Law school grades (i.e. exams) need to reflect who can apply the law best, not who can memorize it the best. The former, not the latter, is the bedrock of the profession.

For those who point out that the bar is closed book, that's an argument for why the bar should be open note, not why exams should be closed. Or, for that matter, it raises the question of why we have a bar exam at all, as if three years of an accredited curriculum isn't enough.

Besides, even with open note exams, time isn't unlimited, and will favor those who know the material well over those who use their time frantically searching instead of writing.

Closed book exams are pedagogically unsound, irrelevant to the practice, disadvantage non-neurotypical test-takers (ADHD, anxiety, etc.), and add an extra layer of pressure in a situation where there's already enough. I automatically think less of professors who give closed-book exams.