Moot court

• 5: Singapore Management University, 2014/15 (Asia Cup, Hague Convention, LawAsia, Vis East, ICC)[29][2][4][30]
• 5: Singapore Management University, 2016/17 (Fletcher, Frankfurt, LawAsia, Price, Asian LSA)[2][4][30]
• 4: National University of Singapore, 2000/01 (Asia Cup, Lachs, Maritime, Jessup)
• 4: National University of Singapore, 2016/17 (Asia Cup, Air Law, Maritime, Private Law)[2]
• 3: Singapore Management University, 2015/16 (Price, ICC, WTO/FTA)[31][2]
• 3: Leiden University, 2012/13 (ICC, ELMC, Telders)
• 3: National University of Singapore, 2014/15 (DM Harish, Jean Pictet, Maritime)

• 9: Singapore Management University, 2015/16 (WTO/FTA, Private Law, Maritime, Asia Cup, Vis East, Vis, Price, IHL, ICC)[31][2][4][30]
• 8: Singapore Management University, 2014/15 (Hague Convention, Asia Cup, LawAsia, Vis East, Vis, Frankfurt, Price, ICC)[29][2][4][30]
• 6: Singapore Management University, 2016/17 (LawAsia, Fletcher, Frankfurt, Price, ICC, Asian LSA)[2]
• 6: National University of Singapore, 2016/17 (Asia Cup, Air Law, Maritime, Pan Asian Human Rights, Private Law, HSF Competition Law)[2]

• 2: University of Buenos Aires, 2015/16 (Jessup, Vis)
• 2: National University of Singapore, 2000/01 (Jessup, Lachs)
• 2: Singapore Management University, 2014/15 (ICC, Vis East)
• 2: Singapore Management University, 2015/16 (ICC, Price)
• 2: Singapore Management University, 2017/18 (Frankfurt, Price)
• 2: National Law University, Delhi, 2013/14 (ICC, Lachs)

• 5: Singapore Management University, 2014/15 (Frankfurt, ICC, Price, Vis East, Vis)[4][30][5]
• 4: Singapore Management University, 2015/16 (ICC, Price, Vis East, Vis)
• 3: Singapore Management University, 2016/17 (Frankfurt, ICC, Price)

• Singapore Management University, 2014/15 and 2015/16 (ICC)[31][2][30]
• Singapore Management University, 2015/16 and 2016/17 (Price)[32][2][30]

• Ames Moot Court Competition
• The Laskin Moot
• English Speaking Union Moot
• London Universities Mooting Shield

Law schools structure their moot court programs differently. Some moot court organizations accept a small group of people for membership, and those members each participate in a number of national or regional moot court competitions. Other schools accept a larger number of members, and each member is matched with one competition. A few schools conduct moot court entirely intramurally. Moot court competitions are typically sponsored by organizations with interest in one particular area of law, and the moot court problems address an issue in that field. Competitions are often judged by legal practitioners with expertise in the particular area of law, or sometimes by sitting judges.

The basic structure of a moot court competition roughly parallels what would happen in actual appellate practice. Participants will typically receive a problem ahead of time, which includes the facts of the underlying case, and often an opinion from a lower court that is being challenged in the problem. Students must then research and prepare for that case as if they were lawyers or advocates for one or sometimes both of the parties. Depending on the competition, participants will be required to submit written briefs, participate in oral argument, or both. The case or problem is often one of current interest, sometimes mimicking an actual case, and sometimes fabricated to address difficult legal issues.

A number of moot court competitions focus on specific areas of law. For example, the First Amendment Center annually holds a National First Amendment Moot Court Competition, in which the judges have included numerous United States Circuit Court judges.[33]

The style of a moot will often vary depending in which jurisdiction it is to be heard. In England and Wales the moot will typically simulate proceedings in either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. Moot questions generally involve two questions of law that are under dispute and come with a set of facts about the case that have been decided at the first instance trial.[34] Generally the question will surround a subject that is unclear under the present state of the law and for which no direct precedent exists. It is normal practice for the senior counsel to take on the first point and the junior the second; although this may vary depending upon the exact nature, and necessary length, of the arguments.[35] Typically the question will focus on one area of law, such as tort, contract, criminal law or property law.

In Scotland a moot can be set in a variety of fora; in civil law problems it is set most commonly in either the Inner House of the Court of Session or in the House of Lords, although it is not uncommon for a moot to be heard in the Sheriff Court before the Sheriff or Sheriff Principal. Occasionally, an Employment Appeal Tribunal may also be used as a forum for a Scottish civil law moot. If the moot problem concerns Criminal Law, the moot will most likely be heard as though in the Appellate division of the High Court of Justiciary (commonly known as the Court of Criminal Appeal). Junior counsel is more likely to take the first moot point and senior counsel the second (this can however be reversed depending on the problem). The format of the moot is far more adversarial than that of English and Welsh moots. This is primarily due to a more adversarial legal system. This manifests itself in different ways, most notably with the appellants and respondents facing each other during a moot, rather than, as in England and Wales, facing the judge.