THE WORKROOM

The work behind the argument.

UNOFFICIAL HANDBOOK

How legal arguments are researched, written, tested and rebuilt.

01 · THE ARGUMENT IN PRACTICE

Experience becomes useful when it returns to the work.

Shivanshi and a fellow participant at the ICC during the cross-moot experience

PARIS · CROSS-EXAMINATION

Paris: Cross-Examination, Arbitration and the Work Behind the Room

I was offered the opportunity around the end of my first year, before I had properly entered my second. The team included seniors whose work I already deeply respected, which made the invitation feel exciting and slightly unreal in equal measure.

The moot centred on international commercial arbitration and cross-examination, built around a proposition running into hundreds of pages. It demanded reading, rereading, redrafting and, at one point, the willingness to discard work we had spent days building.

Paris became a lesson in accepting an opportunity, then doing the sustained work required to grow into it.

Read the original LinkedIn post ↗

SYDNEY · IMLAM

Sydney: Growing Into the Argument

The claimant’s case was not the side I instinctively liked when we began preparing for Sydney. Over months of research, drafting and oral practice, that changed completely.

The arguments that first felt distant became the ones I knew closely enough to defend. Preparing for IMLAM became an exercise in understanding that advocacy is not always about beginning with conviction.

Sometimes conviction is built through the slow work of learning a record well enough to see why an argument deserves to be made.

Read the original LinkedIn post ↗

02 · RESEARCHING THE PROBLEM

Start with the record, then build the research trail.

Read the problem before researching the law

Identify the parties and relief sought.
Separate agreed and disputed facts.
Mark dates, documents and procedural posture.
Notice which facts change the applicable rule.

Build an issue tree

Principal issue
Elements of the legal test
Disputed element
Factual question attached to each element
Authority required for each proposition

Use an authority hierarchy

Constitutional and statutory text
Binding judgments
Relevant persuasive judgments
Rules, regulations and official materials
Authoritative secondary literature
Commentary and explanatory material

Keep a research trail

Proposition and supporting authority
Pinpoint and relevant principle
Factual application and contrary authority
Status checked and date checked

Know when the research question has changed

Legal research is iterative. A new authority or a closer reading of the record may change the question itself; revise the issue tree rather than forcing the first formulation.

03 · BUILDING THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT

From issue to submission.

Identify the legal test

State the proposition

Support it with authority

Apply the material facts

Address the strongest contrary argument

State the requested conclusion

Law–fact–submission

A practical drafting method: explain the rule, connect it to the material facts and state the submission that follows. It is a useful discipline, not the only universally accepted form.

Memorial anatomy

Common components include a cover page, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of jurisdiction, statement of facts, issues raised, summary of arguments, arguments advanced and prayer.

The competition rules and proposition always control. A general template must be adapted to the applicable memorial rules.

Drafting and redrafting

Use headings that advance the submission.
Test proposition sentences and paragraph-level authority.
Apply facts and deal with adverse material.
Remove repetition and verify that each authority supports the exact proposition cited.

CITATION DESK

Use the system the work requires.

Follow the citation system required by the relevant institution, journal, competition or court.

OSCOLAOfficial Oxford resources ↗THE BLUEBOOKOfficial website ↗

04 · MAKING THE ORAL ARGUMENT