PA Directed Testing Memo

The criteria for evaluating answers is set forth by the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners as follows:

Each answer should show: an understanding of the facts; a recognition of the issues involved; the principle(s) of law applicable; and the reasoning by which you arrive at your conclusion(s). The value of an answer depends not so much upon the correctness of your conclusion(s) as upon the presence and quality of the elements above mentioned.

Be clear and concise in your answer, and make your answer complete. Do not volunteer irrelevant or immaterial information.

Where Pennsylvania law is applicable and distinguishable, it should be noted.

DEMONSTRATE NOT MERELY YOUR MEMORY, BUT YOUR ABILITY TO THINK.

In response to your questions about how you can achieve higher grades on your essays, the following list represents recurrent problems:

1. Before you begin to write your answer spend at least 15 minutes reading, analyzing and outlining your answer. You should know the answer before you begin to write.

2. Bad Form. Many answers are disorganized, sloppy and difficult to read. If your answer is illegible, it cannot be graded. Use Black Ink. Also, do not write to the edges of the paper. Leave adequate margins of at least 3/4 of an inch to 1 inch on each side. Also, if your handwriting is very large, skip a line between each sentence.

3. CIRAC or IRAC. As indicated above, the examiners want you to demonstrate your ability to think logically and it resolve issues. The best way to show these skills is by writing a concise, organized essay answer. You should use either CIRAC or IRAC, and you should always use headings for new discussions/issues. Skip a line between each issue and of course, have each separate subject or issue in a separate paragraph. Mimic the form of the model answers.

C - CONCLUSION

I - ISSUE

R - RULE OF LAW

A - ANALYSIS

C - CONCLUSION

I - Issue

R - Rule of Law

A - Analysis

C - Conclusion

4. Lack of attention to the facts. Many of you are not paying attention to the wording of the fact patterns. If you "Listen" to the story that the examiners are telling you, you will realize exactly which issues they are after. The examiners craft the fact patterns very carefully so that discerning students can spot the issues. There are no intentional red herrings. If there is a fact mentioned, that fact is there for a reason. Phrases like "hotly contested race" in the fact pattern are meant to revoke a response from you - you should realize from that phrase that there was strife, and possibly, conflict with other parties involved in the fact pattern. If the examiners state a fact, treat it as a fact and do not argue about it. Use the facts to support your answer. When you use CIRAC or IRAC, you will apply the rule of law to the facts. That is what is meant by analysis.

5. Non-Issues. The examiner will highlight the issues, if you read the question carefully. If the examiners tell you that a statute permits revocation of a license for cause, accept this fact, and use it in your answer to support a finding that a license is property. Do not, however, challenge the statute as unconstitutional because it allows the major to revoke licenses. If the examiners want you to discuss the constitutionality of the statute, they would have reproduced the statute for you along with other facts. There would be no doubt as to your tasks. Try to get a feel for spotting non-issues as well as issues.

6. Failure to list the elements of a cause of action. Some of you believe that this is a waste of time. However, if you spend a minute writing out the elements and applying facts, you will be sure that each element was met, or not met. Some answers stated that recovery in a cause of action was likely, but the facts did not support all of the elements of a cause of action. Be certain that you have dotted all of your i's and crossed your t's. Go the extra mile and show that you know the elements of the theory for recovery asserted and apply the facts to the elements. Most people lost points because they do not analyze the fact situation. If you apply the facts to the elements, you will maximize your points.

7. Failure to correctly state the legal term or element. Writing a Pennsylvania essay is little like performing magic - if you want the right result, you must say the magic words. Many words and phrases are referred to as "buzz words" because they are terms of art. "Slander per se," "State Actor," "fraudulent conveyance," and "fiduciary duty" are all examples of buzz words. You must know what they mean and define them in order to use them properly. Using these magic phrases correctly is what lawyers do, and it is what you must do in your essay answers. If you use them incorrectly, you will lose credit. It is better not to use a "buzz word" if it is used incorrectly.

8. Failure to reach a conclusion. You must commit to a conclusion. So many of your answers state that there "could possibly be a recovery," or "maybe the action will be successful." You must take a stand based on your analysis of the situation. The examiners award the most points for issue spotting and analysis. Keep in mind that the examiners are not as concerned that you have reached the same conclusion as they have, but they are concerned that you evaluated the issue thoroughly. For example, you may not agree that AIDS is a loathsome disease, but if you went through the analysis of slander per se, and varied on the loathsome disease element, you will have picked up all the points for that issue, regardless of your conclusion.

9. Each question generally contains multiple issues and 3 to 5 sub-parts. The sub-parts, although they may be similarly worded, are designed to test whether the applicant recognizes distinctions in the law. For instance, a question may ask what are the rights of a holder of a check to collect against the maker. In one sub-part, the holder may be a holder in due course and in another sub-part the holder may not be a holder in due course.

If you think the answers to both sub-parts are identical, then you misread something or do not know the law. Please reread the sub-parts because there will be a difference.

10. The bar exam is not designed to test mathematical ability. If a question calls for a mathematical answer, the mathematics will be easy to calculate. If you think the answer is complicated, there is probably something wrong with your analysis.