Approaching Law School
Exams
Professor Jason P. Nance
Levin College of Law
WARNING!!
 Whatever your individual professors
have told you is controlling! If
something I say is different or does not
apply, ignore me!
Before Walking In
 Have outline completed and material
“mastered” to high level of detail
 Have “checklist” completed
 Utilize practice exams
 Know professor’s exam style – hopefully
know the exam “rules” before walking in
At the exam room . . .
 Get there early, settle
in.
 Review checklist
When exam is handed out . . .
 Place your exam number on the places
indicated
 [Closed book – quickly recreate checklist on
blank paper]
 Read the rules carefully!!
 READ THE (FIRST) FACT PATTERN
COMPLETELY THROUGH – DO NOT
START WRITING!!!
 Annotate fact pattern
 Know from what perspective you need to
Then . . .
 THINK!!
 Essay Question: Sketch outline to answer,
as complete as possible; identify issues;
identify key facts.
 Use checklist to make sure outline is
complete
 Start writing
Do’s and Don’ts
(essays)
 Do (essays):
– IRAC: issue, rule, analysis, conclusion
– Capture and write down every step of analysis,
even “obvious” points, space permitting
– Argue both sides when necessary (not at every
stage of decision tree if not warranted)
– Answer the specific question asked
– Use common sense/good judgment
– Understand how to allocate your time.
Don’t . . .
 Change facts or assume facts that do not appear
in fact pattern; if not sure, state assumption
 “Throw around” legal terms in inexact way
 Waste time on fancy introductions or reiterative
conclusions
 Discuss issues that don’t really apply
 Try to be excessively creative
 Try to be humorous
Do:
(multiple choice/short answer)
 Read each answer carefully before selecting
correct one
 Spot complexities
 Be precise
 Use your experience to employ strategies
that have worked for you in the past
Know Professor’s Preferences
 Should you cite to
cases and statutes or
rules?
 How important are
conclusions?
 Breadth versus depth?
 “Right” answers?
 Creativity versus strict
accuracy?
Remember . . .
 Walking out feeling miserable is probably
good sign!
 Grading curve is up to 3.25 – that means
majority likely to get B or better
Let’s Try Exercise
Approaching Law School Exams: Hypothetical for Exercise
On September 10, 2012, in the state of New Columbia, Walter, a 70-year-old man, purchased a new car from
Reliable Motors by trading in his existing vehicle and financing the balance of the purchase price. Reliable Motors
informed Walter that day that he had been approved for financing, all the paperwork was completed, and Walter left the
dealership in his new car. Included in the “Motor Vehicle Cash Purchase Agreement” executed by both parties was a
provision that stated, “To the best of my knowledge, my trade does not and has not had frame damage, nor has it been
declared a salvage vehicle.” Five days later, a Reliable Motors employee, Timmy, called Walter informing him that an
inspection of the trade-in revealed frame damage that had been improperly repaired. Timmy called Walter a no-good liar,
told him that if he did not either repurchase the trade-in or pay Reliable Motors the reduction in the car’s value due to the
frame damage, Reliable Motors would initiate legal action. Walter insisted that he had no knowledge of any frame
damage to the trade-in and that the vehicle had been inspected, appraised, and accepted as a trade-in by Reliable Motors
prior to the completion of the new car sales transaction. Timmy again called Walter a liar, screamed various obscenities,
and hung up on him.
The next day, Timmy called Walter back and inquired whether Walter had made a decision. Walter responded
that Reliable Motor’s position was neither reasonable nor legitimate and that he would consult an attorney. Timmy
screamed more obscenities at Walter and told him that if he sued Reliable Motors, he would not have any chance of
winning his case. Walter was extremely anxious and fearful of being sued by Reliable Motors because he was unfamiliar
with the legal system and could not afford to pay attorney’s fees. He felt insulted by Timmy’s statements, experienced
difficulty sleeping and headaches, and was distracted from his work obligations.
Two weeks later, on a rainy afternoon, Timmy confronted Walter in a public parking lot outside of a shopping
center. Timmy screamed at Walter, “Old man, you are a liar and a crook.” Upon hearing this, Walter raised his umbrella,
began waiving it wildly, and rushed towards Timmy. Timmy grabbed Walter to restrain him and held him in a headlock until
the police arrived two minutes later. Neither Walter nor Timmy suffered any physical harm from the incidents.
Questions?
Good luck!