# data[].attributes.body
After reading the feedback for my CRM, I could divide my main areas needing improvements into those parts:

part one: I need to make sure that the sentences I wrote or any advice I gave should be articulated enough that an outside reader without inside knowledge could understand. Specifically, in my advice section, I should have explained how following my advice could help my client. It would not only give a basis for my advice but also make my writing more personable and tailored to my clients.

part two: attention to detail. In my future writings, I will check multiple times the forms of my citations to minimize mistakes.

Part three: being able to write more personally and appeal to my audiences' feelings will be extremely important for persuasive writing, and thus it will be more demanding in terms of my vocabulary and sentence formation to achieve the effect I seek.

I look forward to the oral arguments in spring 2024, however I have some uncertainties about being able to answer questions in certain settings. I think that my best strategy would be to focus mainly on getting my point across, and not use overly complicated language if it wouldn't help my goals.

# data[].attributes.body
When preparing for the first oral argument, I studied the holdings of the circuits. I found that the different holdings and convictions were the result of a split in statute interpretation, more specifically purposivism and textualism. As a prosecutor it was important for me to push the purposivism interpretation of 2113(a) to get around the fact that the defendant did not use the firearm and caused little damage if at all.

I fully enjoyed my time at the podium and I would rate it 7 or 8 out of 10. It gave me a chance to set a direction for any future oral arguments: I should write down my arguments more as sentences instead of bullet points. Even though I do not intend to read off a document when arguing, it should still help me formulate my points into one coherent sentence.

The oral argument opportunity also gave me some insight into answering the judge's questions. I was unsure of how to answer a particular question and stalled for some time, then I received feedback that I would be allowed to answer afterward or agree with the judge's doubts in a real court setting. The final goal was to persuade a listener, and as long as I go on the path to achieve this goal, it would not be a huge problem if I couldn't answer right after the questions were asked. It showed me a different perspective or argument, I used to think that by persuading one has to be able to rebut any and everything.

I think that oral argument prowess certainly does not come naturally to everyone in the legal profession, and for some, the advancement of this skill would be limited even with practice. There's a possibility that a lawyer could formulate persuasive arguments during writing but not during oral argument. However I think it's beneficial to introduce this to a 1L course, because it gives a introduction to this element of court proceedings, and could help students decide whether they would pursue this area or not.

# data[].attributes.body
An impression I had from the moot court was that the judges must have had so much experience to be able to not only view the debated problem from both sides but have substantial understanding of each side. It was extremely impressive to be able to witness the experience and thought processes behind the accomplished judges.

I was also happy to be able to understand the issues regarding standing in the arguments. Being able to understand the issues enabled me to think about the potential and actual arguments of both sides. I did think that the patient and her doctor's side had more burden of proof, since their standing was more problematic. Even though the law had certain prohibitions that could affect them, their situations were not so urgent that they needed to go to court then to argue the issues.

In the end, I think that the factor most helpful to an oral argument is comprehensive preparation. This includes any arguments, case law, anticipation of panel questions, and lining them up according to importance and helpfulness. Employing prior court holdings and relevant facts is also important, however this is already done in writing a trial brief, so most likely oral arguments shouldn't make prior cases as the main arguments. Oral arguments need to be more straightforward, and more emphasis on rebutting any objections or opposition arguments.

# data[].attributes.headline
student choice: a lawyer that does not litigate

# data[].attributes.subject
student choice: a lawyer that does not litigate

# data[].attributes.body
Although oral arguments are elements of trial or appellate proceedings, they are in essence persuasion and articulating one's ideas and thought process, and those skills are certainly needed in the work of a lawyer, even if they do not litigate. Lawyers need to converse with their peers and clients, and being able to get a point across is the foundation of effective discussion, which lays a path to problem resolution. Skills used in oral arguments also could help an attorney explain to their peers why they made a certain decision.

Appellate oral arguments share similarities with the above situations. An appellate oral argument faces a court that was aware of the trial decision, most likely agreed with prior holdings and members are more likely to have their own opinions. Forming these opinions requires one's own logical thought processes and those opinions are not easily swayed. It is the same when conversing with peers, who also have access to the same factual situation and form their own opinions based on respective professional experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
On the scale of 0 to 5, I rank my preparation at 3. I outlined my arguments with the specific case law to support them, and practiced for both the arguments and potential questions.

On the scale of 0 to 5 I rank my satisfaction at 2. I think there were some instances I lost track of my argument, what to say next, and fumbled with my language. However I think I had less of those instances than when I did my trial oral argument.

I wished I had included more mentions of case law in my arguments, mainly to provide definitions to the terms I used. Overall I was extremely nervous when doing my arguments and I think it showed in my language. For a person less accustomed to public speech and debate there exists a trade off between being able to present an argument in a coherent way and directly reading from a document. When one is nervous the previous bullet points might not be expanded to complete sentences, but if the sentences were written out similar to how they would be presented at court, one couldn't avoid reading from them.

My peers that I observed doing the oral argument all had narrative elements in their arguments. I think I might incorporate this into my future arguments since it would provide some emotional weight in a context that only had access to prior records and opinions that had no emotions in them, and emotionally framing the situation to have the judges empathize was certainly a good strategy.

# data[].attributes.body
I definitely see myself maintaining a written reflection habit in the future. Writing out reflections helps me to consolidate my thoughts after an assignment into intelligible records that can be referred back to in the future. This also prompts me to come up with ideas or questions when writing the reflection, and these could help me improve my lawyering skills or any skills in the future. Reflections won't guarantee that I make no repeating mistakes in the future, especially when the same mistakes won't look identical every time, but being able to tell whether a doubted action is a prior mistake could also improve my analytical skills in the process.

From this course this semester and the last I found out that it could be very engaging to formulate one's argument using cases and trying to anticipate the opponent's arguments. Finding weaknesses in the supporting materials for an argument and using these weaknesses to undermine the support especially so. There must be some areas of law that utilize these skills to the fullest, and these areas could prove more challenging but more exciting to work in.

I learned from this year that writing a legal brief could be a drawn-out process because it is mandatory that legal professionals bounce ideas off each other and there's always a possibility that a previous argument should be erased or a new one added. It is no longer possible to quickly assess materials and finish in only a short amount of time. Therefore keeping a record detailed to the exact page number is very important, not only a page record but also the thought processes at that instance should also be recorded, so that when new ideas come in, it becomes less daunting to assess how certain information could help the final argument.