Tips on Doing the Best in Final Law Examinations

You are fortunate to be attending law school today. You were probably not greeted at orientation with the ominous warning; "Look at the person on your left. Look at the person on your right. Next semester one of you will be gone."

Click Here to Find Law Student Jobs on LawCrossing


Most law schools no longer fail a large number of freshmen students. Still, the prospect of that first battery of final examinations looms ahead, and most freshmen approach these examinations with considerable trepidation. And with reason. Law students know that everything (or almost everything) depends on their performance in final examinations.

The end of the first semester is approaching. As a new law student, you have done everything right. You have fully prepared for class, capably answered the professor's questions, and even volunteered comments on your own. Nevertheless an inadequate performance on the final examination can do you in.

This article should help you answer those essay questions competently. You will learn how to present your knowledge so the professor will know that you know and what you know. Confidence in your ability to write well will allow you a degree of ease and relaxation during the examination.

I. Preparing for the Final Examination
Final exam preparation must start on the first day of class.
(1) Carefully read (and re-read) the assigned material, underlining or highlighting important points. Put a question mark in the margin next to a point you do not understand, and when the point is discussed in class ask about it (or discuss it with your professor after class).
(2) In your class notes, use several colors of ink. For your own thoughts use one color. For other students’ comments, use a second color. And for the professor's comments use a third color ink. (Do not make the mistake of assuming that when a professor nods as a student is commenting, the professor necessarily agrees with the student. Professors often nod just to encourage student participation.)
(3) Before class, write case briefs of the assigned cases in your casebook.
In class, correct your case briefs, as necessary. (For the corrections, use the color of ink you reserve for your professor's remarks.)

With preparation like the above, you surely would have received an "A" as an undergraduate. But not so in law school. That is why students find law school a humbling process. You are now competing with the "creme de la creme."

Furthermore, the quantity of material to be learned-though massive-is finite, so these highly motivated students will learn it. Finally, most law schools grade examinations "on the curve." All these factors make the competition formidable.

To succeed in law school, you must not only know the subject matter but be able to communicate that knowledge within a stipulated time (that is never sufficient). Moreover, this ability may earn you only a "C+.” The students who get the "A's" write examinations that are not only clear, but succinct and well-organized, and have proper emphasis and focus. An essay answer that begins in left field and winds circuitously back to home base, no matter how salient the ideas presented, will not merit an "A."So you may know more about the law than your friend, put it all down on your examination paper, and still receive a "C-h" while she gets an "A."

The key word is practice. To write well, write; there is no shortcut. Once you have learned the techniques of organization, case analysis and case synthesis, perfect these by doing as much writing as you can before the final examination arrives. Write outlines of your course material: in Standard English, in complete sentences, and in your own words. Don't take the easy route of quoting huge chunks from your casebook. Force yourself to learn and use appropriate legal language.
From your casebook, select cases to analogize and synthesize. Write essay answers to questions your professor or your casebook author has asked. There you will find essay-type questions that can be answered by applying the legal rules that precede each set of questions. The questions are similar to final-exam essay questions, and they cover a range of first-year subjects. A sample answer written by a first-year student follows each question. You can check your answer against the answer provided.

To expand your answer, add your casebook materials to the given legal rules. This will help you review the course materials as you practice your writing.

II. Taking the Final Examination
The fateful day arrives. You have, by studying and writing answers to practice essay problems, avoided exam-panic that can be so extreme that it prevents adequate performance. Now that the examination lies before you, what is the first thing to do? The obvious answer is also the wrong answer.

Do not begin to write immediately, assuming that your ideas will fall into order. Instead, quickly read the entire examination, orienting yourself to the job at hand and deciding how much time to spend on each question. Often the professor has done the latter for you, either by suggesting a time limit for each question or by allotting a specific weight for each question. If he has given no indication of the value of each question, assume that they are all of equal weight and allot equal time to each.
Having done so, don't borrow time from a subsequent question in order to finish answering this question. When the time has expired for the question you are answering, leave some space so that you can return to it later, then jot down briefly the points you must still cover, and go on to the next question. If you have time at the end of the exam period, you can finish writing your answer, if not, your professor will at least know by your jottings that you could have done so had there been time.

Click Here to Find Summer Associate Jobs on LawCrossing

As you assess the questions, you may find the first one very difficult. A subsequent question might seem easier to deal with. Especially if they are both of roughly the same weight, don't waste valuable time wrestling with the difficult question. No one says you must answer the questions in order. Go on to the first equally weighted question that seems more manageable. "Warming up" is part of the game.

Once you have warmed up on a less difficult question, you will probably find the previously intractable one easier to manage. Furthermore, in the midst of answering another question, you may suddenly receive an insight that will help you answer a previous question. If you do, stop long enough to write down that insight, lest it disappear as suddenly as it arrived.
Once you select the question you will answer first, read it again, slowly, underlining all of the language that seems significant. Look carefully at the final directions so that you will be sure to comply with them. Then list on your scratch pad the major issues that must be resolved before the question can be answered. Leave room between major issues for sub-issues, legal doctrines, and analysis. Arrange the issues in the order in which you will discuss them.

Several arrangements are possible. Perhaps the most natural is chronological, as in a hypothetical problem like the following, in which a single individual is beset by a series of difficulties. Sometimes a professor writes an examination that no one in the class can complete in the time given. If you indicate how you would have completed your answer had you had time, you are better off than the students who merely leave the space blank.

In some fact situations, on the other hand, one issue is the threshold issue-that issue, a decision about which will obviate any further discussion. When this is the case, you should discuss the threshold issue first. One state Supreme Court decided a threshold issue in a case involving two children who were struck by an automobile while walking home from school. One child was killed and the other severely and permanently injured. The children's father brought an action against (among others) the used car dealer who had sold the automobile, alleging that at the time it left the dealer's control it was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation. Two issues arose in the appeal: first, whether as a matter of law, strict liability extends to the seller of a used car and, second, whether a bystander who has been struck by a defective, unreasonably dangerous car may sue under a theory of strict liability.

The court first considered the issue of whether the dealer could be held strictly liable, noting that because this issue was answered in the negative, the second issue need not be considered. The first issue, then, was the threshold issue, because its disposition made consideration of the second issue unnecessary.

When you are writing your answer to an examination question, however, you do not have the luxury of deleting the other issues even if the answer to the first issue would normally dispose of them. Instead, you should point out that because the court might decide differently, you will now discuss the other issues.

A third method of organization can best be used when a single plaintiff brings a number of actions based on one occurrence. The action most likely to succeed should probably be discussed first, then the others, in order of diminishing likelihood of success. Similarly, if one victim has possible claims against a number of individuals, the individual against whom the victim has the strongest claim should be dealt with first. Other factors being equal, priority should be given to the claim against the individual with the "deepest pocket."

Another procedure is to use reverse order, dispensing first (briefly) with the claims least likely to succeed, and so labeling them. For example, when you are discussing a claim of battery, and the only element in question is the intent of the defendant, you might briefly discuss why and how all of the other elements are not in question and then explore fully the issue of intent.

Whatever your decision about the order of the major issues, you will use the space you have left under each one to list sub-issues, legal principles and precedents that you must apply to come to a conclusion about the major issues. If enacted laws apply, show whether they govern the facts of your case.

It is unlikely that your case will precisely fit either under legal principles or common law precedent. Your job will be to decide whether the hypothetical problem you have been given fits closely enough for the principles and common law precedent to apply. That will require an educated guess about whether the differences between your facts and the precedent are material enough to prevent the application of the legal doctrine governing the precedent or whether the differences in the facts are not material enough to remove your case from the application of the rule.

Beginning law students tend to think that their conclusions should always be unequivocal: a firm "yes" or "no." In fact, professors seldom present in final examinations hypothetical problems that require such conclusions. So a cautious "perhaps" may turn out to be the proper response-or "probably yes" or "probably no." Whatever your final conclusion, it will be less important than the thoroughness of your analysis.

What you have jotted down on your scratch pad should not have taken you more than one-fifth of the time you have allotted to the question you are answering. If your efforts have been effective, the result of your jottings will resemble the results of the well-known formula for examination-taking, called IRAC.

You should check your outline against these steps:
• Have you included all relevant issues and none that are irrelevant?
• Have you arranged them in the best order for discussion?
• Have you utilized all applicable legal authority ("rules")?
• Is your analysis of that authority, as it applies to your facts, complete and objective?
• Have you satisfactorily analogized and distinguished your facts and those of the cases which are most similar to yours?
• Does your conclusion follow logically from these steps? If so, your answer should be logical, well-structured, and complete.

Consider the following hypothetical fact situation:
A, a college professor, carrying his briefcase in his rear bicycle basket, was bicycling carefully along the bike path parallel to B's house. A loudly barking dog leaning out of a passing car startled A causing him to veer and hit the curb, catapulting A into B's flower garden, bending A's bicycle frame and ruining B's flowers. B observed the incident from his front window, and while A went back to pick up his eyeglasses from the bike path where they had fallen, B snatched A's briefcase. Carrying the briefcase toward his house, B yelled, "When you pay for the damage, you'll get this back," A dashed after B and grabbed back his briefcase so roughly that B fell down, angry but unhurt. A left carrying his briefcase and dragging his bent bicycle. Discuss possible tort actions of B against A and A against B.

Using a chronological approach, you may decide that the first issue to be resolved is whether B has a cause of action in trespass against A for A's first entry onto B's property. The applicable rule is that a non-volitional entry upon property is no trespass unless the entry is preceded by negligence. A's entry can be characterized as non-volitional by reference to the given facts. You will probably recall similar cases in your casebook that may provide precedent and indicate how the legal rule was interpreted by the courts.

Now you must decide whether to continue with the claims of B against A or to switch to the possible claims of A against B, thus maintaining the chronological approach. Either procedure is acceptable, as long as you are consistent in your development and clearly indicate your procedure.

When you begin to discuss the conduct of A as he grabbed his briefcase from B, you may decide to state the rule that reasonable force necessary to recover possession of chattel after wrongful taking is permissible after fresh pursuit. You should then follow immediately with the issues of whether the degree of force used to retrieve his briefcase was reasonable and whether A's pursuit will be considered "fresh." Reversal of the order of issue and rule will not change the sequence of the other steps, analysis and conclusion.

The IRAC formula may be modified to suit your purpose. You may choose, for example, to begin with the conclusion. If you do, you will be using the deductive method of reasoning. Be sure, when you use deduction, that you then explain your analysis. You may choose to reverse the issue and rule in an entire question or in part of the question. If you do, the formula you use will be RIAC. And in questions in which the legal rule is supplied, you will extract the issues from the fact situation and apply the rule.

Although you can thus re-arrange the IRAC formula to suit your needs in each situation, be sure to clothe IRAC in appropriate attire. That is, the IRAC skeleton should not be apparent, for IRAC is a structure on which to build, not a final product. Without complete documentation, adequate development, and clear transition, the IRAC formula will be ineffective.

Click Here to View the 2015 LawCrossing Salary Survey of Lawyer Salaries in the Best Law Firms