What E&E books can I study before 1L? Forum

[Columbia Law]

tag

[Ghost]

.

[dailygrind]

timestamps, people.

[IAFG]

Glannon Civ-Pro is the only one I'd bother with. Read it cover to cover.

i would recommend the glannon multiple choice civpro and "acing civil procedure" both to 0Ls and 1Ls. both are more readable. but then, they better mirrored what my prof covered. so that's the tricky thing about 0L prep, which i am pretty against. i'd say more but i will wait for grades before i start giving advice.

[Cupidity]

E&E's won't be practical unless you use them along-side classes, teachers want things done their way. I would recommend the lighter hornbooks or guide books, Glannon's multiple choice guide to Civ Pro is excellent. They provide you with a broad overview, but won't teach you methods of analysis that you will have to unlearn.

[Cupidity]

Acing Contracts is also wonderful.

[dakatz]

Again, guys, you need to think cost/benefit. Learn about how to take an exam! That will give you a serious advantage over your classmates including those who are foolish enough to start reading supplements beforehand. I can't stress this enough. It doesn't matter how many supplements you read beforehand because the playing field will be completely even come exam time.

[JazzOne]

Again, guys, you need to think cost/benefit. Learn about how to take an exam! That will give you a serious advantage over your classmates including those who are foolish enough to start reading supplements beforehand. I can't stress this enough. It doesn't matter how many supplements you read beforehand because the playing field will be completely even come exam time.

I disagree with this 100%. I read about exam strategies before law school, and I still didn't know what I was doing. You can't practice applying the law to facts when you don't know the law. The BLL is the one thing you can learn before class, and if you understand the BLL, it will be easier to read cases and actually focus on the analysis. I second the advice to start with Glannon's torts E&E. The information is familiar and simple enough that it was useful for me. I didn't try to memorize details, but I found it very helpful to see how causes are broken down into discreet elements and how those elements are analyzed indvidually. The E&E has the added bonus of giving you test practice after each chapter, and the issues are presented in small chunks so the analysis isn't overly complicated.

[Veyron]

Again, guys, you need to think cost/benefit. Learn about how to take an exam! That will give you a serious advantage over your classmates including those who are foolish enough to start reading supplements beforehand. I can't stress this enough. It doesn't matter how many supplements you read beforehand because the playing field will be completely even come exam time.

I disagree with this 100%. I read about exam strategies before law school, and I still didn't know what I was doing. You can't practice applying the law to facts when you don't know the law. The BLL is the one thing you can learn before class, and if you understand the BLL, it will be easier to read cases and actually focus on the analysis. I second the advice to start with Glannon's torts E&E. The information is familiar and simple enough that it was useful for me. I didn't try to memorize details, but I found it very helpful to see how causes are broken down into discreet elements and how those elements are analyzed indvidually. The E&E has the added bonus of giving you test practice after each chapter, and the issues are presented in small chunks so the analysis isn't overly complicated.

I was going to reccomend glannon torts as well but some torts professors have a habit of being very theory oriented, if yours is one of them it might not be that useful. In contrast, I don't know of a single civ pro class that deviates meaningfully from Glannon.

[JazzOne]

The civ pro E&E is outstanding, but I think it's far too technical for a 0L. The torts book is interesting. I'm not saying you should read the E&E and then expect to ace the class. However, the torts E&E can show you how lawyers analyze and discuss legal issues in a broader sense.

[09042014]

This is law not rocket science.

Reasons to not read E&Es as a 1L

1) You won't remember it
2) You don't need it
3) It may hurt you
4) Property E&E is fucking retarded
5) Your class probably won't cover 40-60% of what is in the E&E and will cover some stuff not in it.

Two of my four professors crucify people who give E&E answers because they have unique ideas about their subjects.

And for my other two classes they just weren't necessary.

The material in law school is really fucking easy. Everyone understands it, everyone.

If you are going to some TTT, just don't.

[Veyron]

This is law not rocket science.

Reasons to not read E&Es as a 1L

1) You won't remember it
2) You don't need it
3) It may hurt you
4) Property E&E is fucking retarded
5) Your class probably won't cover 40-60% of what is in the E&E and will cover some stuff not in it.

Two of my four professors crucify people who give E&E answers because they have unique ideas about their subjects.

And for my other two classes they just weren't necessary.

The material in law school is really fucking easy. Everyone understands it, everyone.

If you are going to some TTT, just don't.

*with the exception of Civ-Pro to judge from my section* (or maybe we just are not that smart, always a possibility)

[Grizz]

The material in law school is really fucking easy. Everyone understands it, everyone.

The cold hard reality of what a lot of 0L's don't know about lawl school.

[quakeroats]

Again, guys, you need to think cost/benefit. Learn about how to take an exam! That will give you a serious advantage over your classmates including those who are foolish enough to start reading supplements beforehand. I can't stress this enough. It doesn't matter how many supplements you read beforehand because the playing field will be completely even come exam time.

I disagree with this 100%. I read about exam strategies before law school, and I still didn't know what I was doing. You can't practice applying the law to facts when you don't know the law. The BLL is the one thing you can learn before class, and if you understand the BLL, it will be easier to read cases and actually focus on the analysis. I second the advice to start with Glannon's torts E&E. The information is familiar and simple enough that it was useful for me. I didn't try to memorize details, but I found it very helpful to see how causes are broken down into discreet elements and how those elements are analyzed indvidually. The E&E has the added bonus of giving you test practice after each chapter, and the issues are presented in small chunks so the analysis isn't overly complicated.

I think reading through Glannon's Torts E&E and GTM are the best possible things you can do. Once you finish the BLL chapters, you get to go through simulated exams which seems to be the most helpful thing you can learn. The BLL, which you may forget, is secondary. Having actual experience reading through a fact pattern, isolating issues, and applying law to facts is invaluable, and can help you set the pace for what you spend 1L studying and how you'll do it.

[quakeroats]

Agreed. That would be a great list for a 1L asking for supplement advice, but its an awful post directed at a 0L. Disco_barred's advice is spot-on.

TITCR. Substantive 0L prep is almost always a terrible idea. It flat out will not help you "get ahead." To the extent you just can't wait to work on law-related stuff, go update your resume, read Getting To Maybe ("GTM"), or Eugene Volokh's book on legal writing.

I'd say Volokh's book isn't as helpful as 1L prep, as you'll be writing for faculty who don't publish.

[dailygrind]

The material in law school is really fucking easy. Everyone understands it, everyone.

bullshit. anyone in law school can understand any discrete component of a branch of law. understanding everything about every component which is covered in class...that's something else entirely. empirically, one of my profs put up an exam bank with a bunch of model answers and criticisms of common student mistakes. it was pretty apparent reading through the mistake analysis that people do not perfectly understand the material...misusing certain doctrines, not fully using certain cases, not seeing easy arguments... therefore, there is room for 0L prep. however, as you noted before, 0L prep has a really shitty return to time invested because the overlap between what the prof teaches and what the supplement teaches is not perfect, and as a 0L it's damn hard to figure out what you're taking from it all.

[JazzOne]

you'll be writing for faculty who don't publish.

Not at my school. I can't speak to others, but where I went, the 1L faculty members were among the most prolific publishers (and the most well-known).

Yeah, at my school the best professors teach first-year classes. Those professors publish a lot. And Volokh's books are terrific.

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

[09042014]

This is law not rocket science.

Reasons to not read E&Es as a 1L

1) You won't remember it
2) You don't need it
3) It may hurt you
4) Property E&E is fucking retarded
5) Your class probably won't cover 40-60% of what is in the E&E and will cover some stuff not in it.

Two of my four professors crucify people who give E&E answers because they have unique ideas about their subjects.

And for my other two classes they just weren't necessary.

The material in law school is really fucking easy. Everyone understands it, everyone.

If you are going to some TTT, just don't.

*with the exception of Civ-Pro to judge from my section* (or maybe we just are not that smart, always a possibility)

I had a great Civ Pro professor so maybe it's not so simple without a good explanation. Civ Pro was the only course I couldn't figure out just from reading cases. They were too confusing and made too subtle distinctions for me to catch without my professor.

My prof also taught differently than most so I couldn't use Glannon Civ Pro, but my friends from other sections swore by it.

[romothesavior]

1. Don't bump dead threads, especially stupid ones.
2. Don't read the E&Es before 1L.

[quakeroats]

you'll be writing for faculty who don't publish.

Not at my school. I can't speak to others, but where I went, the 1L faculty members were among the most prolific publishers (and the most well-known).

Yeah, at my school the best professors teach first-year classes. Those professors publish a lot. And Volokh's books are terrific.

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

The issue isn't who teach first-year classes, it's who teaches first-year writing classes.

[Nicholasnickynic]

It varies some, but the usual 1L subjects are:

- Civil Procedure
- Contracts
- Property
- Torts
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law

Some schools omit Con. Law from the first year, and some weirdly require Criminal Procedure instead of Criminal Law. As Alexandria mentioned, the E&E titles on Civ. Pro. and Torts seems to get the most uniform good reviews. The others vary.

Some like the Property E&E by Burke, but I found it incoherent and unreadable. I would suggest Sprankling's Understanding Property Law instead for that subject. Everyone raves about Chirelstein's short primer for Contracts, and Chemerinsky's treatise for Con. Law. Most people seem to like Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law for that subject. Working out the essay questions while reading ahead over the summer is insane anyway. So you won't miss out on anything by passing on the E&Es for these subjects.

Chemerinsky's book is huge, so you should probably check and see what topics are included in your school's 1L Intro to Con. Law. Odds are it's only federalism and a little bit of equal protection or something. Most schools save the individual rights stuff for another course, and that's about half of what Chemerinsky covers.

So, if you want to look at one thing from each subject:

- Civil Procedure: E&E (Glannon)
- Contracts: Chirelstein (The Boat Book)
- Property: Understanding Property Law (Sprankling)
- Torts: E&E (Glannon)
- Criminal Law Understanding Criminal Law (Dressler)
- Constitutional Law: Chemerinsky

Try Chirelstein first, because that's the shortest and most readable. If you get through it and want more, then look at the other ones in subjects that interest you. Torts or Criminal Law are probably the next most readable and interesting for most people. Property is the toughest slog, because it's so arcane and includes about a dozen different areas of the law. Only attack that one if you've gotten through some simpler topics and still want more.

You are awesome. I would also like to thank the internet for letting all of this be possible.

verified as legitimate list.

The following may depend on school/professor, but:
The one I think is most important to read as a 0L is Glannon's E&E for civ pro. THe first 8 chapters or so on the the "three rings" gives you a really good overview on the basic issues of civ pro I. Helpful in understanding that mess of a class, IMO.

[romothesavior]

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

Eh, we'll see. I can't speak to your situation really since I don't know you, but IMO, the reason 0L prep is worthless is because learning the material is only a small part of the battle. As DF said, just about everybody is going to have a solid grasp of the material come exam time. You could do tons of 0L prep, know that shit inside and out, and still finish outside of the top of the class due to an inability to convey it how your prof wants it, and get beaten on the curve by people who did nothing but read the casebook throughout the semester and hit the supps hard starting around Thanksgiving.

This is essentially what I (and 90% of my classmates) did, and while I don't know how I did on my exams, I can tell you that I knew the material just as well if not better than my classmates for the exam. I can barely remember the law school stuff that I read back in August; I have no clue how reading about it in June or July would have helped me at all.

[dailygrind]

Edit: I'm glad to see that this discussion has turned to a more moderate position. It is ridiculous to say that there can never be a benefit to 0L prep. I benefited a lot, and I destroyed my class first semester. Then they got with the program, and things got a lot tougher second semester. I think it's easy to get way ahead of your class and dominate first semester of 1L. The time investment may not be worth it to certain people, but there definitely can be a tangible benefit to 0L prep.

Eh, we'll see. I can't speak to your situation really since I don't know you, but IMO, the reason 0L prep is worthless is because learning the material is only a small part of the battle. As DF said, just about everybody is going to have a solid grasp of the material come exam time. You could do tons of 0L prep, know that shit inside and out, and still finish outside of the top of the class due to an inability to convey it how your prof wants it, and get beaten on the curve by people who did nothing but read the casebook throughout the semester and hit the supps hard starting around Thanksgiving.

This is essentially what I (and 90% of my classmates) did, and while I don't know how I did on my exams, I can tell you that I knew the material just as well if not better than my classmates for the exam. I can barely remember the law school stuff that I read back in August; I have no clue how reading about it in June or July would have helped me at all.

1) i really, really doubt that everyone has a solid grasp of the material come exam time. unless by "solid" you mean something less than "knows how to answer every question that has been posed in class or in the readings."
2) even if everyone had a solid grasp of the material come exam time, the person who got there sooner had more time to practice applying the material on practice tests and to read more hornbooks.
3) in theory, if you learn through 0L prep it's supposed to aid in your learning as you go. it's not so much that you finally snap everything together during finals and are like: "aha! that chapter in glannon's guide to civ pro now makes sense!" it's more like you read through discovery and are like: "well damn, XYZ section is really similar to what i learned in glannon, but glannon said something about ABC also, i wonder if that's important?"

[romothesavior]

+1 to everything GTL Rev just said. Absolutely spot on reasons for why 0L prep is probably a waste of time.

[megaTTTron]

1) i really, really doubt that everyone has a solid grasp of the material come exam time. unless by "solid" you mean something less than "knows how to answer every question that has been posed in class or in the readings."

This is a straw man. Obviously not everyone--in fact, probably nobody--"knows how to answer every question that has been posed in class or in the readings." He said that everyone has a solid grasp of the material; not that everyone morphed into Rain Man. FWIW, it was my experience that basically everyone had a firm grasp of the rules and concepts by exam time. Can't speak for whether that is the case elsewhere or not.

2) even if everyone had a solid grasp of the material come exam time, the person who got there sooner had more time to practice applying the material on practice tests and to read more hornbooks.

This implies that 0L prep people "get there sooner." But they don't. They will often be confused by extraneous stuff, E&E items that conflict with their prof's view of the law, and in some cases overconfident as to their knowledge. More than that, stuff you "learn" in July will almost certainly be forgotten by December, so the prepster doesn't get there sooner. Instead, they run the first lap twice. Fine and well if that's what you want to use your free time on, but don't delude people that it is going to be beneficial grades-wise in the overwhelming majority of cases.

3) in theory, if you learn through 0L prep it's supposed to aid in your learning as you go. it's not so much that you finally snap everything together during finals and are like: "aha! that chapter in glannon's guide to civ pro now makes sense!" it's more like you read through discovery and are like: "well damn, XYZ section is really similar to what i learned in glannon, but glannon said something about ABC also, i wonder if that's important?"

There are lots of questionable assumptions packed into this, including the fact that people will remember what they read over the summer. That may sould silly to 0Ls reading this, but it really is true: by the end of the semester you really forget large pieces of what you learned in the first few weeks. That's why building your own outlines is often good--it gives you a chance to refresh/re-learn that material. Second, there's the un-learning/conflicting interpretations issue I mentioned above (which DF also mentioned). Then of course there's the well-documented burn out factor.

I did substantive 0L prep (E&Es) and non-substantive 0L prep (PLSII, LEEWS).

Non-substantive prep was the key to my success.

Substantive prep, and it's effect, is way up in the air. GTL said it very well. But, did it hurt? Not a chance -- I was more familiar with the subjects (Ks, CIv Pro, and Property) which helped. That was about the extent of it though.

Would I recommend substantive prep, no way. Unnecessary. I don't think it will hurt you ("learning it wrong" as they say), but no one needs to do this to do well.