Righting Write

If often surprises me how many of my fellow law students loathe essays on midterms and finals. Many of them would rather have short answer or multi-state (multiple choice) questions. It's my personal belief that many law students loathe essays because they simply don't know how to write a good essay response.

I've done fairly well on my essay writing, as in straight A's, so I feel I have some position to advise law students on how to frame their essay responses.

The first mistake a law student can make is simply read the essay fact pattern once and then begin writing. You HAVE to read through the facts at least twice, if not three times. Law school essays are purposefully designed to have multiple issues and the professor expects you to address each one in order to get a high score.

After I've read through the fact pattern enough to accurately identify each issues, I then write out each issue to the side. This allows me to create a "bare-bones" framework for my essay. I'll also refer back to this list when writing my essay to keep on track.

When I begin writing an essay, I begin by giving a brief preview of the issues that I plan to address. This creates a legal "roadmap" that makes the essay more organized and easy to follow.

I then state the applicable law (AKA "Issue Spotting"), because before you explain why the result should be what it is, you MUST provide a legal basis that provides the underpinning for your reasoning. And that legal basis MUST be relevant. It amazes me how law students go on for an entire paragraph about a legal principle that wasn't even asked to be addressed within the facts given in the fact pattern.

Next, keep your points concise. State enough of the law to show you know what you're talking about, but don't over-do it. Then tie in the applicable law to the facts. This is known as your reasoning, this is how you transform the applicable legal principle to the outcome of the case.

Most professors want an end result, for you to tell "who should win". It's my personal belief that any essay could be successfully argued for the plaintiff or the defendant. In these types of essays, professors are looking more at how effectively you frame your argument and how strong you use those arguments and the applicable law to advocate for your client. As long as you apply the correct law and your reasoning is sound, you can persuade the professor in your answer.

In deciding which side "should win", I create virtual stacks with the given facts. I argue for the side that I believe has the "highest stack", AKA "strongest case", after comparing the pros and cons of every available claim for the plaintiff, and defense for the defendant.

Which brings me to my next point. You MUST acknowledge the weaknesses in your argument. You simply cannot act like they don't exist. This tactic won't work in the real world, so professors won't let you get away with it in law school. If there's a defense that might bar the plaintiff's claim, and you're arguing for the plaintiff, address the defense. But address it in a way that disarms the defense. State how your position can overcome the defense. The same strategy works vice versa, if you're arguing for the defendant.

As I draw my essays to a close for a midterm or final, I also do a brief summary of the issues and the probable outcomes after applying the applicable law. It serves as organized closure when perhaps I've written several pages for an essay.

I personally prefer essays over any other type of question because it allows me to "stretch my legs" and fully explain the reasoning behind my answer, rather than simply being wrong because I marked the wrong alphabetical answer.