Rules of the Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition
Outline of Contents
RULE 1: NATURE, HISTORY, AND PURPOSE OF THE COMPETITION
(a) Purpose
(b) Nature of the Competition
(c) Brief History
RULE 2: ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPETITION AND HOSTING
(a) The International Committee
(b) Hosting
(c) Competition Events
RULE 3. ENTRY INTO THE COMPETITION
(a) Composition of the Team; Eligible Students; and Past Entrants and Winners
(b) New Countries
(c) Observers
RULE 4. THE CONSULTATION SITUATIONS
(a) Distribution of the Consultation Situations
(b) Competition Topic
(c) Applicable Law
(d) Fees
(e) Assignment of Team Letters
(f) Rounds
(g) Faculty Advisors/Team Coaches and Preparation
(h) Dress
RULE 5. THE CONSULTATION AND POST-CONSULTATION
(a) Maximum Time Limit for the Session
(b) The Consultation with the Client
(c) The Post-Consultation
(d) Division of Time between the Consultation and Post-Consultation; Timekeeping
(e) Use of Materials and Props
RULE 6. JUDGES’ CRITIQUE AND RANKING OF TEAMS OBSERVED
(a) Content and Timing of the Critique
(b) Client Not to Be Present
(c) Judges’ Discussion of Each Team’s Performance; Consulting with the Client Prior to Ranking; and the Awarding of Points to the Teams Observed by Judges at the End of the Round
RULE 7. ADVANCING TO THE SEMI-FINAL ROUND
(a) Point Qualification Format
(b) Number and Sequence of Preliminary Rounds
(c) Qualifying for the Semi-Final Round
(d) Number of Teams Advancing to the Semi-Final Round
(e) Ties after the Preliminary Rounds
(f) Team Allocation in the Semi-Final Round
(g) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Semi-Final Round
(h) Decision of the Judges in the Semi-Final Round; Advancing to the Final (Championship) Round
(i) Ties in the Semi-Final Round
RULE 8. THE FINAL (CHAMPIONSHIP) ROUND
(a) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Final (Championship) Round
(b) Format of the Final Round; Decision by the Judges; Ties; Announcement of the Winner; and Critique
RULE 9. AWARDS
RULE 10. COUNSELING SESSIONS: ATTENDANCE AND COMMUNICATION
(a) Observing Rounds
(b) Prohibited Communications
RULE 11. DISPUTES AND BREACHES OF THE RULES
(a) Disputes Subject to Review
(b) Prior to Decision of a Round
(c) After the Decision of the Round but Before the Next Round Begins
(d) All Other Disputes
RULE 12. CLIENTS
(a) Selection of Clients
(b) Orientation for Clients
(c) Client Briefing
(d) Availability after the Round to Talk with Judges
RULE 13. JUDGES
(a) Selection of Judges
(b) Final Round Judges
(c) Persons Prohibited from Judging
(d) Judges’ Briefing
e) Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form
(f) Taking Notes during the Round.
RULE 14. RECORDING AND IMAGE CAPTURE; PARTICIPANT EXPENSES; ACCEPTANCE OF RISK; ENTRY FEE; GRANTS
(a) Videoing of the Final (Championship) Round
(b) Participant Expenses and Acceptance of Risk
(c) Entry Fee
(d) Grants
RULE 15. (REMOVED)
RULE 16. THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)
RULE 17. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CLIENT CONSULTATION COMPETITION
(a) General Questions
(b) Questions about Upcoming Competitions
Outline of Contents
RULE 1: NATURE, HISTORY, AND PURPOSE OF THE COMPETITION
(a) Purpose
(b) Nature of the Competition
(c) Brief History
RULE 2: ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPETITION AND HOSTING
(a) The International Committee
(b) Hosting
(c) Competition Events
RULE 3. ENTRY INTO THE COMPETITION
(a) Composition of the Team; Eligible Students; and Past Entrants and Winners
(b) New Countries
(c) Observers
RULE 4. THE CONSULTATION SITUATIONS
(a) Distribution of the Consultation Situations
(b) Competition Topic
(c) Applicable Law
(d) Fees
(e) Assignment of Team Letters
(f) Rounds
(g) Faculty Advisors/Team Coaches and Preparation
(h) Dress
RULE 5. THE CONSULTATION AND POST-CONSULTATION
(a) Maximum Time Limit for the Session
(b) The Consultation with the Client
(c) The Post-Consultation
(d) Division of Time between the Consultation and Post-Consultation; Timekeeping
(e) Use of Materials and Props
RULE 6. JUDGES’ CRITIQUE AND RANKING OF TEAMS OBSERVED
(a) Content and Timing of the Critique
(b) Client Not to Be Present
(c) Judges’ Discussion of Each Team’s Performance; Consulting with the Client Prior to Ranking; and the Awarding of Points to the Teams Observed by Judges at the End of the Round
RULE 7. ADVANCING TO THE SEMI-FINAL ROUND
(a) Point Qualification Format
(b) Number and Sequence of Preliminary Rounds
(c) Qualifying for the Semi-Final Round
(d) Number of Teams Advancing to the Semi-Final Round
(e) Ties after the Preliminary Rounds
(f) Team Allocation in the Semi-Final Round
(g) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Semi-Final Round
(h) Decision of the Judges in the Semi-Final Round; Advancing to the Final (Championship) Round
(i) Ties in the Semi-Final Round
RULE 8. THE FINAL (CHAMPIONSHIP) ROUND
(a) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Final (Championship) Round
(b) Format of the Final Round; Decision by the Judges; Ties; Announcement of the Winner; and Critique
RULE 9. AWARDS
RULE 10. COUNSELING SESSIONS: ATTENDANCE AND COMMUNICATION
(a) Observing Rounds
(b) Prohibited Communications
RULE 11. DISPUTES AND BREACHES OF THE RULES
(a) Disputes Subject to Review
(b) Prior to Decision of a Round
(c) After the Decision of the Round but Before the Next Round Begins
(d) All Other Disputes
RULE 12. CLIENTS
(a) Selection of Clients
(b) Orientation for Clients
(c) Client Briefing
(d) Availability after the Round to Talk with Judges
RULE 13. JUDGES
(a) Selection of Judges
(b) Final Round Judges
(c) Persons Prohibited from Judging
(d) Judges’ Briefing
e) Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form
(f) Taking Notes during the Round.
RULE 14. RECORDING AND IMAGE CAPTURE; PARTICIPANT EXPENSES; ACCEPTANCE OF RISK; ENTRY FEE; GRANTS
(a) Videoing of the Final (Championship) Round
(b) Participant Expenses and Acceptance of Risk
(c) Entry Fee
(d) Grants
RULE 15. (REMOVED)
RULE 16. THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)
RULE 17. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CLIENT CONSULTATION COMPETITION
(a) General Questions
(b) Questions about Upcoming Competitions
RULE 1: NATURE, HISTORY, AND PURPOSE OF THE COMPETITION
(a) Purpose. The Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition (“Competition”) promotes greater knowledge and interest among law students in the preventative law and counseling functions of law practice. It also encourages students to develop interviewing, planning, and analytical skills in the lawyer-client relationship in the law office. Interviewing and advising are a significant part of most lawyers’ work. Too often, it is assumed that lawyers have the listening and questioning skills needed to conduct an effective interview. Regrettably, not all lawyers possess these skills. The Competition provides an opportunity for a valuable educational and cultural interchange among students, law teachers, and legal practitioners.
(b) Nature of the Competition. The Competition simulates a law office consultation in which two law students, acting as lawyers (attorneys/solicitors/legal practitioners), are presented with a client matter. The students are given a brief written memorandum that identifies the general nature of the subject-matter of the client’s problem (e.g., that a client wants advice about a problem arising from the construction of a house, that the client is facing a shoplifting charge, etc.) before the interviews are held. The students conduct an interview with a person playing the role of the client. Students are expected to elicit the relevant information from the client, explore with the client his or her preferred outcome, outline the nature of the problem, and present the client with a means (or range of alternatives, if appropriate) for resolving the problem. The interview with the client is then followed by a post-consultation period during which the students, in the absence of the client, analyze the interview and discuss the legal and other work to be undertaken. The interview and post-consultation period last a total of 45 minutes. The students are evaluated by a panel of judges, usually including a lawyer and a counselor (e.g. social or welfare worker, psychologist, clergy, or another person with extensive experience in counseling). The inclusion of a non-lawyer counselor on the judging panel is designed to broaden the interdisciplinary perspectives of the panel both in terms of skills and possible solutions to a problem. The students are evaluated against specific criteria that emphasize the use of listening, questioning, planning, and analytical skills in a lawyer/client interview. Once the judges have completed their evaluation of the interview, the students are called back in and the judges provide a brief critique of the team’s handling of the consultation and post-consultation periods.
(c) Brief History. The Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Competition was founded in 1985. It was modeled on the American Bar Association’s Client Counseling Competition. The ABA Client Counseling Competition was conceived and developed as a legal teaching technique by the late Professor Louis M. Brown of the University of Southern California School of Law. Originally called the Mock Law Office Competition, it began on an interscholastic level in 1969 with two schools competing. It has been held each year since then. The American Bar Association’s Law Student Division has administered the competition in the United States since 1973. Each year, approximately 100 United States law schools participate in that competition. That competition has now spread to many other countries around the world. It has been subsequently renamed the Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition.
(a) Purpose. The Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition (“Competition”) promotes greater knowledge and interest among law students in the preventative law and counseling functions of law practice. It also encourages students to develop interviewing, planning, and analytical skills in the lawyer-client relationship in the law office. Interviewing and advising are a significant part of most lawyers’ work. Too often, it is assumed that lawyers have the listening and questioning skills needed to conduct an effective interview. Regrettably, not all lawyers possess these skills. The Competition provides an opportunity for a valuable educational and cultural interchange among students, law teachers, and legal practitioners.
(b) Nature of the Competition. The Competition simulates a law office consultation in which two law students, acting as lawyers (attorneys/solicitors/legal practitioners), are presented with a client matter. The students are given a brief written memorandum that identifies the general nature of the subject-matter of the client’s problem (e.g., that a client wants advice about a problem arising from the construction of a house, that the client is facing a shoplifting charge, etc.) before the interviews are held. The students conduct an interview with a person playing the role of the client. Students are expected to elicit the relevant information from the client, explore with the client his or her preferred outcome, outline the nature of the problem, and present the client with a means (or range of alternatives, if appropriate) for resolving the problem. The interview with the client is then followed by a post-consultation period during which the students, in the absence of the client, analyze the interview and discuss the legal and other work to be undertaken. The interview and post-consultation period last a total of 45 minutes. The students are evaluated by a panel of judges, usually including a lawyer and a counselor (e.g. social or welfare worker, psychologist, clergy, or another person with extensive experience in counseling). The inclusion of a non-lawyer counselor on the judging panel is designed to broaden the interdisciplinary perspectives of the panel both in terms of skills and possible solutions to a problem. The students are evaluated against specific criteria that emphasize the use of listening, questioning, planning, and analytical skills in a lawyer/client interview. Once the judges have completed their evaluation of the interview, the students are called back in and the judges provide a brief critique of the team’s handling of the consultation and post-consultation periods.
(c) Brief History. The Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Competition was founded in 1985. It was modeled on the American Bar Association’s Client Counseling Competition. The ABA Client Counseling Competition was conceived and developed as a legal teaching technique by the late Professor Louis M. Brown of the University of Southern California School of Law. Originally called the Mock Law Office Competition, it began on an interscholastic level in 1969 with two schools competing. It has been held each year since then. The American Bar Association’s Law Student Division has administered the competition in the United States since 1973. Each year, approximately 100 United States law schools participate in that competition. That competition has now spread to many other countries around the world. It has been subsequently renamed the Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition.
RULE 2: ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPETITION AND HOSTING
(a) The BM-ICCC. The Brown Mosten International Client Consultation Competition Board of Directors and Officers (hereinafter collectively referred to as the BM-ICCC) are in charge of organizing, sponsoring, and administering the Competition.
(b) Hosting. The Competition is hosted annually by a country that has offered to host the Competition and has been approved to host by the BM-ICCC. The host country will designate a host institution that will be primarily responsible for organizing the Competition. The host institution will also designate a Competition organizer (“host”) who will be responsible for coordinating arrangements and the actual running of the Competition. The host country is responsible for arranging funding for the Competition and its related academic and social events. The BM-ICCC will typically provide some funding to assist the host.
(c) Competition Events. In addition to the actual Competition, the host will endeavor, as appropriate and feasible, to provide an opening reception, visits to local legal institutions, activities, an educational program, and an awards banquet. Teams are encouraged to bring small souvenirs of their home countries (e.g., photos, paperweights, pens, etc.) to swap with other competitors at the awards banquet.
(a) The BM-ICCC. The Brown Mosten International Client Consultation Competition Board of Directors and Officers (hereinafter collectively referred to as the BM-ICCC) are in charge of organizing, sponsoring, and administering the Competition.
(b) Hosting. The Competition is hosted annually by a country that has offered to host the Competition and has been approved to host by the BM-ICCC. The host country will designate a host institution that will be primarily responsible for organizing the Competition. The host institution will also designate a Competition organizer (“host”) who will be responsible for coordinating arrangements and the actual running of the Competition. The host country is responsible for arranging funding for the Competition and its related academic and social events. The BM-ICCC will typically provide some funding to assist the host.
(c) Competition Events. In addition to the actual Competition, the host will endeavor, as appropriate and feasible, to provide an opening reception, visits to local legal institutions, activities, an educational program, and an awards banquet. Teams are encouraged to bring small souvenirs of their home countries (e.g., photos, paperweights, pens, etc.) to swap with other competitors at the awards banquet.
RULE 3. ENTRY INTO THE COMPETITION
(a) Composition of the Team; Eligible Students; and Past Entrants and Winners. Participating countries are eligible to enter one team composed of two law students. Students conduct the simulated interviews in teams of two in order to provide mutual assistance and support in researching, planning and conducting the interview. There is the added benefit of encouraging students to work cooperatively. The Competition is designed for the winners of national client consultation competitions. Thus, a team should ordinarily have won a domestic client consultation competition prior to entering the Competition. At the time of their selection to represent their country, the two law students should be enrolled in a course accredited as leading to qualification as a legal practitioner, such as an undergraduate law degree or diploma or practical legal training program, or a postgraduate law degree where the student has not been admitted as a practitioner. Students enrolled in post-graduate study such as a master’s degree or practical legal training are eligible so long as they do not have a bar license or have not practiced law (other than in temporary jobs or apprenticeships) between their initial and post-graduate studies. A person whose last law graduation was more than twelve months prior to the competition is not eligible. Members of any winning team of the Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition may not reenter the Competition in any other year. Teams or their members who do not win the Competition may reenter in another year.
(b) New Countries. The Competition welcomes new countries. A team may be allowed to represent a new country in the Competition if the institution represented and the faculty advisor can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that an appropriate internal national competition will be established in the future. Potential participants representing new countries should communicate with the BM-ICCC or the host of the Competition for that year. They will be entered upon confirmation of their status and approval by the BM-ICCC.
(c) Observers. Persons from countries interested in organizing client counseling programs and others are encouraged to observe the Competition.
(a) Composition of the Team; Eligible Students; and Past Entrants and Winners. Participating countries are eligible to enter one team composed of two law students. Students conduct the simulated interviews in teams of two in order to provide mutual assistance and support in researching, planning and conducting the interview. There is the added benefit of encouraging students to work cooperatively. The Competition is designed for the winners of national client consultation competitions. Thus, a team should ordinarily have won a domestic client consultation competition prior to entering the Competition. At the time of their selection to represent their country, the two law students should be enrolled in a course accredited as leading to qualification as a legal practitioner, such as an undergraduate law degree or diploma or practical legal training program, or a postgraduate law degree where the student has not been admitted as a practitioner. Students enrolled in post-graduate study such as a master’s degree or practical legal training are eligible so long as they do not have a bar license or have not practiced law (other than in temporary jobs or apprenticeships) between their initial and post-graduate studies. A person whose last law graduation was more than twelve months prior to the competition is not eligible. Members of any winning team of the Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition may not reenter the Competition in any other year. Teams or their members who do not win the Competition may reenter in another year.
(b) New Countries. The Competition welcomes new countries. A team may be allowed to represent a new country in the Competition if the institution represented and the faculty advisor can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that an appropriate internal national competition will be established in the future. Potential participants representing new countries should communicate with the BM-ICCC or the host of the Competition for that year. They will be entered upon confirmation of their status and approval by the BM-ICCC.
(c) Observers. Persons from countries interested in organizing client counseling programs and others are encouraged to observe the Competition.
RULE 4. THE CONSULTATION SITUATIONS
(a) Distribution of the Consultation Situations. Approximately 21 days before the first day of the Competition, the Competition host will send to each team the Memoranda briefly describing the consultation situations for the Competition. These memoranda will contain information similar to that which a law office secretary might record when informing lawyers of a forthcoming appointment.
(b) Competition Topic. A Competition topic (e.g., contracts, intentional torts, etc.) will be designated by the BM-ICCC prior to the Competition. All consultation situations will be based on this topic. Each consultation situation, however, will involve a different client and a different situation.
(c) Applicable Law. The law to be applied in the Competition is the law of each team’s respective country unless otherwise indicated in the consultation situation.
(d) Fees. The discussion of fees is an integral part of any first consultation between a lawyer and a client. Students should be judged on how clearly they explain fees to the client, but not on the monetary amount used, nor on whether they present fees in any written form. The participants may discuss fees at any appropriate point in the consultation. Fees may be waived or suitably reduced only in cases of financial hardship, either for persons of low income or for persons of ordinary income faced with very large fees. Furthermore, in view of the comparative complexities involved and the fact that some jurisdictions do not fully address them, the teams and judges should assume that any money laundering (and any other similar) regulations have been met for the purposes of the competition and should not be covered in the interview.
(e) Assignment of Team Letters. All teams will have a letter designation (A, B, C, etc.). That designation will be determined by lot at the opening ceremony.
(f) Rounds. A round consists of two or three teams (depending on the number of teams competing) conducting interviews with the same client. Based on the skills demonstrated in light of the Assessment Criteria, the judges then rank the teams. All teams participate in the preliminary rounds. The top-ranking teams may then compete in a Semi-Final Round or go directly to the Final (Championship) Round, depending on the number of teams in the Competition. Winners of the Semi-Final Round compete in the Final (Championship) Round.
(g) Faculty Advisors/Team Coaches and Preparation. The primary purpose of the Competition is education. Faculty advisors/team coaches should emphasize the educational value of the Competition to their students. Questions are often raised concerning the extent to which faculty advisors may be of assistance to students prior to the day of the Competition. Louis M. Brown, the originator of the concept of a client counseling competition, has stated: “Professors might be very much like the coach of an athletic team up to the moment when the actual performance begins. In other words, you can work with the students, assist the students, direct the students, go through dry runs, set up consultations of the sort you might think actually take place in the interscholastic competition, etc. In a sense, the whole idea is that the project should be a learning project and an educational one. We want to use it in order to stimulate interest in the complexities of counseling, to help develop teaching materials and teaching methods, to help draw attention to the counseling that goes on in a law office as a significant aspect of the total legal process.”
(h) Dress. Dress is generally casual, except for the Competition rounds and the Awards Banquet. Students generally wear attire typical of a lawyer in their home country during the Competition rounds and to the banquet; the rest is relaxed and up to personal taste. Alternatively, students are encouraged to wear traditional dress to the banquet. The Competition host will provide notice of any other special requirements, such as for visits to local legal institutions.
(a) Distribution of the Consultation Situations. Approximately 21 days before the first day of the Competition, the Competition host will send to each team the Memoranda briefly describing the consultation situations for the Competition. These memoranda will contain information similar to that which a law office secretary might record when informing lawyers of a forthcoming appointment.
(b) Competition Topic. A Competition topic (e.g., contracts, intentional torts, etc.) will be designated by the BM-ICCC prior to the Competition. All consultation situations will be based on this topic. Each consultation situation, however, will involve a different client and a different situation.
(c) Applicable Law. The law to be applied in the Competition is the law of each team’s respective country unless otherwise indicated in the consultation situation.
(d) Fees. The discussion of fees is an integral part of any first consultation between a lawyer and a client. Students should be judged on how clearly they explain fees to the client, but not on the monetary amount used, nor on whether they present fees in any written form. The participants may discuss fees at any appropriate point in the consultation. Fees may be waived or suitably reduced only in cases of financial hardship, either for persons of low income or for persons of ordinary income faced with very large fees. Furthermore, in view of the comparative complexities involved and the fact that some jurisdictions do not fully address them, the teams and judges should assume that any money laundering (and any other similar) regulations have been met for the purposes of the competition and should not be covered in the interview.
(e) Assignment of Team Letters. All teams will have a letter designation (A, B, C, etc.). That designation will be determined by lot at the opening ceremony.
(f) Rounds. A round consists of two or three teams (depending on the number of teams competing) conducting interviews with the same client. Based on the skills demonstrated in light of the Assessment Criteria, the judges then rank the teams. All teams participate in the preliminary rounds. The top-ranking teams may then compete in a Semi-Final Round or go directly to the Final (Championship) Round, depending on the number of teams in the Competition. Winners of the Semi-Final Round compete in the Final (Championship) Round.
(g) Faculty Advisors/Team Coaches and Preparation. The primary purpose of the Competition is education. Faculty advisors/team coaches should emphasize the educational value of the Competition to their students. Questions are often raised concerning the extent to which faculty advisors may be of assistance to students prior to the day of the Competition. Louis M. Brown, the originator of the concept of a client counseling competition, has stated: “Professors might be very much like the coach of an athletic team up to the moment when the actual performance begins. In other words, you can work with the students, assist the students, direct the students, go through dry runs, set up consultations of the sort you might think actually take place in the interscholastic competition, etc. In a sense, the whole idea is that the project should be a learning project and an educational one. We want to use it in order to stimulate interest in the complexities of counseling, to help develop teaching materials and teaching methods, to help draw attention to the counseling that goes on in a law office as a significant aspect of the total legal process.”
(h) Dress. Dress is generally casual, except for the Competition rounds and the Awards Banquet. Students generally wear attire typical of a lawyer in their home country during the Competition rounds and to the banquet; the rest is relaxed and up to personal taste. Alternatively, students are encouraged to wear traditional dress to the banquet. The Competition host will provide notice of any other special requirements, such as for visits to local legal institutions.
RULE 5. THE CONSULTATION AND POST-CONSULTATION
(a) Maximum Time Limit for the Session. Each team shall have a maximum of forty-five (45) minutes to complete the session. This session must include both a consultation session with the client and a post-consultation.
(b) The Consultation with the Client. Each team must conduct a consultation with the client during which the students are expected to elicit the relevant information, outline the problem, and propose options for resolving the problem. Team members are entirely free to decide how they will divide their work, but both students must consult with the client as a team and their plan is subject to judging. The students may wish during their post-consultation presentation to explain why they worked together in the way that they did.
(c) The Post-Consultation. Each team must also conduct a meaningful post-consultation discussion between the attorneys after the client has left the room. The post-consultation performance should replicate the type of post-interview discussion that real lawyers would have. This may include consideration of the client’s legal problem and other issues; planning for the future, including stating issues to be researched or actions to be taken on the client’s behalf; and discussing any sensitive or ethical issues arising from the representation. Explanation of the position or attitude taken by the students may also be useful.
(d) Division of Time between the Consultation and Post-Consultation; Timekeeping. The student competitors will not be provided with timekeepers. They are responsible for keeping track of their time. However, one of the judges on each panel should be selected to keep track of the time for the judges. Under no circumstance will a team be allowed more than forty-five (45) minutes to complete the session, including both the consultation and the post-consultation. The timekeeper judge shall stop students after forty-five (45) minutes regardless of where students are in the consultation or post-consultation process. The decision of the timekeeper judge as to when the round should end is final. In determining a team’s score, the judges shall consider the way the team allocated its time and, if applicable, the team’s failure to include a meaningful post-consultation session.
(e) Use of Materials and Props. During the consultation and post-consultation, the team may use books, notes, and other materials. The team may also use office props (computers, files, desktop furnishings, etc.).
(a) Maximum Time Limit for the Session. Each team shall have a maximum of forty-five (45) minutes to complete the session. This session must include both a consultation session with the client and a post-consultation.
(b) The Consultation with the Client. Each team must conduct a consultation with the client during which the students are expected to elicit the relevant information, outline the problem, and propose options for resolving the problem. Team members are entirely free to decide how they will divide their work, but both students must consult with the client as a team and their plan is subject to judging. The students may wish during their post-consultation presentation to explain why they worked together in the way that they did.
(c) The Post-Consultation. Each team must also conduct a meaningful post-consultation discussion between the attorneys after the client has left the room. The post-consultation performance should replicate the type of post-interview discussion that real lawyers would have. This may include consideration of the client’s legal problem and other issues; planning for the future, including stating issues to be researched or actions to be taken on the client’s behalf; and discussing any sensitive or ethical issues arising from the representation. Explanation of the position or attitude taken by the students may also be useful.
(d) Division of Time between the Consultation and Post-Consultation; Timekeeping. The student competitors will not be provided with timekeepers. They are responsible for keeping track of their time. However, one of the judges on each panel should be selected to keep track of the time for the judges. Under no circumstance will a team be allowed more than forty-five (45) minutes to complete the session, including both the consultation and the post-consultation. The timekeeper judge shall stop students after forty-five (45) minutes regardless of where students are in the consultation or post-consultation process. The decision of the timekeeper judge as to when the round should end is final. In determining a team’s score, the judges shall consider the way the team allocated its time and, if applicable, the team’s failure to include a meaningful post-consultation session.
(e) Use of Materials and Props. During the consultation and post-consultation, the team may use books, notes, and other materials. The team may also use office props (computers, files, desktop furnishings, etc.).
RULE 6. JUDGES’ CRITIQUE AND RANKING OF TEAMS OBSERVED
(a) Content and Timing of the Critique. Except in the final round, immediately following each team’s post-consultation presentation, the judges should provide the team with a critique of the team’s handling of the consultation and post-consultation periods. This critique should focus on the Assessment Criteria and should be specific and constructive. The critique should last no more than fifteen (15) minutes.
(b) Client Not to Be Present. Clients should not be present during the post-consultation period or the critique.
(c) Judges’ Discussion of Each Team’s Performance; Consulting with the Client Prior to Ranking; and the Awarding of Points to the Teams Observed by Judges at the End of the Round. After the judges have observed all teams, the judges should discuss each team’s performance among themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges may discuss the performance of the teams, the judges should individually rank the teams. Judging independently, each judge must give one (1) point to the one (1) team that in the judge’s opinion performed the best in light of the Assessment Criteria. Then, each judge must give two (2) or three (3) points to the other team(s). Judges may not award half points. There can be a tie for second or third place, but each judge must select only one winning team and must give that team one (1) point. If the second-place team was close to the first place team, the second place team should be given 2 points.
(a) Content and Timing of the Critique. Except in the final round, immediately following each team’s post-consultation presentation, the judges should provide the team with a critique of the team’s handling of the consultation and post-consultation periods. This critique should focus on the Assessment Criteria and should be specific and constructive. The critique should last no more than fifteen (15) minutes.
(b) Client Not to Be Present. Clients should not be present during the post-consultation period or the critique.
(c) Judges’ Discussion of Each Team’s Performance; Consulting with the Client Prior to Ranking; and the Awarding of Points to the Teams Observed by Judges at the End of the Round. After the judges have observed all teams, the judges should discuss each team’s performance among themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges may discuss the performance of the teams, the judges should individually rank the teams. Judging independently, each judge must give one (1) point to the one (1) team that in the judge’s opinion performed the best in light of the Assessment Criteria. Then, each judge must give two (2) or three (3) points to the other team(s). Judges may not award half points. There can be a tie for second or third place, but each judge must select only one winning team and must give that team one (1) point. If the second-place team was close to the first place team, the second place team should be given 2 points.
RULE 7. ADVANCING TO THE SEMI-FINAL ROUND
(a) Point Qualification Format. The Competition uses a point qualification format in which teams accumulating the lowest number of points in the preliminary rounds will qualify either for (1) the Semi-Final Round or (2) the Final (Championship) Round if there are fewer than 12 teams in the Competition.
(b) Number and Sequence of Preliminary Rounds. The host of the Competition must provide a minimum of two preliminary rounds in which all teams compete. At the host’s and the BM-ICCC's discretion, a third preliminary round may be provided for all teams. These rounds may be run simultaneously or consecutively.
(c) Qualifying for the Semi-Final Round. At the end of the preliminary rounds, the total scores for each team will be computed (e.g., when two preliminary rounds are held, the best possible score is 6 points, i.e., 1 point from each of the three judges [3 points] in each of the two rounds, 3 x 2 = 6 points). Adjustments shall be made if fewer or more than three judges scored a round (e.g., if only two judges scored a round, their scores should be averaged to provide a third score for the round).
(d) Number of Teams Advancing to the Semi-Final Round. If seventeen or fewer teams compete in the Competition, the top six teams will advance to the Semi-Final Round. If eighteen or more teams compete in the Competition, the top nine teams will advance to the Semi-Final Round.
(e) Ties after the Preliminary Rounds. In case of ties, the following procedure will be followed. If teams otherwise qualified to advance after the Preliminary Rounds are tied, appropriate members of the BM-ICCC will determine the teams for the Semi-Final Round by eliminating all teams (among the tied teams) that had lost in head-to-head competition (e.g., assume that teams A and B are tied for the last place in the Semi-Final Round; if teams A and B have met in a round in which team A had received a lower (better) score among the judges than team B, team B would be eliminated from the Semi-Final Round). If the teams needed for the Semi-Final Round cannot be determined by this procedure, then the BM-ICCC will add the scores of the tied teams from the Assessment Criteria and Team Feedback Forms to determine a winner. The highest scoring team(s) will advance to the Semi-Final Round. If there is still a tie, the team with the most first-place rankings will advance.
(f) Team Allocation in the Semi-Final Round.
1. The BM-ICCC will allocate the highest-ranking teams from the preliminary rounds to different rooms. The first, second, and third ranked teams will thus compete in different rooms. Next, the BM-ICCC will determine whether any of the teams have competed directly against each other (“head to head”) in the preliminary rounds and will allocate any teams that did compete directly to different rooms. Thus, if Team A and Team B are both in the Semi- Final Round and competed against each other in the preliminary rounds, they will be allocated to different rooms for the Semi-Final Round.
2. The BM-ICCC will allocate the remainder of the teams in a way that, in the BM-ICCC’s best judgment, fairly distributes the teams according to rank. For example, the teams ranked fourth, fifth, and sixth should be in different rooms, and the teams ranked seventh, eighth, and ninth should be in different rooms, subject to the allocations made based on previous head-to-head competition as described above. If possible, the teams ranked first and ninth should be in the same room, as should the teams ranked second and eighth, and so on according to rank.
(g) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Semi-Final Round. The teams with the lowest scores after the preliminary rounds are allowed to choose when they perform in the semi-final round. In case of a tie, the order will be made by a draw.
(h) Decision of the Judges in the Semi-Final Round; Advancing to the Final (Championship) Round. After the judges in each room have observed all teams in the Semi-Final Round, the judges should discuss each team’s performance among themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges may discuss the performance of the teams, the judges should individually rank the teams. Judging independently, each judge must give one (1) point to the one (1) team that in the judge’s opinion performed the best in light of the judging standards. Then, each judge must give two (2) or three (3) points to the other team(s). Judges may not award half points. There can be a tie for second or third place, but each judge must select only one winning team and must give that team one (1) point. If the second place team was close to the first place team, the second place team should be given 2 points. The team in each room with the lowest score will advance to the Final (Championship) Round. Thus, if six teams compete in the Semi Final Round in two rooms, two teams will advance (one from each of the two rooms); if nine teams compete in the Semi-Final Round in three rooms, three teams will advance (one from each of the three rooms).
(i) Ties in the Semi-Final Round. If the teams are tied after the judges in a room in the Semi- Final Round have independently awarded points, the judges will decide by a majority vote which team performed the best in the room in light of the Assessment Criteria. If the vote does not produce one team to advance, the Committee members will add the preliminary round ranks of the tied teams to their Semi-Final Round ranks to determine a winner. If there is still a tie, the BM-ICCC will add the scores of the tied teams from the Semi-Final Round Assessment Criteria and Team Feedback Forms to determine a winner. The highest scoring team will advance to the Final Round.
(a) Point Qualification Format. The Competition uses a point qualification format in which teams accumulating the lowest number of points in the preliminary rounds will qualify either for (1) the Semi-Final Round or (2) the Final (Championship) Round if there are fewer than 12 teams in the Competition.
(b) Number and Sequence of Preliminary Rounds. The host of the Competition must provide a minimum of two preliminary rounds in which all teams compete. At the host’s and the BM-ICCC's discretion, a third preliminary round may be provided for all teams. These rounds may be run simultaneously or consecutively.
(c) Qualifying for the Semi-Final Round. At the end of the preliminary rounds, the total scores for each team will be computed (e.g., when two preliminary rounds are held, the best possible score is 6 points, i.e., 1 point from each of the three judges [3 points] in each of the two rounds, 3 x 2 = 6 points). Adjustments shall be made if fewer or more than three judges scored a round (e.g., if only two judges scored a round, their scores should be averaged to provide a third score for the round).
(d) Number of Teams Advancing to the Semi-Final Round. If seventeen or fewer teams compete in the Competition, the top six teams will advance to the Semi-Final Round. If eighteen or more teams compete in the Competition, the top nine teams will advance to the Semi-Final Round.
(e) Ties after the Preliminary Rounds. In case of ties, the following procedure will be followed. If teams otherwise qualified to advance after the Preliminary Rounds are tied, appropriate members of the BM-ICCC will determine the teams for the Semi-Final Round by eliminating all teams (among the tied teams) that had lost in head-to-head competition (e.g., assume that teams A and B are tied for the last place in the Semi-Final Round; if teams A and B have met in a round in which team A had received a lower (better) score among the judges than team B, team B would be eliminated from the Semi-Final Round). If the teams needed for the Semi-Final Round cannot be determined by this procedure, then the BM-ICCC will add the scores of the tied teams from the Assessment Criteria and Team Feedback Forms to determine a winner. The highest scoring team(s) will advance to the Semi-Final Round. If there is still a tie, the team with the most first-place rankings will advance.
(f) Team Allocation in the Semi-Final Round.
1. The BM-ICCC will allocate the highest-ranking teams from the preliminary rounds to different rooms. The first, second, and third ranked teams will thus compete in different rooms. Next, the BM-ICCC will determine whether any of the teams have competed directly against each other (“head to head”) in the preliminary rounds and will allocate any teams that did compete directly to different rooms. Thus, if Team A and Team B are both in the Semi- Final Round and competed against each other in the preliminary rounds, they will be allocated to different rooms for the Semi-Final Round.
2. The BM-ICCC will allocate the remainder of the teams in a way that, in the BM-ICCC’s best judgment, fairly distributes the teams according to rank. For example, the teams ranked fourth, fifth, and sixth should be in different rooms, and the teams ranked seventh, eighth, and ninth should be in different rooms, subject to the allocations made based on previous head-to-head competition as described above. If possible, the teams ranked first and ninth should be in the same room, as should the teams ranked second and eighth, and so on according to rank.
(g) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Semi-Final Round. The teams with the lowest scores after the preliminary rounds are allowed to choose when they perform in the semi-final round. In case of a tie, the order will be made by a draw.
(h) Decision of the Judges in the Semi-Final Round; Advancing to the Final (Championship) Round. After the judges in each room have observed all teams in the Semi-Final Round, the judges should discuss each team’s performance among themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges may discuss the performance of the teams, the judges should individually rank the teams. Judging independently, each judge must give one (1) point to the one (1) team that in the judge’s opinion performed the best in light of the judging standards. Then, each judge must give two (2) or three (3) points to the other team(s). Judges may not award half points. There can be a tie for second or third place, but each judge must select only one winning team and must give that team one (1) point. If the second place team was close to the first place team, the second place team should be given 2 points. The team in each room with the lowest score will advance to the Final (Championship) Round. Thus, if six teams compete in the Semi Final Round in two rooms, two teams will advance (one from each of the two rooms); if nine teams compete in the Semi-Final Round in three rooms, three teams will advance (one from each of the three rooms).
(i) Ties in the Semi-Final Round. If the teams are tied after the judges in a room in the Semi- Final Round have independently awarded points, the judges will decide by a majority vote which team performed the best in the room in light of the Assessment Criteria. If the vote does not produce one team to advance, the Committee members will add the preliminary round ranks of the tied teams to their Semi-Final Round ranks to determine a winner. If there is still a tie, the BM-ICCC will add the scores of the tied teams from the Semi-Final Round Assessment Criteria and Team Feedback Forms to determine a winner. The highest scoring team will advance to the Final Round.
RULE 8. THE FINAL (CHAMPIONSHIP) ROUND
(a) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Final (Championship) Round. The team with the lowest score after the first three rounds is allowed to choose when it performs in the final round. In case of a tie, the order will be made by a draw.
(b) Format of the Final Round; Decision by the Judges; Ties; Announcement of the Winner; and Critique. The final round will be in one room with one panel of judges. After the judges have seen all of the teams perform, the judges should discuss each team’s performance among themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges should discuss the performance of the teams, the judges should individually rank the teams. Judging independently, each judge must give one (1) point to the one (1) team that performed the best in light of the Assessment Criteria. The team with the lowest number of points is the winner. If the teams are tied after the judges have independently awarded points, the judges will decide by a majority vote which team performed the best in the room in light of the Assessment Criteria. If the vote does not produce one team as a winner, the Judges will declare a tie and the tied teams will be co-winners. Following the announcement of the winner, the judges will then comment on the consultations.
(a) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Final (Championship) Round. The team with the lowest score after the first three rounds is allowed to choose when it performs in the final round. In case of a tie, the order will be made by a draw.
(b) Format of the Final Round; Decision by the Judges; Ties; Announcement of the Winner; and Critique. The final round will be in one room with one panel of judges. After the judges have seen all of the teams perform, the judges should discuss each team’s performance among themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges should discuss the performance of the teams, the judges should individually rank the teams. Judging independently, each judge must give one (1) point to the one (1) team that performed the best in light of the Assessment Criteria. The team with the lowest number of points is the winner. If the teams are tied after the judges have independently awarded points, the judges will decide by a majority vote which team performed the best in the room in light of the Assessment Criteria. If the vote does not produce one team as a winner, the Judges will declare a tie and the tied teams will be co-winners. Following the announcement of the winner, the judges will then comment on the consultations.
RULE 9. AWARDS
Each participant in the Competition will receive a certificate to be awarded at the Competition Banquet. The winning team will, in addition, receive a special award.
Each participant in the Competition will receive a certificate to be awarded at the Competition Banquet. The winning team will, in addition, receive a special award.
RULE 10. COUNSELING SESSIONS: ATTENDANCE AND COMMUNICATION
(a) Observing Rounds. Team coaches may observe their own teams in any round. Others associated with a team (friends, family members, national representatives) may observe their affiliated teams subject to space availability. A team and its coach (and others associated with the team) may not observe other teams competing in the preliminary or semi-final rounds of the Competition. They may observe the final round if their team has been eliminated from the Competition. Persons affiliated with teams competing in the final round may observe the final round so long as they do not communicate with their affiliated team until after that team has performed. Teams that perform first or second in the final round may not observe teams that perform after them.Persons not associated with any team may observe all rounds, subject to space availability and the consent of the coach (or other representative) of the competing team.
(b) Prohibited Communications. No observer may communicate in any way with any team members during the course of their performance, or with any judge prior to scoring.
(a) Observing Rounds. Team coaches may observe their own teams in any round. Others associated with a team (friends, family members, national representatives) may observe their affiliated teams subject to space availability. A team and its coach (and others associated with the team) may not observe other teams competing in the preliminary or semi-final rounds of the Competition. They may observe the final round if their team has been eliminated from the Competition. Persons affiliated with teams competing in the final round may observe the final round so long as they do not communicate with their affiliated team until after that team has performed. Teams that perform first or second in the final round may not observe teams that perform after them.Persons not associated with any team may observe all rounds, subject to space availability and the consent of the coach (or other representative) of the competing team.
(b) Prohibited Communications. No observer may communicate in any way with any team members during the course of their performance, or with any judge prior to scoring.
RULE 11. DISPUTES AND BREACHES OF THE RULES
(a) Disputes Subject to Review. Disputes relating to violations of the rules of the Competition by a team, persons associated with a team, or judges, and disputes relating to alleged misinterpretations of the rules by judges, will be subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b) to (d), below. All decisions of the judges relating to the quality of a team’s performance are final; disputes regarding such decisions are not subject to hearing or appeal.
(b) Prior to Decision of a Round. Disputes concerning the conduct of a team (or persons associated with a team) or other complaints arising during a round of the Competition but prior to the decision of the judges, will be directed to designated members of the BM-ICCC. When a timely complaint has been raised, the BM-ICCC will investigate and resolve the dispute in a way that the BM-ICCC deems best to avoid nullification of the round. If the Committee members determine that the team has engaged in a serious violation of the rules, the BM-ICCC may: (1) discuss the dispute with the judges and allow them to take the matter into account in making their decision; or (2) impose a sanction, including a deduction of points or disqualification of a team from the Competition. If the BM-ICCC determines that the team winning the disputed round should be sanctioned by a lower ranking or disqualification from the Competition, the BM-ICCC will allow the next-lowest- ranked team to be regarded as the winner.
(c) After the Decision of the Round but Before the Next Round Begins. When a dispute has been raised after a round has been decided but before the next round begins (if there is one), the BM-ICCC will investigate the dispute. The BM-ICCC may hear representatives from the parties involved and will resolve the dispute in a way that the BM-ICCC deems best, consistent with the purposes of the Competition. If the BM-ICCC determines that the team winning the disputed round should be sanctioned by loss of that round or disqualification from the Competition, the BM-ICCC will allow the next-lowest-ranked team to be regarded as the winner.
(d) All Other Disputes. All other disputes will be referred to the designated members of the BM-ICCC to resolve in the manner provided by this section.
(a) Disputes Subject to Review. Disputes relating to violations of the rules of the Competition by a team, persons associated with a team, or judges, and disputes relating to alleged misinterpretations of the rules by judges, will be subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b) to (d), below. All decisions of the judges relating to the quality of a team’s performance are final; disputes regarding such decisions are not subject to hearing or appeal.
(b) Prior to Decision of a Round. Disputes concerning the conduct of a team (or persons associated with a team) or other complaints arising during a round of the Competition but prior to the decision of the judges, will be directed to designated members of the BM-ICCC. When a timely complaint has been raised, the BM-ICCC will investigate and resolve the dispute in a way that the BM-ICCC deems best to avoid nullification of the round. If the Committee members determine that the team has engaged in a serious violation of the rules, the BM-ICCC may: (1) discuss the dispute with the judges and allow them to take the matter into account in making their decision; or (2) impose a sanction, including a deduction of points or disqualification of a team from the Competition. If the BM-ICCC determines that the team winning the disputed round should be sanctioned by a lower ranking or disqualification from the Competition, the BM-ICCC will allow the next-lowest- ranked team to be regarded as the winner.
(c) After the Decision of the Round but Before the Next Round Begins. When a dispute has been raised after a round has been decided but before the next round begins (if there is one), the BM-ICCC will investigate the dispute. The BM-ICCC may hear representatives from the parties involved and will resolve the dispute in a way that the BM-ICCC deems best, consistent with the purposes of the Competition. If the BM-ICCC determines that the team winning the disputed round should be sanctioned by loss of that round or disqualification from the Competition, the BM-ICCC will allow the next-lowest-ranked team to be regarded as the winner.
(d) All Other Disputes. All other disputes will be referred to the designated members of the BM-ICCC to resolve in the manner provided by this section.
RULE 12. CLIENTS
(a) Selection of Clients. The Competition host is responsible for selecting persons to play the role of the client for each of the sessions. If a team from the host law school is taking part in the Competition, a law student from the host school should not act as a client in any session in which the host law school team will conduct the interview. If use of such a law student is unavoidable, the host law school team must forfeit.
(b) Orientation for Clients. Hosts are strongly encouraged to conduct an orientation for the clients in advance of the date of Competition. Each client will be supplied with a packet containing the consultation situation and a detailed confidential memorandum concerning the client’s background and concerns.
(c) Client Briefing. The BM-ICCC will provide a Client Briefing prior to the Rounds.
(d) Availability after the Round to Talk with Judges. Clients should plan to be available at the
conclusion of a round to discuss the consultations with the judges.
(a) Selection of Clients. The Competition host is responsible for selecting persons to play the role of the client for each of the sessions. If a team from the host law school is taking part in the Competition, a law student from the host school should not act as a client in any session in which the host law school team will conduct the interview. If use of such a law student is unavoidable, the host law school team must forfeit.
(b) Orientation for Clients. Hosts are strongly encouraged to conduct an orientation for the clients in advance of the date of Competition. Each client will be supplied with a packet containing the consultation situation and a detailed confidential memorandum concerning the client’s background and concerns.
(c) Client Briefing. The BM-ICCC will provide a Client Briefing prior to the Rounds.
(d) Availability after the Round to Talk with Judges. Clients should plan to be available at the
conclusion of a round to discuss the consultations with the judges.
RULE 13. JUDGES
(a) Selection of Judges. The Competition host is responsible for selecting judges for the preliminary and Semi-Final rounds of the Competition. The host should make every effort to have a range of relevant experience represented on panels, including practicing legal experience, academic experience, and familiarity with the ideals of the Competition. In addition, the host should make every effort to have one person on the panel with a strong background in one of the counseling professions (e.g., social or welfare worker, psychologist, minister, or another person with extensive experience of counseling).
(b) Final Round Judges. For the final round, the panel will usually consist of five judges, chosen from among the national representatives or otherwise by invitation of the Committee. An effort will be made to include one person on the panel with a strong background in one of the counseling professions.
(c) Persons Prohibited from Judging. No one who judged an earlier round can act as a judge in 12
the final round if he or she would be judging a team he or she had seen in a previous round. Faculty advisors/team coaches may not act as judges as long as their teams have not been eliminated from the Competition.
(d) Judges’ Briefing. The BM-ICCC will provide a Judges’ Briefing prior to the Rounds.
(e) Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form. All judges, as well as students, will receive a copy of the Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form. All judges will also be supplied with a copy of the consultation situation for the round they will be judging, a copy or summary of the International Rules, and a detailed confidential memorandum about the client’s background and concerns. Judges are instructed that the Assessment Criteria and Feedback Forms are to be used as guidelines in scoring the Competition. Considering the nature of the Competition, it would be impossible for judges to adhere strictly to totally objective guidelines. After the Competition has been completed, each team’s Assessment Criteria and Feedback Forms will be made available to the team.
(f) Taking Notes during the Round. Judges should take notes as they observe each team’s performance and base their critiques on specific observations from their notes in light of the Assessment Criteria.
(a) Selection of Judges. The Competition host is responsible for selecting judges for the preliminary and Semi-Final rounds of the Competition. The host should make every effort to have a range of relevant experience represented on panels, including practicing legal experience, academic experience, and familiarity with the ideals of the Competition. In addition, the host should make every effort to have one person on the panel with a strong background in one of the counseling professions (e.g., social or welfare worker, psychologist, minister, or another person with extensive experience of counseling).
(b) Final Round Judges. For the final round, the panel will usually consist of five judges, chosen from among the national representatives or otherwise by invitation of the Committee. An effort will be made to include one person on the panel with a strong background in one of the counseling professions.
(c) Persons Prohibited from Judging. No one who judged an earlier round can act as a judge in 12
the final round if he or she would be judging a team he or she had seen in a previous round. Faculty advisors/team coaches may not act as judges as long as their teams have not been eliminated from the Competition.
(d) Judges’ Briefing. The BM-ICCC will provide a Judges’ Briefing prior to the Rounds.
(e) Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form. All judges, as well as students, will receive a copy of the Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form. All judges will also be supplied with a copy of the consultation situation for the round they will be judging, a copy or summary of the International Rules, and a detailed confidential memorandum about the client’s background and concerns. Judges are instructed that the Assessment Criteria and Feedback Forms are to be used as guidelines in scoring the Competition. Considering the nature of the Competition, it would be impossible for judges to adhere strictly to totally objective guidelines. After the Competition has been completed, each team’s Assessment Criteria and Feedback Forms will be made available to the team.
(f) Taking Notes during the Round. Judges should take notes as they observe each team’s performance and base their critiques on specific observations from their notes in light of the Assessment Criteria.
RULE 14. RECORDING AND IMAGE CAPTURE; PARTICIPANT EXPENSES; ACCEPTANCE OF RISK; ENTRY FEE; GRANTS
(a) Videoing of the Final (Championship) Round. The Final (Championship) Round of the Competition may be recorded. Teams will be asked to consent to recording of the final round. Giving consent grants rights to the BM-ICCC to use the team’s image, likeness and sound of their voices as recorded without payment or any other consideration. The students understand that their images may be edited, copied, exhibited, published or distributed and waive the right to inspect or approve the finished product wherein their likenesses appears. Additionally, they waive any right to royalties or other compensation arising or related to the use of their images or recordings. They also understand that this material may be used in diverse educational settings within an unrestricted geographic area..
(b) Participant Expenses and Acceptance of Risk. Travel, accommodation, and incidental costs incurred by participants in conjunction with the Competition will not be reimbursed and will be the responsibility of the participants. Judges, faculty advisors, and national representatives participate voluntarily and are not reimbursed. The Competition is not liable for any costs or risks associated with attending the Competition.
(c) Entry Fee. The Entry Fee for the Competition will be $500 per team, subject to annual revision by the BM-ICCC. A team is defined as two students and one coach. If the team participates without a coach, the Fee remains the same. Any additional individuals travelling with the team or otherwise attending the events are required to pay a certain per person charge, to be determined by the BM-ICCC in consultation with the Host. The Fee is to be paid through the BM-ICCC website or such other mechanism as determined by the BM-ICCC. Failure to pay the Fee in full without a waiver will disqualify the team or individual from participation in the Competition. The BM-ICCC reserves the right to waive all or part of the Entry Fee or per person charge, when circumstances warrant a waiver. All proceeds from collection of the Entry Fee go to the Competition. All proceeds from the per person charge go to the Host to compensate for the extra costs associated with those additional persons. The National Representative of each country shall not be assessed any entry fees or per person charges.
(d) Grants. Travel grants and partial or full fee waivers may be available in limited cases. Information is published on the Brown Mosten website.
(a) Videoing of the Final (Championship) Round. The Final (Championship) Round of the Competition may be recorded. Teams will be asked to consent to recording of the final round. Giving consent grants rights to the BM-ICCC to use the team’s image, likeness and sound of their voices as recorded without payment or any other consideration. The students understand that their images may be edited, copied, exhibited, published or distributed and waive the right to inspect or approve the finished product wherein their likenesses appears. Additionally, they waive any right to royalties or other compensation arising or related to the use of their images or recordings. They also understand that this material may be used in diverse educational settings within an unrestricted geographic area..
(b) Participant Expenses and Acceptance of Risk. Travel, accommodation, and incidental costs incurred by participants in conjunction with the Competition will not be reimbursed and will be the responsibility of the participants. Judges, faculty advisors, and national representatives participate voluntarily and are not reimbursed. The Competition is not liable for any costs or risks associated with attending the Competition.
(c) Entry Fee. The Entry Fee for the Competition will be $500 per team, subject to annual revision by the BM-ICCC. A team is defined as two students and one coach. If the team participates without a coach, the Fee remains the same. Any additional individuals travelling with the team or otherwise attending the events are required to pay a certain per person charge, to be determined by the BM-ICCC in consultation with the Host. The Fee is to be paid through the BM-ICCC website or such other mechanism as determined by the BM-ICCC. Failure to pay the Fee in full without a waiver will disqualify the team or individual from participation in the Competition. The BM-ICCC reserves the right to waive all or part of the Entry Fee or per person charge, when circumstances warrant a waiver. All proceeds from collection of the Entry Fee go to the Competition. All proceeds from the per person charge go to the Host to compensate for the extra costs associated with those additional persons. The National Representative of each country shall not be assessed any entry fees or per person charges.
(d) Grants. Travel grants and partial or full fee waivers may be available in limited cases. Information is published on the Brown Mosten website.
RULE 15. (REMOVED)
RULE 16. THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)
The BM-ICCC will hold an annual general meeting (AGM) when the Competition is held. The business of that meeting comprises matters relating to the aims and objectives of the Competition, its management, and arrangements for the future conduct of the Competition.
The BM-ICCC will hold an annual general meeting (AGM) when the Competition is held. The business of that meeting comprises matters relating to the aims and objectives of the Competition, its management, and arrangements for the future conduct of the Competition.
RULE 17. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CLIENT CONSULTATION COMPETITION
(a) General Questions. General questions about the Louis M. Brown International Client Counseling Competition should be directed to the BM-ICCC. Contact information is available on the BM-ICCC website.
(b) Questions about Upcoming Competitions. Questions concerning upcoming Competitions should be directed to the Competition host identified on the website for that Competition.
(a) General Questions. General questions about the Louis M. Brown International Client Counseling Competition should be directed to the BM-ICCC. Contact information is available on the BM-ICCC website.
(b) Questions about Upcoming Competitions. Questions concerning upcoming Competitions should be directed to the Competition host identified on the website for that Competition.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND TEAM FEEDBACK FORM
Criterion 1: Establishing an Effective Professional Relationship
The lawyers should establish the beginning of an effective professional relationship and working atmosphere. At an appropriate point, they should orient the client to the special nature of the relationship (confidentiality, fees, mutual obligations and rights, duration and plan of interview, methods of contact, etc.) in a courteous, sensitive and professional manner.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers did not establish the beginning of an effective professional relationship.
2 The lawyers established the beginning of an effective professional relationship. However, they either failed to adequately cover the issues pertaining to that relationship or showed some considerable failing in terms of courtesy, sensitivity and professionalism.
3 The lawyers established the beginning of an effective professional relationship. They adequately covered the issues pertaining to that relationship and demonstrated the basic elements of courtesy, sensitivity and professionalism.
4 The lawyers established the beginning of an effective professional relationship. They covered the issues pertaining to that relationship well and in a courteous, sensitive and professional manner.
5 The lawyers established the beginning of an effective professional relationship. They covered the issues pertaining to that relationship comprehensively and in a highly courteous, sensitive and professional manner.
Criterion 2: Obtaining Information
The lawyers should elicit relevant information about the problem from the client. “Relevant information” may include matters that affect the client considerably but are not “legally” relevant. They should develop a reasonably complete and reliable description of the problem and reflect this understanding to the client.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers failed to elicit the relevant information about the problem from the client. They only developed an incomplete description of the problem and/or failed to reflect this understanding to the client.
2 The lawyers failed to show competence in at least one of the following areas: eliciting the basic information about the problem from the client, developing a basic description of the problem, or making some effort to reflect that understanding to the client.
3 The lawyers elicited the basic information about the problem from the client. They developed a basic description of the problem and made some effort to reflect that understanding to the client.
4 The lawyers elicited most of the relevant information about the problem from the client. They developed a reasonably comprehensive and reliable description of the problem and competently reflected that understanding to the client.
5 The lawyers elicited all relevant information about the problem from the client. They developed a comprehensive and reliable description of the problem and clearly reflected that understanding to the client.
Criterion 3: Learning the Client’s Goals, Expectations and Needs
The lawyers should learn the client’s goals and initial expectations and, after input from the client, modify or restate them as necessary, giving attention in doing so to the emotional aspects of the problems.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers failed to learn the client’s goals and initial expectations.
2 The lawyers learned some of the client’s goals and initial expectations. They made few modifications and developments to this understanding and took little or no account of any emotional aspects of the problems.
3 The lawyers obtained a general understanding of the client’s goals and initial expectations. They were able to make some modifications and developments to this understanding but may not have fully taken into account any emotional aspects of the problems.
4 The lawyers obtained a good understanding of the client’s goals and initial expectations. They were able to make modifications and developments to this understanding taking into account any emotional aspects of the problems.
5 The lawyers obtained an excellent understanding of the client’s goals and initial expectations. They were able to modify and develop this understanding fully taking into account any emotional aspects of the problems.
Criterion 4: Problem Analysis
The lawyers should analyse the client’s problem with creativity and from both legal and non-legal perspectives and should convey a clear and useful formulation of the problem to the client.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers failed to achieve a clear understanding of the client’s problem or did not attempt to analyse the problem.
2 The lawyers achieved some understanding of the client’s problem and attempted to analyse the problem. However, they omitted some significant elements or provided an unsound analysis.
3 The lawyers analysed the client’s problem from both legal and non-legal perspectives. They provided some formulation of the problem although this formulation may have lacked in clarity or usefulness.
4 The lawyers analysed the client’s problem with creativity and from both legal and non-legal perspectives. They provided a clear and useful formulation of the problem.
5 The lawyers analysed the client’s problem with a high degree of creativity and from both legal and non-legal perspectives. They provided a very clear and useful formulation of the problem which they conveyed with clarity to the client.
Criterion 5: Legal Analysis and Giving Advice
Legal analysis and the consequent legal advice given should be both accurate and appropriate to the situation and its context. If appropriate, the lawyers should give pertinent and relevant non-legal advice.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers gave no advice or the advice given was seriously inaccurate or inappropriate.
2 The lawyers attempted to give legal advice but it was inaccurate or inappropriate. Alternatively, any non-legal advice, if given, was either very unhelpful or irrelevant.
3 The lawyers engaged in legal analysis and gave advice that was reasonably accurate and showed some awareness of the situation and its context. Any non-legal advice, if given, was pertinent and relevant.
4 The lawyers engaged in good legal analysis and gave advice that was reasonably appropriate to the situation and its context. Any non-legal advice, if given, was pertinent and relevant.
5 The lawyers engaged in excellent legal analysis and gave advice that was highly appropriate to the situation and its context. Any non-legal advice, if given, given was pertinent and relevant.
Criterion 6: Developing Reasoned Courses of Action (Options)
The lawyers, consistently with the analysis of the client’s problem, should develop a set of potentially effective and feasible options, both legal and non-legal. The lawyers may discuss appropriate use of creative peacemaking and alternative processes such as unbundled legal representation (in which the lawyer performs discrete tasks as part of representation that is limited in scope), Collaborative Law, mediation, arbitration, expert consultation and evaluation, and prevention of future disputes.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers failed to develop any effective or feasible options.
2 The lawyers considered an option but showed inadequate consideration as to its effective- ness or feasibility.
3 The lawyers considered more than one option and showed some consideration as to the effectiveness or feasibility of the option.
4 The lawyers satisfactorily developed more than one potentially effective and feasible option of a legal and/or non-legal nature.
5 The lawyers fully and effectively developed a set of potentially effective and feasible options of a legal and/or non-legal nature.
Criterion 7: Assisting the Client to Make an Informed Choice
The lawyers should develop an appropriate balance in dealing with the legal and emotional needs of the client. They should assist the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions and in making an informed choice, taking potential legal, economic, social and psychological consequences into account.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers failed to deal with the client’s legal or emotional needs. They made little or no attempt to assist the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions, or in making an informed choice.
2 The lawyers made some effort to deal with the client’s legal or emotional needs. They made some effort in assisting the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions or in making an informed choice. However, they may have been largely unsuccessful in this task.
3 The lawyers dealt appropriately with the client’s legal and emotional needs. They assisted the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions, and in making an informed choice. However, they were not wholly successful in this task.
4 The lawyers dealt appropriately with the client’s legal and emotional needs. They effectively and constructively assisted the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions and in making an informed choice.
5 The lawyers dealt with the client’s legal and emotional needs very well. They provided excellent assistance to the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions, and in making an informed choice.
Criterion 8: Effectively Concluding the Interview
The lawyers should conclude the interview skilfully and leave the client with:
- a feeling of reasonable confidence and understanding;
- appropriate reassurance; and
- a clear sense of specific expectations and mutual obligations to follow.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers showed a lack of skills in ending the interview. Alternatively, the client left with little or no confidence and understanding, sense of reassurance, or sense of specific expectations and mutual obligations to follow.
2 The lawyers showed some skills in ending the interview. However, the client clearly left without at least one of the following: a feeling of reasonable confidence and understanding, appropriate reassurance, or a clear sense of specific expectations and mutual obligations to follow.
3 The lawyers showed some skills in ending the interview. The client left with some feeling of confidence and understanding, reassurance, and sense of expectations and obligations to follow.
4 The lawyers showed good skills in ending the interview. The client left with a feeling of reasonable confidence and understanding, appropriate reassurance, and a clear sense of expectations and mutual obligations to follow. However, the lawyers may have exhibited deficiency in one of these areas.
5 The lawyers showed excellent skills in ending the interview. The client left with a feeling of reasonable confidence and understanding, appropriate reassurance, and a clear sense of expectations and mutual obligations to follow.
Criterion 9: Teamwork
The lawyers, as collaborating counsellors, should work together as a team with flexibility and an appropriate balance of participation.
Select one of the following:
1 The lawyers exhibited no evidence of teamwork.
2 The lawyers exhibited evidence of teamwork, but exhibited an apparent lack understanding between the team members and/or demonstrated an imbalance in participation.
3 The lawyers exhibited a satisfactory basic level of teamwork.
4 The lawyers exhibited very good teamwork skills, but lacked the highest level of understanding between the team members and/or the ability to adapt their approach to the particular client.
5 The team members exhibited excellent teamwork showing a very high level of understanding between them and the ability to adapt their approach to the particular client.
Criterion 10: Ethical and Moral Issues
The lawyers should recognise, clarify and respond to any moral or ethical issues which may arise, without being prejudicial in judgements.
Select one of the following:
1 Moral or ethical issue(s) arose which the lawyers either did not recognise or which they dealt with in an inappropriate way.
2 Moral or ethical issue(s) arose which the lawyers recognised but failed to deal with adequately.
3 No moral or ethical issues arose in the interview.
4 Moral or ethical issue(s) arose which the lawyers recognised and partially dealt with.
5 Moral or ethical issue(s) arose which the lawyers recognised and fully dealt with.
Criterion 11: Post Interview Reflection Period
During the post-interview reflection, the lawyers should give evidence of:
- recognising their own and the client’s emotional considerations;
- acknowledging the strengths and limitations of their interviewing and counselling skills;
- handling the substantive aspects of the client’s problems (both legal and non-legal);
- identifying the ethical or moral issues and the proper handling of them; and
- providing for an effective follow up.
1 The lawyers omitted or exhibited minimal post-interview reflection, or the lawyers failed to understand the purpose of the post-interview reflection.
2 The lawyers acknowledged some of the issues to be addressed, but they failed to address the issues with insight or with sufficient lucidity.
3 The lawyers acknowledged and addressed some of the issues to be addressed including those of real significance.
4 The lawyers made a good exposition and analysis of the issues to be addressed with some minor omission(s) of issues or lack of comprehension or insight.
5 The lawyers exhibited comprehensive and insightful exposition and analysis of all the issues to be addressed.
Summary Comment:
Please provide this team with a brief summary comment about the team’s performance in the space below:
Notes during Interview
Please use the following space to take notes while you observe the interview and post-interview reflection period.