LPAB Diploma in Law common mistakes
LPAB Diploma in Law · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When answering a problem question, the candidate states the legal rule and then concludes, without applying the rule to the specific facts, so the answer never shows how each element is satisfied or defeated on those facts.
Candidates learn rules as summaries and revise by reciting them. Under time pressure, the rule feels like the substance of the answer, so application is compressed into a one-line conclusion. Many also never practise the step of matching each element to a named fact.
What to do instead
Use a fixed three-column plan before writing: element, the fact that proves or undermines it, and the consequence. Write the application sentence-by-sentence so every legal proposition is immediately followed by a fact reference and an inference. Practise by taking a past problem and writing only the application paragraphs, then checking that each element has at least one fact linked to it.
The candidate identifies an issue but never resolves it, leaving alternatives open (for example, 'it could be murder or manslaughter') without committing to a conclusion and explaining why the rejected path fails.
Committing to a conclusion risks being wrong, so candidates hedge. They also confuse 'discussing both sides' with 'reaching a reasoned position'. Exam anxiety reinforces the habit of listing possibilities instead of deciding.
What to do instead
End every issue with an explicit ruling: state the most likely outcome, give the strongest reason for it, then state why the alternative is weaker on these facts. Where the facts are genuinely balanced, say which way a court would probably go and what fact would change it. Draft answers with the conclusion written first for each issue, then build the reasoning to support it.
The candidate answers a negligence question by going straight to breach and damage, skipping the duty-of-law analysis, or answers a contract question without first establishing whether a contract was formed and on what terms.
Candidates jump to the most memorable part of the topic, usually the element with the most case law. They also treat the structure as optional once they know the content. Revision notes organised by topic rather than by analytical sequence encourage this.
What to do instead
Memorise a skeleton per cause of action and per transaction and apply it mechanically: duty, breach, causation, remoteness, defences, remedies; offer, acceptance, consideration, intention, certainty, formalities, terms, breach, remedies. Before writing, list the skeleton headings and tick each as addressed. Do a timed drill in which you must write the skeleton headings and one sentence under each before any prose.
The candidate mixes up which party bears the burden and the standard of proof, or applies the wrong test for a particular element (for example, using the civil balance of probabilities for a fact in a criminal trial, or confusing actual and apparent authority).
Similar-sounding tests are learned close together and blur under pressure. Candidates also rely on general impressions of a doctrine rather than its precise formulation, and rarely test themselves on the distinctions between neighbouring rules.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table for each cluster of confusable tests, with the trigger facts, the exact test, and the consequence of each. In problem answers, state the test in full before applying it. Self-test by writing the test from memory, then checking against a primary source such as the statute or a reported judgment, not a summary.
The candidate cites cases for the wrong proposition, cites a case without any proposition, or names a case that does not stand for the point asserted, and does not use pinpoint references.
Cases are memorised by name and general topic rather than by the precise rule they establish. Copying case lists from notes without the associated proposition produces name-dropping. Candidates also skip pinpoints because they never read the judgment itself.
What to do instead
For every case in your notes, record one sentence stating the proposition, the material facts that make it work, and the pinpoint. In answers, cite only where the case does analytical work, and attach the proposition to the citation. If you cannot state the proposition, do not cite the case. Verify key cases against the judgment or a reliable report before the exam.
The candidate writes a general essay on the law when the question supplies facts, or writes a factual problem answer when the question asks for critical discussion, so the answer does not match the task word (advise, discuss, evaluate, compare).
Candidates skim the question and answer the topic they revised rather than the question asked. Time pressure encourages launching into the first remembered heading. There is also a habit of treating all questions as requiring the same format.
What to do instead
Underline the task word, the parties, and the required output before planning. If the task word is 'advise', every paragraph must end in advice to a named party. If it is 'discuss' or 'evaluate', each paragraph must make a claim and support it with authority and reasoning. Write a one-line answer plan that restates the task, and check the finished answer against it.
The candidate spends most of the allotted time on the first question or the first issue, producing a very long opening and leaving later questions or issues with a few lines or nothing at all.
Perfectionism on the first issue, combined with not having practised under timed conditions. Candidates also fail to notice that marks are distributed evenly across questions and issues, so marginal detail on issue one earns less than a basic treatment of issue four.
What to do instead
Allocate time per question and per issue before starting, and write the allocation on the answer. Use a visible clock and move on when the allocation expires, leaving a space to return. Practise full timed papers so the pacing becomes automatic, and rehearse the discipline of writing a competent paragraph on every issue rather than an excellent paragraph on one.
The candidate addresses only the party the question names, or only the claim, and ignores defences, counterarguments, alternative causes of action, and remedies.
Questions are read as single-issue prompts. Candidates treat defences as a separate topic rather than as part of the analysis. Remedies are often left out because they are revised last, if at all.
What to do instead
After planning the main claim, force a checklist: defences available to the other side, alternative claims or causes of action, and the remedy and its measure. Add a line to every answer plan for 'defences' and 'remedy'. In practice, take a completed answer and add the missing defence and remedy sections to see how many marks they carry.
The candidate relies on memory of a statutory provision without checking its precise terms, current version, or whether it applies on the facts, and cites a section number that does not say what is asserted.
Statutes are studied through summaries and flowcharts, and section numbers are memorised without the text. Candidates also assume a provision is uniform across jurisdictions when the exam concerns a particular one.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page extract of the operative words of each key provision, with its jurisdiction and any amendments. In answers, quote or closely paraphrase the operative words and then apply them. Check the provision in the authorised version before relying on it, and note any transitional or commencement issue on the facts.
The candidate produces an unstructured answer with no headings, no signposting, and long paragraphs that blend issues, so the marker cannot locate the analysis of each element.
Candidates write as they think, in the order ideas arrive. They also believe headings waste time. Without a plan, related and unrelated points merge into single paragraphs.
What to do instead
Use headings for each issue and sub-headings for each element, and open each section with a one-sentence statement of the conclusion. Keep paragraphs to one point each. Write the plan as headings first, then fill them in. This structure also makes it obvious which issues have been missed before time runs out.