PROPERTY I & J SPRING 2010 FINAL

EXAMA SLICE OF LIFE &

A PIZZA THE ACTION

ORDER OF PROCEEDING

• Logistics & Exam Structure• Exam Technique

– Generally– QI: Lawyering– QII: Short Problems– QIII: Opinion/Dissent– QIV: Issue-Spotter

• Questions from You– Exam Technique & Logistics– Substantive

Logistics & Exam

Structure

General Logistics

• I’ll post these slides on Course Page tonight

• Office Hours Tomorrow 9-1, 2-6

• I will respond to E-mail Qs (within reason) sent before 6pm tomorrow

• Written Assignments Not Ready

Exam Coverage• Something from every chapter (except 7)

– See Info Memos on each chapter for precise details– Assignments III, IV, V

• Test can’t cover every issue in the course

• Most of the major issues on test should be familiar from review problems and hypotheticals raised/discussed in class

• Pizza in some form in every question.

Structure of Exam

• Choose three of four equally weighted Qs

• Four hours– One hour to read Qs, take notes, outline (no

computers or bluebooks)– Three hours to write answers (One hour per Q)– Stick to allotted times (like mozzarella)

• Instructions page of exam available on Course Page to read in advance

• Closed book with syllabus attached. Copy of Syllabus on Course Page to practice with.

Using Your Reading Period

• 1st 15 Minutes– Read test – Hyperventilate– Choose which Qs to write & in what order

• Next 45 Minutes (I’d Recommend…)– Use about 15 minutes on each Q– Read it again carefully– List major points you’d like to discuss– Choose order to make rough outline– Do last in reading period Q you want to write first

Aftermath

• By tradition, I’ll be on the bricks at the end of the scheduled exam time

• I’ll post grading progress on Course Page

• I’ll post when assignments are ready to be picked up.

Aftermath

• Once grades are posted, I’ll put together a packet with:– Copy of your test– Exam Questions, My Comments & Best Answers– Explanation of Grading & Your Individualized

Scores– Assignments not yet picked up

• We’ll e-mail you for instructions (ship or hold)

• I’ll set times to meet to review with you if you choose (Summer & Fall)

Qs on Structure or Logistics?

Exam Technique: Generally

Exam Technique: Generally

• My Exam Techniques Lectures Available on Academic Achievement Website

• Some Repetition Here, But Focused on Problems Commonly Arising on Old Exams & Submitted Sample Qs

Exam Technique: Generally

(1) Testing Ability to Use Tools, Not Knowledge of Them

• Don’t Simply Recite Legal Tests; Apply Them (as Soon as You Mention Them)

• Helpful to Include Reference to Relevant Authority

• Show All Work

• Wizard of Oz (Because, Because, Because)

Exam Technique: Generally

(2) Draft, Not Final Product • No need for formal introductions &

conclusions

• Use abbreviations (names; recurring phrases)

• Can use telegraph English

• Use headings, not topic sentences

• Can use bulleted lists (e.g., of evidence supporting one side of an argument)

Exam Technique: Generally

(3) Be Concise. Regarding the recurring problem of wordiness,

almost all of the thirty-three otherwise diligent and competent students who took the time to submit a practice exam answer pursuant to the rules posted on the course page for doing so thoroughly demonstrated the fact that that they had a tendency to that problem as well as showing redundancy and continued difficulties writing in a concise, brief and to the point way.

Exam Technique: Generally

(4) Best Prep is Old Exam Qs • Do under exam conditions (esp. Q1/Q3)

• Review in groups if possible

• Read my comments

• Use model answers – to see organization/style I like – to see some possible ways to analyze– neither complete nor perfect

Exam Technique: Question ILawyering

Question I

• Client Comes Into Your Office

• Gives You Relatively Limited Facts (insufficient info to advise)

• Will Raise Issues From Several Parts of Course

Discuss the factual and legal research you would need to do in order to advise Chris

regarding the concerns described below:

Question ITASK

• To Do List (to advise client)• Not arguments re result (Q v. R)• Explain why things matter• Note what client has asked you

– Stick to legal topics raised by requests– Not looking to you for business advice

Question I

ORGANIZATION/FORMAT• All law/all fact often unsuccessful

• Can organize by major topics (use headings and subheadings)

• Can use paragraphs or outline form or bullets (drawbacks to each)

Question I

Issues with Multiple Rules• Check which rule applies in your state• Then: “If state uses rule X, check

[relevant facts]. If state uses rule Y…”• Cross-reference if overlap (“fact

research for materiality same as above)

Question I

Factual Research• Looking for specifics, not simply

reformulating legal tests as Qs• Indicate how you would locate facts

(interviews, records, ask client)• If not absolutely obvious, briefly

explain why the facts matter

Question I

Practical Research• Where relevant, ask re client priorities

or interest in settlement • Can investigate whether compromise

solutions are possible• Can investigate whether other parties

might want to settle

Question IPreparing

• Be aware of issues with multiple rules• Think about evidence necessary to

prove claims• Look at old comments/models & write-

ups of lawyering review problems• Do at least one under exam conditions

Questions on Question I?

Exam Technique: Question II

Short Problems

Question II• Four Problems; Choose any Three

– Three are topics you’ve seen in short problems

– One is new topic but based on hypo raised in class

• Can do in any order, but mark clearly

• Start each on new page (if possible w exam program)

• 20 Minutes Each: Stick to Time!!!

Question II• Read Q Carefully & Respond to What’s

Asked• Often limited in scope. E.g.,

– Apply particular case (e.g., Kelo, Shack, Stambovsky)

– Discuss one element of Adverse Possession– Sometimes really asking “What should legal

rule be for this issue?” (Mini-Q3)

• Assume all facts there for a reason.

Question II• Problems Have No Clear Right Answer

– If you read a problem and are absolutely sure which side wins, don’t choose that problem.

• Find Best Arguments for Each Side

• Usually Not Helpful to Segregate Pro & Con Arguments– Eliminates possibility of dialogue

– Leaves no room for intermediate positions

Question II• Attack Hard Qs/Identify Stronger Positions

– Raise policy arguments that support one position more than the other

– Compare the problem to a case or cases we studied

– Explain why that one side’s position is likely to have more emotional appeal; or

– Show how the result might turn on the resolution of an ambiguity in the facts.

Questions on Question II?

Exam Technique: Question III

Opinion/Dissent

INSTRUCTIONS:Compose drafts of the analysis

sections of a majority opinion for the Ainsworth Supreme Court,

and of a shorter dissent, deciding these questions in the context of

the facts of this case. …

Question III

Compose drafts …• As with issue-spotter, can include

headings, bullet points, abbr., etc.

• Present concise versions of arguments, not rhetoric (don’t get carried away with role)

• Don’t need fancy language, transitions, etc.

Question III

… of the analysis sections …• No need for – Introduction– Statement of facts– Procedural history – Separate history of the legal issue– Conclusion

• Do make clear which side would win

Question III

… of a majority opinion … and of a shorter dissent …

• Articulate best arguments for two different positions (doctrinal & policy)

• Each opinion needs to justify the particular approach it endorses (v. alternatives)

• Each opinion should try to deal w other side’s best arguments.

Question III

… of a majority opinion … and of a shorter dissent …

• Must be 2 separate opinions• Some flexibility in arranging arguments– Can put pro arguments in majority & con in

dissent– Can do back and forth in long majority, then do

very short dissent explaining different conclusion.

• May be helpful to write simultaneously.• I don’t care who wins

Question III

… for the Ainsworth Supreme Court …• Fictional jurisdiction; other state cases are not

binding authority• Awareness that deciding law of the state, not just

case in front of you– Must defend positions taken even if consistent with

other cases in course– Consideration of incentives re similar situations in

future– Consideration of effects on future cases & legal system

Question III

… deciding these questions …

• Two Questions; Treat as Roughly Equal

• One addresses recurring issue of appropriate state limits on freedom of contract (e.g., Shack, Nahrstadt; non-waivability issues). Can compare your issue to the others.

• Both opinions should address both Qs.

… Both your majority and your dissent should address both of the disputed questions and the dissent should disagree with the majority about both, even if it ultimately

agrees with the majority about who wins the case.

Question III

… deciding these questions …

• Qs are very specific; read carefully

• Stay within any boundaries set by Qs

• Address arguments made by lower courts– Guiding you to some available arguments– At least have side that rejects say why

• Don’t make cute legal or procedural arguments to allow you to avoid addressing the Qs

Question III

…in the context of the facts of this case.

• Again read carefully

• Treat my facts as given (don’t argue with Question)

• Think about why particular facts are there

Question III

…in the context of the facts of this case. • Again read carefully

• Treat my facts as given (don’t argue with Question)

• Think about why particular facts are there

• Can use particular case you’re given as example or as counterexample– “The case before us demonstrates why …”– “We think this case is not typical because …”

Question III

PREPARING• Be aware of policies supporting

particular rules or relevant to particular areas of law

• Look at old comments/models.

• Do at least one under exam conditions

• And finally ….

Question III

Don’t use your name as the name of one of the judges!!

Question III

Don’t use your name as the name of one of the judges!!

Dough!

Questions on Question III

Exam Technique: Question IV Traditional

Issue-Spotter

Question IV

Traditional Issue-Spotter:

What I’m Looking For1. Identify the Most Important Issues

2. Quality of Analysis

3. Clear Presentation

4. Quantity of Relevant Points Made

Question IV

1. Identify the Most Important Issues• Not enough time to discuss everything

• Need to choose among topics

• Focus on most contested issues – Serious arguments on both sides– Look for topics with a lot of facts– If lawyers wouldn’t fight about it, address it

quickly or not at all.

Question IV

2. Quality of Analysis• Arguments for both sides of contested

issues.

• Try to use all the facts in the problem

• You can note missing facts/evidence that could help determine outcome (if not inconsistent with facts you do have)

Question IV

2. Quality of Analysis• Work with/compare relevant authority

• Defend key positions thoroughly

• Push toward resolutions (Limit)

Question IV

3. Clear Presentation• Discuss one issue at a time

• Use headings to indicate transitions

• Make logic of arguments apparent

• Deal with overlap through cross-reference, not repetition

Question IV

4. Quantity of Relevant Points Made• Used primarily as tie-breaker if answers

otherwise similar

• A little bit of credit for quick citations to relevant authority, but thorough analysis of contested issues yields the most points

• To save time, use abbreviations, headings, bullets

• Outline at end if more to say

Questions on Question IV

Penultimate Slide

Qs on Exam Technique or

Logistics

Very Last Slide!

Substantive Qs?