It's that time of the year in 1L land, where we get to do enjoyable things in LRW. Not that I didn't enjoy bluebooking and learning research methodology (insert sarcastic eye-roll), but I much prefer doing, you know, lawyerly things. Unlike some of my comrades, I quite enjoyed my experience with oral arguments. It was the first time we actually got to go head-to-head against our classmates and test our legal acumen, even if it was just for 10 minutes in a summary judgment hearing.
Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought I did a reasonable job at the podium. On my official notecard, I had six phrases, each beginning with the word "good" and none with any bad words. Which is good, because I didn't think I did well at all. Among my earned accolades was "good presence at the lectern" and "good analogy." The analogy in question was one that I thought up in the shower the night before. I think the RedBull I drank before the argument made it stick.
I do have this to say about the whole process: it sounds like it was better before. Last year, they brought in outside judges and we would have had to argue in front of a panel of learned scholars. We also would have had to write an appellate brief at some point. I don't know if we exhausted our judge rolodex, but arguing in front of our professor and opposing counsel doesn't have the same fear factor. I'm sure the LRW staff had something in mind. It just seems like the way things were was better than the way things are.