Oral Argument Training

Practice arguing
before a judge.

Read a case packet. Argue at the podium under bench interruptions. Receive structured grading on your legal reasoning.

Begin a session

See it in action

Argua takes users from case packet, to live judicial questioning, to structured grading after the argument.

Official TranscriptNo. 24-cv-03127 · Oral Arg.

TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT

Coastal Freight Solutions v. NorthPort Logistics, et al.

Rule 12(b)(6) Hearing — Hon. P. Calderón, U.S.D.J.

THE COURT:Counsel, the court has read the briefs.

Plaintiff alleges that all four defendants

imposed the same fuel surcharge at nearly

the same time. Why doesn't similar behavior,

on its own, plausibly show an agreement?

COUNSEL:Your Honor, parallel conduct in a

concentrated market is entirely consistent

with independent rational responses to

market conditions. Under Matsushita,

similar behavior alone raises no inference

of unlawful agreement.

THE COURT:Now consider the surcharge figure itself.

This wasn't just similar — it was identical,

down to the cent. Why isn't that the

further factual enhancement Twombly requires?

The Bench

The bench presses you.

The judge interrupts mid-argument. Demands you address specific paragraphs of the complaint. Redirects when you drift from the pleadings to the merits.

Every question is drawn from a pressure flow calibrated to the module — built from the assigned case packet, the constrained authority set, and the doctrine the session is practicing.

How you're graded

Grades are rubric-based and tied to your session transcript. Feedback is formative — the score reflects how you applied the doctrine and responded to the bench, not whether the motion was granted.

Doctrinal Accuracy

25%

Whether the user states and applies the governing legal standard correctly — identifying the right test, applying it to the facts, and avoiding misstatements of controlling authority.

Record / Pleading Engagement

20%

Whether the user grounds arguments in the case packet and assigned record rather than speaking abstractly. Strong advocacy works from specific documents, paragraphs, and allegations.

Analytical Development

25%

Whether the user explains why the facts satisfy or fail the legal standard — connecting them to a legal conclusion with reasoning, instead of reciting the standard or restating the facts.

Procedural Discipline

15%

Whether the user respects the procedural posture and applicable burden — arguing within the correct stage of litigation, not importing arguments from summary judgment, trial, or appeal.

Responsiveness to the Bench

15%

Whether the user answers the judge's actual question and adapts under pressure, rather than deflecting or reciting prepared arguments regardless of what was asked.

Total100%

The bench is waiting.