Thanks for the first-hand report.
The good thing about appellate judges is that they typically are very good about educating themselves on the facts of the case. The short oral arguments are often just the "icing on the cake", so if a particular attorney isn't that strong, hopefully it doesn't affect the judges' final decision too much.
From my surface-level understanding of the Conti case and its record-setting judgement, it appears to break new ground. By that simple fact, the chances of it being overturned are that much higher. Setting legal precedent is always an uphill battle.
Whether the original judgement is upheld or overturned, this seems to be the highest profile case against the WTS to date. Because Conti wasn't willing to settle out of court, all the nitty gritty of the Organization's judicial process is out in the open and on the record...with NBC cameras rolling no less.