Judicial simulations, long a staple of the law school curriculum, are no longer new to
undergraduate courses, particularly upper-division “law” courses (Bird, 2002; Rosato, 1995;
Caplow, 1989). Nor is literature on the utility of judicial simulations a new phenomenon
(Pacelle, 1989; Hensley, 1993). There are, of course, numerous types of simulations, and many
different ways they can be employed in the classroom. Nevertheless, many undergraduate
instructors are hesitant to utilize judicial simulations, and others struggle with practical and
logistical obstacles. Such obstacles may include student-oriented concerns– lack of grounding in
legal reasoning, research or writing, apathy or fear of public speaking– workload issues– it takes
a significant time commitment to select, develop, manage and assess simulations, and additional
projects may crowd an already ambitious syllabus– even instructor unease with overseeing the
process. Moreover, it is difficult to quantify the tangible benefits of such exercises as teaching
tools, particularly given limited course offerings (making it difficult to employ a control group
for feedback) and the subjective nature of even the most objective-appearing student course
evaluation.
My purpose in this paper is to discuss some of the benefits and challenges inherent in
utilizing moot court simulations in the undergraduate classroom, and to offer suggestions for the
instructor unfamiliar with the process or struggling to find a workable format. In my several
years as an instructor, I have used multiple types of simulations with varying degrees of success.
Most successful have been a variety of moot court exercises in my constitutional law courses.
While broadly speaking, a “moot court” can simulate any form of judicial proceeding, the form I
utilize is the appellate court simulation, in which student “attorneys” argue the legal merits of a
Convention