First year of law school Forum

[Troianii]

So I heard some very specific and unique advice and just wanted thoughts on it from those who have been through 1L (so no 0L or 1Ls, please). What I heard was essentially this: "it doesn't matter if you know the specifics of any cases. You don't need to know the date, the plaintiff, the defendant, the specifics, what Constitutional questions were raised, etc., all that you need to know is the general jist of the issue and the outcome. It is much more important that you know the significance of a case than the minutiae and specifics. Don't waste your time with the little details, and don't spend too much time on briefs - they aren't much help after the first few, which basically just give you an idea of what to look for when reading a case."

How accurate do you guys think this is? Would people really say don't bother with briefs, for example? And if so, what are the best ways to study and prep for an exam? Long-term, of course - not talking about crunching last minute for an exam.

[tomwatts]

So I heard some very specific and unique advice and just wanted thoughts on it from those who have been through 1L (so no 0L or 1Ls, please). What I heard was essentially this: "it doesn't matter if you know the specifics of any cases. You don't need to know the date, the plaintiff, the defendant, the specifics, what Constitutional questions were raised, etc., all that you need to know is the general jist of the issue and the outcome. It is much more important that you know the significance of a case than the minutiae and specifics. Don't waste your time with the little details, and don't spend too much time on briefs - they aren't much help after the first few, which basically just give you an idea of what to look for when reading a case."

How accurate do you guys think this is? Would people really say don't bother with briefs, for example? And if so, what are the best ways to study and prep for an exam? Long-term, of course - not talking about crunching last minute for an exam.

This is not at all unique. People say this sort of thing all the time. Various thoughts:

* Knowing the facts and the outcome — or, put another way, the central question presented and the answer to that question — is all that you need for some (many?) classes but not all. There is definitely one class I took during 1L year in which I tied with a couple others for the best grade in the class in large part because I paid attention to all the details of a case. You couldn't summarize the cases with a single sentence and do well on that exam. You needed at least half a dozen different points for each case, and sometimes a good deal more. (I knew that this was going to be true because the prof spent inordinate amounts of time stepping through every aspect of the reasoning of the case, so it came as no surprise.) I also have heard of classes where the prof basically doesn't care about the rules of law at all; the prof cares about the theoretical underpinnings behind it all (maybe originalism vs. other theories of constitutional interpretation, maybe law-and-economics conservatives vs. crits and the like, or whatever). For these, if you're paying attention to the narrow holdings of cases, you'll bomb the exam.

* Generally, well-written case briefs are supposed to tell you the facts and the outcome (or the issue and the holding, or however you want to think about it). So if all you want is that, then reading the case is probably less efficient than reading a brief. (The case will be many, many times as long as a brief.) Maybe this person meant "Don't write your own case briefs"?

* To the extent that what you wrote is true, it's true only for exam prep (which, yes, is typically 100% of your grade). If you don't care that you can't answer any questions in class, and that the prof will think you're grossly unprepared and stupid — which can matter, because recommendations do sometimes come into play for some things, depending on what you're planning to do with your JD — then I guess it doesn't matter and you can do exam prep from day 1 without ever preparing for class. But this is risky.

So basically: 1) The advice you were given doesn't always work. It depends on the class and the prof. 2) You'll look like an idiot in class, which doesn't affect your grade but may affect you if you ever need a rec. 3) If this is what you're trying to do, probably reading case briefs and outlines from previous years makes at least as much sense as reading the cases.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

There are two ways to get As your 1L year: (1) do as much as possible, OR (2) do what is necessary efficiently. Does reading cases help? Sure. Is it necessary or efficient? No.

If you'll never cite to cases in finals (as is true for the vast majority of classes), just work on understanding the law. I'd vouch that the few days I spent with E&Es toward the end of the semester was worth infinitely more than all of the time I spent briefing cases. If you want to do as much as possible to give yourself the best leg up against your classmates, read, go to office hours, etc. It's not necessary though, and you'll be happier and likely do just as well as all the people who wear themselves out if you just focus on being efficient.

If I could do 1L over, I wouldn't read a single case (other than finding briefs online). You are judged against your classmates. Your classmates are generally inefficient and stressed. You just have to "1L" better than they do.

I'll add that most people start by trying to do everything, and later realize they are behind schedule and must salvage what remains (myself included). Rather than arriving at that spot, why not just work on being efficient from the start?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Briefing cases isn't worth it after you've learned how to read a case and identify the pertinent stuff - I found it a useful exercise for that purpose, but stopped after about 3 weeks because it takes way too much time.

And generally speaking, the rule (or outcome) of a case is going to be much more important than anything else - most profs don't want the date/name/facts, and if you can say "the case about the fox" that's enough. There are quite a number of profs who will construct an exam question such that knowing the general facts of the case will help you, but not usually every single detail (and it's more about being able to recognize analogous facts than producing the facts on your own).

But not getting bogged down in all the minutiae of the facts/details is also not the same as not reading any of the cases yourself. I never quite get people suggesting that you dispense with reading cases altogether. Obviously it works for some people, but I consistently did worse in courses where I didn't do the reading myself and relied on supplements for that (not saying I never used supplements, just not as a substitute for reading). But I also never found the reading particularly difficult/burdensome. So different things work for different people.

(I agree, though, that that's pretty common advice. I agree with it overall, the disagreement is more about how exactly to implement it and the caveat that you have to understand what your prof wants/is asking.)

[Nebby]

"Mr. Reynolds, can you use the facts of this case and make an analogous argument for preemption?"

"Uhhhhh, I can tell you the rule?"

"We already know the rule, can you utilize the court's reasoning for a preemption argument?"

"..."

[White Dwarf]

"Mr. Reynolds, can you use the facts of this case and make an analogous argument for preemption?"

"Uhhhhh, I can tell you the rule?"

"We already know the rule, can you utilize the court's reasoning for a preemption argument?"

"..."

My first semester in a nutshell.

I do feel like I have a very good grasp on the material, though. I just suck at the types of cold-call questions my professors like asking. I'm also a horrendous BSer, which doesn't help.

[Troianii]

"Mr. Reynolds, can you use the facts of this case and make an analogous argument for preemption?"

"Uhhhhh, I can tell you the rule?"

"We already know the rule, can you utilize the court's reasoning for a preemption argument?"

"..."

My first semester in a nutshell.

I do feel like I have a very good grasp on the material, though. I just suck at the types of cold-call questions my professors like asking. I'm also a horrendous BSer, which doesn't help.

I'm majoring in history and philosophy, and with a double major in bs, I feel I should do well in that area.

Also thanks for all the responses.

[Nebby]

"Mr. Reynolds, can you use the facts of this case and make an analogous argument for preemption?"

"Uhhhhh, I can tell you the rule?"

"We already know the rule, can you utilize the court's reasoning for a preemption argument?"

"..."

My first semester in a nutshell.

I do feel like I have a very good grasp on the material, though. I just suck at the types of cold-call questions my professors like asking. I'm also a horrendous BSer, which doesn't help.

I'm majoring in history and philosophy, and with a double major in bs, I feel I should do well in that area.

Also thanks for all the responses.

You can't BS if you don't know the relevant facts of the case. (most facts in a case are not relevant)

I recommend reading the cases, but you really only need to know: (1) the rule; (2) the court's reasoning; and (3) the facts relevant to the court's reasoning.

[Troianii]

"Mr. Reynolds, can you use the facts of this case and make an analogous argument for preemption?"

"Uhhhhh, I can tell you the rule?"

"We already know the rule, can you utilize the court's reasoning for a preemption argument?"

"..."

My first semester in a nutshell.

I do feel like I have a very good grasp on the material, though. I just suck at the types of cold-call questions my professors like asking. I'm also a horrendous BSer, which doesn't help.

I'm majoring in history and philosophy, and with a double major in bs, I feel I should do well in that area.

Also thanks for all the responses.

You can't BS if you don't know the relevant facts of the case. (most facts in a case are not relevant)

I recommend reading the cases, but you really only need to know: (1) the rule; (2) the court's reasoning; and (3) the facts relevant to the court's reasoning.

I thought I laid the sarcasm on pretty thick there - that was a joke.

Either way, thanks for the response. It's actually very helpful.

[malleus discentium]

So I heard some very specific and unique advice and just wanted thoughts on it from those who have been through 1L (so no 0L or 1Ls, please). What I heard was essentially this: "it doesn't matter if you know the specifics of any cases. You don't need to know the date, the plaintiff, the defendant, the specifics, what Constitutional questions were raised, etc., all that you need to know is the general jist of the issue and the outcome. It is much more important that you know the significance of a case than the minutiae and specifics. Don't waste your time with the little details, and don't spend too much time on briefs - they aren't much help after the first few, which basically just give you an idea of what to look for when reading a case."

How accurate do you guys think this is? Would people really say don't bother with briefs, for example? And if so, what are the best ways to study and prep for an exam? Long-term, of course - not talking about crunching last minute for an exam.

Dates, parties and specifics are never important, except when they are. I'm a big apologist for dates. They're abstractly important if your professor is interested in doctrinal currents, but it's not necessary to know that Pierson v Post was decided in 1805 instead of just knowing it's a really old case. But sometimes dates are substantively important and granularity is relevant. (Think 1984 in admin cases.) It would be a mistake to think that nothing from the cases matters except the rule, and I think advice like "only read supplements" is bad for this reason. But it would also be a mistake to spend time remembering irrelevant details. Learning where the line falls is tough but that's 1L for you.

[BigZuck]

All that matters is what your professor thinks matters.

It's nice when that correlates exactly with the supplement that you use. But sometimes it never does.

[carmensandiego]

All that matters is what your professor thinks matters.

It's nice when that correlates exactly with the supplement that you use. But sometimes it never does.

This. I've had some professors who want a brief snap of the facts, both cold-call and on the final to relate to the relevant law, and other professors who couldn't give a F. Aka - that advice was subpar. Go in there and gauge/ask your Prof what he/she wants and go from there. More than likely, you will need a basic understanding of the facts.

[totesTheGoat]

1) Rule of Law
2) Pertinent facts
3) Court's application
4) If needed, the disposition of the case.

My rule is prepare only exactly as much as necessary to be able to answer the cold-calls in the class. If you buy a used book, most of it is already going to be highlighted for you.

[jbagelboy]

Knowing the core factual details and legal reasoning of important cases will help you on exams, so I wouldn't cast them out of your playbook too quickly. The bulk of your points on any given question will come from the analogies and distinctions you draw between the exam fact pattern and the case law on point (which should be easily identifiable in your outline). Your analysis will lack subtlety and rigor if you stop at "X v Y stood for Z principle, which suggests the plaintiff should prevail on his MSJ." You want to explain how the events or trajectory of judicial reasoning in X v Y correlates to, and where it departs from, the facts in front of you.

Of course, this doesn't mean you need to encumber yourself with the minutiae from every case or memorize the type of information that might come up in a cold call. And, as your advise says, you do need to have a strong grasp of the 'spirit' of the case in addition to the patterns and lines of legal analysis on your outline, because much of the time there won't be an easy answer one way or the other and a discussion of the policy considerations at play or the greater thrust of a statutory scheme can help lend credence to whichever side you come out on between the fictitious parties. That being said, you can't even get here without some real meat in your argument, and that meat requires a comparison to the cases you've studied.

Other posters have already provided rubrics for success, three part tests, ect., and there are hordes of them on TLS for you to browse. You have to know the law and the decision tree it creates based on the common law rules and major lines of constitutional jurisprudence. You have to know enough about a large enough body of cases to have information to map onto every or almost every piece of the hypothetical fact pattern. And what distinguishes someone with the first two from someone a cut above will be how strong a writer you are; syntax, vocabulary/diction, speed, clarity, brevity.