The third round, in which Britain chalked up its only win (78-47), tackled extemporaneous opinions on the part of the judges in criminal appeals.

"Why delay? The result may be already clear," said Master Michael McKenzie, arguing for England.

HLS Professor Charles Ogletree disagreed. He said that extemporaneous decisions put "efficiency over justice."

"[It is] better to be accurate than to be swift," he said.

The last round, which the U.S. won 67-40, asked whether judges should have law clerks.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Margaret H. Marshall, Harvard's former vice president and general counsel, said law clerks help speed cases along and bring "enthusiasm [and] new opinions."

Marshall said she is better able to express her ideas after they have been tested and challenged by her law clerks.

But, she said, she alone determines her decision on a case.

Judge James Rant of England argued the opposite.

"[It is] incompetent, lazy judges that concern me," he said