This is a story that I wrote for the student-run newspaper at the University of Toledo, The Collegian.
On October 24, 2019, students competed in the 49th Annual Charles W. Fornoff Competition in the McQuade Law Auditorium in the Law Center. The purpose of the competition is to develop the contestant’s advocacy skills. The competition is meant to be situated in a federal circuit appeals court.
Faculty Advisor and law professor, Professor Eric Chaffee, helped explain the competition. He explained that the competition starts with 25 contestants in the spring and ends in the fall. The competition that took place was the finals. Chaffee explained that there is no requirement to be a certain year but “they are usually toward the beginning of their career.” He also mentioned that all the finalists are in their second year of law school.
The finalists do not receive much from winning the competition, but Chaffee explains that “they will receive plaques and bragging rights” and that it will be “a great resume builder and a chance to develop their skills.”
His advice to future for future participants is to “watch actual appellate arguments” and “be able to have a conversation with judges”
The three judges for the competition were the Honorable Denise Page Hood of the U.S District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan, the Honorable Christine Mayle of the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals, and the Honorable Thomas Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The contestants had to debate a case concerning a student named Maxine McKinney, who posted digital pieces mocking a high school teacher/coach on her Facebook account. The school suspended McKinney which prompted a lawsuit. McKinney lost the case, so her parents appealed to the Fourteenth Circuit Court.
In cases like this, the judges look at landmark court cases. The landmark case that was used was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) which decided a student “may express his opinions… if he does so without materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others.” Tinker, 393 U.S at 513 (internal quotation marks omitted). The finalists were arguing whether this case applied to McKinney’s Facebook posts.
Each finalist was paired up with an attorney. Finalist Nicole Cote was paired with Samuel Gold. He was a Barrister meaning he went undefeated in the preliminaries. They were on the Appellant side which means they are supporting the student Maxine McKinney. Finalist Dana Pasiwk was paired with Ruth Willer. She was the Solicitor meaning she was the runner-up in the preliminaries. They were Appellee’s counsel, which meant they were fighting for the school.
The competition began with the three judges entering while everyone in the auditorium stood, once everyone was seated the judges invited the Appellant to plead their case first. Samuel Gold went first to set up Nicole Cote to argue that the case did not apply to Tinker and that the school did not have the right to punish McKinney because she was simply expressing free speech and her actions did not cause any harm or distractions. The Appellee went next with Ruth Willer going first to set up finalist Dana Pasiwk. Their side argued that Tinker applies and that the school was right to discipline McKinney.
When the participants were on the stand, they had to fend off questions from the judges. The three judges tried to find holes in the participant’s arguments. To the credit of all four people involved, they were able to counter almost everything the judges threw at them. There was also a designated timekeeper. When the time was up, participants had to ask for permission to keep talking, which was always granted.
The judges left temporarily for deliberation, when they returned, they complimented both sides for their responses and how well prepared they were. The judges declared the Appellant team of Samuel Gold and Nicole Cote the winners but awarded Dana Pasiwk Best Oralist because they said she had a much harder side to argue.
Pasiwk said she did a lot of research and practice at home to prepare for this. She does not regret any of her arguments, but she wishes she added: “the fact that the speech at issue targeted a faculty member by reference and picture.” She admitted she was not completely in favor of the side she was on by saying, “Although I believe what the student did was inappropriate and should have been disciplined, I also align strongly with first amendment rights and felt the school’s discipline was a bit extreme.” Her advice to people who do this in the future is “take the chance and go for it!”
Cote credited the preliminary rounds for being able to practice. Cote’s only regret from the contest is “I wish I had emphasized the importance of First Amendment rights more and why it is important to limit restrictions on the speech of students.” Cote’s advantage was she agreed with the side she was arguing, she adds “this positively affected my ability to argue because it is much easier to argue for a party you feel comfortable advocating for.” Her advice for future contestants is “Learn the law and know the cases that support your side, but also those contrary to your position,” and to practice with a friend, and family and have practice judges ask you questions.
Both participants admitted they were intimidated by the judges. The competition will begin again next spring.
Steven Bieber Official Blog 