I've been observing some university (undergrad and grad level) creative writing classes lately, and I was asked to compare academic legal writing workshops with creative writing workshops in terms of how they're conducted. It seems common in a lot of creative writing programs when workshopping someone's draft to not allow the author of the paper to speak during the workshop. The author is supposed to sit quietly and take notes and only speak up when asked to clarify a specific point in the poem/play/story being workshopped. This seems to me pretty different to how we generally workshop law review articles with most questions being directed to the author of the paper during the discussion of the work. I wonder what the upsides or downsides would be of trying it the 'creative writing' way, so it's less of a battle of wits with the author or a Q&A for the author to firm up his/her own approach. It might seem weird to have the author sitting there taking notes while other people discuss the work, but I wonder if different issues would arise if the author was less involved in the discussion. Has anyone tried this model for legal paper workshopping? What are the pros and cons? Does it work better at a particular stage of drafting ie early first draft stage or later 'polishing up' stage? I can see an argument for the author keeping quiet during a discussion of a relatively final draft to see if what (s)he thought (s)he was getting across in the paper is actually what is coming through to the audience.