Legal Commentary

Thoughts at the VC and this blog have turned to law school exams early this year. Here are the two cents of a 1L constitutional law professor:

1. Exams are all about answering the Next Question. In law, lawyers are often hired to figure out how to solve a problem that hasn?t been solved before. A key aspect of ?thinking like a lawyer? is learning how to use established authority to answer questions that fall within the cracks of prior legal rules and their underlying rationales. What most law school exams ask is that the student construct an analysis of how to answer a previously unanswered question using the tools provided by the course material. In my 1L Constitutional Law class, I try to focus the students? attention on the importance of "answering the Next Question" by having 5-6 class sessions spaced out through the semester devoted entirely to answering an open, currently brewing legal controversy. For students preparing for exams, one helpful way to focus your attention on applying old cases to decide new questions is to look up recent cases in a given area of law, read the facts, and use the facts as a basis for a practice exam.

2. irAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAc. As Paul notes, the ?irac? or ?trac? model of legal writing is usually a good idea. Identify the Issue or Topic, clearly state the Rule or standard, Apply the rule to the issue, and articulate a concise Conclusion. While this style of writing properly focuses both the reader and the writer on the right questions, the presentation of this model as consisting of four equal parts improperly downplays the significance of part 3: applying the rule to the issue. This is the meat of the analysis a professor, or partner, is expecting. The other three parts can often be handled in a sentence or two each, but the application is often a paragraph or more of argumentation. It is here that you must address precisely how the facts fit the legal rules, how the rationales of the legal rules fit (or don?t) with the current controversy, draw analogies and distinctions from prior decisions, address the best counterarguments (and make a strong case for each one to show you could argue both ways), and otherwise analyze the question at hand. This can?t usually be done in only a sentence or two. So while generally wise, ?trac? and ?irac? need a lot more ?a?s to maximize delivery.

3. Eat a good pre-exam meal. Studies show that eating complex carbohydrates improves mental performance.

Okay, so that was three cents. Sorry. Law professor?s habit.