How much of a time commitment is it? Do you choose what to write about? Have people on this board found it worth it/ rewarding?

You can count on any flagship or quality secondary journal having a large and uneven time commitment. 2L's write their note/comment/article and check citations on articles that are being published. 3L's supervise the 2L's and run the board.

I don't think most people "like" it per se. There's a reason it's a major plus on the resume and especially almost required for clerking. Particularly if you are senior editor level, you're basically in charge and it's all on you. I

Generally you can write about anything that's not preempted and within the field of whatever law review you are on (anything for the flagship, international topics for international, etc.). Publishing something is a large plus as well and is thus pretty competitive.

1. Depends primarily on you and the article you are editing. Some people feel the need to over-edit as a second year editor and those people end up spending a lot of time on their articles. Not saying I do the bare minimum, but I don't see the need to completely rewrite someone's article. Also, if you get a crappy article that cites to noting or resources so obscure they might as well be nothing, you are going to be putting a lot of time in to get that article publication ready. Fortunately, that never happened to me. I rarely spent more than a couple hours a week on law review.

2. This depends on the journal. Some schools give you topics, but most do not. My school assigned topics for the write-on competition, but second year editors got to choose the topic they ultimately wrote their comment about.

3. It has been rewarding in the sense that many of the employers I interviewed with required law review experience. On the other hand, I don't think it made a significant difference in my writing ability. If I had to do it over again, I would.

Answers to all of these will depend on the school. Here's what it was for me:

1. 300 hours of editing for the first semester (in 7 weeks), maybe 80 hours of editing for the second semester, and another 50 hours on the note. I was told this was nearly twice as much as the average person spent the year before. By the luck of the draw, I had a monster article with many non-case sources (which required reading lots of books / journal articles). But again, the amount of work depends on the journal.

2. Yes. Complete control. But if you want to be published, you play by the rules (select a good topic and/or relevant case).

3. Yes. Even this year (3L) when I am a board member with a consistent 20-40 HPW of mind-numbing editing, I find it rewarding. I definitely think law review has made me a better writer. It also helped me get a clerkship (I'm sure), so I can't complain. If you have the opportunity to do law review, I highly recommend it. If you do law review, I highly recommend you work your butt of 2L year so you get a board position.

I know it's no where near law review, but how beneficial is moot court when applying for jobs? I did it during undergrad when I studied abroad for a year in London and it was pretty fun and not a huge time commitment.

Moot court or trial advocacy programs can be very beneficial if you want to work in certain kinds of litigation like criminal law. If it's Biglaw you're after, try to get on some kind of journal. It's the prestige of the journal on your resume that affects your job opportunities at Biglaw jobs rather than the workable skills you pick up.

Hmmm, so I feel like I would enjoy moot court more, but law review is much better for enhancing my career outlook. Tough decision, assuming that I can even make law review.

I don't think people actually turn down law review.

Enough of a time commitment that I didn't even sign up for one of the non-writing competition journals. Fuck that shit.

Yeah, but some people don't do the competition, if they think law review sounds like a miserable experience.

High five, Alex