Law students won a Ninth Circuit appeal on a broader theory than they argued. Now it’s en banc, and they have to defend the result, not the reasoning, in front of the judge who wrote the opinion.

The case is King v. Villegas, and the students are from the Pepperdine Ninth Circuit Advocacy Clinic, co-directed by Rebecca Powell and Curt Cutting of Horvitz & Levy. Becca and Curt joined us on the California Appellate Law Podcast to talk about it.

Clinic students aren’t mere research assistants—they’re lead counsel on real appeals, from the first page of the record to the lectern. The clinic gets 24 hours to pick a case and two semesters to finish it—no extensions.

And the students deliver. One answered an unbriefed question from the bench by citing an out-of-circuit case from memory. Another wrote an opening brief so strong that the Attorney General conceded.

In the episode:

• How the Ninth Circuit’s pro bono program fits an appeal into the academic calendar
• What makes a good clinic case, and how to decide to take it in 24 hours
• Why let students serve as lead counsel?
• Defending a win at en banc without defending the panel’s reasoning
• What training students to argue teaches about developing junior lawyers at any firm

Most firms make associates wait years for their first argument. This clinic gives students the lectern before they graduate. Do you supervise junior lawyers? Which approach do you think produces better advocates?