Invitation for Indonesia National Selection ICCC 2013

Invitation for National Selection

Faculty of Law Universitas Gadjah Mada

15-16 December 2012

CONTACT US:

Secretariat of IUP Faculty of Law

Universitas Gadjah Mada

Jl. Sosio Yustisia No.1

Bulaksumur 50241 – Yogyakarta

Mobile: +62(0)83869696921

Email: [email protected]

Website: iccc.law.ugm.ac.id/home

Blog: indonesiaiccc.blogspot.com

Twitter: @iccc_indo

International Client Consultation Competition 2013 Glasgow, Scotland, The United Kingdom

Page 2

Yogyakarta, 10 November 2012

INVITATION

Dear Sirs,

I am writing on behalf of the Organizing Committee of

Indonesia National Selection for The Louis M. Brown

and Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation

Competition (hereinafter ‘ICCC’), an annual

competition for law students all across the globe on

client interviewing and counseling.

Realizing the importance and purpose of this

competition, which to enhance skills of future-lawyers-

in-the-making, this year, Faculty of Law Universitas

Gadjah Mada as the National Representative of

Republik Indonesia to the ICCC would like to initiate a

wider scope of national selection by inviting prominent

law schools in Indonesia.

It is therefore with honor that we invite for your

participation as Competitor or Observer on the national

selection which will take place in:

Day : Saturday - Sunday Date : 15 - 16 December 2012 Place : Faculty of Law UGM Topic : Criminal Law: Serious Bodily Harm

For further information, please do not hesitate to

contact the undersigned. We are looking forward for

your participation. Thank you very much for your kind

attention.

Yours faithfully,

Republik Indonesia National Selection for

The Louis M. Brown and Forrest S. Mosten

International Client Consultation Competition 2013

The Organizing Committee

Organizing Committee of

Indonesia National Selection for

ICCC 2013

Adrianto Dwi Nugroho, S.H.,LL.M.Adv

Head of Organizing Committee

Coordinator of Judges

Cindy Nur Fitri

Head of Administration, Hospitality, and Public

Relations

Nindya Ary Purwaningtyas

Head of Liaison Officer, Program, and

Accommodation

Sapta Novida Dananjaya

Head of Academic, Partnership, and

Transportation

Hendy Anggoro

Head of IT, Technical, and Supplies

Contact details: Secretariat of IUP Faculty of Law

Universitas Gadjah Mada

Jl. Sosio Yustisia No.1

Bulaksumur 50241 – Yogyakarta

Attn: Adrianto Dwi Nugroho, S.H., LL.M.Adv

Organizing Committee of ICCC 2013

Phone: +62(0)83869696921

Attn: Ms. Cindy Nur Fitri

Email: [email protected] or

[email protected]

Homepage: iccc.law.ugm.ac.id/home

Blog: indonesiaiccc.blogspot.com

Twitter: @iccc_indo

Page 3

Welcome

Faculty of Law Universitas Gadjah Mada welcomes you to Yogyakarta for the National Selection of The

Louis M. Brown and Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition 2013.

Universitas Gadjah Mada is a modern and dynamic university with a national reputation for excellence in

teaching, research and student satisfaction also internationally recognized programs. Located in the

Special Region of Yogyakarta, one of the smallest provinces in Indonesia, which has been widely known

as a center of Javanese culture as well as a center of learning. Universitas Gadjah Mada provides you not

only relaxed and friendly campus ground but also cultural and lively surroundings.

National selection of the competition will take place at the Faculty of Law Universitas Gadjah Mada

from Saturday 15th December to Sunday, 15th December, 2012. Champion of the competition will be

representing Republik Indonesia at the international final which will take place at the University of

Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow G12 8QQ from Wednesday, 3rd April to Saturday, 7th April, 2013.

History of Competition

In 1969, Louis M Brown established a Client Counselling Competition for law students which was

adopted by The American Bar Association in 1972. The International Competition was inaugurated in

1985 with three teams: Canada, the USA and the UK. By 2011, 24 countries took part with law students

from Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, China, England and Wales, Finland, Hong Kong, India,

Indonesia, Irish Republic, Jamaica, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Northern Ireland,

Puerto Rico, Russia, Scotland, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United States.

The International Competition was named after Louis M Brown in 1993 in recognition of the inspiration

he provided as originator of the competition. In 2010, the name was changed to acknowledge the

immense contribution of Californian lawyer Forrest S. Mosten who has been the president of the

competition for over 25 years. The winners’ names are inscribed on the plaque awarded as the

competition trophy. The winners also receive prizes donated by the International Bar Association.

Page 4

Basic Concept of ICCC

Simulation of a law office consultation in which two law students, acting as lawyers (attorneys/solicitors/legal

practitioners), are presented with a client matter.

The students/competitors are given a brief written memorandum that identifies the general nature of the

subject-matter of the client's problem (e.g., that the client is facing a shoplifting charge, etc.) before the

interviews are held.

The interview with the client is then followed by a post-consultation (between lawyers) in period during which

last a total of 35-45 minutes. This competition encourages students to develop interviewing planning, and

analytical skills in the lawyer-client relationship in the law office.

Judges comprising of academician, legal practitioner, and psychologist. This composition was expected to

cover every aspect needed in client consultation.

Why ICCC?

One of a kind concept of comprehensive consultation learning

When other legal competitions are mostly held in a form of mooting, this

competition provides brand new experience which mostly relate to their prior

knowledge of legal matters and soft skills. There will always be a unexpected case

which come from different clients in every interview, and make it more fun,

surprising yet challenging!

Close relation with other participants and committees

Unlike other competition, ICCC own a strong friendship values between

participants. This will be an advantage as participant will not only gain academic

knowledge, but also international networking with future lawyers and decision

makers.

Deeper touch of cultural exchange through cultural events

ICCC has cultural night agenda in order to facilitate participants to promote its

national culture as well as learn others. This activity will enhance cross cultural

communication and exp erience for participants which will be useful to create a

better understanding of various culture of their future clients.

Different host countries every year

Host of international final will always different

every year. ICCC 2010 was held in Hong Kong;

ICCC 2011 was held in Maastricht, The

Netherlands; ICCC 2012 was held in Dublin,

Republic of Ireland; and the upcoming ICCC 2013

will be held in Glasgow, Scotland, while

international finalists of ICCC 2014 will fly to Puerto Rico! This will give a whole new socio-cultural

experience in every year of the event.

Page 5

Visiting Yogyakarta

Yogyakarta is a bustling town of some 500,000 people and the most popular tourist destination on Java,

largely thanks to its proximity to the temples of Borobudur and Prambanan. The town is a center of art

and education, offers some good shopping and has a wide range of tourist facilities.

Being one of the oldest cities in Indonesia, Yogyakarta has many heritage buildings and monuments. The

number one must-see attraction is Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwono's palace, better known as Kraton

Ngayogyakarta. Other heritage buildings from colonial era, for example BNI '46 building, Kantor Pos

Besar (Central Post Office) building, and Bank Indonesia building, all of them are located near

Malioboro.

From upper left (clockwise): Malioboro street, Bank Indonesia Yogyakarta, Tugu Monument, Prambanan Temple

If you’re an avid travelling enthusiasts, Malioboro is a well-known and a must-see shopping promenade

and very popular among Indonesian as well as international tourists. Spans from the Tugu Station to the

Sultan's square, Malioboro is 2 km in length and home to hundreds of shops and street-stalls offering

various kinds of handicrafts. Stroll around the landmark will definitely be a superb excitement. If

travelling on foot is not your thing, you can ride the pedal-powered trishaw or so called ‘becak’, or the

‘andong’ horse cart.

Malioboro, Prambanan temple, and many other city landmarks are only 15 minutes away from the

Universitas Gadjah Mada and it is easily accessed by bus, becak or taxi.

Top Ten Must Visit

Prambanan Temple – Malioboro - Mirota Batik – Tugu Monument – Beringharjo Market – Kraton

Yogyakarta Palace – Prawirotaman street – Tamansari Water Castle –Ullen Sentallu Museum – Affandi

Museum

Page 6

Competition Details

A. Participating Teams

The Organizing Committee has disseminated invitation of this competition to the following

law schools:

1. Universitas Gadjah Mada

2. Universitas Padjadjaran

3. Universitas Airlangga

4. Universitas Katolik Atmajaya Jakarta

5. Universitas Islam Indonesia

6. Universitas Jenderal Soedirman

7. Universitas Diponegoro

8. Universitas Udayana

9. Universitas Indonesia

10. Universitas Sam Ratulangi

11. Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

12. Universitas Islam Indonesia

13. Universitas Pancasila

14. Universitas Hassanuddin

15. Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana

16. Universitas Pelita Harapan

B. Participants Eligibilities

Participating university are eligible to enter:

1. Maximum of 3 teams which composed of two active law students as COMPETITOR.

2. Maximum of 1 student/lecturer as COACH.

3. Maximum of 3 student(s)/lecturer(s) as OBSERVER.

C. Provisional Itineraries

Saturday, 15 December 2012

Timings Schedule Venue

1300 – 1400 Registration and welcoming snacks

Faculty of Law Universitas

Gadjah Mada

1400 – 1430 Opening Ceremony

1430 – 1500 Team Draws

1500 – 1530 Break and Preparation

1530 – 1730 Preliminary rounds I x 4 rooms

Evening Free time

Sunday, 16 December 2012

Timings Schedule Venue

0900 – 0930 Registration and welcoming snacks

Faculty of Law Universitas

Gadjah Mada

0930 – 1130 Preliminary rounds II x 4 rooms

1130 – 1230 Lunch break

1230 – 1300 Final announcement and team draws

1300 – 1315 Final preparation

1315 – 1415 Final round 1

1415 – 1515 Final round 2

1515 – 1615 Final round 3

1615 – 1900 Break/Free time

1900 – 2200 Award Dinner Grand Aston Hotel Yogyakarta

Page 7

D. Registration Details

Registration period : 15 November 2012 – 4 December 2012 Registration fee : IDR 250.000/person Facilities : The registration fee will cover programs, delegate package,

certificate, meals, and award dinner at Grand Aston Hotel Yogyakarta.

Bank Account : On Request Contact Person : Cindy (083869696921) Terms and Conditions 1. Registration will be considered COMPLETE when the Organizing Committee has

received an email at [email protected] from university delegation containing: a. Registration form of all participants (Format: .DOCX, size per file max. 200kb) b. Scan of bank transfer receipt (Format: JPEG, size per file max. 200kb) c. Scan of Student ID/Lecturer ID of all participants (Format: JPEG, size per file max.

200kb) Note: Document verification for bank transfer receipt and valid student/lecturer ID card will be conducted during registration at the opening ceremony, Friday, 14 December 2012.

2. Cancellation and replacement policy are as follows: a. There is no refund upon any transferred fee. b. Registrants may send a substitute in their place in lieu of requesting a refund with

prior notification to the Organizing Committee. Request of replacement shall be made no less than 7 days before the opening ceremony.

c. Incase of no show at first day, disqualification upon particular team will apply.

E. Awards

Champion of the national selection will be awarded champion plaque, also will be representing

Republik Indonesia as competitor at the international final of The Louis M. Brown and Forrest S.

Mosten International Client Consultation Competition 2013 in Glasgow, Scotland.

F. Useful links

Official website of Brown Mosten www.brownmosten.com

Law competition website http://www.law-competitions.com

ICCC 2010 Finals https://www.youtube.com/user/hkufaclaw

Page 8

Annex I

OFFICIAL RULES OF INDONESIA NATIONAL

SELECTION FOR ICCC 2013

RULE 1: NATURE, HISTORY, AND PURPOSE OF THE COMPETITION

a) Purpose.

The Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation 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 Competition provides an opportunity for a valuable

educational and cultural interchange between students, law teachers, and legal practitioners.

b) Nature of the Competition.

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. The students are given a brief

written memorandum that 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, that the client is facing a

shoplifting charge, etc.) before the interviews are held.

The students conduct an interview with a person playing the role of the client. 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. The interview with the client is then followed by a post-consultation period during

which the students, in the absence of the client, analyze the interview and discuss the legal and other work to

be undertaken. The interview and post-consultation period last a total of 45 minutes.

The students are evaluated by a panel of judges, usually composed of two lawyers and a counselor (e.g. social

or welfare worker, psychologist, clergy, or another person with extensive experience in counseling). The

inclusion of a non-lawyer counselor on the judging panel is designed to broaden the interdisciplinary

perspectives of the panel both in terms of skills and possible solutions to a problem.

The students are evaluated against specific criteria that emphasize the use of listening, questioning, planning,

and analytical skills in a lawyer/client interview. Once the judges have completed their evaluation of the

interview, the students are called back in and the judges provide a brief critique of the team's handling of the

consultation and post-consultation periods.

c) Brief History.

The Louis M. Brown Forrest S. Mosten International Competition was founded in 1985. It was modeled on

the American Bar Association's Client Counseling Competition. The ABA 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's Law Student Division has administered the competition in the United States since

1973. Each year, over 100 United States and Canadian schools participate in that competition. The

Page 9

competition has now spread to many other countries around the world. The Louis M. Brown Forrest S.

Mosten International Client Consultation Competition is affiliated with the International Bar Association and

collaborates closely with law societies and bar associations throughout the world.

d) Distribution of the Consultation Situations.

Approximately 14 days before the first day of the Competition, the Competition Organizer will send to each

team the memoranda briefly describing the consultation situations for the Competition. These memoranda

will contain information similar to that which a law office secretary might record when informing lawyers of a

forthcoming appointment.

e) Competition Topic.

A Competition topic (e.g., contracts, intentional torts, etc.) will be designated by the National Committee

prior to the Competition. All consultation situations will be based on this topic. Each consultation situation,

however, will involve a different client and a different situation.

f) 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.

g) 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 monetary amount used. The

participants may discuss fees at any appropriate point in the consultation. Fees may be waived or suitably

reduced only in cases of financial hardship, either for persons of low income or for persons of ordinary

income faced with very large fees.

Furthermore, in view of the comparative complexities involved and the fact that some jurisdictions do not

fully address them, the teams and judges should assume that any money laundering (and any other similar)

regulations have been met for the purposes of the competition and should not be covered in the interview.

h) Assignment of Team Letters.

All teams will be pre-assigned a letter designation (A, B, C, etc.) by the Competition Organizer on a random

basis. [Remark Competition Organizer: at the opening ceremony, lots will be drawn.]

i) Rounds.

A round consists of two or three teams (depending on the number of teams competing) conducting

interviews with the same client. Based on the skills demonstrated in light of the Assessment Criteria, the

judges then rank the teams. All teams participate in the preliminary rounds. The top-ranking teams may then

compete in a Semi-Final Round or go directly to the Final (Championship) Round, depending on the number

of teams in the Competition. Winners of the Semi-Final Round compete in the Final (Championship) Round.

j) Faculty Advisors/Team Coaches and Preparation.

The primary purpose of the Competition is education. Faculty advisors/team coaches should emphasize the

educational value of the Competition to their students. 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 concept of a client counseling 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

Page 10

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.

k) Dress.

Dress is generally casual, except for the Competition rounds and the Award Dinner. Students generally wear

attire typical of a lawyer in their home country during the Competition rounds. Semi formal or batik attire for

Award Dinner is preferred.

RULE 2: THE CONSULTATION AND POST-CONSULTATION

a) Maximum Time Limit for the Session.

Each team shall have a maximum of thirty-five minutes at preliminary rounds and forty-five (45) minutes at

final round, to complete the session. This session must include both a consultation session with the client and

a post-consultation.

b) The Consultation with the Client.

Each team must conduct a consultation with the client during which the students are expected to elicit the

relevant information, outline the problem, and propose options for resolving the problem.

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 why they worked together in the way that they did.

c) The Post-Consultation.

Each team must also conduct a meaningful post-consultation discussion between the attorneys after the client

has left the room. During this 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 students may

be useful.

The students may also feel that documentation is appropriate. For example, they may want to write a letter to

the client confirming their retention as attorneys, the fee arrangement, etc. It also may be appropriate for the

students at the conclusion of this consultation to compose a letter to opposing counsel or to the party with

whom the client is having legal problems. Such a document may be dictated at this time.

d) Division of Time between the Consultation and Post-Consultation; Timekeeping.

The student competitors will not be provided with timekeepers. They are responsible for keeping track of

their time. However, one of the judges on each panel should be selected to keep track of the time for the

judges. Under no circumstance will a team be allowed more than forty-five (45) minutes to complete the

session, including both the consultation and the post-consultation. The timekeeper judge shall stop students

after forty-five (45) minutes regardless of where students are in the consultation or post-consultation process.

The decision of the timekeeper judge as to when the round should end is final. The timekeeper judge should

use the Judges' Timekeeping Sheet to record the time each session begins and ends to assure that the

Page 11

timekeeping was accurate. In determining a team's score, the judges shall consider the way the team allocated

its time and, if applicable, the team's failure to include a meaningful post-consultation session.

e) Use of Materials and Props.

During the consultation and post-consultation, the team may use books, notes, and other materials. The team

may also use office props (computers, Dictaphones, files, desktop furnishings, etc.). Competing team are

responsible to provide their own properties.

RULE 3: JUDGES' CRITIQUE AND RANKING OF TEAMS OBSERVED

a) Content and Timing of the Critique.

Except in the final round, immediately 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. This critique should focus on the Assessment Criteria. The critique should last no more than ten (10)

minutes.

b) Client Not to Be Present.

Clients should not be present during the post-consultation period or the critique.

c) Judges' Discussion of Each Team's Performance; Consulting with the Client Prior to Ranking; and

the Awarding of Points to the Teams Observed by Judges at the End of the Round.

After the judges have observed all teams, the judges should discuss each team's performance among

themselves. Judges are encouraged to consult with the client. Although the judges should discuss the

performance of the teams, 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. Then, each judge must give a two (2) or three (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.

RULE 4: THE FINAL (CHAMPIONSHIP) ROUND

a) Order of Appearance of Teams in the Final (Championship) Round.

The team with the lowest score after the first three rounds is allowed to choose when it performs in the final

round. In case of a tie, the order will be made by a draw.

b) Format of the Final Round; Decision by the Judges; Ties; Announcement of the Winner and

Critique.

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 the performance of the

teams, the judges should individually rank the teams. Judging independently, each judge must give one (1)

point to the one (1) team that performed the best in light of the Assessment Criteria. The team with the

lowest number of points is the winner. If the teams are tied after the judges have independently awarded

Page 12

points, the judges shall decide by a majority vote which team performed the best in the room in light of the

Assessment Criteria. If the vote does not produce one team as a winner, the Judges shall declare a tie and the

tied teams will be co-winners. Following the announcement of the winner, the judges will then comment on

the consultations.

RULE 5: AWARDS

Each participant in the Competition will receive a certificate to be awarded at the Award Dinner. The winning

team will, in addition, receive a special award.

RULE 6: COUNSELLING SESSIONS: ATTENDANCE AND COMMUNICATION

a) Observing Rounds.

Faculty advisors/team coaches may observe their own teams subject to space availability. The team and its

faculty advisor/team coach may not observe other teams competing in the preliminary rounds in the

Competition. They may observe other rounds if they have been eliminated from the Competition. Persons

not associated with any team may observe all rounds, subject to space availability.

b) Prohibited Communications.

Neither observer nor coach may communicate in any way with any team members during the course of their

performance, or with any judge prior to scoring.

RULE 7: DISPUTES AND BREACHES OF THE RULES

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), below. 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.

RULE 8: CLIENTS

a) Selection of Clients.

The Competition Organizer is responsible for selecting persons to play the role of the client for each of the

sessions.

b) Orientation for Clients.

Hosts 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 consultation situation and a detailed confidential

memorandum concerning the client's background and concerns.

c) Client Briefing.

The National Committee will provide a Client Briefing prior to the Rounds.

d) Availability after the Round to Talk with Judges.

Clients should plan to be available at the conclusion of a round to discuss the consultations with the judges.

Page 13

RULE 9: JUDGES

a) Selection of the Judges.

The Competition Organizer is responsible for selecting judges for the preliminary and semifinal 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 Competition. In

addition, there should be one person on the panel with a strong background in one of the counseling

professions (e.g., social or welfare worker, psychologist, minister, or another person with extensive experience

of counseling). If possible, 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 Judges.

For the final round, the panel will usually consist of five judges, chosen from among the university

representatives or otherwise by invitation of the National Committee. An effort will be made to include one

person on the panel with a strong background in one of the counseling professions as well as a lawyer who is

familiar with the area of law that is the subject of the Competition.

c) Persons Prohibited from Judging.

No one who judged an earlier round can act as a judge in the final round. Faculty advisors/team coaches shall

not act as judges as long as their teams have not been eliminated from the Competition.

d) Judges' Briefing.

The National Committee will provide a Judges' Briefing prior to the Rounds.

e) Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form.

All judges, as well as students, shall receive a copy of the 'Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form’. All judges

will also be supplied with a copy of the consultation situation for the round they will be judging, a copy or

summary of the National Rules, and a detailed confidential memorandum about the client's background and

concerns. Judges are instructed that the 'Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form' 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. After the Competition has been completed, each team's

Assessment Criteria and Feedback Forms, along with the rankings of the judges for that team, will be made

available to the team.

f) Taking Notes during the Round.

Judges should take notes as they observe each team's performance and base their critiques on specific

observations from their notes in light of the Assessment Criteria.

Page 14

Annex 2

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR NATIONAL ROUND

Preliminary Round

Preliminary Round will be conducted twice for all competitor, which divided into 4 (four) rooms

The allocated time for each Preliminary Round is 35 (thirty five) minutes, including preparation, consultation

session, post-interview session and Judges feedback.

The competitor is free to decide the divion of allocated time in Preliminary Round.

The judges will take necessary step if the consultation session takes more than 35 (thirty five) minutes.

After the consultation session, the judges will give a brief feedback from the competitor perforrmance.

Judges decision is final and could not be challenged.

Final Round

Competitor who get the best score from each room will be entitled to compete in the Final Round.

The allocated time for Final Round is 50 (fifty) minutes, including preparation, consultation session, post-

interview session, and Judges feedback.

The competitor is free to decide the divison of allocated time in Final Round

The Judges qill take necessary step if the consultation session takes more than 50 (fifty) minutes.

After all competitor in Final Round perform, the Judges will give a feedback from the competitor

performance.

Judges decision is final and could not be challenged.

Page 15

Annex 3

Assessment Criteria and Team Feedback Form

PROBLEM / ROUND: _________________ TEAM LETTER (NUMBER) _____________________

JUDGE: ______________________________ STUDENT-LAWYER: ___________________________

DATE: _______________________________ STUDENT-LAWYER: ___________________________

ROOM: ______________________________

Assessment Criteria and Team Feedback Form

CRITERION 1: ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP

The lawyers should establish the beginning of an effective professional relationship and working atmosphere. At an

appropriate point, they should orient the client to the special nature of the relationship (confidentiality, fees, mutual

obligations and rights, duration and plan of interview, methods of contact, etc.) in a courteous, sensitive and professional

manner.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers did not establish the beginning of an effective professional relationship.

-1 The lawyers established the beginning of an effective professional relationship. However, they either

failed to adequately cover the issues pertaining to that relationship or showed some considerable failing

in terms of courtesy, sensitivity and professionalism.

0 The lawyers established the beginning of an effective professional relationship. They adequately

covered the issues pertaining to that relationship and demonstrated the basic elements of courtesy,

sensitivity and professionalism.

+1 The lawyers established the beginning of an effective professional relationship. They covered the

issues pertaining to that relationship well and in a courteous, sensitive and professional manner.

+2 The lawyers established the beginning of an effective professional relationship. They covered the

issues pertaining to that relationship comprehensively and in a highly courteous, sensitive and

professional manner.

CRITERION 2: OBTAINING INFORMATION

The lawyers should elicit relevant information about the problem from the client. “Relevant information” may include

matters that affect the client considerably but are not “legally” relevant. They should develop a reasonably complete and

reliable description of the problem and reflect this understanding to the client.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers failed to elicit the relevant information about the problem from the client. They only

developed an incomplete description of the problem and/or failed to reflect this understanding to the

client.

Page 16

-1 The lawyers failed to show competence in at least one of the following areas: eliciting the basic

information about the problem from the client, developing a basic description of the problem, or

making some effort to reflect that understanding to the client.

0 The lawyers elicited the basic information about the problem from the client. They developed a basic

description of the problem and made some effort to reflect that understanding to the client.

+1 The lawyers elicited most of the relevant information about the problem from the client. They

developed a reasonably comprehensive and reliable description of the problem and competently

reflected that understanding to the client.

+2 The lawyers elicited all relevant information about the problem from the client. They developed a

comprehensive and reliable description of the problem and clearly reflected that understanding to the

client.

CRITERION 3: LEARNING THE CLIENT’S GOALS, EXPECTATIONS AND NEEDS

The lawyers should learn the client’s goals and initial expectations and, after input from the client, modify or restate them

as necessary, giving attention in doing so to the emotional aspects of the problems.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers failed to learn the client’s goals and initial expectations.

-1 The lawyers learned some of the client’s goals and initial expectations. They made few modifications

and developments to this understanding and took little or no account of any emotional aspects of the

problems.

0 The lawyers obtained a general understanding of the client’s goals and initial expectations. They were

able to make some modifications and developments to this understanding but may not have fully taken

into account any emotional aspects of the problems.

+1 The lawyers obtained a good understanding of the client’s goals and initial expectations. They were

able to make modifications and developments to this understanding taking into account any emotional

aspects of the problems.

+2 The lawyers obtained an excellent understanding of the client’s goals and initial expectations. They

were able to modify and develop this understanding fully taking into account any emotional aspects of

the problems.

CRITERION 4: PROBLEM ANALYSIS

The lawyers should analyse [analyze] the client’s problem with creativity and from both legal and non-legal perspectives

and should convey a clear and useful formulation of the problem to the client.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers failed to achieve a clear understanding of the client’s problem or did not attempt to

analyse [analyze] the problem.

-1 The lawyers achieved some understanding of the client’s problem and attempted to analyse [analyze]

the problem. However, they omitted some significant elements or provided an unsound analysis.

Page 17

0 The lawyers analysed [analyzed] the client’s problem from both legal and non-legal perspectives. They

provided some formulation of the problem although this formulation may have lacked in clarity or

usefulness.

+1 The lawyers analysed [analyzed] the client’s problem with creativity and from both legal and non-legal

perspectives. They provided a clear and useful formulation of the problem.

+2 The lawyers analysed [analyzed] the client’s problem with a high degree of creativity and from both

legal and non-legal perspectives. They provided a very clear and useful formulation of the problem

which they conveyed with clarity to the client.

CRITERION 5: LEGAL ANALYSIS AND GIVING ADVICE

Legal analysis and the consequent legal advice given should be both accurate and appropriate to the situation and its

context. If appropriate, the lawyers should give pertinent and relevant non-legal advice.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers gave no advice or the advice given was seriously inaccurate or inappropriate.

-1 The lawyers attempted to give legal advice, but it was inaccurate or inappropriate. Alternatively, any

non-legal advice, if given, was either very unhelpful or irrelevant.

0 The lawyers engaged in legal analysis and gave advice that was reasonably accurate and showed some

awareness of the situation and its context. Any non-legal advice, if given, was pertinent and relevant.

+1 The lawyers engaged in good legal analysis and gave advice that was reasonably appropriate to the

situation and its context. Any non-legal advice, if given, was pertinent and relevant.

+2 The lawyers engaged in excellent legal analysis and gave advice that was highly appropriate to the

situation and its context. Any non-legal advice, if given, given was pertinent and relevant.

CRITERION 6: DEVELOPING REASONED COURSES OF ACTION (OPTIONS)

The lawyers, consistently with the analysis of the client’s problem, should develop a set of potentially effective and

feasible options, both legal and non-legal.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers failed to develop any effective or feasible options.

-1 The lawyers considered an option but showed inadequate consideration as to its effective-ness or

feasibility.

0 The lawyers considered more than one option and showed some consideration as to the effectiveness or

feasibility of the option.

+1 The lawyers satisfactorily developed more than one potentially effective and feasible option of a legal

and/or non-legal nature.

+2 The lawyers fully and effectively developed a set of potentially effective and feasible options of a legal

and/or non-legal nature.

Page 18

CRITERION 7: ASSISTING THE CLIENT TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE

The lawyers should develop an appropriate balance in dealing with the legal and emotional needs of the client. They

should assist the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions and in making an informed choice, taking

potential legal, economic, social and psychological consequences into account.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers failed to deal with the client’s legal or emotional needs. They made little or no attempt to

assist the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions, or in making an informed choice.

-1 The lawyers made some effort to deal with the client’s legal or emotional needs. They made some

effort in assisting the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions or in making an

informed choice. However, they may have been largely unsuccessful in this task.

0 The lawyers dealt appropriately with the client’s legal and emotional needs. They assisted the client in

his or her understanding of problems and solutions, and in making an informed choice. However, they

were not wholly successful in this task.

+1 The lawyers dealt appropriately with the client’s legal and emotional needs. They effectively and

constructively assisted the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions and in making

an informed choice.

+2 The lawyers dealt with the client’s legal and emotional needs very well. They provided excellent

assistance to the client in his or her understanding of problems and solutions, and in making an

informed choice.

CRITERION 8: EFFECTIVELY CONCLUDING THE INTERVIEW

The lawyers should conclude the interview skillfully and leave the client with:

a feeling of reasonable confidence and understanding;

appropriate reassurance; and

a clear sense of specific expectations and mutual obligations to follow.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers showed a lack of skills in ending the interview. Alternatively, the client left with little or

no confidence and understanding, sense of reassurance, or sense of specific expectations and mutual

obligations to follow.

-1 The lawyers showed some skills in ending the interview. However, the client clearly left without at

least one of the following: a feeling of reasonable confidence and understanding, appropriate

reassurance, or a clear sense of specific expectations and mutual obligations to follow.

0 The lawyers showed some skills in ending the interview. The client left with some feeling of

confidence and understanding, reassurance, and sense of expectations and obligations to follow.

+1 The lawyers showed good skills in ending the interview. The client left with a feeling of reasonable

confidence and understanding, appropriate reassurance, and a clear sense of expectations and mutual

obligations to follow. However, the lawyers may have exhibited deficiency in one of these areas.

Page 19

+2 The lawyers showed excellent skills in ending the interview. The client left with a feeling of reasonable

confidence and understanding, appropriate reassurance, and a clear sense of expectations and mutual

obligations to follow.

CRITERION 9: TEAMWORK

The lawyers, as collaborating counsellors [counselors], should work together as a team with flexibility and an appropriate

balance of participation.

Select one of the following:

-2 The lawyers exhibited no evidence of teamwork.

-1 The lawyers exhibited evidence of teamwork, but exhibited an apparent lack understanding between

the team members and/or demonstrated an imbalance in participation.

0 The lawyers exhibited a satisfactory basic level of teamwork.

+1 The lawyers exhibited very good teamwork skills, but lacked the highest level of understanding

between the team members and/or the ability to adapt their approach to the particular client.

+2 The team members exhibited excellent teamwork showing a very high level of understanding between

them and the ability to adapt their approach to the particular client.

CRITERION 10: ETHICAL AND MORAL ISSUES

The lawyers should recognise [recognize], clarify and respond to any moral or ethical issues which may arise, without

being prejudicial in judgements [judgments].

Select one of the following:

-2 moral or ethical issue(s) arose which the lawyers either did not recognise [recognize] or which they

dealt with in an inappropriate way.

-1 moral or ethical issue(s) arose which the lawyers recognised [recognized] but failed to deal with

adequately.

0 no moral or ethical issues arose in the interview.

+1 moral or ethical issue(s) arose which the lawyers recognised [recognized] and partially dealt with.

+2 moral or ethical issue(s) arose which the lawyers recognised [recognized] and fully dealt with.

CRITERION 11: POST INTERVIEW REFLECTION PERIOD

During the post-interview reflection, the lawyers should give evidence of:

recognising [recognizing] their own and the client’s emotional considerations;

acknowledging the strengths and limitations of their interviewing and counselling [counseling] skills;

handling the substantive aspects of the client’s problems (both legal and non-legal);

identifying the ethical or moral issues and the proper handling of them; and

providing for an effective follow up.

Select one of the following:

Page 20

-2 The lawyers omitted or exhibited minimal post-interview reflection, or the lawyers failed to understand

the purpose of the post-interview reflection.

-1 The lawyers acknowledged some of the issues to be addressed, but they failed to address the issues

with insight or with sufficient lucidity.

0 The lawyers acknowledged and addressed some of the issues to be addressed including those of real

significance.

+1 The lawyers made a good exposition and analysis of the issues to be addressed with some minor

omission(s) of issues or lack of comprehension or insight.

+2 The lawyers exhibited comprehensive and insightful exposition and analysis of all the issues to be

addressed.

SUMMARY COMMENT:

Please provide this team with a brief summary comment about the team’s performance in the space below:

Page 21

Annex 4

Yogyakarta: How to Get There*

a. From Jakarta

Mode Name Frequency Time Fare Note

Plane Airasia 3 times Rp.509.000,00

Batavia 1 time Rp.663.400,00

Lion Air 10 times Rp.570.000,00

Sriwijaya 2 times Rp.590.000,00

Garuda Indonesia 10 times Rp.1.390.000,00

Train Argo Dwipangga 08.00 Rp.320.000,00

Executive Class

Leaving from Gambir

Argo Lawu 20.00 Rp.335.000,00

Bima 17.00 Rp.350.000,00

Gajayana 17.30 Rp.350.000,00

Taksaka 1 08.45 Rp.370.000,00

Taksaka 2 20.45 Rp.370.000,00

Fajar Utama 07.10 Rp.150.000,00 Business Class

Leaving from Ps. Senen

Gajah Wong 07.50 Rp.140.000,00

Bogowonto 18.40 Rp.160.000,00

Senja Utama 19.35 Rp.180.000,00

Senja Solo 20.20 Rp.180.000,00

Progo 17.00 Rp.35.000,00

Economy Leaving from

Ps. Senen

Gaya Baru 12.00 Rp.35.000,00

Economy Leaving from Jakarta Kota

Bengawan 19.30 Rp.37.000,00

Economy Leaving from

Tanah Abang

Gaya Baru

Bus Rp.160.000,00

b. From Bandung

Mode Name Frequency Time Fare Note

Plane Lion Air 1 time 14.25 Rp.750.000,00

Merpati 1 time 12.50 Rp.456.000,00

Train Argo Wilis 07.00 Rp.245.000,00 Executive

and Business Class

Leaving from Bandung

Lodaya Pagi 08.00 Rp.185.000,00

Malabar 15.30 Rp.220.000,00

Turangga 19.00 Rp.285.000,00

Lodaya Malam 20.00 Rp.200.000,00

Mutiara Selatan 17.00 Rp.160.000,00

Kahuripan 20.00 Rp.30.000,00

Leaving from Padalarang

Page 22

Pasundan 12.00 Rp.30.000,00

Economy Leaving from Kiaracondong

Travel Cipaganti Rp.200.000,00

Bus Raharja Rp.150.000,00

Citra Rp.150.000,00

c. From Surabaya

Mode Name Frequency Time Fare Note

Plane Lion Air 1 time 14.25 Rp.750.000,00

Train Argo Wilis 07.30 Rp.245.000,00

Executive and Business

Class

Bima 17.00 Rp.270.000,00

Sancaka Pagi 07.30 Rp.160.000,00

Sancaka Sore 15.30 Rp.150.000,00

Turangga 18.00 Rp.285.000,00

Mutiara Selatan 16.30 Rp.160.000,00

Sri Tanjung 15.00 Rp.28.000,00

Economy Gaya Baru 13.30 Rp.30.000,00

Pasundan 14.11 Rp.30.000,00

Travel Cemerlang Rp.100.000,00

Bus Eka Rp. 80.000,00

d. From Makassar

Mode Name Frequency Time Fare Note

Plane Merpati 1 time 18.40 Rp.1.006.000,00

e. From Purwokerto

Mode Name Frequency Time Fare Note

Train Bogowonto 00.32 Rp.160.000,00

Gajah Wong 13.21 Rp.160.000,00

Fajar Utama 07.30 Rp.180.000,00

Logawa 17.00 Rp.30.000,00

Travel Cipaganti Rp.50.000,00

Rama Sakti Rp.50.000,00

Joglosemar Rp.50.000,00

Bus Efisiensi Rp.35.000,00

f. From Denpasar

Mode Name Frequency Time Fare Note

Plane Airasia 1 time 06.05 Rp.509.000,00

Lion Air 2 times Rp.566.000,00

Garuda Indonesia 3 times Rp.702.400,00

Bus Pahala Kencana

Rp.275.000,00

Safari Dharma Raya

Gunung Harta

Page 23

Annex 5

List of Accommodations*

No. Name Location Phone Price Range 1 Alamanda Guesthouse

Jalan Alamanda, Gejayan (0274) 558773 Rp.100.000,00 –

Rp.150.000,00

2 Hotel Anugerah Wisma Wisata

Jalan Kaliurang KM 5,5 (0274) 561840 Rp100.000,00 – Rp330.000,00

3 Hotel Aryuka Jalan Kaliurang KM 5,8, (0274) 552697, 552699

Rp250.000,00 – Rp650.000,00

4 Hotel Cakra Kusuma Jalan Kaliurang KM 5,5 (0274) 588066 Rp375.000,00 – Rp1.000.000,00

5 Hotel Cakra Kembang Jalan Kaliurang KM 5,5 (0274) 563048, 586807

Rp390.000,00 – Rp650.000,00

6 Hotel Galuh Anindita Jalan Candrakirana, Sagan (0274) 589426 Rp.150.000,00 – Rp.300.000,00

7 Hotel Ishiro Kencana Jalan Kaliurang KM 4,2

(0274) 520230, 520240

Rp250.000,00 – Rp300.000,00

8 Hotel Limaran 2

Jalan Cik Di Tiro, Sagan (0274) 540453 Rp90.000,00 – Rp210.000,00

9 Hotel Mawar Saron 2 Deresan (0274) 564921 Rp150.000,00 – Rp230.000,00

10 Hotel Orlen Jalan C. Simanjuntak, Yap Square, Terban

(0274) 580476 Rp.330.000,00 – Rp.450.000,00

11 Hotel Purnama III Jalan Pandega Maharsi

(0274) 885349 Rp110.000,00 – Rp290.000,00

12 Hotel Sagan

Jalan Kartini 4

(0274) 549963 Rp.325.000,00 – Rp.400.000,00

13 Hotel Salatiga Jalan Prof. Yohannes 1060, Sagan

(0274) 589459 Rp.125.000,00 – Rp.250.000,00

14 Hotel Vidi I

Jalan Kaliurang KM 5

(0274) 560600 Rp220.000,00 – Rp250.000,00

15 Hotel Vidi II

Jalan Kaliurang KM 5, Gg. Srinindita

(0274) 563786 Rp170.000,00 – Rp225.000,00

16 Hotel Vidi III Jalan Kaliurang KM 5,2, Gang Karangwuni

(0274) 586650 Rp110.000,00 – Rp225.000,00

17 Indraloka Family Homestay

Jalan Cik Di Tiro 18, Sagan

(0274) 544428, 085729236960

Rp280.000,00 – Rp450.000,00

18 Kost VIP Joss

Sendowo

087836482765

Rp175.000,00/day

Page 24

19 Sagan Huis

Jalan Sagan Kidul

(0274) 560383 Rp300.000,00 – Rp500.000,00

20 Simply Homy

Jalan Pandega Sakti 5, Jalan Kaliurang KM 5,6

(0274) 888080, 0812 2860 7080

Rp1.000.000,00

21 University Club Homestay Jalan Pancasila No. 2,

Bulaksumur, (0274) 557216

Rp600.000,00 – Rp1.600.000,00

22 University Club Hotel

Rp375.000,00 – Rp900.000,00

23 Wisma Bethesda

Jalan Klitren Lor Gk III/347

(0274) 562246, 586688

Ext. 1753 ( Wisma Bethesda 1)

Ext. 1922 ( Wisma Bethesda 2)

24 Wisma KAGAMA

Jalan Pancasila, Bulaksumur Blok G

(0274) 560142, 560186

Rp150.000,00

25 Wisma MM UGM

Jalan Colombo

(0274) 557981 - 85 Rp325.000,00 – Rp375.000,00

26 Wisma Talenta II Jalan Kesehatan (Sebelah RSUP Sardjito)

(0274) 589738 Rp.100.000,00 – Rp.200.000,00

27 Wisma Talenta III Jalan Srikandi, Blimbingsari

(0274) 541135 Rp.125.000,00 – Rp.350.000,00

* Notes:

1. Transportation fares and hotel rates are subject to change. Please contact reservation office to check

the actual price.

2. Committee is endeavor to assist participants to book accommodation while in Yogyakarta. Please

contact us for further details.