Note that some variations from these rules have been authorized. For example, there will be two preliminary rounds, a semi-final and a final round this year. 

Article I -- History and Purpose

The Client Counseling Competition was conceived and developed as a legal teaching technique by the late Professor Louis M. Brown of the University of Southern California Law Centre. Originally called the Mock Law Office Competition, it began on an interscholastic level in 1969 with two schools competing. It has been held each year since then. The American Bar Association Law Student Division has administered the competition in the United States since 1973. Each year, approximately 100 US and Canadian schools participate in that competition.

The competition promotes greater knowledge and interest among law students in the preventative law and counseling functions of law practice. It also encourages students to develop interviewing, planning, and analytical skills in the lawyer-client relationship in the law office. Interviewing and advising are a significant part of most lawyers' work. Too often, it is assumed that lawyers have the listening and questioning skills needed to conduct an effective interview. Regrettably, not all lawyers possess these skills. The Client Counseling Competition is a means of focusing students' attention on these skills early in their careers.

The competition simulates a law office consultation in which two law students, acting as lawyers (attorneys/solicitors/legal practitioners), are presented with a client matter. They conduct an interview with a person playing the role of the client and then explain how they would proceed further in the hypothetical situation. Students conduct the simulated interviews in teams of two in order to provide mutual assistance and support in researching, planning and conducting the interview. There is the added benefit of encouraging students to work co-operatively. The interviewers are given a brief memorandum which identifies the general nature of the subject-matter of the client's problem (e.g., that a client wants advice about a problem arising from the construction of a house, or that the client is facing a shoplifting charge) about a week before the interviews are held. The interviews last about 45 minutes and are evaluated by a panel of usually three judges, composed of two lawyers and a counselor. The inclusion of a counselor (e.g., a social or welfare worker, psychologist, minister or other person with extensive experience of counseling) on the judging panel is encouraged in order to broaden the perspectives of the panel both in terms of skills and possible solutions to a problem.

Students are expected to elicit the relevant information from the client, explore with the client his or her preferred outcome, outline the nature of the problem, and present the client with a means (or range of alternatives, if appropriate) for resolving the problem. Up to 30 minutes is allowed for the consultation with the client. This is followed by a post-consultation period of up to 15 minutes during which the students summarize the interview and discuss the legal and other work to be undertaken, including the legal issues to be researched and the recording of a file memorandum.

The teams are evaluated against specific criteria which emphasize the use of listening, questioning, planning and analytical skills in a lawyer/client interview. The focus is not the students' knowledge of the relevant substantive law. Once the judges have made their evaluation of the interview, the student team is called back in and the judges provide a brief critique of the team's handling of the consultation and post-consultation periods.

The International Competition

The International Competition, founded in 1985, was modeled on the ABA competition. The Competition provides an opportunity for a most valuable educational and cultural interchange between students, law teachers, and legal practitioners. The International Competition has brought together law students from Australia, Canada, the Cayman Islands, England and Wales, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, Scotland, and the USA. Other countries are invited to join the Competition. The Competition is affiliated with the International Bar Association.

Article II -- Eligibility

All participating countries are eligible to enter one team composed of two law students. The two law students should be enrolled in an undergraduate law degree/practical legal training program at the time of their selection to represent their country.

Article III -- Team Selection

Each country may select its team in any way it chooses. Since only two students may represent a country in the competition, countries are encouraged to select their team by holding a competition.

Article IV -- Organization of the Competition

The International Competition will be hosted and organized by a country which has offered to host the competition and whose hosting has been approved by the International Committee.

No member of the winning team in one year of the competition may re-enter the competition in any other year. Teams or their members who do not win the competition may re-enter in another year.

Article V -- International Committee

The International Committee was established to promote the aims and objectives of the competition and to assist in the co-ordination of the International Competition.

The Committee consists of the Executive Chair of the competition, Forrest S. Mosten, one representative of each participating country and the winning team from the previous year's competition, who are also encouraged to be ambassadors for the competition for the 12 months after their win.

The Committee shall meet at least once annually at the time of the holding of the International Competition. The business of that meeting shall comprise matters relating to the aims and objectives of the competition, its management, and arrangements for the future conduct of the competition.

Article VI -- Consultation Situations

Approximately 10 days prior to the actual day of the International Competition, the competition organizer will send each faculty advisor the memoranda for the consultation situations for the competition. These memoranda will contain minimal information similar to that which a law office secretary might record when informing lawyers of a forthcoming appointment.

Applicable Law. The law to be applied in the competition is the law of each team's respective country unless otherwise indicated in the consultation situation.

Discussion of Fees. The discussion of fees is an integral part of any first consultation between a lawyer and a client. Students should be judged on how they approach this problem, but not on the dollar amount used. The participants may discuss fees at any appropriate point in the consultation.

Article VII -- Competition Format

The International Competition uses a ranking format in which teams accumulating the lowest number of points in the preliminary rounds will qualify for the final round. All teams will be pre-assigned a letter of designation (A, B, C, etc) by the competition organizer on a random basis.

(A) The Consultation. All teams will go through a 45 minute session. The first 30 minutes are devoted to a consultation with the client during which students are expected to elicit the relevant information, outline the problem, and propose a solution or other means of resolving the problem.

During the consultation and post-consultation, the team may use books, notes, and other materials. The team may also use office props (files, desktop furnishings, etc).

(B) Post Consultation. During the 15 minute post-consultation, the students may either talk to each other loudly enough to be overheard by the judges or dictate a file memorandum on the interview or both. The post-consultation performance may summarize the interview, indicate the scope of the legal work to be undertaken, and state the legal issues that should be researched. Explanation of the position or attitude taken by the team may be useful.

The team may also feel that some document is appropriate. For example, they may want to write a letter to the client confirming their retention as lawyers, the fee arrangement, etc. Or it may be appropriate for the team at the conclusion of this consultation to write a letter to any opposing lawyers or to the party with whom the client is having legal problems. Such a document may be dictated at this time.

Students should limit the consultation period to 30 minutes. If an important discussion needs to be concluded or the client initiates a new topic, students may continue the consultation into the post-consultation period. Students, however, should make an attempt to close the consultation session effectively.

Judges should penalize students who allow the consultation session to run excessively beyond the 30 minute period.

If a consultation session which extends beyond 30 minutes provides an opportunity for a team to gather more information than other teams, this circumstance should be taken into consideration by the judges in making their decision.

If the 30 minute consultation period is exceeded, in no circumstances will the students be given more than 45 minutes to complete both tasks. Judges should stop students after forty-five minutes regardless of where students are in the consultation or post-consultation process.

(C) Critique. Following each team's post-consultation presentation, the judges should provide the team with a critique of the team's handling of the consultation and post-consultation periods. The critique should last no more than ten minutes. Clients should not be present during the post-consultation period or the critique.

(D) Point Qualification Format.

(1) Rounds. The format consists of four rounds. All teams will compete in the three preliminary rounds, which will usually be conducted simultaneously. Teams will qualify for the fourth and final round based on the number of points accumulated in the three preliminary rounds.

(2) Point Scoring in Rounds Prior to the Final Round. Judges in the three preliminary rounds score the rounds by ranking the teams. After the round has been completed, the judges should discuss each team's performance among themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges should discuss the teams together, the judges should individually rank the teams. Judging independently, each judge must give one (1) point to the one (1) team that in the judge's opinion performed the best in light of the judging standards.

After giving a score of 1 to the first place team, each judge should then give a 2 or 3 to the other team(s). Judges may not award half points. There can be a tie for second or third place, but each judge must select only one winning team and must give that team one (1) point. If the second place team was close to the first place team, the second place team should be given 2 points.

(3) Qualifying for the Final Round. At the end of the first two rounds, the total score for each team will be computed (the best possible score is 9 points, i.e., 1 point from each of the three judges in each of the three rounds). Adjustments shall be made if less than three judges scored a round (eg, if only two judges scored a round, their scores should be averaged to provide a third score for the round). The two lowest ranked teams will compete in the final round (except as specified below).

In case of ties, the following procedure will be followed:

(i) Two or more teams tied for first place. If two or three teams are tied for first place, those teams shall be in the final round.

If four or more teams are tied for first place, the host competition organizer, meeting with the International Committee, shall determine the teams for the final round, eliminating all teams (among the tied teams) that had lost in head-to-head competition (e.g., assume that teams A, B, C, and D are tied for first place. If teams A and B have met in a round in which team A had received a lower point total among the judges than team B, team B would be eliminated from the final round; and if teams C and D have met in a round in which team C had received a lower point total among the judges than team D, team D would be eliminated from the final round; thus teams A and C would meet in the final round.)

If only one team for the final round is determined by the above described procedure, then the competition organizer shall determine by lot (among the remaining tied teams) two additional teams to compete in the final round. If no teams for the final round are determined by the above described procedure, then the host school professor shall determine by lot (among the tied teams) three teams that will compete in the final round.

(ii) One team ranked first and two or more teams tied for second place. If one team ranks first and two teams are tied for the second lowest point total, those three teams shall be in the final round. If one team ranks first and three or more teams are tied for the second lowest point total, the competition organizer, meeting with the International Committee, shall determine the teams for the final round, eliminating all teams (among the tied teams) that had lost in head-to-head competition (e.g., assume that team A ranks first and that teams B, C, and D are tied for second place. If teams B and C have met in a round in which team B had received a lower point total among the judges than team C, team C would be eliminated from the final round; and if teams C and D have met in a round in which team C received a lower point total among the judges than team D, team D would be eliminated from the final round; thus teams A and B would meet in the final round.)

If one or two teams (to meet the team that ranked first in the final round) cannot be determined by the above described procedure, then the competition organizer shall determine by lot (among the tied teams) two teams that will compete in the final round against the team that ranked first.

(4) Order of Performance in the Final Round. The team with the lowest point total after the preliminary rounds is allowed to choose when it performs in the final round. In case of a tie(s), the order will be made by a draw.

(5) The Final Round. The final round will be in one room with one panel of judges. After the judges have seen all of the teams perform, the judges should discuss each team's performance among themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges should discuss together the teams, the judges should individually rank the teams.

If after discussion, there is no consensus among the judges upon which of the finalists is the best team, then judging independently, each judge must give one (1) point to the one (1) team that in his/her opinion performed the best in light of the judging standards. If the points lead to a tie(s), the judges will meet to select a winner. After the decision has been reached, the winner shall be announced. Following the announcement, the judges should critique the consultations.

Article VIII -- Judges and Scoring

(A) Preliminary Rounds. The competition organizer is responsible for selecting judges for the preliminary rounds of the competition.

The competition organizer should make every effort to have two practicing lawyers on the panel who have had prior experience with, or who are familiar with the ideals of, the client counseling competition, and there should be one person on the panel with a strong background in one of the counseling professions (i.e. counselor, psychologist, etc.). At least one of the two lawyers on the panel should be familiar with the area of law that is the subject of the competition.

(B) Final Round. For the final round, the panel will usually consist of five judges, chosen from among the national representatives or otherwise by invitation of the International Committee.

(C) Judges should take notes as they observe each team's performance and base their critiques on specific observations from their notes.

(D) Persons Who May Not Be Judges. No one who judged an earlier round can act as a judge in the final round. No professor may act as a judge for a team from that professor's law school. Faculty advisors/team coaches shall not act as judges.

(E) Application of Standards. All judges, as well as students, receive a copy of "Standards for Judging the Client Counseling Competition". All judges will also be supplied with a copy of the consultation situation for the round they will be judging, a copy of the Rules, and a detailed confidential memorandum about the client's background and concerns. Judges are instructed that the Standards for Judging are to be used as guidelines in scoring the competition. Considering the nature of the competition, it would be impossible for judges to adhere strictly to totally objective guidelines.

The decisions of the judges must be considered final and not subject to appeal.

Article IX -- Clients

The competition organizer is responsible for selecting persons to play the role of the client for each of the sessions. If a team from the host law school is to take part in the competition, a law student from the host school shall not act as a client in any session in which the host law school team will conduct the interview. If use of such a law student is unavoidable, the host law school team must forfeit.

Host schools are strongly encouraged to conduct an orientation for the clients in advance of the date of competition. Each client will be supplied with a packet containing the Rules, the Standards for Judging, the consultation situation, and a detailed confidential memorandum concerning the client's background and concerns.

Article X -- Faculty Advisors

Faculty advisors/team coaches shall not act as judges. The primary purpose of the competition is education. Faculty advisors/team coaches should emphasize the educational value of the competition to their students. They may observe their own team subject to space availability.

Questions are often raised concerning the extent to which faculty advisors may be of assistance to students prior to the day of the competition. Louis M Brown, the originator of the competition, has stated:

"Professors might be very much like the coach of an athletic team up to the moment when the actual performance begins. In other words, you can work with the students, assist the students, direct the students, go through dry runs, set up consultations of the sort you might think actually take place in the interscholastic competition, etc.... In a sense, the whole idea is that the project should be a learning project and an educational one. We want to use it in order to stimulate interest in the complexities of counseling, to help develop teaching materials and teaching methods, to help draw attention to the counseling that goes on in a law office as a significant aspect of the total legal process."

Article XI -- Awards

Each participant in the competition will receive a certificate to be awarded at the competition. The winning team will, in addition, receive a special award.

Article XII -- Expenses

The travel, accommodation and other expenses incurred by participants in the competition must be borne by each team. The International Committee has no special funding for this purpose. However, wherever possible the competition organizer will arrange for all participants to attend an Awards Dinner at no cost to participants.

Article XIII -- General Rules

(A) Team Members. Each school's team shall consist of two students. Team members are entirely free to decide how they will divide their work, but both students must consult with the client as a team and their plan is subject to judging. The students may wish during their post-consultation presentation to explain to the judges why they worked together in the way that they did.

(B) Observation of Rounds: Prohibition Against Communication. Faculty advisors/team coaches may observe their own teams. The team and its faculty advisor/team coach may not observe other teams competing in the preliminary rounds in the competition.

No observer may communicate in any way with any team members during the course of their performance, or with any judge prior to scoring.

Article XIV-- Disputes

(A) Disputes Subject to Review. Disputes relating to violations of the rules of the competition by a team, persons associated with a team or judges, and disputes relating to alleged misinterpretations of the rules by judges will be subject to the provisions of paragraphs B to D of this Article. All decisions of the judges relating to the quality of a team's performance are final; disputes regarding such decisions are not subject to hearing or appeal.

(B) Prior to Decision of a Round. Disputes concerning the conduct of a team (or persons associated with a team) or other complaints arising during a round of the competition but prior to the decision of the judges, shall be directed to the competition organizer. When a timely complaint has been raised, the competition organizer shall investigate and resolve the dispute in a way that the competition organizer in his or her discretion deems best to avoid nullification of the round. If the competition organizer's team is involved in the disputed round, the competition organizer shall appoint up to three faculty advisors who are not involved directly in the round to resolve the dispute in the manner provided by this subsection. The decision-maker, if practical, shall consult with a member of the International Committee prior to making the decision.

If the decision-maker determines that the team has engaged in a serious violation of the rules, the decision-maker may:

(1) discuss the dispute with the judges and allow them to take the matter into account in making their decision; or

(2) impose a sanction, including a deduction of points or disqualification of a team from the competition.

If the decision-maker determines that the team winning the disputed round should be sanctioned by a lower ranking or disqualification from the competition, the competition organizer shall allow the next-lowest-ranked team to be regarded as the winner.

(C) After the Decision of the Round But Before the Next Round Begins. When a dispute has been raised after a round has been decided but before the next round begins (if there is one), the competition organizer shall investigate the dispute. If the competition organizer's team is involved in the disputed round, the competition organizer shall refer the matter to the International Committee to resolve the dispute in the manner provided by this subparagraph.

The decision-maker may hear representatives from the parties involved and shall resolve the dispute in a way that the decision maker in his or her discretion deems best, consistent with the purpose of the competition. If the decision-maker determines that the team winning the disputed round should be sanctioned by loss of that round or disqualification from the competition, the competition organizer shall allow the next-lowest-ranked team to be regarded as the winner.

(D) All Other Disputes. All other disputes shall be referred to the International Client Counseling Competition Committee.

Article XV -- General Information

Questions about the International Client Counseling Competition in general may be directed to the Executive Chairperson of the Competition, Forrest S. Mosten.

Article XVI -- Funding

The International Client Counseling Competition is sponsored by the Louis M. Brown Family Trust, Mosten & Tuffias, and the International Bar Association.

A subcommittee of the International Committee, the Finance Committee, may approve expenditures of $1000 or more. Any expenditure of less than $1000 may be approved by the Executive Chair of the competition who will arrange for the competition's audited accounts to be placed before the International Committee for discussion at its annual meeting at the time of the holding of the competition.

This page was last updated on 08/27/08.