If I may be so presumptuous, I'd like to offer an addendum to X's already EXCELLENT advice. And before I start this, let me say that X's advice is invaluable and will be useful to myself, let alone 99% of the people just starting law school. That said, I want to just present a couple alternatives to X's largesse of information.
I just finished my 1L year at Georgetown at the top of my section of 125 bright students. I don't know if my achievement quite parallels X's, since the other 1L sections (there are 3 more) may have produced more formidable candidates. Still, I did well enough and have many opportunities open to me.
I think that, for me, a style altogether different from X's is what worked best. The whole bold headings with succinctly-phrased paragraphs thing, color-coded post-its, and all that was definitely not my route (this is not meant to caricature X's approach, but that of some of my own colleagues). Of course, there are several points that I think are common: I would always, ALWAYS find what the particular professor wanted, and deliver with that in mind, and I would definitely maintain a basic, macro-level grasp of what's going on with the law as the specifics developed throughout class. This is absolutely essential. Taking out the professors' old exams, figuring out what kind of student they like best (by finding common threads in the best answers) and really BECOMING that person on the exam is critical. Take timed versions of the practice exams. Also important always feeling confident with the basic arguments you can deploy, as well as their counter-arguments. With issue-spotting exams, the goal is to lay out your vision of the law, and then as many alternative plausible visions as possible, to rack up the points.
Here's where X and I diverged. I didn't make my own outline at all. I read through my (thorough) notes many times, but only as a supplement to the outlines that others had already produced. It's just not something I thought would be helpful at all. That's not for everyone, but for me, personally, it would've been a hassle, and an added "chore" on top of the daunting task of making sure my brain was on top of everything. Of course, reviewing in your mind is beneficial and necessary, but a formal "outline," for me, would be too full of detail to be all that different from the notes I had. Because law school exams are detail-oriented, I didn't really see why creating my own skeletal outline would be very helpful; rather, I imagined it would distract me. However, I DID outline exam answers to the practice tests, but only to organize my thoughts before I actually wrote them out. I also would make little mini-outlines, if I saw that a particular field of law or doctrine had a dialectical or historical progression, to track the case-by-case development.
I also didn't open a single book or take anyone's advice as sacrosanct. My individual strategy and method was extremely important. Law school is formal and final and full of all sorts of pressure, so trying to stuff yourself into some sort of a box is bound to engender frustration and, for me, poor results. There is no archetypical "law school ace." It's all about you, baby. I found it crucial to talk to my favorite professors weekly and really get to know them, to read and write and play videogames and continue all those things, to keep engaging in my deviant habits, to maintain my lifestyle and not compromise anything. I lived off-campus, and that was definitely a godsend. I picked up new hobbies. I tried to avoid law school mixers and socials and whatever else bullshit they come up with to try to get you to like people that aren't that great. And I made some awesome, like-minded friends. And, when I got my grades, I was both happily surprised and stoically nonplussed. I'd had a good time, regardless.
Now forget all that and do what you need to do.