LEEWS Forum

[addicted]

Did anyone attend the LEEWS seminar or purchase the audio package?

Was it helpful?

Thanks in advance for any information.

[edcrane]

Yes. Somewhat.

LEEWS teaches you to setup basic diagrams that are helpful for complex issue spotters where there are many parties and claims that can arise. It also teaches you how to structure exam answers. LEEWS suggests that for every "issue" or claim you start a new paragraph, and prescribes certain formatting conventions. In abstract, a typical LEEWS answer looks like this:

Claims against Bill

1. Battery is (1) [first element] (2) [second element] etc. In this case the [facts pertaining to first element]. John will argue... [explanation and discussion of plaintiff argument]. Bill will argue...[explanation and discussion of defendant argument]... etc.

2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is (1)...etc.

Claims against John

1. Assault is...etc.

I imagine this is helpful if you're at a school where professors give prompts containing a huge number of issues/parties, where the biggest challenge is to "spot" every issue and apply the rule you've learned. At our school, however, the professors preferred to give us fewer parties and issues but more ambiguous facts to wrangle with. Consequently, LEEWS did not provide any direct advantage.

That said, there's an important lesson to be taken from LEEWS: keep your answers clear and simple. Really simple. Don't think of your exam answers as essays. They're not. They are elaborate outlines which your half-buzzed professor will scan through quickly, looking to check off points that she has already allocated. Accordingly, clarity is paramount. A beautifully crafted essay with elaborate, novel analysis will lose to an answer that is uglier but better organized. The latter conforms precisely to the gradesheet to the left of her scotch. The former is troublesome, addressing too many tangential issues instead of prominently regurgitating the desired responses.

[Ken]

LEEWS was highly recommended in Arrow's very insightful tips on 1L success here:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=77628

[Arrow]

I totally recommend it, oh wait, Ken just said I did.

Here are some LEEWS threads (where I recommended it some more), found from the stickied post:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =3&t=63389

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... f=3&t=6785

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =3&t=35705

[biber]

Why would you need a "system" to spot issues or analyze them?

[edcrane]

Why would you need a "system" to spot issues or analyze them?

Why would you need a system for categorizing different colored used cars? This isn't that different from the powerscore games bible.

[sour apple]

I did it and thought it was really helpful. I don't know if I used everything exactly, but it calmed me down and gave me a way to approach all of my finals. I did pretty well my first year, and I think LEEWS was a part of that.

(I did the audio tapes)

[biber]

I did it and thought it was really helpful. I don't know if I used everything exactly, but it calmed me down and gave me a way to approach all of my finals. I did pretty well my first year, and I think LEEWS was a part of that.

(I did the audio tapes)

I read Getting to Maybe and thought it was midly helpful. Maybe LEEWS is great, I wouldn't know. I guess it comes down to the fact that law exams are different enough from our previous academic experience we want some help in navigating those uncertain waters. A friend recommended LEEWS and I checked out their site and frankly it seemed really useless (maybe they just need a new site). But if you say it was helpful, then I am certain it is. The OP should check it out.

[ChattelCat]

I bought it and listened to it and can't honestly say whether it really helped all that much...but I also can't say that it didn't help at all - it may have.

I don't think that it's a waste of time and if you find a copy for a decent price, by all means buy it and listen to it. But don't expect a ground-shattering wonder-method of taking exams - it's a lot more subtle than that.

[playhero]

LEEWS is shareware so it gets points on that alone from me.

[dbt]

Yes. Somewhat.

LEEWS teaches you to setup basic diagrams that are helpful for complex issue spotters where there are many parties and claims that can arise. It also teaches you how to structure exam answers. LEEWS suggests that for every "issue" or claim you start a new paragraph, and prescribes certain formatting conventions. In abstract, a typical LEEWS answer looks like this:

Claims against Bill

1. Battery is (1) [first element] (2) [second element] etc. In this case the [facts pertaining to first element]. John will argue... [explanation and discussion of plaintiff argument]. Bill will argue...[explanation and discussion of defendant argument]... etc.

2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is (1)...etc.

Claims against John

1. Assault is...etc.

I imagine this is helpful if you're at a school where professors give prompts containing a huge number of issues/parties, where the biggest challenge is to "spot" every issue and apply the rule you've learned. At our school, however, the professors preferred to give us fewer parties and issues but more ambiguous facts to wrangle with. Consequently, LEEWS did not provide any direct advantage.

That said, there's an important lesson to be taken from LEEWS: keep your answers clear and simple. Really simple. Don't think of your exam answers as essays. They're not. They are elaborate outlines which your half-buzzed professor will scan through quickly, looking to check off points that she has already allocated. Accordingly, clarity is paramount. A beautifully crafted essay with elaborate, novel analysis will lose to an answer that is uglier but better organized. The latter conforms precisely to the gradesheet to the left of her scotch. The former is troublesome, addressing too many tangential issues instead of prominently regurgitating the desired responses.

lol'd

[JPeavy44]

The next live session for me would be late nov it says. Would that still be helpful as that is probably during fianls time?

[mikeytwoshoes]

Claims against Bill

1. Battery is (1) [first element] (2) [second element] etc. In this case the [facts pertaining to first element]. John will argue... [explanation and discussion of plaintiff argument]. Bill will argue...[explanation and discussion of defendant argument]... etc.

[Standard 0L disclaimer]

By stating the elements of battery aren't you wasting your time telling the professor things he already knows? The writers of getting to maybe caution against doing this because you can apply the law without stating it.

Since Bill's action can be said to fit [first element].

They also caution that one should only discuss those elements necessary to analyze the fact pattern. As law profs, they contend that you'll receive little credit for regurgitating the rules but much credit for applying the rules (thereby showing that you know what they are).

[ChattelCat]

The next live session for me would be late nov it says. Would that still be helpful as that is probably during fianls time?

I think you're better off just finding a used copy of the CD's on Ebay or something instead of shelling out the cash for the live session. Then you can listen to it when you have time instead of having to dedicate a whole day that close to exams which is probably too late in the game to get anything out of it. The CD's are exactly the same as the live program. But like people have said, the LEEWS "method" only really works for a few classes, if that. I only found it helpful for one out of six exams, kind of.

[edcrane]

Claims against Bill

1. Battery is (1) [first element] (2) [second element] etc. In this case the [facts pertaining to first element]. John will argue... [explanation and discussion of plaintiff argument]. Bill will argue...[explanation and discussion of defendant argument]... etc.

[Standard 0L disclaimer]

By stating the elements of battery aren't you wasting your time telling the professor things he already knows? The writers of getting to maybe caution against doing this because you can apply the law without stating it.

Since Bill's action can be said to fit [first element].

They also caution that one should only discuss those elements necessary to analyze the fact pattern. As law profs, they contend that you'll receive little credit for regurgitating the rules but much credit for applying the rules (thereby showing that you know what they are).

First, note that I was describing the LEEWS method rather than the one that I use.

Second, +95% of the time on exams you'll be "telling the professor things he already knows." The real strategic question here is how you should communicate these things to him.

LEEWS/IRAC offer a few advantages: (1) your knowledge of BLL is extremely apparent to the reader--if you bury it in your analysis, your half-buzzed prof may miss the discussion entirely or may misinterpret your analysis and erroneously conclude that you have don't understand the BLL; (2) even if you miss a subtle argument about one of the elements, the prof knows you understood that the law--whereas, if you hide the rule in your analysis, your failure to spot or articulate a subtle issue will leave your professor wondering about your understanding of BLL; and finally, (3) it will force you to address every element in your answer, making it more likely that you'll chance upon a subtle issue.

Note that I'm not saying the professor is just looking for BLL. You're not going to get an A if you get all of the analysis wrong, regardless of whether you state the rules explicitly. On the other hand, I think you will be better off stating a rule and messing up the analysis than just messing up the analysis.

The central disadvantage of LEEWS/IRAC is that you lose time. Usually you're not going to be marked down for plainly stating rules in your opening sentences, but you will divert time from analysis to rule stating. Sometimes this a bad tradeoff.

My approach varies from LEEWS to some extent. While LEEWS prescribes the same format for every exam, I'm more inclined to adapt my format to the professor's stated preferences. In some cases, these preferences fit with the LEEWS approach. Indeed, in one statutory class, I copied rules verbatim from my outline into my exam (with citations, of course) and did cookie cutter analysis and organization. While some of my classmates inserted clever quips and produced volumes of novel analysis, I regurgitated rules and wrote ugly but well-organized analysis. I ended up (somewhat surprisingly) getting an A+ in that class. But in another class, the professor explicitly stated that his exam was not an "issue spotting contest"; instead, he was looking for "deep analysis." In that class, LEEWS/IRAC would have been a ticket to median or worse.

[strawberrysmoothie]

delete

[edcrane]

I didn't think LEEWS was that helpful. I did it when I hadn't yet taken torts, so maybe that is part of the reason, but the whole way that they lay out questions and answers will not necessarily accord with how your professor wants his exams written. For example, in torts, LEEWS says half the game is coming up with all of the party pairings and issue spotting within each. I was totally overwhelmed when doing this since the fact patterns get so crazy and there are at least 50 different combinations; going through each is a pain and also not a good use of time if they are really minor issues. My professor's exam ended up only asking about specific pairings, so this whole LEEWS concept of pairing fell by the wayside.

To be fair, I don't think LEEWS advocates blindly diagramming issue spotters. Obviously you should read the questions before you start diagramming. Indeed, I usually read the questions before I read the prompts.

[yesofcourse]

splack

[edcrane]

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.

[AceOfDiamonds]

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.

I'd be very interested in taking that off your hands, Ed.

[A'nold]

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.

Bidding war!



Arrow- how much of your top 1% standing do you think can be attributed to the LEEWS program? If you had never done LEEWS, do you think you'd be worse off?

[Arrow]

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.

Bidding war!



Arrow- how much of your top 1% standing do you think can be attributed to the LEEWS program? If you had never done LEEWS, do you think you'd be worse off?

Ultimately it is tough to say, but I credit much of my success off LEEWS. I would have studied equally hard, but I definitely would have done worse.

I would say 80%, since I followed its methods fairly closely with only some adjustments. However, I do have a gut feeling that some people (often in the T14) find it less useful, especially if you are smart already. For people who are just completely lost when it comes to law school, LEEWS is the way to go.

[steve_nash]

I did LEEWS, but I'm gonna agree with ChattelCat--I don't think it helped me all that much. It's not bad, although I forgot about his style of analysis by the time my exams came around. I did very well, but I think my analysis was closer to IRAC format than anything. I did particularly well my second semester (actually just found out that I got the highest grade in another class, bringing the total the past semester to 3 highest grades), and here's how I wrote my exams:

First things first: brief intro, outlining what I perceived to be the major issues in the fact pattern. I would have a good idea of this after spending roughly 1/4 of the time outlining.

Next, I would take the characters in the pattern and discuss their issues, each in a separate paragraph. I suppose this is similar to Miller's "conflict pairings." I would spend more time on the difficult issues, discussing each side. If one side was a clear winner, I would mention why this was so, swiftly dismissing any silly counter-arguments.

Finally, quick conclusion with all I perceived the issues to come out.

I don't think you need to pay 120 bucks or however much LEEWS is to learn that. IRAC is fine, as long as people remember to analyze the issues thoroughly, from both sides. Also, for goodness sake, follow your professor's instructions.

[steve_nash]

My approach varies from LEEWS to some extent. While LEEWS prescribes the same format for every exam, I'm more inclined to adapt my format to the professor's stated preferences. In some cases, these preferences fit with the LEEWS approach. Indeed, in one statutory class, I copied rules verbatim from my outline into my exam (with citations, of course) and did cookie cutter analysis and organization. While some of my classmates inserted clever quips and produced volumes of novel analysis, I regurgitated rules and wrote ugly but well-organized analysis. I ended up (somewhat surprisingly) getting an A+ in that class. But in another class, the professor explicitly stated that his exam was not an "issue spotting contest"; instead, he was looking for "deep analysis." In that class, LEEWS/IRAC would have been a ticket to median or worse.

this

[edcrane]

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.

I'd be very interested in taking that off your hands, Ed.

you have a pm.