Law School Practice Exams
The list below contains old exams for law school courses that I have collected from around the web. New ones pop up and old links go dead all the time, so I try to keep it up to date, but if you need more than you can find here, google usually turns up some others. I generally tried to pick relatively recent ones, and not to pick too many from any given professor. When available, I have included a link to the model answer as well. Please, email me if you have any to add or if a link is broken.
I am a big fan of practice tests. In my view, there is no better way to spend your time studying than taking practice exams. What I tended to do, which I think worked fairly well, was to take a few full length, timed, practice exams per course, and then, after I had a decent idea of what was what, and I had the starts of an attack outline, I would read through as many more practice exams as I could to flesh out my outline. I personally found that even exams that seemed to have a different focus than my professor had were useful, but of course, some exams will cover materials that you didn't cover at all, so you should skip those questions.
In addition to the practice tests below, you might also want to check out the study aids page, or you can pick the particular course from the dropdown above or by clicking on the course title below for everything I have relating to each course.
Updated March 2015
Legal writing is bad writing because it is so badly written. Oh wait… sorry, I meant to write, “legal writing is bad” but then had to “law school” the prose to make it sound “fact based.”
Not a big deal… because how absolutely awful legal prose are. See that! The subject came last and I added an unnecessary amplifier for a misplaced adjective- Get it? ha!
One might ask,
‘Why would you jump right to a conclusion, when you know the analysis is difficult?’
One might also write, “The analysis is difficult.”
Of course… no good lawyer would write such a conclusionary (not a real word) statement which one would assume that difficult analysis lends itself to “not jumping to conclusions.”
Yes, this is the common argument made in defense of the horribleness of legal prose: legal prose is somehow different than undergraduate liberal arts arguments because the legal mind must “think differently.” This is really tough analysis so you must not start with a “conclusion.”
While that is “kind of” (but not really) true. You do have to be vague instead of argue a thesis statement- but not true at all because you start by identifying the “issues” and the “rules” that frame your double negatives “but for” the inability to make positive statements (unless asked).
See that, I am writing like a lawyer! I just made a thesis statement while pretending not to make a thesis statement and then digressed into minutia that is stated as a part of a rule.
Ahem! The issues and the rules are not really thesis statements because they are not conclusions.
Never say, “D is liable for hitting P.”
Say, “D is subject to liability for hitting P with a hammer, because D hit P in the head with a hammer, and hitting someone in the head with a hammer is harmful or offensive contact because getting hit in the head with a hammer hurts and/or is offensive.” You say this after stating the rule of course… because god knows, if you don’t repeat parts of the rule in your analysis, then you must not understand the concept.
You must write something like, “C is subject to liability for negligence to J because had C not kicked over the trash can, J would not have fallen down. ‘But for’ the negligence of C, J would not have been hurt by the fall because falling down hurts.” Now, ramble on about actual/ legal cause and add something about proximity/ argue for intervening and lack of intervening causes, for and against proximate causation. Then make the bold conclusion that does not make a conclusion, “C may be subject to liability…”
Congratulations- B plus or better!
See… learn the rules and then write like you are a teenager on LSD explaining something to an alien and you’ll be fine…
Just kidding because I am joking and joking is a form of humor that pokes fun at something because poking fun at something can be funny!