In earning a spot at the coveted Moot Court National Championship, 3Ls David Lindgren ’25, Leah Kanihan ’25, and Madeleine Kim ’25 marshaled the attributes that have made them fierce competitors: steadfast teamwork, exacting preparation and practice, and astute advocacy. They activated those skills at the competition, winning third place for best brief and reaching the quarterfinal for a top-eight finish.
It was a victory in itself to get a chance to compete. Every year, the nation’s top 16 programs vie for the title at the Hicks Thomas, LLP Moot Court National Championship in Houston. Teams earn their spot at the invitation-only event through their law schools’ achievements in the previous school year.
“It’s the first time the Law School has been invited. It’s not an over-statement to say that it’s a huge deal,” says Randall Ryder ’09, director of the Minnesota Law Moot Court program and assistant professor of appellate advocacy. “It’s a tremendous reflection of how the program has grown. We’ve always had a good moot court program and now the entire country knows that.”
Minnesota Law’s Moot Court program has been accelerating upward in recent years by racking up more wins at more tournaments. Its collective performance during the 2023-2024 academic year proved that its achievements aren’t a fluke. Three first-place wins, a trip to the national round of the National Moot Court Competition in New York, and other impressive showings accumulated enough points to clinch the championship tournament invitation, Ryder says.
Kanihan, Kim, and Lindgren raised their hands for the opportunity to compete at the championship. They sought to build off the success and collaboration they fostered last year as members of the Gender & Sexuality Moot Court team, along with Kaz Lane ’25. The two student teams regularly practiced together and gave each other feedback on their way to Kanihan and Kim winning the Michigan State University Gender & Sexuality competition in 2024.
To Brad Clary ’75, clinical professor emeritus and co-coach with Ryder, the trio’s teamwork was palpable and a strong contributor to their success. Clary lauded the teammates’ willingness to go way above expectations for researching, sharpening their arguments, and practicing their oral advocacy skills.
“I was struck by how well they worked together as a team. It was clearly a group effort with everybody contributing substantially, and that showed through to the end,” says Clary, who led Minnesota Law’s Moot Court program for nearly 20 years. “They gave a lot of thought to the positions they were taking to make sure they were consistent and well-framed, and they were good under pressure.”
The tournament challenged teams with a problem involving procedural and constitutional questions. Lindgren argued both sides of the civil procedure issue while Kim and Kanihan argued the First Amendment element. Having a three-person team gave them an advantage, Kim says, because she and Kanihan could log extensive practice arguing as the respondent or the petitioner instead of having to master both sides.