The short answer is: not that I'm aware of. From anecdotal evidence, I suspect each law school has significantly different teaching styles as well - but that's based off little more than impressions, and not direct scrutiny. It also wouldn't surprise me if their particular methods are jealously guarded. Lawyers tend not to be the most co-operative demographic, while being naturally competitive.
So saying, I went through my degree before the promulgation of the internet. Further, I did my degree externally while doing concurrent articles of clerkship (5 years). Or, as I like to put it, I paid the university so I could teach myself (tongue in cheek) and I wasn't a teacher. I have no real 'law school' experience aside from one weekend of onsite attendance, twice a year. I'm unashamed to say that I failed my first year at university. It wasn't that I wasn't clever enough, or couldn't remember the information. It was that I didn't know how to connect the information together and present it in the manner required, or the area which required the particular emphasis. Had I been a full time university student, that may have been different.
Instead, I had the 'support' of the clerks who had gone before me. That was a double-edged sword in a lot of ways. It often wasn't even the case that I was experiencing work which directly related to my studies. Despite that, I learned other, practical skills that put me ahead of others. The expression used to be said that it could take 10 years for a 2 year clerk to catch up to a 5 year clerk in terms of practical knowledge and experience - simply because of the grassroots learning, and hands on experience. I don't know if it was true to that extent, but you could readily tell the difference in dealing with younger practitioners. That was 20 years ago, and times have changed significantly I would expect.
I've only watched your above posted video, and it's solid advice. The method doesn't always work for everyone, but it is a good way to cement that multitude of information into long term memory. The first year of law study is meant to be difficult. It's new and unlike other forms of learning. You need to cram in a wide range of fundamental concepts, because so much is built off them. And, it's a good way to weed out the people who 'shouldn't' be there. Law isn't for everyone. You don't want to train for years to be a surgeon to simply find out you pass out at the sight of blood. Similarly, if you can't grasp the concepts and the manner of thinking required to be a good lawyer then, in most cases, you may be better off looking at another field.
That's where I see your videos coming into their own, and being useful. Learning techniques to assist with the ways to process the chunks of information are universal in any legal jurisdiction I can think of. Content obviously differs, as you have identified. The applicable mindset you either have, or have the capacity for, naturally.
I also echo your thoughts on open book exams, and can't reinforce enough that they should not be taken lightly. Most closed book exams are tight on time. Open book exams expect so much more of the student. If you even have time to open a text, you better know exactly what you are looking for and where to find it. There's no time for searching and cross-checking. My first ever open-book exam was for constitutional law. I knew some of the other students going into that exam. They were relaxed, expecting it to be easy. It was anything but, and several faces were noticeably paler when they walked out of the room. I'm also not sure, but that could have been the exam I went to where one guy came in, sat down, turned over the exam question book when told to, looked at, wrote his name on the front, got up, walked out and was never seen in a law exam again to my knowledge.
