# data[].attributes.body
When I am confronted with arguments and positions that challenge my personal beliefs, I rely on my faith in the justice system, Courts, and my personal faith to work through my self-doubt. Part of trusting that system means accepting my own role in the process. At this point in my career, it’s merely my job to make the most forceful arguments on behalf of a client, even if I vehemently disagree with how they behave or what they represent. I believe in the bottom of my heart that the system will reach the correct answer more times than not, and so I absolve myself of always having to fight for what I personally believe with respect to a case because I owe a higher sense of obligation to the system as a whole.

I think we see this in Dr. King’s I Have a Dream speech, where his belief in mankind and God gave him the courage to fight for racial equality. He accepted that the system was imperfect, and indeed, the system of governance in the country had been oppressing his people for his entire life. But he didn’t argue for turning away from the system. He fought to improve it with forceful arguments instead. I trust the capacity of the system to make my arguments legible, and because I believe in the ultimate justice of that system, I can validate my role in the process accordingly.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to write a note of gratitude to my brother, Jack, who has kept me motivated, encouraged, and grounded over these last six months. He luckily lives right down the street from me here in DC, and is always around to answer my texts and calls. We hang out casually in restaurants and bars around the city, and go to sports games and movies when we can. He always knows how to pick up whatever energy I have, positive or negative, and makes sure to keep me focused on using those emotions productively.

Heading into finals last semester, Jack was integral to keeping my spirits high when the grind wore me down. He would talk to me every day and encourage me to remember what I was there to do, often reminding me how short a few weeks were in the grand scheme of things, which gave me the focus I needed to keep studying as hard as I could. Over and over he would repeat “would you rather be sort of miserable now, or miserable on test day when you walk out of the exam and feel like you could have done more to prepare?” That became a sort of mantra for me, and I think it had a hugely positive effect on my performance.

# data[].attributes.body
The VanVleck Moot Court Competition gave me such a greater appreciation for the difficulty and rewards of complex oral advocacy. As we are all aware as lawyers, procedural rules are the omnipresent foundation of the legal system. Seeing the advocates work through tough procedural questions gave me a better understanding of how to think about my own preparation in an oral advocacy situation, though. It really served as a reminder to use my time preparing as much for those questions as more substantive questions about the case because they are often so determinative. I find that the most effective advocacy takes the bench’s question on its own terms, rather than trying to always pivot immediately back to the strongest argument for your own case. By the same token, it seems that oral advocates who militantly focus on spinning every question immediately back to the strongest form of argument for their case end up alienating a bench that likely already knows how they would vote in a case. Taking their questions seriously gives an advocate a chance to draw Judges out and have them genuinely consider your argument, rather than merely sticking to your talking points and reaffirming your and their positions. In Van Vleck specifically, I thought both teams really effectively framed their arguments with pathos to give the Court a sense of the stakes of what they were arguing for.

# data[].attributes.body
I was really excited to learn that we were going to have a chance to present an oral argument in FL. I am interested in litigating, and I have always thought oral advocacy was one of the most interesting parts of legal practice. I ended up feeling much more nervous when I actually got to the podium than I thought I would, though. It was exciting, but I still had some quivers in my hands and legs as I began that stayed with me throughout the entire presentation. The questioning really helped me, however, as it took me out of my head and got me more into the moment. Addie asked me a question about the witness’ hesitation in the hospital, which was certainly fair given how police conduct is such a crucial element of suggestivity. I think I was actually over-excited to get any questions and ended up forgetting to show deference to her before going into my answer. Nevertheless, I thought I had an adequate response that compared the facts of this case to two others I had used in my brief that highlighted how police had impermissably suggested an identification over the span of weeks, rather than moments.

It was interesting to see how my peers approached the argument. Others were much more focused on crafting the emotional story around the law, which is something I plan to do more of in the appellate brief. I think I was nervous about getting through all of the law in the short period we had to present, so I neglected to remind the Court of the stakes of the case. In hindsight, those emotional circumstances are crucial to delivering meaningful arguments about the law, since they inform perceptions of the police motivation and conduct.

The exercise is a great way to learn preparation, which is as important if not more so than merely understanding the law well enough to write about it. It helps really hone in on what is crucial and ensures you can speak plainly about it.

# data[].attributes.body
I watched two criminal cases at the first appellate division of the NY Court system from March 19, 2025. My video is in a google drive link, since the padlet would not let me upload.

The first (2021 - 02275 People v Malik Stephens) was a criminal appeal for resentencing, reducing from two, one-year consecutive sentences to concurrent terms, and fighting an appeals waiver.

The second (2019 - 4215 People v Steven Espinal) dealt with a similar resentencing issue, seeking a reduction of sentence or alternatively seeking youthful offender status for an 18-year-old.

The archive may be found here.

# data[].attributes.body
I was extremely nervous before my argument, especially because I knew we would have external judges with a lot of valuable experience watching and asking questions. I focused on really getting my opening nailed down, and that helped me stay locked in. Afterward, it felt like a huge relief to finish, but I couldn't help but obsess over the things I could have done better. Obviously writing the two briefs were crucial preparation for nailing both my argument and feeling prepared for questioning. I think I was around a 3 for preparedness, which is less than I would like to feel in practice.

I think the hardest aspect of oral argument is remembering to stay as formal as possible, especially in these mock exercises, where the setting does not really impose that formality the way an actual courtroom would, at least for me. I also had a hard time moving between discussions of open-ended legal questions and more fact-bound interrogations of my argument because the tone and forcefulness of argumentation are different. Pivoting from questions right back into argument, and providing signposts in so doing, is also a tough skill to practice. I think I felt like overall I gave a 3.5 performance. I certainly could have done better in my opening, and I feel like I have a better sense of what I need to prepare to succeed more in the future. I also just need some repetition in the skill to beat the informal lapses out of my presentation style. Overall, I do feel more prepared to handle oral argument moving forward, if only because I have a better sense of my weaknesses and verbal crutches. I look forward to practicing the skill more to develop it.

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you all for such an incredible year. I cannot tell you how big of an impact you all have had on my development as a legal thinker, writer, and practitioner.

I genuinely hope I can call on you all to continue to mentor me, as your insights feel so fundamental to my growth. Moreover, I hope we can all remain in touch as friends far beyond this year.

Thank you again,

Andy