00TREX00 wrote: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?