The Albers Finalists (L to R): Christina Lau, Avery Lehr, John Sadek, and Angela DiIenno

Congratulations to all of the student advocacy and moot court teams on a very successful year! And a special congratulations to the 2015 Homer Albers Prize Competition winners, next year’s intermural teams, and the students selected to direct the the 2015-2016 competitions.

Homer Albers Prize Winners
Best Brief: Lacey Brantley and Melissa Rybacki
Best Oralist: Angela DiIenno
Best Team: Angel DiIenno and John Sadek
Second Team: Avery Lehr and Christina Lau

2015-2016 Moot Court Boards
Albers Directors: Amanda Hesse and Christina Lau
Esdaile Directors: Amber Davis, Jacquelyn Quinn, and Silvia Stockman
Stone DIrectors: Lacey Brantley, Caddie Nath, and Ashley Paquin
Negotiation & Client Counseling Directors: Jaime Margolis, Holly Ovington, Wes Howe, and Sam Lifton

2015-2016 Intermural Teams
National Moot Court: Angela Dilenno, Avery Lehr, and John Sadek
Sutherland Cup: Shefali Lakhani and Courtland Roberts
First Amendment: Michelle Christodoulou and Abigail James
National Appellate Advocacy: Anthony Maneiro, Hannah Perlman, and Anthony Shaheen
Gibbons Criminal Procedure: Suzanne Adler, Victoria Doñé, and Zachary Evans
Oxford International IP: Benjamin Greene and Jessica Perry

BU Law team advances to national quarterfinals

BU Law’s national quarterfinalist National Appellate Advocacy Competition team: Abed Bhuyan, Jeff Kiok, Monica Narang (all ’15)

BU Law extends a well-deserved congratulations to Jeff Kiok, Monica Narang, and Abed Bhuyan (all ’15), who represented the School in the national rounds of the National Appellate Advocacy Competition, held in Chicago April 9-11.

Teams from 24 schools from six regions around the country faced off at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse. The BU Law team first argued for respondent against the team from SMU Dedham School of Law, and, later in the afternoon, as petitioner against the team from the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University. Kiok, Narang, and Bhuyan won both of their preliminary rounds, besting their opponents on both brief and oral scores. The team was one of nine to finish the preliminary rounds with a two-win record, and was seeded 8th overall.

In the following octofinal round, BU Law faced the ninth-seeded team from Seattle University School of Law. This round and all subsequent rounds were head-to-head elimination rounds, and only the team’s oral argument scores would count. The five-judge bench was tough, but BU Law prevailed and moved on to the quarterfinal round.

In the quarterfinal round, the team faced the top-seeded team from Michigan State University College of Law. The bench peppered both teams with nearly non-stop questions, especially for respondents, the side BU Law was arguing. Kiok, Narang, and Bhuyan narrowly lost the round in a close 3-2 decision. Michigan State was an excellent opponent, who went on to win the entire competition.

“I am extremely proud of the team’s quarterfinals finish, says Jen Taylor McCloskey, associate director of advocacy programs. “They worked extremely hard, practicing almost daily in the weeks leading up to the national finals, and they certainly deserve their recognition as one of the top eight moot court teams in the country.”

BU Law team one of only 24 accepted into competition

Albert Heng and Michael Kaplan (both ’15)

On March 19-20, Albert Heng (’15) and Michael Kaplan (’15) competed in the 13th Annual Oxford International IP Moot at the University of Oxford. Professor Robert Volk accompanied the team, which was one of only 24 teams (out of 48 that submitted briefs) to be accepted into the competition.

The teams traveled from countries including India, Germany, China, Singapore, Australia, and the United Kingdom to argue a series of issues involving a breach of confidence and patent infringement. The problem involved genetically modified seeds and genetically modified bees. This international competition posed unique challenges to the BU Law team, as they had to adapt to a different style of argumentation and brief writing.

Heng and Kaplan argued against teams from Cardiff University, Osgoode Hall Law School, Bucerius Law School, and King’s College. Though they did not advance to the quarterfinals, they won against the teams from Osgoode Hall Law School and Cardiff University, who received the award for best written brief submission. The BU Law team also gained valuable experience from the competition.

“As the practice of law becomes more and more globalized, the boundaries between nations and the differences in their laws become increasingly blurred,” says Kaplan. “This experience taught us both the value and importance of researching the laws of other countries, and of interacting with their lawyers and legal systems.”

The international component also represented a valuable opportunity to learn from students from across the globe. “It was an amazing experience to moot with teams from all over the world and to witness the varying styles from country to county,” says Heng. “The overall style of the competition is friendly and conversational, and it was a pleasure to meet the other teams.”

Congratulations to the students who have advanced to the final round of the Homer Albers Prize Competition! Angela Dilenno (’16) and John Sadek (’16), counsel for the Petitioner, will face Avery Lehr (’16) and Christina Lau (’16), counsel for the Respondent, on Thursday, April 16 at 4:30 p.m. in the Law Auditorium.

The advocates will argue before a distinguished panel of judges: Cornelia T.L. Pillard, justice of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals; Solomon Oliver, Jr., chief Justice of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; and Denise Casper, justice of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Please join us for the final round of this exciting competition and for the reception following in the Law Auditorium Lobby, where Professor Volk will announce the Albers Awards and next year’s moot court teams and boards. Refreshments will be served.

BU Law team advances to top 16, Tremble is top-ranking oralist in his round

(L to R) Seth Tremble, Chester Hooper, Yue Yuan, Aaron Long

On March 19-21, Aaron Long (’16), Seth Tremble (’15), and Yue Yuan (LLM ’15) competed as one of 21 teams in the Judge John R. Brown Admiralty Moot Court Competition at the Charleston School of Law in Charleston, South Carolina. The competition was started in 1993 by the University of Texas to honor John R. Brown, one of the nation’s most prominent admiralty judges and an important figure in the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

This year’s problem included two issues involving the Jones Act. The competition consists of two sections: brief writing and oral arguments. After submitting their brief in January, the BU Law team worked with their advisor, Lecturer Chester Hooper, to prepare for the oral arguments in March.

In the first round of the competition, BU Law’s team argued both sides of the case and advanced to the knockout rounds as one of the top 16 teams. Though the team did not advance further, they had an excellent showing and gained valuable experience from the competition. “In addition to the rule of law, we gained knowledge of real admiralty practice that can’t be found in a textbook, including how maritime insurance companies work and other interesting issues,” says Yuan.

Tremble stood out in the oral arguments, earning the top-ranked spot out of the four oralists who argued in each of BU Law’s rounds. Long improved his presentation skills over the course of the competition, and Yuan excelled in the brief writing and by helping her team members practice their oral arguments.

“It was a great experience for me,” says Long. “I learned much about oral advocacy and gained needed experience in the field of public speaking and debate. It was nice to get to meet the other law students, the tournament judges, and the various law school faculty that came to the event, which made it a fun chance to network in the admiralty community.”

BU Law congratulates all participants in the Homer Albers Prize Moot Court Competition. We are proud to announce the winners from the quarterfinals who will be advancing to the semifinal round. All are welcome and encouraged to attend both the semi and final rounds—if the preliminaries are any indication, the audience can expect really impressive mooting to come! The semifinals are scheduled as follows:

Tuesday, April 7 at 4:30 p.m. in Redstone 103
Petitioner: Lacey Brantley (’16) and Melissa Rybacki (’16)
Respondent: Avery Lehr (’16) and Christina Lau (’16)
Judges: Hon. Andrew Grainger, Massachusetts Appeals Court, Hon. Maureen McKenna Goldberg, Rhode Island Supreme Court, Professor Kristin Collins

Thursday, April 9 at 4:30 p.m. in Redstone 103
Petitioner: Angela DiIenno (’16) and John Sadek (’16)
Respondent: Caddie Nath (’16) and Amanda Hesse (’16)
Judges: Hon. Gabrielle Wolohojian, Massachusetts Appeals Court, Hon. Gregory Massing, Massachusetts Appeals Court, Professor Linda McClain

Final arguments will be held on Thursday, April 16 at 4:30 p.m. in the Law Auditorium. The advocates will argue before Justice Cornelia T.L. Pillard of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Solomon Oliver, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and JusticeDenise Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Following the argument, all are welcome to attend our reception in the Law Auditorium Lobby, where Professor Volk will announce the Albers Awards and next year’s moot court teams and boards. Refreshments will be served.

BU Law team argues extremely well in three intensive rounds

Bryan Noonan and Lisa Bothwell

The oldest constitutional law competition in the country, Sutherland Cup is an invitational meet with fourteen participating teams, held annually at Columbus School of Law at Catholic University. BU Law was represented by Lisa Bothwell and Bryan Noonan (both ’15); the team’s third team member, James Puddington (’15), was unable to attend the competition but was a valuable contributor to the team’s brief.

This year’s problem involved two complex Confrontation Clause issues. The first asked the students to argue about whether it violates the Confrontation Clause to have a supervisor testify as an expert evaluating raw laboratory data from a report that is not entered into evidence and for which the original analyst is not available. The second issue was a very fact-intensive ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Lisa and Bryan argued on-brief, as Petitioners, on Friday evening against the team from William & Mary Law School, one of the eventual semifinalists. As with many competitions, scores are not released during the competition, but the team argued extremely well before an inquisitive bench. On Saturday morning, the team argued off-brief, as Respondents, against the team from Campbell Law School. This second round was extremely tough; both teams faced a constant barrage of questions from the bench. Although the judges were tough, they praised Bryan for his ability to pick up on their concerns and to structure his argument around those issues. Finally, with only five minutes between the rounds to re-orient themselves, the team argued as Petitioner again in a third round against a team from the UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law. The judges were again very involved in the argument, and in particular had high praise for Lisa’s ability to answer their questions directly, concisely, and confidently.

Only four of the fourteen teams advanced to the semifinal round, and unfortunately, our team did not advance. They put forth a strong effort through three extremely active rounds, and we congratulate them on their hard work!

BU Law team receives excellent feedback from the benches

Sean Rosenthal and Joseph McClellan

The John J. Gibbons Criminal Procedure Moot Court Competition focuses on timely issues of criminal procedure and criminal law. Held at Seton Hall University School of Law, 42 teams from around the country competed this year—including Sean Rosenthal and Joseph McClellan (both ’15), who represented BU Law.

Competitors argued two issues: first, whether a mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion necessary under the Fourth Amendment for a traffic stop; and, second, whether the continued detention of a stopped driver, so that the officer can conduct a dog sniff, violates the Fourth Amendment.

In their first two rounds, the BU Law team faced the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, then returning champions University of Miami School of Law. Scores are not revealed during the competition, but the team received excellent feedback from both benches. In particular, the judges praised Sean’s facility with the record and law and Joe’s ability to thoughtfully consider and answer their questions.

Only sixteen teams could advance to the octofinal round, and unfortunately, our team did not advance this year. Gibbons is one of the most challenging competitions we attend, and we congratulate the team on their efforts!

The Homer Albers Prize Moot Court Competition is an internal, invitational competition open to the top 32 Stone participants. After two preliminary rounds, eight teams of two advance to a quarterfinal elimination round where they argue before panels composed of BU Law faculty. This year’s top 8 will face off before the following faculty:

Monday, March 23 (Courtroom)
Petitioner: Lacey Brantley (’16) and Melissa Rybacki (’16)
Respondent: Anthony Shaheen (’16) and Jacob Gibson (’16)
Faculty Judges: Mark Pettit, Peggy Maisel, Nancy Moore

Tuesday, March 24 (Redstone 102)
Petitioner: Amber Davis (’16) and Silvia Stockman (’16)
Respondent: Avery Lehr (’16) and Christina Lau (’16)
Faculty Judges: David Rossman, Jack Beermann, Michael Harper

Wednesday, March 25 (Redstone 413)
Petitioner: Caddie Nath (’16) and Amanda Hesse (’16)
Respondent: Hannah Perlman (’16) and Ashley Paquin (’16)
Faculty Judges: Eva Zelnick, Hugh Baxter, Steve Donweber

Thursday, March 26 (Courtroom)
Petitioner: Kevin Lin (’16) and Anthony Maneiro (’16)
Respondent: Angela DiIenno (’16) and John Sadek (’16)
Faculty Judges: Marni Goldstein, Alan Feld, David Seipp

The winning teams from each of these arguments will face off in the semifinals on April 7 before Mass. Appeals Court Justice Andrew Grainger, RI Supreme Court Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg, and Prof. Kristin Collins and April 9 before Mass Appeals Court Justices Gabrielle Wolohojian and Gregory Massing and Prof. Linda McClain.

The winning teams from semifinals will meet in the finals before Judges Denise Casper (United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts), Solomon Oliver (chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio), and Nina Pillard (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).

BU Law team wins three of four preliminary rounds

February 12-15, 2015

A team of five BU Law students competed in the Jessup Moot Court Competition in February: Gabriela Morales (’15), First Applicant; Elizabeth Nagle (’16), Second Applicant; Nils Remole (’16), First Respondent; April (Yiqing) Yin (’16), Second Respondent in Written Brief; and team captain Luzia Santos (’15), Second Respondent in Oral Arguments. Professor Jill Goldenziel advised the team throughout the process.

The competition hosted a total of 21 teams, including teams from Yale, Harvard, NYU, BC, Cornell, and Northeastern. Teams received the fact pattern in September and began researching the problem and writing their briefs, which were due in January. After submitting their briefs, the BU Law team stayed committed to practicing in spite of the snow and school cancellations.

They traveled to New York City in February, where the Applicants and Respondents each argued twice in the first rounds. The team won three out of four rounds and were ranked #9 overall, just shy of advancing to quarterfinals. The judges congratulated the team on their mastery of international law principles and case law and on their ability to think on their feet.

Throughout the competition, the BU Law team gained experience in a variety of areas, including public speaking and working under pressure, which are both critical to being an effective lawyer in practice.

“Most of all, I think that each team member learned how to be an advocate in an international forum,” says team captain Luzia Santos. “That is, the presentation style should be more about educating the judges on the law as opposed to being adversarial. We also learned that much of what is actually law in international law is very difficult to establish. This is especially true when it comes to existing or evolving customary international law. Advocates must therefore not only be persuasive in front of a judge, but they must also be exceptionally clear in the presentation of their arguments. Mastering the art of speaking in a clear and reasoned manner is what sets the teams apart in this competition.”

BU Law team advances to national competition, Kiok receives 8th Best Oralist

BU Law congratulates its team on their outstanding performance in the ABA Law Student Division National Appellate Advocacy Regional Competition, which gives students the opportunity to participate in a hypothetical appeal to the US Supreme Court. This year’s problem asked competitors to consider whether the denial of a motion to dismiss is a judgment that remains reviewable after a jury trial and judgment for the plaintiff. Students also had to argue about what the standard should be for reviewing such a motion, and had to then apply that standard to the motion at issue.

The BU Law team of Jeff Kiok, Monica Narang, and Abed Bhuyan (all ’15) won two of three qualifying rounds to advance to semi-finals ranked 11th overall. In the semi-final round, 16 teams faced off in head-to-head elimination arguments, decided exclusively on oral argument scores. BU Law faced Mississippi College School of Law and a hot bench, but the team kept its cool and won the round, advancing to finals.

In the final round, Kiok, Narang, and Bhuyan faced the team from Northeastern University School of Law, who had narrowly outscored them in a preliminary round due to an outstanding brief score (NU later took home Best Brief). The BU Law team delivered its strongest argument yet and won the head-to-head elimination, making them one of four teams in the region (including Vanderbilt, Florida, and Akron) to advance to the national competition. Additionally, Jeff Kiok received the award for the 8th best oralist in the competition.

Kiok, Narang, and Bhuyan will compete at the ABA’s National Competition in Chicago on April 9 – 11.

BU Law team earns second overall, will be alternates for national competition

February 13-14, 2015

Boston University School of Law’s three teams, winners of a schoolwide client counseling competition in January, excelled at the ABA Client Counseling regional competition, which brought teams from up and down the East Coast to Suffolk University Law School. Harrison Freeman and Aria Mahboubi (both ’17), first-year BU Law students, won second place overall, and are alternates for the national competition in Durham, NC, in March.

This year’s competition theme was family law, with problems largely focused on complicated child custody matters. Competitors, in teams of two, received just one sentence of background information about their mock-counseling client, then met the actor portraying that client, with just 45 minutes to get as much information about the client’s concerns and legal issues, offer competent advice, address any ethical or other obstacles, close the meeting, and wrap up the session with a pointed self-critique. Teams are judged on professionalism, rapport with the client, addressing basic attorney-client relationship issues, fact-finding, morals, and other related criteria.

Teammates Ramsey Hidmi and Rebecca Cushing (both ’15) made a sound showing in the first day’s competition, scoring well for their teamwork and analytical skills. Wes Howe and Andrew Griffin (both ’17) were lauded for their empathy and fact-finding in the three rounds of preliminary competition. Freeman and Mahboubi got excellent overall feedback, with compliments all around for their professionalism.

Howe and Griffin and Freeman and Mahboubi advanced to the semifinal round and the second day of competition, with Freeman and Mahboubi in a three-way tie for second place after the first day’s competition.

Freeman and Mahboubi reached the final round of three, where they faced their toughest judge panel yet. They earned great marks for strategic questioning and careful explanation of client options. They finished as overall regional runners-up.

During competition, the teams were coached by Jaime Margolis (’16), who, along with Holly Ovington (’16), Harrison Kaplan (’15), and Emily Willey (’15), directs the Negotiation and Client Counseling competitions at BU Law. The directors, all former client counseling or negotiation regional competitors, host and judge the intraschool competition, direct many practice sessions, and offer advice to student competitors.

BU Law team advances to final round in the TYLA regional tournament

BU Law’s Mock Trial program, a student-run trial advocacy organization founded in 2012, attended the regional tournament of the Texas Young Lawyers Association Mock Trial Competition for the second year in a row. Two teams of three students—including Mathew Hough (’17), Monica Narang (’15), Gina Del Rio (’17), Amber Davis (’16), Serena Rabie (’17), and Ellie Meyer (’17)—competed, while coaches and mentors Jeffrey Kiok (’15, Mock Trial president), Tom Markey (’15), Andy Byrd (’15), Christie O’Rourke (’15), Silvia Stockman (’16, Mock Trial vice-president), and the Honorable Jack Lu (’84) of the Essex Superior Court offered guidance and cheered them on.

In the TYLA tournament, teams field two advocates that act as attorneys in prosecuting or defending a criminal case. The attorneys direct and cross-examine witnesses, who are in a common pool. When the witnesses are assigned to a trial, the advocates have to prep the witnesses in what it is called the “woodshed” time, which is just 15 minutes. In this respect, it models the real world in that attorneys often have very little time to prep witnesses.

The problem this year was a domestic violence case. The victim was in the home she shared with the defendant when they argued about a painting, after which the defendant allegedly hit her with a hammer. Besides the victim and the defendant, a treating ER physician and a neighbor were witnesses.

The tournament featured three preliminary rounds, a semi-final round, and then the finals. In the preliminaries, BU Law’s two teams competed valiantly against teams from the University of Vermont, the University of New Hampshire, Quinnipiac, Northeastern, and Boston College. The team of Hough, Narang, and Del Rio advanced to the semi-finals, where they defeated the team from Yale Law School, the defending national champions. The BU Law team went on to face Suffolk in the finals, where they narrowly lost in a split decision, 2-1.

BU Law is incredibly proud of both teams and all of the Mock Trial participants, whose enthusiasm and hard work continue to strengthen the young program!

Edward C. Stone Moot Court 2014

Thirty-two students invited to participate in Albers competition

BU Law congratulates all participants in this year’s Edward C. Stone Moot Court competition! More than a third of the 2L class competed, and all are to be commended on their performances. In particular, we’d like to recognize the winners of the Best Brief and Best Oralist awards for each problem, as well as the Albers invitees, who are listed below.

Best Brief

• Lacey Brantley and Jessica Perry for Problem 1: Golyeth National Bank v. Erikman (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Employment Law)
• Amanda Hesse and Caddie Nath for Problem 2: Paroo v. Edwards (Original Jurisdiction/Copyright)
• Hannah Perlman and Ashley Paquin for Problem 3: United States v. Curwen (Fourth Amendment)

Best Oralist

• Avery Lehr for Problem 1: Golyeth National Bank v. Erikman (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Employment Law)
• Beatrice Botti for Problem 2: Paroo v. Edwards (Original Jurisdiction/Copyright)
• John Sadek for Problem 3: United States v. Curwen (Fourth Amendment)

The following 32 students have been invited to participate in the 2015 Homer Albers Prize competition this spring:

Suzanne Adler Ryan Allen* Reid Bagwell Beatrice Botti Lacey Brantley Jessica Burnett Colin Creager Amber Davis Angela DiIenno Victoria Done Zachary Evans Drew Eyman

Michael Garry Jacob Gibson Benjamin Greene Amanda Hesse Abigail James Christina Lau Avery Lehr Shefali Lekhani Kevin Lin Anthony Maneiro Jaime Margolis

Caddie Nath Ashley Paquin Hannah Perlman Jacquelyn Quinn Courtland Roberts Melissa Rybacki John Sadek Anthony Shaheen Katerina Souliopoulos* Silvia Stockman Jonathan Upchurch

* Unable to participate

BU Law team earns top-seeded spot in semi-final round

November 15-16, 2014

From L to R: Gabriela Morales, Jordana Goodman, Peter Grupp

Congratulations to Jordana Goodman, Peter Grupp, and Gabriela Morales (all ’15) on their excellent performance at the National Moot Court competition for Region 1, sponsored by the New York City Bar and America College of Trial Lawyers, and hosted by Suffolk University Law School. Seven teams competed in this regional match, and BU Law earned the top-seeded spot in the semi-final round.

This year’s problem involved two difficult issues. First, teams had to argue whether the exercise of a Batson challenge to strike a potential juror on the basis of perceived sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause. Second, teams had to argue whether foreign anticompetitive conduct is governed by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act if the foreign conduct bears a “reasonably foreseeable causal nexus” with (as opposed to having an immediate consequence on) its alleged domestic effects.

The team faced two very strong teams in the preliminary rounds. In the first round, Goodman and Morales argued in support of the Respondent against the team from Vermont Law School. The team received exceptional oral scores from all three judges, which combined with the BU Law team’s high brief score gave them the win in the round. In the second round, Goodman and Grupp argued for Petitioner against the team from Suffolk University Law School. Although Suffolk had the slightly higher brief score, the BU Law team’s impressive oral argument carried them to their second win. With a higher margin of victory over two rounds than any other team, BU Law advanced to the semi-finals.

In the semi-finals, BU Law faced the team with the second-highest brief score, Syracuse University College of Law. The teams argued before an excellent panel, including Justice Andrew Grainger of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. BU Law again argued for Petitioner, and although the judges scored the teams just a few points apart, that margin and Syracuse’s stronger brief score allowed them to eke out the win, eliminating BU Law by fewer than two points. Although our team did not advance to the national round, their extremely consistent and high oral scores, as well as their high brief score (just 3 points below the top brief score) were impressive. They received uniform praise from the judges in each of their rounds.

Associate Director of Legal Writing and Appellate Advocacy Programs Jen Taylor McClosky says of their performance: “Because of a later brief due date this year, Jordana, Peter, and Gaby had just over two weeks to prepare for the National competition. They practiced nearly daily, and their hard work paid off. Their arguments were polished and professional, and they were prepared for every single one of the judges’ questions. I’m rarely this impressed with a team’s dedication and preparedness. Additionally, the other teams we argued against—especially those from out of town—thanked our students for having such a friendly attitude! I am very proud of how the team represented BU Law.”

We congratulate them on their hard work, dedication, and collegiality throughout the competition!