The Moskovitz on Appeals column, Practice Makes Perfect, discusses how "[a] good way to practice for an appellate argument is to hold a moot court," which "lets you try out your arguments and get some helpful feedback from a panel of ersatz judges." He prefers one-sided arguments, rather than bothering to "enlist a shill to present the other side." He suggests recruiting a panel of three lawyers, but even a single good one will suffice. "Pick people who are not likely to be sympathetic to your side." And don't pick "people who know a lot about the areas of law you will be arguing" because real justices are "generalists, not specialists." He also suggests holding moot courts before drafting the reply brief. This allows the distilled wisdom to be used in the briefing, where it counts most. (Or, for respondents, just before filing the RB.)
Also of note is David Balabanian's ever-amusing Lessons Learned column, which today attacks Civil Code section 3537 ("Superfluity does not vitiate."):
Wedged, no doubt logically, between the part of the Civil Code that prohibits the killing of animals in movies and the part governing condominiums appear the Maxims of Jurisprudence . Thirty-five in number, they were adopted from the Field Code in 1872 with four 1967 additions including the profundity that: "A thing continues to exist as long as is usual with things of that nature."
The DJ also reports Acerbic judge dismisses wage lawsuit against retailer: Judge repeatedly chides plaintiff's lawyer while dismissing lawsuit (about the wit and wisdom of LASC Judge John Wiley, well-known in appellate circles).
Finally, the DJ reports 4th District Removes JAMS References From Retired Justices' Profiles. "The Court's website now includes only the years Justices John K. Trotter, Sheila P. Sonenshine and Edward J. Wallin retired from the court and makes no mention of their current positions as JAMS neutrals."
On Law360 see Bad Legal Writing Cut Down to Size in Age of Short Attention Spans.