Law School Gameplan Forum

[jbagelboy]

OP which school are u going to?

As of now small reigonal tier 4 in FL with $$$$. Chose that option over the state flagship at in-state sticker (FSU).

Why not spend the time you were going to spend on 0L prep doing testmasters or powerscore and retaking the LSAT. Would be exponentially more valuable.

[JCougar]

You don't need to do any 0L prep.

Learning how to brief cases is common sense. You'll figure out how to do it well your first day of classes. The "black letter law" is simply the holding--the one or two sentences in the judge's opinion that set the legal rule moving forward. It almost always sticks out like a sore thumb, and answers the question "what part of this long-winded screed is actually relevant to anything that might happen in the future?" That's generally all you have to remember from a case, but sometimes the surrounding facts are relevant down the line, too. Occasionally on exams, you'll compare and contrast case facts with the hypothetical on the exam to argue whether or not a holding from a particular case should apply.

Again, this is all common sense that takes you about a week or two at most to pick up. No need to worry about it over the summer. I would just enjoy yourself, because chances are your next 3-4 years are going to be miserable.

[BigZuck]

OP which school are u going to?

As of now small reigonal tier 4 in FL with $$$$. Chose that option over the state flagship at in-state sticker (FSU).

Why not spend the time you were going to spend on 0L prep doing testmasters or powerscore and retaking the LSAT. Would be exponentially more valuable.

(in B4 Bags is labelled a T4 elitist pig)

[Young Marino]

OP which school are u going to?

As of now small reigonal tier 4 in FL with $$$$. Chose that option over the state flagship at in-state sticker (FSU).

Why not spend the time you were going to spend on 0L prep doing testmasters or powerscore and retaking the LSAT. Would be exponentially more valuable.

I'm considering that which is why I said "As of now". Thanks for your input jbagelboy you're one of the most helpful posters here. Do you mind answering the question I had on applying law to hypothetical facts to get ready for the exam?

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I'm considering that which is why I said "As of now". Thanks for your input jbagelboy you're one of the most helpful posters here. Do you mind answering the question I had on applying law to hypothetical facts to get ready for the exam?

I know I'm not jbagelboy (obviously), but I do think your Q went basically unanswered, and I'd like to help.

Here's what's going to happen. You'll have an assigned case to read which will involve a recitation of facts, a rule statement, and then reasoning to get to a conclusion. However, this will be followed by notes on other cases which reached different, perhaps even contradictory seeming conclusions with respect to particular aspects of the case, all of which comprise "exceptions." You will then be given a fake fact pattern and asked if the facts looks more like the rule, or more like the exception.

So, let me give you an example.

In torts, "False Imprisonment" has three elements: the defendant (1) intentionally (2) confines or restrains the plaintiff (3) within a bounded area. Thus, anyone who wants to prove false imprisonment in court, has to provide evidence of all three elements.

Now, you'll read a case where a husband is suing his ex-wife for false imprisonment following a nasty divorce. The wife was angry at the husband and got revenge by lying to a judge in order to get a restraining order against him. She succeeded, and a restraining order was issued based on her lies, preventing him from leaving the state of Illinois. Before trial, the wife's attorney will argue that (among other things) the case should be dismissed because "bounded area" usually refers to being locked in a room or a building, and not the entire state of Illinois. The court will explain that for various reasons (maybe the husband's job, maybe public policy, whatever else), the state of Illinois is still a "bounded area" and so the case will not be dismissed.

But then, in the notes following the case, you'll see a slightly different fact pattern from a different court decision. There, someone admitted to the US on a work visa was fired from their job while they were on a business trip in Taiwan. Because the visa terminated with the job, the employee could not return to the US from Taiwan, and was effectively trapped there. The employee then sues for false imprisonment, but the case is dismissed because "an entire country" (i.e. Taiwan) does not count as a "bounded area" for various reasons (again, public policy, foreign relations, whatever).

Now, you'll get to the final, and there will be a whole fake fact pattern, which includes an allegation of false imprisonment. For whatever reason, the confinement will be restricted to the Navajo Nation Land Reservation located on a parcel of land that straddles the Arizona-New Mexico border. You will need to argue whether this is more like being confined to Illinois (which supports false imprisonment) or Taiwan (which does not support false imprisonment). You will have to look at the reasoning the court used in the two cases, and reach a conclusion. You will not be graded on whether your conclusion is correct, but instead on the depth and strength of your reasoning.

Thus, this goes well beyond "black letter law" as the "rule" is just the three elements listed above, but to get full points you need to argue not only whether all three elements are met, but the nuances of each element.

[84651846190]

0L prep can help out a lot if you have literally no idea what law school is about (like I did). If you spent undergrad solving math equations instead of writing a bunch of papers, read Getting to Maybe so you can understand how law profs want you to structure your exam answers.

Also, get your typing speed up (not joking). This would have helped me immensely. I was a very slow typer before law school.

[TheSpanishMain]

OP which school are u going to?

As of now small reigonal tier 4 in FL with $$$$. Chose that option over the state flagship at in-state sticker (FSU).

Why not spend the time you were going to spend on 0L prep doing testmasters or powerscore and retaking the LSAT. Would be exponentially more valuable.

Agree with this. Even the minority of people who advocate some form of 0L prep seem to agree that it's not likely to be a game changer. More of a, "If you want to, it probably won't hurt" type thing. On the other hand, retaking the LSAT can absolutely change the trajectory of your whole career.

[Young Marino]

I'm considering that which is why I said "As of now". Thanks for your input jbagelboy you're one of the most helpful posters here. Do you mind answering the question I had on applying law to hypothetical facts to get ready for the exam?

I know I'm not jbagelboy (obviously), but I do think your Q went basically unanswered, and I'd like to help.

Here's what's going to happen. You'll have an assigned case to read which will involve a recitation of facts, a rule statement, and then reasoning to get to a conclusion. However, this will be followed by notes on other cases which reached different, perhaps even contradictory seeming conclusions with respect to particular aspects of the case, all of which comprise "exceptions." You will then be given a fake fact pattern and asked if the facts looks more like the rule, or more like the exception.

So, let me give you an example.

In torts, "False Imprisonment" has three elements: the defendant (1) intentionally (2) confines or restrains the plaintiff (3) within a bounded area. Thus, anyone who wants to prove false imprisonment in court, has to provide evidence of all three elements.

Now, you'll read a case where a husband is suing his ex-wife for false imprisonment following a nasty divorce. The wife was angry at the husband and got revenge by lying to a judge in order to get a restraining order against him. She succeeded, and a restraining order was issued based on her lies, preventing him from leaving the state of Illinois. Before trial, the wife's attorney will argue that (among other things) the case should be dismissed because "bounded area" usually refers to being locked in a room or a building, and not the entire state of Illinois. The court will explain that for various reasons (maybe the husband's job, maybe public policy, whatever else), the state of Illinois is still a "bounded area" and so the case will not be dismissed.

But then, in the notes following the case, you'll see a slightly different fact pattern from a different court decision. There, someone admitted to the US on a work visa was fired from their job while they were on a business trip in Taiwan. Because the visa terminated with the job, the employee could not return to the US from Taiwan, and was effectively trapped there. The employee then sues for false imprisonment, but the case is dismissed because "an entire country" (i.e. Taiwan) does not count as a "bounded area" for various reasons (again, public policy, foreign relations, whatever).

Now, you'll get to the final, and there will be a whole fake fact pattern, which includes an allegation of false imprisonment. For whatever reason, the confinement will be restricted to the Navajo Nation Land Reservation located on a parcel of land that straddles the Arizona-New Mexico border. You will need to argue whether this is more like being confined to Illinois (which supports false imprisonment) or Taiwan (which does not support false imprisonment). You will have to look at the reasoning the court used in the two cases, and reach a conclusion. You will not be graded on whether your conclusion is correct, but instead on the depth and strength of your reasoning.

Thus, this goes well beyond "black letter law" as the "rule" is just the three elements listed above, but to get full points you need to argue not only whether all three elements are met, but the nuances of each element.

Thanks so much for this. So would you say that applying a rule to a hypothetical set of facts that I made up is good practice for exam taking?

[jd20132013]

no, because you don't know how to make up facts that test the legal rules in any kind of rigorous way

good practice for exam taking is taking exams. that means taking practice exams, and it means doing hypos in books like the Examples and Explanations.

[BigZuck]

I'm considering that which is why I said "As of now". Thanks for your input jbagelboy you're one of the most helpful posters here. Do you mind answering the question I had on applying law to hypothetical facts to get ready for the exam?

I know I'm not jbagelboy (obviously), but I do think your Q went basically unanswered, and I'd like to help.

Here's what's going to happen. You'll have an assigned case to read which will involve a recitation of facts, a rule statement, and then reasoning to get to a conclusion. However, this will be followed by notes on other cases which reached different, perhaps even contradictory seeming conclusions with respect to particular aspects of the case, all of which comprise "exceptions." You will then be given a fake fact pattern and asked if the facts looks more like the rule, or more like the exception.

So, let me give you an example.

In torts, "False Imprisonment" has three elements: the defendant (1) intentionally (2) confines or restrains the plaintiff (3) within a bounded area. Thus, anyone who wants to prove false imprisonment in court, has to provide evidence of all three elements.

Now, you'll read a case where a husband is suing his ex-wife for false imprisonment following a nasty divorce. The wife was angry at the husband and got revenge by lying to a judge in order to get a restraining order against him. She succeeded, and a restraining order was issued based on her lies, preventing him from leaving the state of Illinois. Before trial, the wife's attorney will argue that (among other things) the case should be dismissed because "bounded area" usually refers to being locked in a room or a building, and not the entire state of Illinois. The court will explain that for various reasons (maybe the husband's job, maybe public policy, whatever else), the state of Illinois is still a "bounded area" and so the case will not be dismissed.

But then, in the notes following the case, you'll see a slightly different fact pattern from a different court decision. There, someone admitted to the US on a work visa was fired from their job while they were on a business trip in Taiwan. Because the visa terminated with the job, the employee could not return to the US from Taiwan, and was effectively trapped there. The employee then sues for false imprisonment, but the case is dismissed because "an entire country" (i.e. Taiwan) does not count as a "bounded area" for various reasons (again, public policy, foreign relations, whatever).

Now, you'll get to the final, and there will be a whole fake fact pattern, which includes an allegation of false imprisonment. For whatever reason, the confinement will be restricted to the Navajo Nation Land Reservation located on a parcel of land that straddles the Arizona-New Mexico border. You will need to argue whether this is more like being confined to Illinois (which supports false imprisonment) or Taiwan (which does not support false imprisonment). You will have to look at the reasoning the court used in the two cases, and reach a conclusion. You will not be graded on whether your conclusion is correct, but instead on the depth and strength of your reasoning.

Thus, this goes well beyond "black letter law" as the "rule" is just the three elements listed above, but to get full points you need to argue not only whether all three elements are met, but the nuances of each element.

Thanks so much for this. So would you say that applying a rule to a hypothetical set of facts that I made up is good practice for exam taking?

No

Why are you doing all this? This is crazy. Just retake the LSAT and go to a school with solid employment outcomes, or spend your precious free time networking your ass off because that's the only way you're going to get a job. Even if the "prep" you're doing would help your grades (it won't), the only types of jobs open to a Nova student (or any TTTT) are basically the kind where the employer couldn't care less about your grades. Haven't you said you want to do PI? Go meet and mingle with lawyers in that field. And if you're already doing that, do it more. That will be much more helpful than you answering your own crim hypo in the middle of July.

This is really and truly a waste of your time, either enjoy your summer or do something actually productive.

[Young Marino]

Zuck I'd really appreciate it if you just stop replying to any of my posts.

[BigZuck]

Zuck I'd really appreciate it if you just stop replying to any of my posts.

And I wish you would stop trolling these boards and trying to induce people into potentially life ruining debt. But fishes, bro

Still, in spite of all that, I have given you excellent advice in this thread and others. And for free, no less.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[LRGhost]

Dude, you're not going to know any of this shit. You literally cannot prepare for 1L year in any appreciable way short of taking BarBri. Are you going to take BarBri? No? Then shut up, chug some fucking beers, go to the beach because you're in Florida, and retake the LSAT.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Thanks so much for this. So would you say that applying a rule to a hypothetical set of facts that I made up is good practice for exam taking?

It's not great for two reasons. First, if you make up the facts, then you probably have some idea where things are going in the first place. The best option is always to find facts made up by your professor on old exams.

Second, there is immense time pressure on first year exams (seriously, you write something like 20-30 pages in 3 hours), and you can only overcome that time pressure if you have the rules down cold. So, while your studying needs to include some amount of practice in applying the rule to hypothetical facts, having the rules (and exceptions!) down is at least equally necessary (if not more so).

If you're really concerned, the book Getting to Maybe is good for helping you to organize your approach, but until you're in the class itself, it's basically going to be impossible to know what to study (because you don't know which rules the prof is harping on, and you can't see the prof's old fact patterns yet).

If you know your fall classes, I may be able to make a handful of specific recommendations (example: The Buffalo Creek Disaster actually describes all of the pretrial steps in civil litigation, and is also both relatively short and interesting, so it can serve as a primer if you're taking civil procedure), but beyond Getting to Maybe it's hard to make pre-law-school study recommendations because you really need to tailor your study habits to the professor (hence why getting old exams is important).

[transferror]

(anecdote about what helped me). (encouraging statements, mixed with humble brag and occasional advice). (witty statement bashing BigZuck). (anecdote about TTTT success + heavold reference). Good luck, OP.

[Nebby]

my 2 cents:

Read about taking law school exams. It will not necessarily give you an advantage, but it will get you in the mindset of figuring out how to take law school exams early. Also, do not think that hard work will = good grades. I always focused on being as efficient as possible. If I am doing something that does not have an effect on my grades, I would probably not do it. Later in the semester, if you feel that reading briefs is helpful and you want to focus your time on taking as many practice exams as possible, then do it. People get really caught up in preparing for the cold call that they leave all the practicing and applying the law to very late in the semester. I would not waste time on substantive learning before 1L.

(top of my class in TT)

Transfer

[Nebby]

My 0L prep: Got prestige level 10 on Call of Duty Black Ops II.

[yomisterd]

Anyone heard of the Bramble Bush? Recommended to me, but wanted to run it by TLS.

[TheSpanishMain]

Real talk, Dan. This is meant as genuine advice. Don't spin out.

I really think you should take a few years off before law school. You're kind of all over the place and frankly seem a little immature. Before you were all about being an ADA in Florida, and a TTTT was fine because you never wanted to be leave the local area. Except then maybe you were okay with Georgia. But wait, maybe then you want to move to NYC. Now you're really grasping at straws looking to build your own 1L prep course, when the best thing you could do would be to focus that energy into retaking the LSAT.

Why don't you take a year or two off and study for an LSAT retake? It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. In the meantime, you can work and make some money, and most importantly, figure out exactly where you want to be and what you want to do. Law school is kind of a one shot deal. You have to make that one shot count.

[Young Marino]

Real talk, Dan. This is meant as genuine advice. Don't spin out.

I really think you should take a few years off before law school. You're kind of all over the place and frankly seem a little immature. Before you were all about being an ADA in Florida, and a TTTT was fine because you never wanted to be leave the local area. Except then maybe you were okay with Georgia. But wait, maybe then you want to move to NYC. Now you're really grasping at straws looking to build your own 1L prep course, when the best thing you could do would be to focus that energy into retaking the LSAT.

Why don't you take a year or two off and study for an LSAT retake? It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. In the meantime, you can work and make some money, and most importantly, figure out exactly where you want to be and what you want to do. Law school is kind of a one shot deal. You have to make that one shot count.

Yea I'm planning to make that decision by the end of the week. I took a pt last week and scored better than I thought and think I can get it up to a respectable score by October/December. I'm seriously considering just disappearing to the FL Keys for a few days to figure all this out.

[BigZuck]

Anyone heard of the Bramble Bush? Recommended to me, but wanted to run it by TLS.

I started reading it once. Meh.

[shock259]

FWIW, I took a year off and I am ridiculously happy I did. The first time around, I applied to a bunch of T1 and T2 schools. Got in at many, but at sticker. Ended up deferring at the best one I got into. Retook LSAT. Re-applied the next year and got accepted to the T1 state school in the secondary market that I wanted to work in (that rejected me the year before). And got $$. Went there. Because I had a full year off, I had plenty of time to do 0L prep and get my head in the game and ready to go for law school. I smashed 1L and transferred to CLS. Landed biglaw.

No way this series of events would have worked out if I had gone straight through. I was pretty naive then.

Law school isn't going anywhere.

[Young Marino]

FWIW, I took a year off and I am ridiculously happy I did. The first time around, I applied to a bunch of T1 and T2 schools. Got in at many, but at sticker. Ended up deferring at the best one I got into. Retook LSAT. Re-applied the next year and got accepted to the T1 state school in the secondary market that I wanted to work in (that rejected me the year before). And got $$. Went there. Because I had a full year off, I had plenty of time to do 0L prep and get my head in the game and ready to go for law school. I smashed 1L and transferred to CLS. Landed biglaw.

No way this series of events would have worked out if I had gone straight through. I was pretty naive then.

Law school isn't going anywhere.

I'm a little over removed a year from UG so if I take another year off, I'm a year older and part of me wantsbto just take the plung now. But at the same time, we're talking thousands of dollars on the line here. FL Keys, here I come.

[Young Marino]

Thanks so much for this. So would you say that applying a rule to a hypothetical set of facts that I made up is good practice for exam taking?

It's not great for two reasons. First, if you make up the facts, then you probably have some idea where things are going in the first place. The best option is always to find facts made up by your professor on old exams.

Second, there is immense time pressure on first year exams (seriously, you write something like 20-30 pages in 3 hours), and you can only overcome that time pressure if you have the rules down cold. So, while your studying needs to include some amount of practice in applying the rule to hypothetical facts, having the rules (and exceptions!) down is at least equally necessary (if not more so).

If you're really concerned, the book Getting to Maybe is good for helping you to organize your approach, but until you're in the class itself, it's basically going to be impossible to know what to study (because you don't know which rules the prof is harping on, and you can't see the prof's old fact patterns yet).

If you know your fall classes, I may be able to make a handful of specific recommendations (example: The Buffalo Creek Disaster actually describes all of the pretrial steps in civil litigation, and is also both relatively short and interesting, so it can serve as a primer if you're taking civil procedure), but beyond Getting to Maybe it's hard to make pre-law-school study recommendations because you really need to tailor your study habits to the professor (hence why getting old exams is important).

The more you explain it, the more I feel like I have experience applying BLL to a set of facts. When I was interning at my local DA's office, I constantly referred back to the state statutes to make sure the facts of the case lined up with the elements of the statute. As I got more comfortable with this I got to the point where I stopped reffering so much to the statutes and knew which ones to go with. I did this for the supervising attorney in my division and luckily, we had a lot of the same infractions being committed so I didn't need the West Law book as much the more time passed. I was told on multiple occasions that I have a "excellent" legal reasoning skills for someone who has never sat in a law school class. I know some of this may have been BS complementing for whatever reason but I'm hoping this experience can help me when it comes time to apply law to fact patterns.