More Information

Duberstein Moot Court Competition

26th Annual Duberstein Moot Court Competition

St. John's School of Law and the American Bankruptcy Institute are pleased to sponsor the 26th Annual Duberstein Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition. The Duberstein Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition is widely recognized as one of the nation’s preeminent moot court competitions. The competition promotes and recognizes the finest oral and written advocacy on significant issues in bankruptcy practice.  More than 50 law school teams participate, making this the largest single site appellate moot court competition. The competition culminates in a gala awards dinner. The dinner draws nearly 700 attendees, including many leading bankruptcy judges and practitioners.

Dates

Saturday, March 3 - Monday, March 5, 2018

Winners

First Place

  • University of Alabama School of Law (14)


Second Place

  • The George Washington University Law School (50)


Finalists

  • Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law - Team 2 (3)
  • ​University of Texas at Austin School of Law - Team 1 (10) 

Semi-Finalists

  • Baylor Law School - Team 1 (8)
  • Baylor Law School - Team 2 (9)
  • Florida Coastal School of Law - Team (38)
  • Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law - Team 2 (3)
  • Suffolk University Law School (1)
  • The George Washington University Law School (50)
  • The University of Mississippi School of Law (16)
  • UCLA School of Law (24)
  • University of Alabama School of Law (14)
  • University of Miami School of Law - Team 1 (18)
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law - Team 1 (35)
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law - Team 2 (36)
  • University of Texas at Austin School of Law - Team 1 (10) 
  • University of Texas at Austin School of Law - Team 2 (11)
  • University of Washington School of Law (46)
  • Wayne State University Law School - Team 2 (21)


Best Brief

  • UCLA School of Law (24)


Outstanding Briefs

  • Baylor Law School - Team 2 (9)
  • Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law - Team 2 (3)
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law - Team 2 (36)
  • ​University of Texas at Austin School of Law - Team 1 (10)


Best Advocate

  • Ashley Venegas – Florida Coastal School of Law - Team (38)


Outstanding Advocacy

  • David Crampton  – Baylor Law School - Team 1 (8)
  • Kevin Miller – Baylor Law School - Team 2 (9)
  • Martin Rowe – Brooklyn Law School (27)
  • ​Stefan Caris Love – UCLA School of Law (24)

 

Top 25 Teams

Place

Team

Number

Team Name

Preliminary

Score

 1

24

UCLA School of Law

93.638

 2

  9

Baylor Law School ~ Team 2

93.425

 3

  3

Southern Methodist University Dedman
  School of Law ~ Team 2

93.213

 4

36

University of Nevada Las Vegas
  William S. Boyd School of Law ~ Team 2

92.5

 5

  1

Suffolk University Law School

90.745

 6

11

University of Texas at Austin School of Law ~ Team 2

90.46

 7

18

University of Miami School of Law ~ Team 1

90.213

 8

 8

Baylor Law School ~ Team 1

90.088

 9

35

University of Nevada Las Vegas
  William S. Boyd School of Law ~ Team 1

89.763

10

38

Florida Coastal School of Law

89.313

11

50

The George Washington University Law School

89.263

12

14

University of Alabama School of Law

88.75

13

21

Wayne State Law School ~ Team 2

88.35

14

10

University of Texas at Austin School of Law ~ Team 1

88.27

15

16

University of Mississippi School of Law

88.038

16

46

University of Washington School of Law

87.838

17

19

University of Miami School of Law ~ Team 2

87.838

18

39

Campbell University Norman Adrian Wiggins      School of Law

87.8

19

27

Brooklyn Law School

87.525

20

29

Emory University School of Law ~ Team 1

87.15

21

 2

Southern Methodist University Dedman
  School of Law ~ Team 1

86.963

22

34

Notre Dame Law School

86.638

23

45

University of Maine School of Law ~ Team 2

86.413

24

25

University of Idaho College of Law ~ Team 1

86.392

25

12

Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall      School of Law   ~ Team 1

86.135

 

Gala Awards Dinner:

Monday, March 5th, 2018
Grand Hyatt New York
Park Avenue at Grand Central Terminal
109 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017
Tel:  (212) 883-1234

The Gala Awards Dinner
Brochure

Agenda Information:
Preliminary Round Judges' Agenda

Registration Information:
Preliminary Judges 
Brief Graders 

Competitors’ Briefs:

P1

P31

R2

R30

P3

P33

R4

R32

P5

P35

R6

R34

P7

P37

R8

R36

P9

P39

R10

R38

P11

P41

R12

R40

P13

P43

R14

R42

P17

P45

R16

R44

P19

P47

R18

R46

P21

P49

R20

R48

P23

P51

R22

R50

P25

P53

R24

R52

P27

P55

R26

R54

P29

 

R28

R56


Competitors’ Information:
​Competitors' Agenda
Competitor - Please note:  Registration is now closed. 
Team Information Form - Please note:  Form is now closed. 
Fact Pattern
Rules
Hotel Information 
Checklist
Brochure
Certification Form


Fact Pattern Clarifications: 

Fact Pattern Clarification Request #1
On pages 4-5 of the record, are the dates correct? It seems that either December 2015 should be December 2014 or January 2015 should be January 2016.

Response to Fact Pattern Clarification Request #1
The "January 2015" date listed on page 5 is incorrect.  It should be "January 2016" and will be changed in the Fact Pattern posted on line and provided to judges.
 

Fact Pattern Clarification Request #2
We wanted to double-check on the vagueness on the facts concerning the Committee’s claims against 4th Street.  The facts on page seven of the record say the Committee only allege “certain claims.” Is there any other relevant information concerning the nature of these informal claims?

Response to Fact Pattern Clarification Request #2
No additional information will be provided regarding the "certain claims" alleged by the Committee beyond what is in the fact pattern. 

 


Rule Clarifications: 

Rule Clarification Request #1
In reading through the rules we are a bit confused.  Can team members be LL.M. students or only JD students? 

Response To Rule Clarification Request #1
Only currently enrolled LL.B. or J.D. students may be team members under Rule II(b).  An LL.B. is not the same as an LL.M.  In the United States, the LL.B. is equivalent to a J.D., but the LL.B. designation is rarely used in the U.S. nowadays.  Since the requirement is simply that the team members be currently enrolled in a J.D. or LL.B. program, a student in a joint J.D./LL.M. program would be eligible to participate as long as the student is still currently a J.D. student at the time of the competition (i.e., has not yet received their J.D. degree).

Rule Clarification Request #1A
Our LLM program sounds like it is the functional equivalent of what you refer to as the LLB degree.  Many of our LLM students are foreign students without a JD, but who have completed legal coursework in their own countries.  They receive an LLM in order to practice in the US (thus getting a functional equivalent of a JD without an actual JD).  Would such a student still be excluded?

Response To Rule Clarification Request #1A
LLMs may participate in the competition if the LLM is the student's first advanced degree in law.  Students who are enrolled in an LLM program after having obtained their JD are not eligible to compete.


Rule Clarification Request #2
The team asks whether submission of the electronic certification form within 30 minutes of the deadline in Rule X will incur a penalty under Rule XXIII.

Response To Rule Clarification Request #2
Rule X. Service of the Briefs provides that both Briefs and Certifications must be filed by 11:59 pm est.  The rule further states that Briefs received more than 30 minutes after the deadline will be treated as late-filed briefs unless the team establishes that it sent the brief in by the deadline.  The Board will treat Certifications in the same manner. 


Rule Clarification Request #3
To what extent are footnotes allowed? Pursuant to Duberstein Rules in VII Length and Form, all citation shall conform with the most recent edition of the Bluebook. Bluebook Table B2 "Citation Sentences and Clauses" states: "[i]n non-academic legal documents, citations appear within the text of the document as full sentences directly after the proposition they support. As opposed to academic legal documents, which cite to authority using footnotes, footnotes should only be used in non-academic legal documents when permitted by local court rules."

 

Response To Rule Clarification Request #3
Footnotes are not prohibited, however they should be used sparingly, and not for cites. A small penalty may be deducted for including information in footnotes, such as string cites, because it is inconsistent with the general rule, which provides that cites should be included within the text of the document.  A penalty will be deducted if it appears that the team may have a perceived advantage by including information in the footnote.  A team will have a perceived advantage if, for example, had a string cite been included in the text rather than a footnote, the brief would have exceeded its page limit. 

 

More Information: 
www.DubersteinGala.com
Competition: [email protected]
Gala Awards Dinner: [email protected]