Do you #twtmoot? Bringing legal argument into the 21st Century

Some of our readers may have missed Twitter Moot 2014, held on Friday, February 28th, in Victoria, Edmonton, Thunder Bay, Toronto and Halifax – as well as globally on Twitter.  If you missed it and are kicking yourself, you can re-live all the action on our Twitter Moot feed.  

For those not familiar with Twitter Moot  – it is an on-line ”moot court“ case argued by law students from different law schools across Canada, all in 140 character “tweets”.  The Twitter Moot 2014 case was based on a real-life court case (Ross River Dena Council v. Yukon) to a fictional Supreme Twitter Court of Canada.  Congratulations and thanks to the 3 judges and 5 student teams, and especially to Erin Gray and Mae Price of UVic who won (they were both the judge’s choice and the people’s choice – the first time that has happened in any of our 3 Twitter Moots).   You can get a quick sense of the Moot from this article in Canadian Lawyer Magazine

If you’re still not sure why West Coast would host such an event, let me refer to the words of our judges and the law student teams that competed in Twitter Moot 2014. 

So Omar, why hold a moot on Twitter?

Self-described, Multi-media journalist, Alexandra Gundy, wrote a multi-media story about our Twitter Moot 2014, complete with interviews of judges via Twitter and audio. For so many social media geek reasons that seems cool, but check it out for yourself

Omar offers (in the audio interview) his observations on why the Twitter Moot is important:

So Omar, why hold a moot on Twitter?

… [O]ne of the primary reasons why organizations will hold a moot conversation is to raise awareness about specific issues or specific areas of law.  … Obviously, West Coast Environmental Law wants to have a moot that is going to raise environmental law issues.  By conducting it on Twitter you’re allowing it to be accessible and visible to people everywhere.  You’re putting it right there, on-line. 

If you consider what the alternative would be – we would would be flying in law students from all across Canada to some major city and having them do it in person.  The carbon footprint would be enormous.  If you go back to … environmentalism and raising environmental awareness, I don’t think that would be in the spirit, as much as doing this on-line. 

Can an argument really be made in 140 characters or less?

Certainly, I would say that the best arguments can be, because the better you understand a topic, or the better you understand a case, the more concise you can be with your language, and the best advocates are going to be very pointed in their words… I would say as someone who judges moots both on Twitter and off-Twitter that advocates who are able to construct their arguments in that manner are going to be more successful, whether it is on Twitter or not on Twitter. 

And she also interviewed #Twtmoot (and BC Supreme Court) Judge, Robert Johnston, entirely over Twitter (embedded below).

 

 

 

What the students got out of it

But the law students also learned a lot from the event.  Osgoode law students Nina Mazze and Michael Capitano write, in an Osgoode Hall Law School publication spoke about the opportunity to engage in a new medium and to connect with others with similar interests:

[The Twitter Moot] was one of our favourite experiences at #Osgoode, giving us the opportunity to transcend conventional notions of advocacy. Five teams across Canada put the #hashtag in advocacy, submitting arguments for their clients in tweets of 140 characters or less before the Supreme Twitter Court of Canada #STCC. This innovative moot takes steps towards accessibility to legal issues one tweet at a time (#access2justice!). …

We had a great time connecting with new friends from British Columbia to Nova Scotia with similar interests in environmental and aboriginal law. We are forever grateful for this experience, but at the same time, are very thankful that our exams do not have a 140 character limit! … Thank you for an interactive and innovative experience, showing us the power of knowledge, advocacy, and social media.

When the University of Alberta interviewed team-mates Kim Hyok and Matthew Moberly, they emphasized the networking and public communication opportunities arising from the Moot:

The legal arguments were meant to be articulated in an accessible chatty kind of way to engage the public. So that is a dimension I never thought about before -- engaging the public in relevant legal issues. I would like to keep doing that and not just exchange ideas with other legal professionals. …

Twitter Moot is also about engagement. Structuring your tweets to pull people into the conversation is also important. Just a week out – Twitter Moot assisted me in catalyzing new relationships with non-profits, mining, and aboriginal groups.

Increasingly law students and law schools are embracing the Twitter Moot.  The University of Alberta has found coaches for its Twitter Moot team for the past 2 years.  Osgoode Hall Law Schools now list the Twitter Moot on their website as an event that their students may choose to compete in.  Several of the law schools Tweeted their support for their students and followed the event actively. 

Why we do the Twitter Moot

The Twitter Moot works on many levels.  It provides great public profile to West Coast and to the issues we work on.  This year, we were “trending” – meaning that the Twitter Moot was one of the most discussed topics in Canada.  The event generated media coverage about Aboriginal Law and mining as well as active social media discussion about the issues that the case raised.

But we are clearly offering law students and law schools a chance to talk about environmental and Aboriginal law, to network and to hone their skills.  We view the Twitter Moot as helping train the next generation of environmental lawyers – perhaps a generation as comfortable on social media as in the court room. 

By Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer

Twitter Moot 2014 was sponsored by the Law Foundation of BC, Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP, Saxe Law Office, Parlee McLaws LLP, Rana Law, Mandell Pinder LLP, Devlin Gailus, Peter Grant and Associates and Cliffe Tobias.  Thank you to all these firms for their generous support of the Moot and of the student teams.