The concept of arguing aspects of legal scenarios in order to facilitate student learning within the law curriculum originated in the vocational Inns of Court in fourteenth-century England. Nowadays, simulations of court proceedings, such as moot courts and mock trials, are widely employed as educational tools in law modules in third-level institutions, both academic and vocational, around the world in order to foster advocacy and legal reasoning skills. However, there is a dearth of empirical research on the actual benefits of such experiential learning techniques for students. The majority of literature on this topic tends to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence, provided by law lecturers on how he/she perceived that such tools benefited his/her students. This article reports on a project that was carried out in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University (DCU) in the academic year 2008-2009, assessing their benefits as a pedagogical tool at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. Perhaps differing from the approach to simulations which is adopted in many law courses in third-level institutions, whereby there is a stand-alone "moot court" module in place, the project carried out at DCU integrated the experiential learning techniques into substantive modules within the law curriculum. While this empirical research study has resulted in concrete verification of the general suggestion that experiential learning techniques have many benefits for students, further empirical research on simulations in the teaching of law is still necessary. Future studies might focus on cost-benefit analyses, taking into account staff challenges and time constraints as balanced against the rewards to students, or on other issues, for example, whether or not prospective employers see a value in projects such as moot courts or mock trials.