Writing for Law School Exams

Approach One

Jean Mangan, Courtney Hogan, and Thomas Kadri

There are different strategies that you will use when writing an essay for an exam in law school or for the bar. Many law school exams consist of short answers, essays on directed topics, and “issue-spotters.” In law school, issue-spotters are exams featuring a long hypothetical—usually referred to as a fact pattern—in which there are several potential claims, defenses, and/or other scenarios to be analyzed under the rules you have learned in the course. When you are responding to an issue-spotter question, your goal is to demonstrate to the reader (usually your professor) that you both know the legal rules and understand how to apply them to a given set of facts. Depending on the particular fact pattern and prompt, you might also need to tell the reader every possible way a situation could resolve, often by applying the same rule and showing how your conclusion might change depending on how you interpret different facts. This ability to explore the legal issues in depth demonstrates your mastery of the rules and their nuances. Remember, your law professors assume you can regurgitate the rules, but they really want to see that you know how to apply the rules.

First, pay careful attention to the “call of the question” or prompt—what the professor has asked you to explain about the fact pattern. Many questions will not have a “right” answer as to whether a certain claim will succeed or fail, so the best practice is typically to explain both sides of the argument then commit to what you believe to be the stronger conclusion (e.g.: “The judge is likely to grant the motion for summary judgment in this case.”), unless instructions indicate otherwise or additional facts are necessary to make a reasonable conclusion. To maximize the points you earn, show the professor the steps you took to reach your conclusions by using the traditional IRAC structure for issue-spotter answers. Exams are designed for you to demonstrate to your professor that you can both find and articulate the legal Issue; identify the relevant Rule(s); conduct the appropriate Analysis or application, including the consideration of counterarguments; and clearly state the Conclusion. Put another way, for each section of your exam answer, you want to tell the professor what that particular section discusses; what past sources of law tell us about this issue; explain how this rule applies to the scenario and why the rule leads to a certain outcome; and then summarize for the reader the purpose of the section by restating your conclusion.

The primary benefits to sticking to an IRAC format are that (1) you present your thoughts in a logical sequence; (2) you are more likely to include all the components needed to show your thought process; and (3) your professor will be able to read your answers easily. All three of these benefits combine to create yet another benefit: you enhance your credibility with the reader.

When you begin reading an issue-spotter question, I suggest going ahead and writing

I

R

A

C

down the page. As you come across an issue, write it next to the I. You will repeat IRAC down the page for each issue you have.

An “issue” is a possible legal question—whether claim or defense—raised by a fact pattern and prompt. Although many fact patterns are quite long, every word has been carefully selected and warrants your full attention. To borrow another professor’s metaphor, think of issue-spotting as a pinball game: the fact pattern is riddled with issues, and you gain more points for each issue you find and discuss. To ensure you catch as many issues as possible, read the fact pattern carefully and multiple times, marking up the page as much as possible. Analyze every word and keep an eye out for important relationships between parties, as well as specific indications of the parties’ thoughts or actions that could suggest their mindset or explain their conduct. Do not add facts to the problem or make broad assumptions about facts given. If more facts are necessary, explain their necessity in your analysis. In short, active reading is your best friend in a law school exam.

For example, say you encounter the following prompt on your Torts exam:

Early one Sunday morning, Arthur went over to Henry’s house to ask to borrow some eggs. When Arthur knocked on the door, Henry threw open the door, striking Arthur in the face and giving him a bloody nose. Henry sticks his head out, sees Arthur with blood streaming down his face, and laughs. Arthur screams, “I’m going to go after you for everything you’ve got!” Henry slams the door in his face. Can Arthur sue Henry for his bloody nose?

Sample Exam Answer

-------------------------------------------------------

I - Can A sue H for bloody nose under a theory of battery?

R - Battery occurs when a defendant (1) acts (2) intending to cause contact that is (3) harmful or offensive; and (4) harmful or offensive contact results. The contact does not have to be directly from a part of the defendant’s body; it is enough that the defendant intentionally uses an object to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff such that the contact can be attributed to the defendant.

A - Here, we know that Henry caused a harmful contact to Arthur by swinging the door open and striking Arthur in the face and injuring his nose, which means that three elements of a battery claim are satisfied. What remains to be determined is whether Henry intended for the door to strike Arthur in the nose. On the one hand, the fact that Henry stuck his head out and laughed afterwards might suggest that Henry meant to strike Arthur with the door; in that case, Henry would be liable for battery. On the other hand, if Henry did not mean to strike Arthur and was actually laughing about something else, then Henry would not have had the intent to strike Arthur, and Henry could not be found liable for battery.

C - Henry’s liability for battery will depend on whether Arthur can prove Henry intended to open the door in a way that would strike Arthur.

(You could then use the same format to explore whether Arthur can sue Henry under a theory of negligence.)

-------------------------------------------------------

Notice how stating the issue helps you recall the appropriate rules. Once you have stated the rule, you then go through and connect a fact from the prompt to each piece of the rule. Where an important fact is unknown or ambiguous, like whether Henry had the requisite intent, that tells you to show how the facts could be interpreted to allow for either outcome. Then, you bring it all together by answering the question posed in I with the likely conclusion or the specific fact or portion of the rule that the outcome turns on.

As you are studying for your exams, practice putting your answers to practice problems in the IRAC format when you write out your responses. You should always try to answer the problems on your own before you read the sample answer! Having to recall the information and put it in your own words will help make the material stick in your long-term memory, which is better both for your exam-taking and for learning the material thoroughly.

Approach Two

Emily Whitest and Jean Mangan

On the other hand, the “elemental approach" is another format for approaching writing for exams. This approach is especially effective in courses like Torts, Criminal Law, and sometimes Property because these areas of law are built around specific legal rules composed of distinct elements that must be met to establish liability or a valid claim. In Torts, for instance, negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages. Each of these elements can be analyzed separately to determine whether the overall claim is satisfied. Criminal Law similarly depends on breaking down offenses into actus reus, mens rea, causation, and attendant circumstances. By addressing each element individually, students can more precisely identify where legal claims succeed or fail, avoid conflating issues, and sharpen their application of law to facts. In Property, while not always element-based, doctrines like adverse possession (which may require actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession) also lends itself to this method because they require a checklist of conditions to be met. The elemental approach enhances clarity, promotes rule-based thinking, and mirrors how courts and practitioners analyze legal claims. It trains students to isolate legal issues, apply relevant rules with precision, and articulate well-organized arguments on exams and in practice.

When using the elemental approach, you begin by clearly stating the rule, breaking it down into its individual legal elements. Then, you write a separate paragraph analyzing the facts in relation to each element, one at a time. This structure ensures a thorough and organized analysis. Sometimes, a single fact may be relevant to more than one element. For example, a defendant’s statement or action might suggest both intent and causation. In these situations, you need to use judgment and place the fact where it most strongly supports or undermines the element. Finally, you end with a concise conclusion that ties together your analysis and states how the issue should likely be resolved based on whether all the elements have been met.

For example, say you encounter the following prompt on your Torts exam:

Early one Sunday morning, Arthur went over to Henry’s house to ask to borrow some eggs. When Arthur knocked on the door, Henry threw open the door, striking Arthur in the face and giving him a bloody nose. Henry sticks his head out, sees Arthur with blood streaming down his face, and laughs. Arthur screams, “I’m going to go after you for everything you’ve got!” Henry slams the door in his face. Can Arthur sue Henry for his bloody nose?

Sample Exam Answer

Rule:

1. Act
2. Intending to cause contact that is
3. Harmful or Offensive; and
4. Harmful or offensive contact results

1. Act:
Henry swung the door open, which is a volitional physical movement. This satisfies the act requirement.

2. Intent:
This element is less clear. If Henry opened the door intending to hit Arthur or knew with substantial certainty that Arthur was on the other side and would be hit, then the intent requirement is satisfied. The fact that Henry laughed afterward might suggest intent to strike Arthur, but it's ambiguous. If he laughed for an unrelated reason and had no idea Arthur was there, then intent may be lacking.

3. Harmful or Offensive:
Arthur was hit in the face with a door and suffered a bloody nose. This is clearly harmful contact under the standard of a reasonable person.

4. Contact:
The injury (bloody nose) was directly caused by Henry's act of opening the door.

Conclusion:
Henry may be liable for battery if Arthur can prove that Henry intended to cause contact or knew with substantial certainty that opening the door would strike Arthur. If such intent is established, all elements of battery are met.