As Seen By The Dean
GW Law Briefs

International Update
Faculty File

  Philanthropy
Alumni Events
Law Newsmakers

 


Archives
Subscribe
Contact Us
Advertising
Alumni Association
Law Alumni Association
GW News Center



(left) Jose A. Cabranes was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in 1994. (center) Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. presided over the competition, which drew a crowd of 1,300 people. Last year, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sat on the bench. (right) Diane P. Wood was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 1995.

By Jaime Ciavarra

Few things can make a GW Law student speechless. Arguing before a Supreme Court Justice is not one of them.


Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. grills a competitor during the hour-long proceeding. This year’s fictional case, The United States of America vs. Adam Jones, focused on a private online chat room quandary.

With an articulate performance in February, four of the brightest GW competitors addressed a modern legal problem before Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Jose A. Cabranes and Diane P. Wood during the school’s oldest and most popular oral contest.

The 57th annual Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition showcased yet another rigorous and impressive panel of the nation’s best legal minds a year after Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took center stage.

The arguments were tough and the judges even tougher.

In a packed Lisner Auditorium, the four competitors—second-year students Eric Klein and Jonathan Bond for the petitioner, and third-year students Katherine Borden and Joshua Douglas for the respondent—each confronted a 15-minute questioning in what was a complex test of knowledge and fluency on the application of First and Fourth Amendment rights to private online chat rooms.

Klein, who was awarded best oral presentation and best written brief, spent weeks practicing for a “hot bench,” he says.

Alito, Wood, and Cabranes delivered.


Respondents Katherine Borden and Joshua Douglas, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane P. Wood, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jose A. Cabranes, and petitioners Jonathan Bond and Eric Klein.

“My strategy was to try to anticipate everything they could possibly ask,” Klein says. “But all of us could claim that we didn’t get stuck, we weren’t lost for answers. You come away from that with a lot of confidence. Some of the best judges in the country had a go at you, and you didn’t buckle.”

The fictional case, named The United States of America vs. Adam Jones, underscored the increasing complexity of post-Sept. 11 America.

In the problem, FBI agents used an Internet service provider to monitor a private message board without a warrant after learning that several board members were contributing money to terrorist organizations abroad.

The judges fired questions rapidly and steadily.

Did the FBI violate any Fourth Amendment rights? Did the investigatory processes infringe on the group’s associative freedom? Does the First Amendment require that evidence gathered be excluded at trial?


The visiting judges took time to chat with law students after the competition. Alito recounted being “badgered” by judges during an oral contest when he was in law school. “You can tell [GW’s competitors] poured their heart into this,” he said.

Klein and Bond defended the argument that clandestine observation of an online message board does not constitute an illegal search. They won the competition and will be awarded the Jacob Burns Award for their performance. Named after the 1924 alumnus and former trustee, the accolade given to the Van Vleck champions is considered one of the Law School’s highest honors.

After the hour-long contest, the judges noted that the problem, penned by law students Tiffany Joslyn and Sheerin Shahinpoor, explored the complex issues of cyber-privacy, a topic that is being addressed in courts across the country.

“These were interesting questions that deal with timely issues, important issues,” Alito said to the crowd of more than 1,300 people.

He called the competitors fluent, poised, and knowledgeable.

“You can tell they poured their heart into this,” Alito said.

The Van Vleck competition has for years attracted the most articulate students and high profile judges. In this 2007 contest, the finalists beat out nearly 100 other competitors—the highest number in GW history—to vie for the esteemed spots.

Part of the lure, students and event coordinators say, is having the opportunity to argue before the best. With back-to-back Supreme Court justices reigning over the competition, the pressure is mounting to continue the trend.


Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., center, and U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Jose A. Cabranes (2nd Circuit) and Diane P. Wood (7th Circuit), hear arguments in the finals of the Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition. The school’s oldest oral contest drew more than 100 competitors this year, the largest number in the Law School’s history.

Next year’s “anchor” position is already in the works, says David Johnson, the Law School’s senior assistant dean for student affairs and director of advocacy programs.

“For one day, the Law School pretty much shuts down,” he says. “We are very much committed to keeping that excitement alive.”

For Bond, the competition meant months of practice and informal mooting with friends and professors. He says he was prepared for the judges to wrap up the easy questions early and get into the heart of the issue. They did, and he responded.

“Because you knew the pressure of this competition, you spent so much time gearing up for your argument,” Bond says. “While they are very challenging and well-respected judges, it’s the same fundamental issue. In the end, you do the same thing you do everywhere else. Arguing before a Supreme Court justice is just like any other panel.”

All of the competitors were relaxed and articulate, even in the eye of a supreme legal storm.

“That’s a big confidence booster,” Bond says.

Who was Van Vleck?


The man who inspired the Law School’s most popular oral contest was always committed to keeping GW at the top of its game. William C. Van Vleck, BA ’08, LLB ’11, was a longtime professor and dean at the University who dedicated more than four decades to shaping students’ legal minds. A native Washingtonian, Van Vleck saw the enrollment of the Law School triple during his 24-year tenure as dean, and he continued teaching law at the University even after he retired from his administration position in 1948. He earned a Doctor of Juridical Science from Harvard University and honorary Doctor of Laws from GW. In 1956, Van Vleck died at age 70.

GW Competition Victories

Law School students snag top honors at oral advocacy competitions across
the nation this academic year


Melissa Colangelo and Emily McDonald were among the many GW students who shined in contests around the country this year. They were finalists in the Domenick Gabrielli Family Law Moot Court Competition in Albany, N.Y.

Regional Victory

Katherine Borden won Best Oral Advocate at the National Sexual Orientation Law Moot Court Competition at UCLA in February. The contest, which was in its third year, is the only national competition dedicated exclusively to sexual orientation law. Borden was awarded $300.

Other Successes

GW Law School proudly inaugurated the National George Washington Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition in January. Professors Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, co-directors of the Project on Law and Religious Institutions, oversaw the drafting of the Moot Court problem that implicates a First Amendment controversy. The competition focused on the rights of religiously oriented student organizations at state-affiliated institutions of higher learning. Twelve teams from across the country came to the Law School to participate. The final argument was presented before a distinguished panel of Judge Kent A. Jordan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Judge John M. Rogers of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and Professor Martin S. Lederman of the Georgetown University Law Center, former adviser on religious freedom issues for the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The GW Law team of Jeffrey Bailey and Irene Ayzenberg progressed to the semi-finals and received honorable mention for Best Brief. Bailey also received honorable mention for Best Oralist in the preliminary rounds.

Neil Chilson, Colin O’Sullivan, and Adam Copeland reached the finals and placed second in the 2007 National Telecommunications Moot Court Competition, which took place Feb. 2 and 3 at Catholic University. The competition was sponsored by the Federal Communications Bar Association.


Alexandra Gabrielle Freidberg and Alison Meeker Schiebelhut advanced to semi-finalist in the Animal Law Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law.

The GW Jessup Team competed at George Mason University in the Mid-Atlantic Regional. The team of Antonia Rahvena, Jered Matthysse, Rebekah Matter, and George Murphy was awarded Best Team Memorial (fourth place). They advanced to the second day of competition and ended in the semi-finals. Highlights included wins over Georgetown University and Catholic University. Susan Karamanian is the team’s coach.

The team of Alexandra Gabrielle Freidberg and Alison Meeker Schiebelhut won a plaque for advancing to semi-finalist in the Animal Law Moot Court Competition in March at Harvard Law. Professor Joan Schaffner was their coach.

In March, Melissa Colangelo and Emily McDonald were finalists in the Domenick Gabrielli Family Law Moot Court Competition in Albany, N.Y. Professor Catherine Ross was the coach, and Colangelo and McDonald were awarded a plaque for their efforts.

The Law School recently was the forum for oral argument in real cases. The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals held oral arguments in the Law School’s Moot Courtroom, providing GW students with the opportunity to see and hear an actual military justice proceeding.