Law Students

Finally, a non-bar prep post — well, at least the topic of bar prep is less significant.  

When I first took the LSAT, I did not really see how it was relevant to the practice of law. The LSAT did not test on the subject of law.  In fact, the exam (pre-2007) did not even award points for essay writing.  So, what in the world was the LSAT testing on?

To make matters even more confusing, many, many, many (and did I mention — many) student blawgs complained that the LSAT had nothing to do with law school exams, that the law school exams do not prepare you for the bar exam, and that the bar exam does not really reflect what the real practice is like.  At that point in time, I did not know what to expect in law school.  Is legal education and profession as disjointed as these people claim?

After spending three years in law school and having taken six semesters of exams in various formats: multiple choice, short answer, long-essay — I still could not see much similarity between LSAT and law school exams.  The former tested general logic, analogy, and reading comprehension.  The latter focused on the understanding and application of substance law.  I did not think that the skills I learned for taking the LSAT gave me any advantage in taking the law school exams.

Finally, there is the bar exam.  It is heavily based on multiple choice questions about substance law (and application of), as well as essay questions (general rules of law, exceptions, and application of the facts to the law).  It resembles nothing like my law school exams.  The questions are tricky and many rules are “new” to me.  What edge do I have from taking 3 years of law school?

The overlap among these exams is that they test logical reasoning. 

• LSAT: Did you spot the rule (logic game, analysis)?  How do you apply the rule here?  
• Law School: Do you know the rule based on the materials you have read, and do you know how to apply the rule here?  (i.e., what is the relevant general rule here, are there exceptions to the rule, and how to apply the general rules & exceptions, if any, to this scenario?)
• Bar Exam: Did you spot the issue here?  Which rules apply?  Are there exceptions?  How do you apply the rules, taking into consideration the scope of the rules and mechanics of its application?  Do you know how to apply the facts to the rule (i.e., plug and play)?

It seems like when I took the LSAT, I had a very basic understanding of inferences and presumptions.  I had issues with spotting patterns and rules.  And although I was comfortable with reading comprehension, I was not trained to pick up important words and little facts.

The first year of law school for me was pretty much a trial & error period.  I had no clue how to approach my first law exam.  I thought it would be like undergrad courses, where I would simply memorize the case information and regurgitate the information in an essay or essay format.  Some time later, I realized that the professors were more interested in knowing how to argue using the facts you have and the substance law you have (hopefully) learned, than memorizing all the little details of law (unless it is Evidence class, then in that case, exceptions are crucial on the exam).  One professor even stated bluntly — “I don’t care if you came to the incorrect conclusion.  Make your case and you will still get the points.”

With bar exam, it is a little different on the multiple choice section.  You DO need to know the substantive law because you can’t argue your way out of a multiple choice question.  For the essay, however, you use the same skill as you do in law school exams.  Issue, Rule, Analysis, and least importantly, Conclusion.

The same skill set should be very useful in actual practice.  You always present an argument to the Court or Jury, and it is up to the Court or Jury to determine whether your conclusion is correct or not.  Making your case through step-by-step analysis in logical order is the key to it all.