Introduction/Background The legal profession utilizes the pedagogical concepts of simulation through mock trials in a moot court. Although current opportunities for law students and faculty to work with health professions students and faculty are rare, the possibility for meaningful collaboration is substantial. The methodology of simulation and use of Standardized Patients (SP) presents a unique tool for exciting and robust educational events for both sets of learners. Methods Medical, nursing and pharmacy students enrolled in an Interprofessional Teamwork & Communication Course (IPT) had an interactive experience centered on medical malpractice. This included a 90 minute didactic session followed several weeks later with a three-hour mock medical malpractice trial. Students were assigned as either defendants, expert witnesses or jurors. Law students served as the legal representation for the health professions students as elective coursework. Over four weeks, the law students met with their "clients and witnesses" to prepare for the trial. Law faculty, acting as judge, managed the mock trial that used SPs as patients/family. Due to time constraints, the judge adjudicated on most procedural matters without discussion, allowing the presentation of the case against all three defendants and the witness testimony for both sides. Additionally, an alternate jury of Standardized Patients was seated in the courtroom for the purposes of investigating the differences in deliberations and verdicts between a "professional jury" and a jury of laypersons. Following the trial, both the health professional student jury and the SP jury were given jury instructions and deliberated for one week electronically using the discussion board in the course management software, Sakai. They were charged with determining if the defendant nurse, pharmacist, and/or physician as individuals were liable for the injuries to the patient and to award damages. At the Conclusion of deliberations, law faculty reviewed the discussions and the verdicts. In a later class meeting, the verdicts were read aloud, compared to one another and discussed. Results: Conclusion Students from all four disciplines evaluated the experience of the mock trial exceptionally high. The use of two juries and the collection of deliberation data electronically, provided the law students with valuable insight into their case presentation. Through the written discussions, law students could read the precise impact of certain statements and pieces of evidence they presented at trial. As we expected, the health affairs jury came back with only finding one provider liable and awarded damages that totaled just over the stated medical costs. The SP jury found two of three providers liable and awarded almost triple the medical costs incurred in damages. Both juries found the same defendant "not liable", which was purposeful in the case design. However, the judge declared a mistrial for both juries. He cited the health affairs jury for stating facts not presented as evidence during the trial, based on their own background knowledge and cited the SP jury for doing internet searches to look up additional information not presented during the trial. This module was a highly valued experience for both the faculty and students of all participating schools and will be expanded in the future. Disclosures None.