5 Questions with the Ranker (Competitions)

The first of what I'm guessing will be, over the years, Q&As with many if not all of the moot court comps -- called "5 Questions with the Ranker (Competitions)." (There will also be "10 Questions for Top 10 Programs.")

No better way to promote your comp than to provide the info everyone cares about:

First up: Veterans Law comp! Registration open now! Details and registration are available at www.vlaac.org.

1. What are the relatively-unique selling points of your comp? This could be anything from cost, location, stature of judges, to competitive nature, number of LSA points available, etc.

Selling points for the VLAAC: (a) Last year's semi-finals and finals were held in the [United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims'] courtroom and the finals were judged by an actual panel of the CAVC. Hard to get much more real than that. (b) A lot of effort is put into making the problem record as realistic as possible, down to the fonts and formatting used in each document. If you actually work on a veterans case after participating in the VLAAC, the documents and decisions should look exactly like those you saw in the problem materials.

2. Briefly describe last year's problem. This year's. What did/will participants "get out of" briefing and arguing these problems? How do your problems typically compare to those of other comps?

This year's problem will be announced in July. However, the problem will be designed to be accessible to law students with no prior experience in veterans law. This is the summary of the 2009 problem from the Bar Association's website:

The 2009 VLAAC problem was Shinseki v. Joseph set before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the fact pattern, Army corporal Gerald I. Joseph suffered acute liver failure while participating in a drinking game at a deployment party when alcohol consumption aggravated a previously undiagnosed liver disease. During treatment, Cpl. Joseph refused a recently approved drug on religious grounds because it is derived from the livers of genetically engineered pigs. After being medically discharged when his liver transplant was not fully successful, Mr. Joseph was denied benefits because his condition was due to his reckless misuse of alcohol and his willful refusal of recommended medical treatment. The issues presented were:

1. Does 38 U.S.C. § 105(a) bar disability compensation where the consumption of a substantial amount of alcohol aggravates a pre-existing condition unknown to the veteran?

2. Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et. seq., prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs from denying benefits where the veteran's disability was caused or exacerbated by his refusal to accept medical treatment on religious grounds?

3. What time of year does your comp take place? When is registration? How many non-sponsor, non-international teams actually paid, submitted briefs and argued at last year's comp. (If yours is a two-stage competition, e.g. regionals and national/international, please break-down answers to the foregoing three sub-questions by stage.) Recognizing that schools are now competing for LSA points, are you committed to promptly providing the Ranker with number of non-sponsor, non-international teams, as well as the school names of the winner, finalist and semifinalists? Please briefly research and identify competitions that are typically at the same time of year (give or take a few weeks). Relative merits of your comp v. theirs?

Our competition will be Oct. 16-17, 2010. We selected the fall in part because it seems that few other competitions are held at that time. Last year, we had 13 teams for the invitation-only event to celebrate the Court's 20th anniversary. This year we have open registration for the first time. Registration opened on April 20 and will continue to May 24 unless we fill our 20 spots before then. We are happy to provide the results to the Ranker. Last year, Stetson defeated George Washington in the finals. The other two semi-finalists were Howard and GW's other team.

4. For each round of argument, be it preliminary or elimination, please identify the stature of judges.

Last year, the briefs and each preliminary round were judged by one VA attorney, one court attorney, and one experienced private/non-profit veterans law practitioner. The semi-finals were judged by a judge of the CAVC, the president of the CAVC Bar Association, and the Deputy Assistant General Counsel from VA (one of VA's most senior litigators at the court). The finals were judged by a full panel of the CAVC. We hope to have a similar set up this year.

5. For scoring of any round of argument, does your comp prioritize oral advocacy or brief-writing -- that is, please disclose whether at any point, your comp weighs one more than the other, e.g. 60/40 rather than 50/50. If so, why?

In last year's VLAAC, the brief was worth 40% and each of the two preliminary arguments were worth 30%. I expect that will be the same this year. We wanted the brief to be significant, but not overwhelming and this seemed like a good balance.