Top Law Schools

Hey all,

I am looking for some advice on exam writing.

Recently, I started looking at some old exams and have been slightly overwhelmed by the amount of issues that can be included in a single hypothetical. I am spotting a good number of issues, but am struggling in deciding whether or not they are all important enough to include or if some are assumed as non issues.

For example in a recent Crim exam I looked over the call of question asked you to discuss the homicide liability X could be charge with for the death of Y. --- The central issues in the fact pattern revolved around intent, and possible defenses. The voluntary act requirement and causation were more or less given from the fact pattern (X shot Y in the head). In a situation like this do you still want to discuss, at least in passing, the voluntary act requirement and causation? Or are they assumed as non issues for purposes of the exam writing?

Similarly in a contracts exam, if the central issue revolves around fraud, do you still want to discuss whether there was a valid offer, acceptance, and consideration?

My original understanding of law school exams was that you wanted to include all the issues, but after looking at the exams I am wondering if some are assumed?

Thanks for any input!

There aren't any "assumed" issues. Include everything you can think of.

That said, if an element is very obviously met, don't spend half a page on it. Keep it short ("A valid contract requires an offer, and one was clearly made here because the plaintiff said 'I will sell you my car for $5,000'") and then move on to the more complex issues.

You also need to understand how your professor grades.

For example, some grade by just letting you "rack up points" -- every issue you spot is good, and the more issues you spot and handle well, the better. In these types of exams it might be worth just flagging every issue you see, even if briefly. These exams are often not word-limited, and you benefit from being able to read and type very quickly.

Other professors grade by seeing how well you tackle tricky issues in depth. These are often word-limited exams, and you don't get points for spotting and slaying a zillion easy issues. You could do well by picking out just a few of the most challenging issues in the fact pattern, explaining why they're difficult, comparing the facts to cases you've read, thinking of creative policy solutions, identifying why the outcome you think is best could be unfair for X group, etc.

The only way to know is to ask, if your professor doesn't explain up front what she's looking for.