Top Law Schools

I'm contemplating not taking evidence because I want to take q different class. How bad is this for the bar exam? Can I learn all bar exam evidence stuff without taking it in school?

Yes, you can learn what you need to pass from a bar prep class. However, evidence would be the #1 bar class I'd recommend taking in law school. Useful, and will make bar exam study a lot easier on you.

I would definitely take evidence.

My view, and I know others disagree, is that you should take a fair number of "bar exam subjects." It will make your life easier come bar exam time.

In addition to evidence, bar classes I wish I'd taken to at least become familiar with the material are: Wills, Trusts and Estates, and Secured Transactions.

Edit: But there's a caveat. A lot of the material I learned in law school for bar- subjects were not even taught in bar prep or tested on the bar. For example, in my 1L Property class, land-sale contracts and mortgages were not even mentioned, however on the bar it was the #1 tested topic.

Take it. Especially because your post history suggests you are a 3L (and are thus less likely to forget the subject matter prior to bar review). I would second 2L2soon's advice w/r/t Wills and Trusts. I'm in CA, so can't speak to sec. trans.

filibuster wrote:I would definitely take evidence.

My view, and I know others disagree, is that you should take a fair number of "bar exam subjects." It will make your life easier come bar exam time.

I think this is true, but with a caveat: the closer you take them to the exam, the easier it will be to study. Seems obvious, but I took several classes 2L year that were bar subjects and I remembered virtually nothing 12-18 months later. I was pretty shocked that they didn't come back to me more quickly than they did; it was as if I had zero base in the subject. Also agree that evidence would be far and away #1 along with con law depending on whether your school requires the latter.

ETA: I actually wouldn't bother with secured transactions. It's rarely tested (I say that having just taken the July exam and realizing it was tested twice this year) and would only be an essay. You can learn the fundamentals quickly in bar review. I wouldn't take it unless you're interested in the subject.

You can survive learning something for the bar without taking it in law school (hello anything to do with money). But I took evidence 3L and it was by far one of my easiest subjects for bar study, and people who didn't take it in school really struggled with it on the bar. Depends on how much the other course means to you. (Personally I think it was the most valuable course I took in law school, but obviously if you're not doing lit you'd feel differently.)

SLS_AMG wrote:

filibuster wrote:I would definitely take evidence.

My view, and I know others disagree, is that you should take a fair number of "bar exam subjects." It will make your life easier come bar exam time.

I think this is true, but with a caveat: the closer you take them to the exam, the easier it will be to study. Seems obvious, but I took several classes 2L year that were bar subjects and I remembered virtually nothing 12-18 months later. I was pretty shocked that they didn't come back to me more quickly than they did; it was as if I had zero base in the subject. Also agree that evidence would be far and away #1 along with con law depending on whether your school requires the latter.

ETA: I actually wouldn't bother with secured transactions. It's rarely tested (I say that having just taken the July exam and realizing it was tested twice this year) and would only be an essay. You can learn the fundamentals quickly in bar review. I wouldn't take it unless you're interested in the subject.

Thanks for all the replies. I decided Im gonna take it

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You can survive learning something for the bar without taking it in law school (hello anything to do with money). But I took evidence 3L and it was by far one of my easiest subjects for bar study, and people who didn't take it in school really struggled with it on the bar. Depends on how much the other course means to you. (Personally I think it was the most valuable course I took in law school, but obviously if you're not doing lit you'd feel differently.)

I'm not in lit but I'm doing a kind of niche area and could see myself doing a clerkship in future so maybe some lit. With that in mind I'm gonna take the class. The other course is interesting but nothing so important. TLS hasnt steereed me wrong yet.

To be honest, I actually found evidence pretty interesting. It's interesting to learn the rationale underlying a lot of the evidentiary rules in the FRE and why a lot of the hearsay exceptions/exemptions exist. I expected to hate it and I actually kind of enjoyed it.

Definitely take evidence, trying to learn hearsay for the first time during bar prep would be a huge pain in the ass.

I am debating taking either Evidence or Wills, Trusts during my final semester this coming Spring. I am taking the CA bar exam, and I only see myself ever doing trans work. I am sure I will find Evidence fun, but I also think knowing Wills could be more practical when giving family and friends advice later down the road.

Seems like the vast majority of people on TLS think Evidence is the best elective class to take in law school. It would be nice to hear some more opinions on why that is.

Because it's fundamental to litigation.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:(Personally I think it was the most valuable course I took in law school, but obviously if you're not doing lit you'd feel differently.)

anon3030 wrote:I am debating taking either Evidence or Wills, Trusts during my final semester this coming Spring. I am taking the CA bar exam, and I only see myself ever doing trans work. I am sure I will find Evidence fun, but I also think knowing Wills could be more practical when giving family and friends advice later down the road.

Seems like the vast majority of people on TLS think Evidence is the best elective class to take in law school. It would be nice to hear some more opinions on why that is.

Evidence WILL be on the CA bar exam; it is an MBE subject and could very likely show up in the essays as well. Wills and Trusts may or may not be.

Evidence is a fun class that is pretty noticeably different from other law school classes in that it is problem-based rather than case-based. I think the reps you get working through evidence during the class are invaluable and you will really miss them come bar study time if you decide against taking the class. Wills and Trusts, depending on your school, is likely to be taught by an adjunct practitioner and is very likely to be boring as hell. The class is likely to be practical if estate planning is your intended area of practice, but it's going to be overkill for what the bar expects you to know and I really can't emphasize the boring part enough.

anon3030 wrote:I am debating taking either Evidence or Wills, Trusts during my final semester this coming Spring. I am taking the CA bar exam, and I only see myself ever doing trans work. I am sure I will find Evidence fun, but I also think knowing Wills could be more practical when giving family and friends advice later down the road.

Seems like the vast majority of people on TLS think Evidence is the best elective class to take in law school. It would be nice to hear some more opinions on why that is.

Like all classes, what you learn in a wills and trusts class will not be sufficient to help a relative create a complicated trust. The basics of wills you can easily learn during bar prep. Or you can buy a treatise and teach yourself later on.

As others mentioned, evidence is one of those classes that will make your life easier if you've taken it ahead of time. There's just so much material to learn and seeing it for the first time during bar prep is gonna be incredibly overwhelming.

.

crumb cake wrote:What about tax or admin law? Are they on the bar?

Not in CA

crumb cake wrote:What about tax or admin law? Are they on the bar?

If you're going transactional you need to at least understand the very basic concepts of tax. Probably the same with Admin if doing some kind of regulatory practice. Not a lawyer (disclaimer).

star fox wrote:

crumb cake wrote:What about tax or admin law? Are they on the bar?

If you're going transactional you need to at least understand the very basic concepts of tax. Probably the same with Admin if doing some kind of regulatory practice. Not a lawyer (disclaimer).

Agreed (from a junior lawyer's perspective). For a transactional lawyer, Evidence and maybe Crim Pro are the only bar courses you need to take. The rest of your schedule should be tax, accounting, securities, etc.