ORDER OF PROCEEDING • Logistics & Exam Structure • Exam Technique • Generally • QI: Lawyering • QII: Short Problems • QIII: Opinion/Dissent • QIV: Issue-Spotter • Questions from You • Exam Technique & Logistics • Substantive
General Logistics • I’ll post these slides on Course Page tonight • Office Hours Tomorrow 9-1, 2-6 • I will respond to E-mail Qs(within reason)sent before 6pm tomorrow • Written Assignments Not Available
Exam Coverage • Test can’t cover every issue in the course • Something from every chapter (except 7) • See Info Memo #6 for coverage from each chapter • Look at Write-Ups of Assignments II, III & IV • Statutes • If I want you to use FL landlord-Tenant Act, I’ll attach provisions • You can use other statutes where relevant, but test won’t require you to have memorized language.
Exam Coverage • Most of the major issues on test should be familiar from written assignments, review problems and/or hypotheticals raised & discussed in class (e.g., Twice-Cooked Pork).
Structure of Exam • Choose three of four equally weighted Qs • Four hours • One hour to read Qs, take notes, outline (no computers or bluebooks) • Three hours to write answers (One hour per Q) • Stick VERY CLOSELY to allotted times • Instructions page of exam available on Course Page to read in advance • Closed book with syllabus attached. Copy of Syllabus on Course Page to practice with.
Using Your Reading Period • 1st 15 Minutes • Read test • Hyperventilate • Choose which Qs to write & in what order • Probably shouldn’t decide in advance which Qs to do • Be thoughtful about order given your own strengths • Will you be more focused at beginning or end? • Which format do you expect to be most difficult? • Could be creative: e.g., short-long-short-long-short (A.D.D.!!) • If you end up short of time in last hour, Q3 probably easiest; Q2 probably worst
Using Your Reading Period • 1st 15 Minutes: Read Test; Choose Qs & Order • Next 45 Minutes (I’d Recommend…) • Use about 15 minutes to prep each Q you are doing • Read it again carefully • Make rough outline by • Listing major points you’d like to discuss • Choose order in which you’ll discuss them • Do last in reading period Q you want to write first
Aftermath • By tradition, I’ll be on the bricks at the end of the scheduled exam time • I’ll post grading progress on Course Page • I’ll post when assignments are ready to be picked up.
Aftermath • Once grades are posted, I’ll make available a packet for you to pick up with: • Copy of your test • Exam Questions, My Comments & Best Answers • Explanation of Grading & Your Individualized Scores • Assignments not yet picked up • I’ll set times to meet to review with you if you choose
Exam Technique: Generally • My Exam Techniques Lectures Available on Academic Achievement Website • Some Repetition Here, But Focused on Problems Commonly Arising on Old Exams & Last Year’s Submitted Sample Qs (I’ll go Through Quickly)
Exam Technique: Generally (1) Testing Ability to Use Tools, Not Knowledge of Them • Don’t Simply Recite Legal Tests; Apply Them (as Soon as You Mention Them) • Helpful (but not Crucial) to Refer to Relevant Authority (see old best answers) • Make your reasoning explicit: Wizard of Oz (Because, Because, Because)
Exam Technique: Generally (2) Draft, Not Final Product • No need for formal introductions & conclusions • Use abbreviations (names; recurring phrases) • Can use telegraph English • Use headings, not topic sentences • Can use bulleted lists (e.g., of evidence supporting one side of an argument)
Exam Technique: Generally (3) Be Concise. Regarding the recurring problem of wordiness, almost all of the thirty-three otherwise diligent and competent students who last year took the time to submit a practice exam answer pursuant to the rules posted on the course page for doing so thoroughly demonstrated the fact that that they had a tendency to that problem as well as showing redundancy and continued difficulties writing in a concise, brief and to the point way.
Exam Technique: Generally (4) Best Prep is Old Exam Qs • Do under exam conditions (esp. Q1/Q3) • Review in groups if possible • Read my comments • Use model answers • to see organization/style I like • to see some possible ways to analyze • neither complete nor perfect
Exam Technique: Generally (5) Dealing with One Hour Questions with Separately Designated Parts • Assume Parts Are Roughly Equal • True This Year of All Three Long Qs • Q1: Three concerns raised by client. • Q3: Two legal questions to address. • Q4: Two distinct sets of issues designated.
Question I • Client Comes Into Your Office • Gives You Relatively Limited Facts (insufficient info to argue or advise yet) • Will Raise Issues From Several Parts of Course
Discuss the factual and legal research you would need to do in order to advise Carlosregarding the concerns described below:
Question I TASK • To Do List (in order to advise client) • NOT arguments re result (Q v. R) • Explain why things matter • Note what client has asked you • Stick to legal topics raised by requests • NOT looking to you for business advice
Question I ORGANIZATION/FORMAT • All law/all fact often unsuccessful • Can organize by major topics (use headings and subheadings) • Can use paragraphs or outline form or bullets (drawbacks to each)
Question I Issues with Multiple Rules • Check which rule applies in your state • Then: “If state uses rule X, check [relevant facts]. If state uses rule Y…” • Cross-reference if overlap (“fact research for materiality same as above)
Question I Factual Research • Looking for specifics, not simply reformulating legal tests as Qs • Indicate how you would locate facts (interviews, records, ask client, etc.) • If not pretty obvious, briefly explain why the facts matter
Question I Factual Research • Increasing Degree of Difficulty: • More detail in identifying possible relevant facts • More detail in explaining how you might get information
Question I Practical Research • If arguably relevant, can ask re client priorities or interest in settlement • Can investigate whether compromise solutions are possible • Can investigate whether other parties might want to settle
Question I Preparing • Be aware of issues with multiple rules • Think about evidence necessary to prove claims • Look at old comments/models & write-ups of lawyering review problems • Do at least one under exam conditions
Question II • Four Problems; Choose any Three • Three are topics you’ve seen in short problems • One new topic for short problems, but based on issue discussed in class & in longer problem • Can do in any order, but mark clearly • Start each on new page if handwriting (can also do w exam program) • 20 Minutes Each: Stick to Time!!!
Question II • Read Q Carefully & Respond to What’s Asked • Often limited in scope. E.g., • Apply particular case (e.g., Shack, Nahrstedt, Stambovsky) • Discuss one element of Adverse Possession • Sometimes really asking “What should legal rule be for this issue?” (Mini-Q3)
Question II • Read Q Carefully & Respond to What’s Asked • Some issues are implicit in wording of Q: (public nuisance/standing). • Assume all facts there for a reason: legal argument, cheap laugh, Section C1 names.
Question II • Problems Have No Clear Right Answer • If you read a problem and are absolutely sure which side wins, don’t choose that problem. • Find Best Arguments for Each Side • Usually Not Helpful to Segregate Pro & Con Arguments • Eliminates possibility of dialogue • Leaves no room for intermediate positions
Question II • Increasing Degree of Difficulty: Attack Hard Qs/Identify Stronger Positions • Raise policy arguments that support one position more than the other • Compare the problem to a case or cases we studied • Explain why that one side’s position is likely to have more emotional appeal; or • Show how the result might turn on the resolution of an ambiguity in the facts.
INSTRUCTIONS:Compose drafts of the analysis sections of a majority opinion for the Gavalier Supreme Court, and of a shorter dissent, deciding these questions in the context of the allegations in this case. …
Question III Compose drafts … • As with issue-spotter, can include headings, bullet points, abbr., etc. • Present concise versions of arguments, not rhetoric (don’t get carried away with role) • Don’t need fancy language, transitions, etc.
Question III … of the analysis sections … • No need for • Introduction • Statement of facts • Procedural history • Separate history of the legal issue • Conclusion • Do make clear which side would win
Question III … of a majority opinion … and of a shorter dissent … • Articulate best arguments for two different positions (doctrinal & policy). (I really don’t care who wins.) • Each opinion needs to justify the particular approach it endorses (v. alternatives)
Question III … of a majority opinion … and of a shorter dissent … • Do 2 separate opinions (or big penalty) • Some flexibility in arranging arguments • Can put pro arguments in majority & con in dissent • Can do back and forth in long majority, then do very short dissent explaining different conclusion. • May be helpful to write simultaneously.
Question III … of a majority opinion … and of a shorter dissent … • Increasing Degree of Difficulty: Each opinion should try to deal w other side’s best arguments
Question III … for the Gavalier Supreme Court … • Fictional jurisdiction; other state cases are NOT binding authority • Awareness that deciding law of the state, not just case in front of you • Must defend positions taken even if consistent with other cases in course (last year: unsupported cites to Funk for key points insufficient) • Consideration of incentives re similar situations in future • Consideration of effects on future cases & legal system
Question III … deciding these questions … • Two Questions; Treat as Roughly Equal • Address both questions in both opinions
… Both your majority and your dissent should address both of the disputed questions. …
Question III … deciding these questions … • Qs are very specific; read carefully • Stay within any boundaries set by Qs • Address arguments made by lower courts • Guiding you to some available arguments • At least have side that rejects say why • Don’t avoid addressing my Qs by making cute legal or procedural arguments.
Question III …in the context of the allegations in this case. • Again read carefully • Think about why particular facts & allegations are there • Treat my facts/allegations as given (don’t argue with Question)
… For the purposes of these opinions, you must assume that the factual allegations in the complaint are correct.
Question III …in the context of the allegations in this case. • Can use facts/allegations from particular case you’re given as example or as counterexample • “The case before us demonstrates why …” • “We think this case is not typical because …”