Stanford Law School - Yearbook (Palo Alto, CA)

Page 155 text:

Wu Tn: mvzmm uawu. MARION RICE KIRKWOOD couvcrrnos mloxnaxsuem -4541.-wlnlmsf-snrcnar-z.. ' dawn'-f oor CouRT VER.nnL 'ms sr.xNr1mn,Mom7 oomrr A ff j -wi-we . .- sm,RssrI:.wUa1 05-11311 um'rtu,sr.t'rr5' j ' 4 T0F5i'AY-'ITfB!1QA1tf i.,?l535'A. , j V L I , f :i,5 1v -fini.. The year 1966-67 was one of transition for the Moot Court Board. In the past, participation in the Moot Court competition was required of second-year studentsg it served as an adjunct of the legal writing program. The competition now has been put on a voluntary basis for second- and third-year students. Membership on the Board itself was formerly based on high class standing in the first-year and satisfactory par- ticipation in the activities of the Board in the sec- ond year. In the future board membership will be awarded to successful Moot Court contestants. The objective of the Moot Court remains to provide law students an opportunity for prac- tical experience in legal advocacy. Such an ac- tivity is designed to give the prospective lawyer a better understanding of his profession by cast- ing him in the role of judge or advocate. It ac- complishes this task by placing emphasis on three tasks: organized research, effective legal Writing, and persuasive oral argument. Last year the present third-year class sub- mitted briefs on topics selected by the Board under the supervision of a faculty advisor. These cases were either recent decisions awaiting final appellate adjudication or hypothetical situations. Members of the faculty or the local bar heard oral argumentg in this task they were assisted by Board candidates who prepared bench mem- oranda. Contestants were judged on the basis of the cogency and effectiveness of their written and oral argument. Of 120 first-round contest- Associate justice Brennan of the United States Supreme Court talks with students at a reception before the Moot Court. Third-year student Kristina The Moot Court hears argument at Stanford in the sub- scription television case of jordan v. Weaver. Y H Il i v A 1 N J l. ju jf. r F I 'N :i !i I. I4 -I fi '1 li ji E N 1 A . i I .1 j w li if 1 ji

Page 154 text:

of Editors. The Review's editorial offices are staffed by third-year students. The Board of Editors elects the president, and the president appoints his editorial staff. While the Review is an integral and important part of the law school's curriculum, it operates independently of faculty supervision, although faculty mem- bers are often consulted about problems within their areas of expertise. Although the Review serves primarily as a forum for scholarly writing, its purpose is much more than that: it is a unique teaching device that offers its members a challenging experience in precise and exacting legal research, writing, and analysis, A student writer's ideas and re- search are subjected to as much intense critical analysis as his editors can bring to bearg his work is redrafted and rechecked until the editors and the writer believe that it is substantively and stylistically ready for publication. Students are encouraged to be diverse in their interests and to go beyond book research in an attempt to deal with problems in the most meaningful manner possible. As an incentive for student work of high quality, three prizes are available to graduating members of the Board of Editors who have made outstanding contributions to the Review: The Irving H. Hellman, Ir. Award, the Board of Editors Prize, and the Stanford Law Review Prize. The educational opportunity presented by the Review is not limited to the preparation of student work. All contributed ma- terials - articles and book reviews - are scruti- nized closely during citechecking and editing for logic, clarity, form, and proper use of authority. Thus the student has a chance to match wits with recognized authorities in many areas of the law, the match results in improvement of articles and book reviews as well as increased student understanding of various areas of law and modes of thinking. The legend that the members of the Board of Editors live a hermit's life in the caverns of the basement annex is not quite accurate. Social and sporting events abound, although the latter sometimes have disastrous results. The social calendar includes a fall dinner for the new mem- bers, a Review-faculty cocktail party, traditional lock-up parties, and annual spring banquet. Law Review Staff. Seated: M. Moore CNote Edjg E. Ursin CRec. Dev. Ed.jg M. Linde fNote Ed.jg D. Kliever CPresidentjg A. Leedy CManaging Ed.j. Standing: D. Miller fRec. Dev. Ed.Jg D. Floyd CArticle Ed.jg F. Ker iBook Rev. Ed.jg S. Tennis CArticle Ed.j . 29 ff if , Second-year staffer Chris Westover receives some writing advice from Review President Douglas Kliever. 5, it .Q . gl V . 5 X a - Ubi ri Nw, A ,. if ' 4 sw? xysaaf- f 4 -h , , ,cf . , , , ',..v Y V aw A K . ,sg 'QA rum -Qierpgj-1. ' 355' xx 4' ' 6 'z' .fi ' x N ilfsfi - 1' fs' ,- i 1 l Dean Bayless Manning presents the first-year prize for academic excellence to William Lake. The second-year award to Stephen Tennis.

Page 156 text:

Q r., 1 , ag.. a anson presents the case for the respondent. Iudge Ben. Duniway, Iustice William Brennan, and Iudge Gordon Thompson. ants, l6 were selected for the semi-final com- petition held last fall. After argument on a new issue, four finalists were selected for the annual Marion Rice Kirkwood Competition. In Febru- ary in Dinkelspiel Auditorium, the four finalists argued the case of jordan v. Weaver, the Cal- ifornia subscription television controversy. The court for this competition consisted of Mr. Iustice Brennan of the United States Supreme Court, Iudge Ben. C. Duniway of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and judge Gordon Thomp- son, Chief Iustice of the Nevada Supreme Court. The judges chose David Fox as the winner, other contestants were Miss Kristina Hanson, William McCarren, and Richard Whitmore. Because participation in a second-year Moot Court competition was not required this Year, the number of contestants was significantly re- duced. Under the new system, the Board selected problems, supervised the research and writing, held issue conferences, and organized a court to hear the volunteer contestants. The final round of argument was heard in April before a large audience of Law School alumni returning to the campus for reunions, The winners of this com- petition are automatically eligible for member- ship on the Board next fall. For the first time this year the Stanford Moot Court joined in competition with other Cali- fornia law schools. Finalists in this intra- California competition represented Stanford at the University of California at Los Angeles. Moot Court Board. Seated: V. Popkin, R. Svaty, P. Kreutz, I. Epstein CPresidentj, N. Carrey, D. Noble. Standing: D. Ragen, T. Casgar, R. Kirkpatrick, A. Pierce, R. Trayner, I. Bartman, L. Ander- son, B. Goodrich. 153