Top Law Schools

told by others about a CB question: what was the most difficult legal doctrine you entered at law school, and what did you do to get a better understanding the doctrine?

thinking about using a con law doctrine, but not sure I ever obtained a better understanding as my grade sucked for Con Law.

suggestions?

Anonymous User wrote:told by others about a CB question: what was the most difficult legal doctrine you entered at law school, and what did you do to get a better understanding the doctrine?

thinking about using a con law doctrine, but not sure I ever obtained a better understanding as my grade sucked for Con Law.

suggestions?

I would go with Erie Doctrine from Civ Pro.

I usually go with writing. I got in A in it but my first couple drafts were absolutely mascaraed in red ink.

I find being able to explain how I started off shitty and then ended up doing A quality work in a short amount of time works well.

Lacepiece23 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:told by others about a CB question: what was the most difficult legal doctrine you entered at law school, and what did you do to get a better understanding the doctrine?

thinking about using a con law doctrine, but not sure I ever obtained a better understanding as my grade sucked for Con Law.

suggestions?

I would go with Erie Doctrine from Civ Pro.

Seems solid. No idea if this is a good idea, but you could talk about how you flowcharted things, went over several examples multiple times (e.g., Glannon), did practice tests, etc.

.

.

Mine was personal jurisdiction, simply because I really needed to have all of the parts before I could put it all together in my head. Therefore much of the time spent on it I was learning rules (general J, specific J in different cases) without knowing how that was going to fit together until the end, but it came together well (only to have the prof give us almost an entire pass on the exam and focus instead on FRCP issues -- whatever, I had my rulebook).

Make sure you're brushed up on whatever doctrine you mention. If you've "overcome" RAP and they ask a follow up question about it, you'll want to remain conversational.

rad21 wrote:Make sure you're brushed up on whatever doctrine you mention. If you've "overcome" RAP and they ask a follow up question about it, you'll want to remain conversational.

This so much. Either treat this Q super dodgy and cite a rule you just happen to know, or make damn sure its a rule you DO know.

Also I would never say RAP or 2-207 or anything like that, if only b/c an evil interviewer could say "well explain it to me like I had never heard of it before."