Yes, the Twins Day Festival in … yes …. Twinsburg, Ohio. Political scientists Jamie Settle, Christopher Dawes, and James Fowler have posted “The Heritability of Partisan Attachment” on SSRN. This is a very interesting take on the old nature/nurture controversy regarding political behavior and employs data from identical and non-identical twins who attended the festival. The abstract is available below the fold.

ABSTRACT: One of the strongest regularities in the empirical political science literature is the well-known correlation in parent and child partisan behavior. Until recently this phenomenon was thought to result solely from parental socialization, but new evidence on genetic sources of behavior suggests it might also be due to heritability. In this article we hypothesize that genes contribute to variation in a general tendency toward strength of partisanship. Using data collected at the Twins Days Festival in Twinsburg, Ohio in 2006 and 2007, we compare the similarity of partisan strength in identical twins (who share all of their genes) to the similarity of partisan strength in non-identical twins (who share only half). The results show that heritability accounts for almost half of the variance in strength of partisan attachment, and they suggest that we should pay closer attention to the role of biology in the expression of important political behaviors.

Specifically is the Cravath model of law firm hiring and management flawed? Bill Henderson addresses this question in an excellent ELS blog post. To greatly simplify his post, he points out the present bimodal distribution of salaries for newly minted lawyers (here) and demonstrates that this distribution is different than that found in 1991 (here) when it was more of a central distribution. According to the post, the Cravath model (developed in the early 20th century) essentially focused on recruiting entry level attorneys with prestigious pedigrees and academic credentials (top of the class rank) so as to provide the firm with a distinctive brand of legal services that would set the firm apart from Wall Street competitors — and so followed the rest of the profession. I’m not sure if the rest of the profession actually followed Cravath or just came up with similar lines of reasoning at about the same time, but the end result was this style of management - get the people with the best law school credentials (i.e. anyone from a top 10 to 15 school and the top 10% to 15% of other schools) and pay them a premium salary that does not necessarily correspond with the actual “bang” that they bring to the firm (as compared against their less credentialed fellow law school graduates).

Bill makes some further points that bear consideration regarding practice areas and law partner employment fluidity, but this first point strikes me as the most intriguing. Some questions and points to ponder after the jump.

1. Notwithstanding the tendency toward a more central salary distribution in 1991, I recall a curious lack of linearity to relative credentials and the market at that time. It seemed that while top 10% to 15% students had great opportunities, the correlation between class rank and opportunities tailed off considerably with the remaining students. In other words, there wasn’t a huge difference between being in the top third and the bottom third. This is certainly an unscientific observation and limited to one person’s experience.

2. It seems that large law firms would be better served by simply waiting around a couple of years to see how new lawyers developed and then cherry picking the best ones from firms that can’t compete with the salaries they could offer. Compare this with the ridiculous amounts of money, time, and resources devoted to summer associate programs that are arguably not even used for evaluation anymore since nearly everyone gets an offer. Perhaps this odd situation is driven by a difficulty in systematically measuring lawyering ability beyond grades or prestige of degree granting institution.

3. Bill seems to imply that the Craveth model (and its accompanying salary distribution) is not sustainable. I agree that it seems a bit nonsensical, but how is it not sustainable? A lot of inefficient, unfair, and silly systems persist for very long periods of time. What is the mechanism by which it will fail? Will clients run away from these firms to small or medium firms with specialized practices? Will the “high end” practices such as securities and white collar criminal defense splinter off into boutique firms and leave the remaining practice areas partners high and dry? What about lawyer supply systems - will undergrads quit choosing to go to law school?

4. Jim Chen has a nice follow up post on Moneylaw here, naming Bill’s post as the “post of the year.”

So asks my co-author, Jack Chin on Prawfsblawg. Jack’s recent solo-authored paper explores the question of whether McCain is actually a natural born U.S. citizen (the presidential candidate was born in the Canal Zone in 1936) - of course, a requirement to be president. Jack’s paper has been reported on in the New York Times here . The paper responds to the recent memorandum issued by Ted Olsen and Lawrence Tribe which found that McCain was a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to occupy the executive office. The abstract of Jack’s paper, “Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months And A Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship,” is provided below the fold.

Abstract:
Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain’s campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born . . . in the United States.” However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that “unincorporated territories” were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President” under the Constitution.

This essay concludes by exploring how changes in constitutional law implied by the Tribe-Olson Opinion, such as limiting the Insular Cases and expanding judicial review of immigration and nationality laws passed by Congress, could make Senator McCain a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen.

On July 4th it seems appropriate to post something on freedom and liberty. Law professor Geoffrey Stone recently penned an interesting essay for the New York Times which called for a special executive adviser for civil liberties. I’ve set forth the first few paragraphs below; the rest is available here.

AS we approach July 4, it is worth reminding ourselves of America’s foundational idea.

This country is set apart from the rest of the world because of its unparalleled commitment to personal freedom and the dignity of the individual. It is a vision captured in the guarantee of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process of law, equal protection under the law and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment.

We do not always live up to these aspirations. Over time, we have embarrassed ourselves and tarnished our image as a country that is respectful of civil liberties. We have persecuted dissenters, interned the innocent, suspended habeas corpus, invaded reasonable expectations of privacy. We have even engaged in torture.

What, then, can we do to see to it that we more reliably honor our core values? Here’s a start.

Presidents have a wide range of official advisers. There is a secretary of defense, a secretary of labor, a national security adviser, to name just a few. The next president should create a new executive branch position: a civil liberties adviser. Within the highest councils of every administration there should be a respected public official whose charge it is to defend our civil liberties against all comers.

The New York Times reports on an issue of vital public concern: what’s up with the “second button”? You know, as Jerry Seinfeld complained, it’s often just not right. It’s either too high (stuffy nerdyness) or too low (the Fabio factor, i.e. male cleavage). It is a vexing situation. Here are some excerpts from the story:

Pants can be hemmed, shirts can be darted. But the way buttons are spaced down the front of a shirt — known in the industry as “stance” — is forever. Frustration with poor button stance is so universal, even Jerry Seinfeld talked about it with George in the final episode of his series. “The second button is the key button,” he said. “It literally makes or breaks the shirt.”

…

Tim Gunn of “Project Runway” finds it exasperating. “It’s a very fundamental issue, but we’re so accepting of it,” he said. “I’m surprised there’s been no fashion outcry.”

…

Why haven’t shirtmakers established a golden mean?

European makers tend to separate church and state: there are shirts to be worn with ties, and there are sports shirts. Here, where the line is blurred, we see incompatible high and low stances.

Another factor, Mr. Bastian suggested, may be that some manufacturers are working off old patterns, from a time when men always wore ties.

Fortunately, as Mr. Fazio notes, the market is moving toward a hybrid button stance. Brooks Brothers, J. Crew and Bergdorf Goodman’s private label, for example, all place the second button at 3 1/2 inches. Todd Snyder, the men’s design director at J. Crew, said it had revamped its shirt model and found that this measurement gives the most versatility.

Well, perhaps there is hope.

On the Wall Street Journal Blog, Dan Slater posts on a new profession, of sorts - counselors for lawyers who are unhappy and thinking of leaving the legal profession. It’s not clear how many people occupy this profession, but he interviews one, Harvard and Cambridge graduate and former Alston & Bird associate, Monica Parker. Ms. Parker talks with people about exit strategies and the reasons for seeking a new career outside of the law. She notes:

“A lot of us went to law school by default,” said Parker, when we asked her why she thinks lawyer-happiness is in such short supply. “We’re people who don’t quite know what we want to do, but think law school will create opportunities. So we get sucked into a funnel of going into a law firm, and then, there you are! You’re miserable. You’re miserable because you didn’t choose this career. It pretty much chose you. You were never taught how to select a career, think about the possibilities, how to experiment, how to learn about what’s important to you.”

She states that she works with about 50 clients and has a 3% to 5% rate of client conversion to non-legal careers - don’t quit your day job just yet, Monica. However, to be fair, every business has to start out slow and build it’s base and successes. Further, maybe getting people to convert to non-legal employment isn’t really the answer anyway. The law offers a wide range of opportunities in different environments and work lifestyles. For every high pressure 60+ hours a week big firm job, there is a government, public interest, or small firm position that involves a lot less hours at the office. But that means less pay usually too. You simply can’t have it both ways, and this is not exactly breaking news.

One thing that is overlooked in the post (but not in the comments) is that law school graduates often have differential opportunities, but often very similar debt. For top 10-15 school grads and the lower tier grads in the top 10% of their class, opportunities abound for both high pay and high satisfaction careers - not so for the remaining vast majority of law school graduates. Bill Henderson’s many ELS posts on this point make this case convincingly.  Law grads also have differing personal situations and needs and this makes generalizations about leaving the law difficult.

So, are counselors for disillusioned lawyers in order? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose if someone is willing to pay for your advice, then it’s viable. There is much to consider in making such a decision (personal factors, financial implications, career trajectory, social factors), so maybe some guidance is in order. If Ms. Parker’s service is not for you, then there is a branch of the now infamous “Greedy Associates” message board devoted specifically to people who have left the law or are supposedly contemplating leaving the law (but, I think that the latter dominate).

William Deresiewicz’s article, “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education: Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds, not careers,” appears in the current issue of The American Scholar. [hat tip to Prettier Than Napoleon blog]

The Chronicle sez:

Three mathematics associations — the International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the International Mathematical Union, and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics — have examined citation-based statistics such as the impact factor and the h-index, and concluded that the measures are often misunderstood and misused.

The use of the impact factor, developed as a way of ranking scientific journals, as the main tool to evaluate the quality research has boomed during the last decade, and this measure has become crucial in hiring and tenure decisions, as well as in the awarding of grants.

In a report released this month, the associations say that the impact factor and other citation-based statistics should not be dismissed as tools for assessing research quality, but they warn against using such metrics as the only evaluation method and not taking into consideration other factors, such as peer review.

The report.

Recently, I posted some rankings of law schools by moot court performance. A thoughtful reader informed me that these are not the most up to date rankings and that the website name has changed. So, below are the updated rankings for 2007 - I apologize to anyone who bragged about their placement and had it changed. Paul Caron lists the 2008 interim rankings here.

278 South Texas moot court (1st)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 31 at regional = 31 points)
Rendigs (two teams: finalist and winner out of 30 teams = 57 points)
Spong (two teams: winner and finalist out of 26 teams = 49 points)
San Diego Crim Pro (finalist out of 41 teams = 39 points)
Wechsler at American (semifinalist out of 31 teams = 27 points)
Health Law at Southern Illinois (two teams: winner and semifinalist out of 30 teams =
55 points)
Pepperdine Entertainment (semifinalist out of 24 teams = 20 points)

193 California Hastings moot court (2nd)
Saul Lefkowitz Trademark Law Competition (finalist, beating 10 at nationals = 10
points [regionals don't count b/c too small])
Dean Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition (Brooklyn)(winner out of 38
teams = 37 points)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 at regional = 32 points)
Cardozo/BMI Entertainment & Communications Law Competition (New York City)
(semifinalist out of 34 teams = 30 points)
Evans Constitutional Law Competition (semifinalist out of 34 teams = 30 points)
Tulane Mardi Gras Invitational Sports Law Competition (winner out of 32 teams = 31
points)
Jessup (International Quarterfinalist, edging-out 10 American teams at International
Round = 10 points)
Thomas Tang (national finalist, edging out 13 regional champions from American law
schools while at national round = 13 points)

164 Chicago-Kent moot court (3rd)
NYC Bar National MCC (winner edging out 27 teams at National round = 27 points)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 31 at regional; beat 16 at national
= 47 points)
Ruby R. Vale Corporate Law Moot Court Competition (Wilmington, Delaware)
(semifinalist out of 24 teams = 20 points)
Robert F. Wagner National Labor & Employment Moot Court Competition (New York
City)(semifinalist out of 42 teams = 38 points)
Cardozo/BMI Entertainment & Communications Law Competition (New York City)
(finalist out of 34 teams = 32 points)

147 Georgetown moot court (4th)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 29 at regional = 29 points)
Cardozo/BMI Entertainment & Communications Law Competition (New York City)
(semifinalist out of 34 teams = 30 points)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (Winner out of 67 teams = 66
points)
Spong (semifinalist out of 26 teams = 22 points)

136 Washington University moot court (5th)
William McGee National Civil Rights Moot Court Competition (Minneapolis)(finalist
out of 36 teams = 34 points)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 teams at regional, beat 12
teams at national = 44 points)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams =
58points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

129 Georgia moot court (6th)
National First Amendment Moot Court Competition (Nashville)(semifinalist out of 35
teams = 31 points)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 at regional, beat 12 at national
= 44 points)
Dean Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition (Brooklyn)(semifinalist out of 38
teams = 34 points)
NYC Bar National MCC (National Quarterfinalist edging out 20 teams at National
Round = 20 points)

120 Brooklyn moot court (7th)
Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition (New York City)(winner out
of 49 teams = 48 points)
National First Amendment Moot Court Competition (Nashville)(semifinalist out of 35
teams = 31 points)
Tulane Mardi Gras Invitational Sports Law Competition (finalist out of 32 teams = 30
points)
Thomas Tang (national semifinalist, edging out 11 regional champions from American
law schools while at national round = 11 points)

104 Loyola Chicago moot court (8th)
Robert F. Wagner National Labor & Employment Moot Court Competition (New York
City)(semifinalist out of 42 teams = 38 points)
Evans Constitutional Law Competition (finalist out of 34 teams = 32 points)
Thomas Tang (national winner, edging out 14 regional champions from American law
schools while at national round = 14 points)
NYC Bar National MCC (National Quarterfinalist edging out 20 teams at National
Round = 20 points)

96 Michigan State moot court (9th)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 at regional = 32 points)
Robert F. Wagner National Labor & Employment Moot Court Competition (New York
City)(winner out of 42 teams = 41 points)
Pepperdine Entertainment (winner out of 24 teams = 23 points)

91 Texas Wesleyan moot court (10th)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 at regional = 32 points)
San Diego Crim Pro (semifinalist out of 41 teams = 37 points)
Pepperdine Entertainment (finalist out of 24 teams = 22 points)

86 American moot court (11th)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (one team = beat 29 at regional, beat
16 at national; other team = beat 29 at regional, beat 12 at national; totaling 86 points)

85 George Mason moot court (12th)
National First Amendment Moot Court Competition (Nashville)(winner out of 35 teams
= 34 points)
Evans Constitutional Law Competition (semifinalist out of 34 teams = 30 points)
Constance Baker Motley competition (semifinalist out of 25 teams = 21 points)

76 Mississippi College moot court (13th)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 29 at regional = 29 points)
Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition (New York City)(finalist out
of 49 teams = 47 points)

75 Pepperdine (14th)
Rendigs (semifinalist out of 30 teams = 26 points)
Constance Baker Motley (finalist out of 27 teams at UCLA regional = 25 points)
Chicago Bar Association (finalist out of 26 teams = 24 points)

74 Lewis and Clark moot court (15th)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (finalist out of 67 teams = 64
points)
Jessup (International Quarterfinalist, edging-out 10 American teams at International
Round = 10 points)

69 Seton Hall moot court (16th)
Adoption law at Capital U (winner out of 23 teams [24th team was a no-show] = 22
points)
Health Law at Southern Illinois (finalist out of 30 teams = 28 points)
Wechsler at Buffalo (semifinalist out of 23 teams [24 teams with one no show] = 19
points)

66 Campbell moot court (17th)
William McGee National Civil Rights Moot Court Competition (Minneapolis)(winner
out of 36 teams = 35 points)
ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 31 at regional = 31 points)

64 University of Memphis (18th)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (finalist out of 67 teams = 64
points)

61 Northern Kentucky moot court (19th)
Robert F. Wagner National Labor & Employment Moot Court Competition (New York
City)(finalist out of 42 teams = 40 points)
Adoption law at Capital U (finalist out of 23 teams [24th team was a no-show] = 21
points)

58 Louisiana State (20th)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams =
58points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

58 University of Utah (20th)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams =
58points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

58 Arizona State (20th)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams =
58points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

58 University of Detroit (20th)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams =
58points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

58 University of Denver (20th)
National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams =
58points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

A while back I forwarded the fairly novel idea that law school ranking systems might consider the performance of law schools’ students in head to head competition in lawyering skills (i.e. moot court). One obstacle to such an endeavor is that there has been little in the way of systematic measuring of law schools’ performance in moot court competitions.

This may no longer be a problem. I recently stumbled upon the “Best Moot Court Programs” website. This entity claims to have systematically ranked schools according to their annual cumulative moot court performance. I have to admit that I have not checked their rankings or data against other sources and I am not entirely sure if this ranking process will continue - however, it seems to be a step in a good direction. I am not certain if the annual ranking is a good idea; perhaps a three year average of scores would be more accurate and produce less volatile results. On balance, I err in favor of posting these rankings. If they have problems, then perhaps some good soul (who is more ambitious on this matter than I) will produce better ones.

So, without further ado - here are the top 20 law schools by moot court performance:

201 California Hastings moot court (1st)

· Saul Lefkowitz Trademark Law Competition (finalist, beating 10 at nationals = 10 points [regionals don't count b/c too small])

· Dean Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition (Brooklyn)(winner out of 38 teams = 37 points)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 at regional = 32 points)

· Cardozo/BMI Entertainment & Communications Law Competition (New York City)(semifinalist out of 34 teams = 30 points)

· Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition (beat 15 in prelims, beat 16 teams at advanced rounds = 31 points [regionals don’t count b/c too small])

· Evans Constitutional Law Competition (semifinalist out of 34 teams = 30 points)

· Tulane Mardi Gras Invitational Sports Law Competition (winner out of 32 teams = 31 points)

171 Washington University moot court (2nd)

· Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition (beat 27 teams in prelims, beat 8 teams at advanced rounds = 35 points [regionals don’t count b/c too small])

· William McGee National Civil Rights Moot Court Competition (Minneapolis)(finalist out of 36 teams = 34 points)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 teams at regional, beat 12 teams at national = 44 points)

· National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams = 58 points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

147 Georgetown moot court (3rd)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 29 at regional = 29 points)

· Cardozo/BMI Entertainment & Communications Law Competition (New York City)(semifinalist out of 34 teams = 30 points)

· National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (Winner out of 67 teams = 66 points)

· Spong (semifinalist out of 26 teams = 22 points)

138 Chicago-Kent moot court (4th)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 31 at regional; beat 16 at national = 47 points)

· Ruby R. Vale Corporate Law Moot Court Competition (Wilmington, Delaware)(semifinalist out of 24 teams = 20 points)

· Robert F. Wagner National Labor & Employment Moot Court Competition (New York City)(semifinalist out of 42 teams = 38 points)

· Cardozo/BMI Entertainment & Communications Law Competition (New York City)(finalist out of 34 teams = 32 points)

137 South Texas moot court (5th)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 31 at regional = 31 points)

· Rendigs (two teams: finalist and winner out of 30 teams = 57 points)

· Spong (two teams: winner and finalist out of 26 teams = 49 points)

109 Georgia moot court (6th)

· National First Amendment Moot Court Competition (Nashville)(semifinalist out of 35 teams = 31 points)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 at regional, beat 12 at national = 44 points)

· Dean Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition (Brooklyn)(semifinalist out of 38 teams = 34 points)

109 Brooklyn moot court (6th)

· Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition (New York City)(winner out of 49 teams = 48 points)

· National First Amendment Moot Court Competition (Nashville)(semifinalist out of 35 teams = 31 points)

· Tulane Mardi Gras Invitational Sports Law Competition (finalist out of 32 teams = 30 points)

103 Lewis and Clark moot court (8th)

· Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition (beat 23 teams at prelims, beat 16 teams at advanced rounds = 39 points [regionals don’t count b/c too small])

· National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (finalist out of 67 teams = 64 points)

86 American moot court (9th)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (one team = beat 29 at regional, beat 16 at national; other team = beat 29 at regional, beat 12 at national; totaling 86 points)

85 George Mason moot court (10th)

· National First Amendment Moot Court Competition (Nashville)(winner out of 35 teams = 34 points)

· Evans Constitutional Law Competition (semifinalist out of 34 teams = 30 points)

· Constance Baker Motley competition (semifinalist out of 25 teams = 21 points)

76 Mississippi College moot court (11^th)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 29 at regional = 29 points)

· Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition (New York City)(finalist out of 49 teams = 47 points)

73 Michigan State moot court (12^th)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 32 at regional = 32 points)

· Robert F. Wagner National Labor & Employment Moot Court Competition (New York City)(winner out of 42 teams = 41 points)

66 Campbell moot court (13^th)

· William McGee National Civil Rights Moot Court Competition (Minneapolis)(winner out of 36 teams = 35 points)

· ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition (beat 31 at regional = 31 points)

64 University of Memphis (14th)

· National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (finalist out of 67 teams = 64 points)

58 Louisiana State (15th)

· National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams = 58 points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

58 University of Utah (15th)

· National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition (semifinalist out of 67 teams = 58 points [three teams argue at a time so there were 9 semifinalists])

58 Arizona State (15th)