

Always be prepared to reorder or condense your arguments on the fly. Flexibility in structure can be crucial. For instance, you might decide to skip a weaker point if time is nearly up, rather than rushing through all points inadequately.

Throughout your oral submissions, stay focused on the issues and the relief you seek. Every point you make should tie back to why your side should win. Avoid going off on tangents or getting bogged down in unnecessary details.

For each legal point, refer the court to the authorities and facts succinctly, similar to your skeleton but with slightly more explanation since you have time to elaborate. If the judge has written materials (e.g., the moot problem or a bundle of authorities), guide them to the relevant pages when you cite a case or statute. Always give the judges time to find the reference in their materials. This may mean pausing briefly after citing a case.

Manage your time wisely during the argument. Keep an eye on the moot timekeeper if there is one, or note any timing device. If you have reserved time for rebuttal (in an appellate moot a short reply is usually allowed), do not use up all your time during your main speech.

In moot court, as in real appeals, a concise and well-structured argument is more effective than a meandering one. Therefore, plan and stick to a clear structure. At the same time, be ready to adapt as needed in the moment.

Delivery and presentation skills

How you deliver your argument can be as important as what you say. Speaking style, tone, and body language all contribute to persuasive oral advocacy.

Begin by speaking slowly and clearly. Many mooters tend to speak too quickly because they are nervous. Consciously slowing your pace will make you sound more confident (2 Temple Gardens n.d.).

If you find yourself rushing, take a breath and continue at a measured pace. It can be effective to write a reminder like “SLOW DOWN” at the top of your notes (2 Temple Gardens n.d.). This ensures you do not forget to moderate your pace in the heat of the moment. Remember, clarity is more important than covering every minor detail. Judges will prefer that you explain two points well rather than four points poorly.

Use a strong voice and enunciate your words so that you are easily heard. Maintain a polite, formal tone throughout. Show enthusiasm for your arguments, but avoid being overly dramatic. Eye contact is crucial: look at the judge or judges regularly (rather than reading from notes or looking down).

Engaging eye contact conveys confidence and allows you to gauge the judge’s reactions. If you have notes, use them sparingly – glance at bullet points to stay on track, but then return to addressing the court. If you lose your train of thought momentarily, it is perfectly acceptable to pause for a couple of seconds to collect yourself; indeed, taking a moment of silence, if needed, shows composure under pressure and ensures your next words are organised.

Positive body language also enhances your delivery. Stand straight and avoid fidgeting or nervous gestures that might distract from your words. Be aware of any nervous habits so that you can minimize them. Practising in front of a mirror or recording yourself can help you identify and correct such issues (SOAS Law Society n.d.).

Strive to project calm and professionalism. Keep your hands generally at your sides or use natural gestures to emphasise points. However, do not point at the judge or wave papers around.

Additionally, observe proper courtroom decorum. For example, stand when you address the court or when a judge enters or leaves the room. Never interrupt the judge or your opponent.

Another key aspect of delivery is not reading a script. As noted earlier, you should not memorise an exact speech word-for-word, as this will hinder your ability to adapt. Similarly, do not read out a pre-written script – this tends to sound monotonous and prevents you from making eye contact.

Aim to speak extemporaneously, guided by your outline. This gives you the freedom to adjust your phrasing or order based on how the argument is proceeding. It also lets you respond to the judge’s questions fluidly.

Overall, effective delivery comes down to clear communication. Speak at a measured pace and articulate your points with confidence while maintaining an attentive posture. By doing so, you will come across as a compelling advocate.

Courtroom etiquette and handling questions

Moots place heavy emphasis on courtroom etiquette and the proper manner of addressing the court. You must adopt the formal modes of address at all times. Refer to the judge as “My Lord” or “My Lady” (or “Your Lordship/Ladyship” when speaking about them indirectly). Never address the judge as “you” (SOAS Law Society n.d.).

Likewise, refer to your opponent or co-counsel as “my learned friend” instead of by name or “opponent”. These titles may feel archaic, but they are the norm in mooting to mirror real court practice (Choudhury 2023).

Also, when citing case law during your speech, it is polite to offer a brief summary of the facts if the judge is not familiar with the case. For example, you might ask, “Does Your Lordship require a brief summary of the facts of Williams v Roffey Bros (1991)?” Judges will indicate if they need a summary or if they are already aware of the case.

During the session, stand when the judge enters and remain standing until they sit, and do the same when the court adjourns. When the judge addresses you or asks a question, listen attentively and never interrupt.

If the judge is speaking, immediately pause your own argument until they have finished – you must address their questions directly and respectfully. If you resume or make any request, preface it with a polite phrase (e.g., “If it pleases Your Lordship,…”).

At the conclusion of your submissions, thank the court (e.g., “My Lord, those are the submissions for the Appellant. Thank you.”).

One of the most challenging aspects for new mooters is handling judicial interventions – questions or comments from the judge. Expect to be interrupted – moot judges often test students by asking questions mid-argument, just as real judges do.

When a question comes, stop what you were saying and address it fully. Remain calm and take a moment to think if needed. Always respond honestly and directly. If the question highlights a weakness or something you had not considered, do your best to concede where you must. Then steer your answer back to favorable territory. For example, “My Lady, that is a valid concern. However, in the present case, the distinction is that…”.

If you do not know the answer, it is better to respectfully admit it rather than attempting to bluff. Thorough preparation should minimize the chances of being completely stumped.

Importantly, maintain the same formal language even when answering the judge’s questions. This is often the hardest part – under pressure, students sometimes lapse into saying “you” or become too informal (SOAS Law Society n.d.). Train yourself to continue using the proper titles and phrases even in tense moments.

Moreover, keep your answers concise and on point. After addressing the question, you might transition back to your planned argument by saying, “With the court’s permission, I will return to my submissions.” Then continue with your next point.

It is important to remain flexible. Judges might lead you out of sequence to a topic they are interested in, and you must adapt. If a judge’s question changes your planned sequence, that is fine. Follow their lead and adapt your presentation accordingly (2 Temple Gardens n.d.). The ability to think and respond in the moment is one of the key skills mooting develops.

Finally, maintain courtesy towards your opponent at all times. Do not interrupt their speech; if you have rebuttal time, use that to counter their points rather than interjecting. Even if you disagree strongly with their argument, refer to it respectfully (e.g., “My learned friend’s submission, with respect, misstates the law on this point…”). The professionalism you exhibit in etiquette and interactions can positively influence your scoring.

Wrapping up:

Mooting assignments demand a combination of rigorous legal analysis, strategic writing, and polished oral advocacy. By preparing a clear and persuasive skeleton argument, you provide the foundation for your case in a concise written form. Then, through disciplined practice and adherence to courtroom decorum, you bring that case to life in the oral hearing.

For expert support from a UK-qualified legal professional with every type of law assignment, visit our dedicated law assignment help page.

References and further reading:

• 2 Temple Gardens (n.d.) ‘Guide to Mooting’. Available at: https://www.2tg.co.uk/the-times-2tg-moot/guide-to-mooting/ (Accessed: 25 July 2025).
• Choudhury, A. (2023) ‘The three submissions in a moot’, LawCareers.Net, 16 November. Available at: https://www.lawcareers.net/Explore/BlogPost/Anisa-Rahman-Choudhury/The-three-submissions-in-a-moot (Accessed: 25 July 2025).
• Slapper, G. and Kelly, D. (2016) The English Legal System. 17th edn. London: Routledge. (Mooting skills section available online at Routledge Textbooks: https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/9781138944459/mooting.php (Accessed: 25 July 2025)).
• SOAS Law Society (n.d.) Mooting Guide. [PDF] Available at: http://soaslawsoc.squarespace.com/s/Mooting-Guide-Final-1.pdf (Accessed: 25 July 2025).
• Solicitors Regulation Authority (2022) ‘Drafting a persuasive skeleton argument’. Available at: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/specific-areas-of-practice/persuasive-skeleton-argument/ (Accessed: 25 July 2025).