Law Review vs. Moot Court

[NakedYoga]

Originally Posted by teddieriley

Moot court is appellate law. Different than trial advocacy. While not entirely useless, being on moot court doesn't help your chances of being a better trial lawyer. At all.

Agreed for the most part, but at least it lets you practice public speaking and answering questions from a judge... as in a hearing.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by zbromer

This thread is pretty stupid.

Originally Posted by Slopho

^ He's just asking a question.
Well, asking "what's better, Edward Green or John Lobb?", or "is chocolate better than vanilla?" is "just asking a question." That's not the same as saying it's a good question, a precise question, or a meaningful question. As others have said, the "resume value" of law review is higher than that of moot court. Aside from that, it's subjective. The premise of the question also seems a bit problematic, because -- as others have noted -- the two are generally not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by odoreater

Still, I imagine being on law review is better than not being on law review.

From a resume-padding perspective, absolutely. More generally -- debatable, or at least dependent on the person and situation.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by teddieriley

Moot court is appellate law. Different than trial advocacy. While not entirely useless, being on moot court doesn't help your chances of being a better trial lawyer. At all.

.

I disagree. Gaining experience and confidence in speaking on your feet is almost always valuable in increasing your chances of becoming an effective trial lawyer. Moot court helps. Speaking to your local chamber of commerce helps. Speaking at bar functions helps. The more comfortable you are -- both mentally and physically -- speaking before people, the better. Period. Learning to speak more clearly and emphatically helps. Developing a feel for what to do with your hands when you're not gesturing helps. Learning to think on your feet helps. Learning to listen to, and quickly digest, what is spoken by others helps.

Also, much of trial court litigation involves arguing motions, hearings, etc. before, and responding to direct questions from, the trial judge. Most trial lawyers will spend as much, or more time, doing this than they will cross-examining witnesses or delivering closing statements.

 

[Sprezzatura2010]

Originally Posted by NakedYoga

My advice: if you can, do both.

Many schools don't let you do both. (Often, one can do journal and mock trial, or something like that.) I couldn't personally imagine doing both. Writing a publication-worthy Comment 2L year was work enough!

I went the journal route, but given that my summer jobs have both been more on the pubint side (this summer I got the feeling everyone was getting a pass so long as they had employment in the legal field, so I decided to postpone donning the golden handcuffs for year) I'm not qualified to give such advice.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by NakedYoga

My advice: if you can, do both. I was the Editor-in-Chief of my school's main law review, and I also was on moot court, placing highly in a big national moot court tournament. So I got the "real" experience of both, I guess. I enjoyed both for very different reasons, and I think they were both very beneficial to me. I can't give you any "real world" advice quite yet, because I just graduated and am studying for the Bar exam. But I enjoyed moot court because I want to be an appellate practitioner, and law review because it is very much the "face" of a law school.

Just out of curiousity, how do you plan on becoming an appellate practitioner?

 

[jagmqt]

Lots of good responses. Mostly what I expected.

I'll be taking the February bar and am on the way out. I was a competitior, and did succeed, in 2 Moot Court competitions.

Going in to school, I knew where I would go after graduation, and participated in Moot Court specifically for the appellate level experience. And, if everything keeps going as planned, I'll begin working as an appellate litigator. (In fact, if I can go through my legal career and never see a jury, I'll consider myself a success. I don't care for trial advocacy at all.)

I never thought about Law Review. It just didn't fit the path I was taking.

I brought up this thread simply to see what the consensus was. But I honestly can't see a value (in my situation) to being on the Law Review other than the "prestige" associated with it. It seems like a skill that would usually be significant to a legal secretary, rather than a lawyer. I'm pursuing another avenue to get published, which I think will be better than sitting on the staff of the Law Review. But I thank all of you for providing some perspectives I didn't see and wouldn't have considered.

To me, there was great value in learning how to draft an appellate brief, and then defending the arguments before a panel of 9 judges. But I understand all of our situations are unique, and this may only be a good path for me. It may also make a difference to some of you to know that I've retured to law school after 7 years in a professional career...I went to school to pursue a specific goal. That has made my choices easier as I worked through school.

Thanks again, all, for sharing...

jag

 

[samblau]

Originally Posted by jagmqt

.

I brought up this thread simply to see what the consensus was. But I honestly can't see a value (in my situation) to being on the Law Review other than the "prestige" associated with it.
jag

Prestige means a lot in this industry. Case in point; I am submitting this response from 500 Pearl Street aka Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. I have just started here in a completely random role, and I doubt I will do anything that truly sets me apart from my class year peers. That said, I am spending two years here so that I can add a nice "SDNY" line on my resume rather than doc review or PI law. Its not the job that is hard, but rather getting hired by the judge in the first place.

As for what you say, I mostly agree. Law Review folks I knew constantly complained about the mundane work, office politics etc. I worked during law school. and ultimately had an article I wrote published by another school's Law Review. I wrote about a subject I am passionate about, and the article took me nearly 3 years start to finish. As odd as it may seam, employers were more concerned about being on Law Review rather than if you had published, which is very difficult to accomplish while you are a student.

In short, if you have an opportunity to be on Law Review, I would take it. That said, if Moot Court is an option, there is no shame in that. If you enjoy writing, take a crack at it and see if you can have something published like I did. While the top firms might not like it as much as if you were a jr. level editor who cite checked articles that were never published, the smaller shops will love having someone who was published.

 

[odoreater]

Another benefit of law review was that the law review office had a sweet couch where I could go take naps in between classes.

 

[NakedYoga]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Just out of curiousity, how do you plan on becoming an appellate practitioner?
Um, erm... no idea

It's just what I find most interesting, and what I've focused on (to the extent I can) in school. I just enjoy the intellectual back and forth between a lawyer and judge without some of the theatrics that are implicit in trial work (although I know that's sort of an idealistic description and not totally realistic). Granted, I'd love to do trial work, too. Bottom line is I went to law school to be in front of a judge(s) and/or a jury, to speak in public, etc. I clerked a summer for the chief judge of a state court of appeals as well as the chief judge of a federal district court, and I'm pretty sure that my "calling," as it were, is appellate work. As far as literally how I plan on becoming one... I have no idea. I'm still studying for the Bar exam now, so I've got time hopefully in the future to make it happen. But there are plenty of small boutique firms that specialize in civil appellate work, and many big firms have small groups devoted to appellate practice. I really don't know, man, I'm just hoping I can work it out somehow. To one of the previous posters who mentioned the time commitment... you're dead on. The OP should know that doing either one of those is likely going to take up a lot of your time. It's certain if you're on law review, and if you're on moot court it depends on if you actually do an external competition or participate in hosting tournaments, etc. Like I said, I did both and was very active in both, but it really did take a lot of my time. I don't regret it, but it really is a huge time commitment, especially if you do both. Good luck, though. They're both great things to have on your resume. I'll say one thing though about law review: if you're going to do it just because it looks good on your resume and aren't interested in the real work that goes into a legal journal--don't waste your and everyone else's time. I was the Editor-in-Chief of my school's law review, and those people who saw it as a means to an end just killed me. It's a drain on the system and drags everyone down. Edit: Oh, and I actually had the good fortune of being selected to brief and argue a real case in front of a federal circuit court of appeals during my 2L year under the supervision of a professor. It was a habeas corpus case centering on a 6th Amendment issue. My "co-counsel" (another student) and I actually beat the U.S. Attorney's Office in front of one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country. So yeah... appellate work... haha.

 

[NakedYoga]

Originally Posted by odoreater

Another benefit of law review was that the law review office had a sweet couch where I could go take naps in between classes.

Haha, right on. And for me, password-protected access to computers and a printer/copier that no one else outside law review was allowed to use.

 

[LesterSnodgrass]

I agree with most posters that LR is the first non-class-rank factor in getting a job. This, of course, falls well below where you went to school. Because I (1) went to a mediocre law school and (2) was not on law review, I think it's all a bunch of crap.

The bottom line is that there are a ton of lawyers out there and nowadays getting a job at biglaw, or a federal clerkship or DOJ honors is really damn hard. Anything you can do that makes your presentation on paper better than your peers is a smart move. If you can juggle LR, moot court, trial team and president of the Canary Island Law Student Association (CILSA), you should do it so you can get an interview, wow the interviewer and get a good job.

And, FWIW, you can still get a great job by simply working hard with an average resume and making smart choices for long term success. I think Zach B. and I are both in pretty good shape despite the fact that neither he nor I were on LR. I was also a staff member on a secondary journal and I did moot court, but placed only honorable mention on a competition at New York Law School. Nothing anyone is really impressed about (and something that was taken off my resume a few years ago).

Since it is intern season I am often asked similar questions by law students who fear the apocalypse because they read too much on above the law. The answer is: Chill. Do the most you can without compromising what you do. Work part time and lessen your student debt. Become a well rounded human being. Things tend to work themselves out in the end if you keep a proper perspective.

Just my $.02.

 

[NakedYoga]

^^ As someone currently studying to take the Bar exam in, ****, 10 days, +1.

 

[Meis]

Originally Posted by NakedYoga

Haha, right on. And for me, password-protected access to computers and a printer/copier that no one else outside law review was allowed to use.

+1
And my school's law review (which I'm not on) also keeps a big file of top outlines for LR students to use.

 

[chenc]

If you can do LR, do it. Otherwise even though your class rank shows you could do LR, an employer probably couldn't help wondering why you didn't do it. Were you too lazy? If you wanna do just MC, fine, but better have a pretty good reason for it; otherwise I'd do both. I know you are looking for substantive reason, but I just don't know anyone who qualifies for LR and doesn't do it (only ppl who try to get in even though they aren't qualified). What's the qualification for MC at your school?