This is an overlooked but crucial aspect of getting good grades. If you feel that you are weak writer, you have to work on it, because regardless of your understanding of the material, you are going to get a B if you don't present your analysis in a lucid and nuanced way. I don't know about reading appellate briefs and trying to model your answers after them - this seems like unnecessary work. I believe that, to a significant extent, law school grades are predetermined by each person's writing abilities. Poor writing can be overcome, but one would have to spend a lot of time on improving. I read memos from my legal writing section which were poorly written, and these guys ended up below the median at my school.

00TREX00 wrote:
Quote:
Work on your writing. If your professor doesn't understand your answer, then you don't get credit for all of your arguments. When you get your lexis and westlaw pins, download some appellate briefs and read them (you might want to stick to SCOTUS cases so that there is a better chance that the issues were well briefed). This will give you an idea of what your writing style should be like. Recognize, though, that a good exam answer will incorporate both sides of the argument, not just one. So pull briefs from both sides of a case and then see how you would combine them to make a complete exam answer.


This is an overlooked but crucial aspect of getting good grades. If you feel that you are weak writer, you have to work on it, because regardless of your understanding of the material, you are going to get a B if you don't present your analysis in a lucid and nuanced way. I don't know about reading appellate briefs and trying to model your answers after them - this seems like unnecessary work. I believe that, to a significant extent, law school grades are predetermined by each person's writing abilities. Poor writing can be overcome, but one would have to spend a lot of time on improving. I read memos from my legal writing section which were poorly written, and these guys ended up below the median at my school.


What are some of the big differences between strong and weak legal writing? Obviously clarity, brevity, and detail are important. But what are some things that stand out?

What are some of the big differences between strong and weak legal writing? Obviously clarity, brevity, and detail are important. But what are some things that stand out?

What are some of the big differences between strong and weak legal writing? Obviously clarity, brevity, and detail are important. But what are some things that stand out?

I improved my grades a lot (went up .2) second semester. I think part of it was my exam organization. Second semester, I wrote introductory paragraphs for each essay, including a roadmap highlighting the major issues. I made sure to have a topic sentence for each paragraph. Also, first semester, I was told constantly--just argue both sides and you'll be fine. Second semester, I didn't always argue both sides; instead, i learned to flesh out which issues were the thorny ones, and which ones deserved a quick dismissal. This was similar to how I wrote my brief--I didn't waste my breath over issues that my side was never going to win. Don't use flowery language and really milk the facts.

Amazon doesn't seem to have Dressler's 'Understanding Criminal Law' for some reason...

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Cri ... 310&sr=1-2

Wait, so I can read E&E's and skip the hornbook? Sounds chancey, dicey, and downright saucey too me.


Also, maybe even too good to be true?

I did stop reading the book and only read Casenotes for one class, because I simply needed to cut a corner somewhere. Second semester was so crazy busy that I had to do something to alleviate the pressure. And it turned out fine, but I still don't think I'd recommend doing that more than occasionally. Certainly not if you want to feel really engaged in your classes. I skipped that class often and mainly taught myself the subject from Gilbert's, Casenotes, and flash cards. It was my lowest grade, but I was still ahead of the curve, so I can't complain. I sacrificed that one to do better overall.

Some people have made reference to the fact that your books should, for the most part, be up to date. A lawyer at my job gave me a bunch of study guides she used - about half of them were completely trashed, but I think I can put the rest of them to use. Anyway, I have the "In a Nutshell" series for all of the classes I'll be taking this semester (CivPro, K's, Torts), but they're all an edition or two out of date. Should I stay away?

I've read a lot about using supplement keyed to your casebook. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate any means of determining which supplement is keyed to which casebook. How can I figure out which supplements most closely fit my casebooks?

For the record, the two casebooks I know I will be using are:

Civil Procedure: Allan Ides & Christopher N. May, Civil Procedure: Cases and Problems

Contracts: Randy Barnett, Contracts: Cases and Doctrine

How can I identify appropriately keyed supplements?

I would like some feedback on my selections for supplements/study aids. Please note though that none of my professors wrote authored any supplements, and only one recommended one.

1) Contracts 1: The required Casebook is Contracts by John P. Dawson, William Burnett Harvey & there is a required statutory supplement Selections for Contracts: Uniform Commercial Code, Restatement 2d by E. Allan Farnsworth. I haven't selected study aid for this one yet, but I have recently started to consider the bran new Calamari and Perillo's Hornbook on Contracts just released this June (http://www.amazon.com/Calamari-Perillos ... 331&sr=8-1)

2) Civil Procedure 1: The required Casebook is Civil Procedure: A Modern Approach by Richard L. Marcus, Martin H. Redish & there is a required statutory supplement Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2009-2010 Educational Edition. I went w/ the Gilbert's Law Summary on CivPro since the author of my Casebook wrote it, and I bought the E&E.

3) Criminal Law: The required Casebook was one written by Joshua Dressler, and my professor actually recommended Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Cri ... 829&sr=8-1). This seemed about as straightforward as it gets.

4) Torts: The required Casebook was Cases and Materials on the Law of Torts by George C. Christie, Joseph Sanders, James E. Meeks, Ellen S. Pryor, James Meeks, and I currently have the Glannon E&E for Torts. I have heard pretty much all good feedback on the Torts E&E, are there more comprehensive, up to date & on point sources?

I think I'm in a pretty good spot with the lone exception being contracts.