What can I do to get a better grade on the exam?: 1

The number one most common error on law school exams is a failure to read the question carefully. Students tend to prepare by subject, e.g. "the Erie doctrine". When they see a question with the word "Erie" in it, they take it as a cue to write down everything they remember about the Erie doctrine and the Erie line of cases regardless of its relevance to the question. This is rarely a good move, if only because you waste time you could have spent writing something relevant. Read the question. Try to figure out what the point of it is. Stick to the point in your answer. My questions are rarely as simple as "tell me everything you remember about the Erie doctrine". And I do not give partial credit for correct but irrelevant information. (I do sometimes give partial credit for correct but misplaced analysis of a complex problem caused by a "wrong turn" at an earlier stage of the analysis, but that's a different scenario.)

The number two most common error on law school exams consists of misunderstanding the nature of legal writing. Good legal writing is clear, precise, and well-organized. It is written in plain, simple english, with as few long words as possible. (Yes, many judges do not write well.) There is no point in trying to be clever or funny. At all costs avoid using fancy words if you are not absolutely certain what they mean. You are being graded on substance, not style. Resist the temptation to use slang ("Get real!" and "Strike three!" are unfortunate examples from past exams). Resist the temptation to use legal or latin terms if a simple english word will do. Don't quote rules at length (they are being given to you as part of the exam). But do be sure to cite rules and cases where relevant, and to explain the relevance.

A related, and also frequent, error on law school exams is a failure to be sufficiently specific. Legal writing is a form of technical writing. It thrives on precision and often on detail. I suggest that you always avoid the passive voice because it allows you to neglect to specify the identity of the actor in your sentence. It's far better to use a boring writing style "Subject, verb, predicate" over and over again than to be confusing or to leave out something important.

A third, surprisingly frequent, error is forgetting the point of view you are supposed to take in answering a question. Some questions ask you to be the judge; others ask you to be the advocate for a party; still others may require that you step back from the fray and adopt a policy perspective. There are differences between these roles. For example, a judge is quite likely to be concerned about judicial economy. A litigant is only going to urge a course of action that furthers judicial economy if it furthers her interests; otherwise, a litigant is going to try to explain to the court why a particular outcome is just even though it is not the most efficient. On the other hand, just because you are a litigant does not mean that you ignore authority contrary to your position. The best arguments are those that take full account of the strongest possible argument on the other side and demolish it; the worst arguments are those that sound like the author never heard of the other side and if there is authority for the other side, the author of the weak argument may be facing Rule 11 sanctions. If a question asks for an argument, make one; if it asks for both sides, make two arguments and be sure you label which is which.