Hello 1Ls, I know you all are getting ready for your first experience with law school exams. I imagine you all are feeling some sense of nervousness and anticipation. As such, I am writing you guys for two reasons. First, calm down and do your best work. You all are very intelligent and will bring much heat to each one of these small exercises before you. That is how you got this far. Just realize that you came to law school with what it is going to take to get you through finals. The key is MAINTAINING those resources through all the bullshit, competitiveness etc...Don't let yourself doubt your preparation, since doubt will affect your performance. Second, I want to give you some idea of what to expect from legal methods and to provide you with some guidance for not feeling overwhelmed the minute you pick up your exam packets. I had Terrell so my advice will be most effective for him, but hopefully it will help others of you as well. First things first. You will probably have a 30-40 page packet of materials that includes fictitious cases, a statute, some legislative history (i.e. committee report). As a general note, the test is all about finding the scam/scandel going on with the law. Somebody is trying to contort the law for their own benefit which contradicts the way the law should be. Usually the majority opinion of some judge is trying to mess up the law or maybe the plaintiffs in the case are asking for too much. You must identify this "scandel in the law." Step one: place ALL of the cases in chronological order from the earliest to the most recent case. Step two: read the cases in that order, starting with the earliest one. As you read, make notes of why the law was initially developed. Who did that law affect, who was extended rights or protections in the first case. Who was not protected under the first case and why? Step three: As you read further cases. Look to see how that law changed. Did anyone/class of people lose rights or protections over the development of the caselaw. Did groups/classes of persons previously unprotected gain protection over time? ALWAYS look at the FACTS of each cases. If case 2 seems different from case 1, it may be because the facts before the court in case 2 were substantially different. Look for these distinguishing facts as you read. You will need to discuss them later. Step four: Try to understand why the scope of protections/rights changed. This is where you will look as the reasoning within the opinions. What are the policy implications identified. How is each court's decision an effort to place the law in its "best light?" Also, there will probably at least one opinion where the court totally got it wrong and messed up the law. I am not saying this is guaranteed but keep an eye out for the "bad" decision/reasoning. A hint is that this bad decision will be the one that most contradicts the purpose/intent first case in the chronology. Step five: After you read the cases and BRIEF them! Go to the legislative stuff (the statute and committee report). Read the statute and see if it extends/ or limits the scope of protections given in the cases. Then read the committee report to understand why the legislature did what it did. MAKE SURE you identify "legislative silence" on and issue vs. "legislative inaction" (if you have a question about this please call me. Terrell likes this distinction. Also, this is where you will use your
methods for statutory interpreation skills. Please NOTE: you likely will NOT do well if you do not demonstrate some ability to use the "methods of statutory interpretation" stuff that you learned. Just a reminder, this is the "plain text"/ intent/purpose stuff. Step six: I imagine that you will either be writing a memo OR acting as a judge and writing a dissent/ concurrence with a majority opinion. Your task is to show a couple things in your writing: 1) Start your memo with a very general discussion about why the tools for interpreting law are good or useful. This can be a very general and brief discussion about judicial chaos and justice or whatever larger framework stuff your prof discussed. If you had Terrell, it would be helpfull to through the words "spirit of the law" in near the beginning of your memo. 2) show your prof that you know how to chronologize (is that a word ;-) the law. Discuss the development of the cases in chronological order. HOWEVER be careful. DON'T make you memo sound like a book report! Tie your chronological discussion to an overall thesis. This can be some thing like "the majority opinion is flawed becasue it contradicts the development of the law with respect to X." Then you can go into a lengthy discussion about the development of the law using a chronological explanation of the cases. 3) Show the Prof that you know how to tweek legislative materials. This is where you show him you paid attention in class when he talked about legislative intent vs. purpose. USE THE COMMITTEE REPORT/ LEGISLATIVE HISTORY to demonstrate what you believe is the real legislative intent/ purpose of the statute (assuming you have a statute in your packets) 4) END your analysis with a discussion of DEONTOLOGICAL/ TELEOLOGICAL stuffparticularly if your had Terrell. This is where you rack up points by showing that you can step back from the law and assess it from a social interacti on perspective. YOU MUST INCLUDE SOME ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW YOUR THESIS PLACES THE LAW OF X IN ITS BEST LIGHT. Okay, enough of legal methods for now. Concentrate on your other finals and best of luck!!! I am attachingthe memo I wrote last year for legal methods. You can get an idea of length, organization,point headings, etc... Obviously, you should not use any specific words or thoughts sice this will get you in trouble. Hope this helps. MiAngel