Advokatski ispit common mistakes
Advokatski ispit · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a full general essay on the institution (e.g., the nature of possession or the elements of a contract) instead of answering the narrowly framed question that was asked, so the actual asked point is buried or missing.
Candidates memorise textbook chapters and, under time pressure, reproduce the chapter rather than reading the question's operative words; the essay feels productive and safe, so it crowds out the specific answer.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the operative verb and the object in the question (e.g., 'assess', 'distinguish', 'state the effect'). Draft a one-sentence direct answer first, then build only the reasoning needed to support it. Practise past-style prompts under time with a hard rule: no paragraph that does not serve the asked point.
Citing statutory provisions and case law by approximate name or number without verifying the exact article, paragraph, or holding, and asserting a rule the provision does not actually contain.
Candidates rely on memory of article numbers learned from summaries and fear that omitting a citation looks weak, so they cite confidently rather than accurately.
What to do instead
Keep a personal one-page index of the twenty or so provisions that recur across the syllabus, with exact article numbers and one-line content. In the exam, cite only what you can state precisely; where unsure, describe the rule and its source in general terms rather than inventing a number. Verify each index entry against the official text during preparation.
Analysing a criminal-law hypothetical in the abstract (listing all possible offences) rather than working through the elements of each offence against the facts and then addressing defences and concurrence of offences.
Candidates learn offence definitions as lists and, in a fact pattern, jump to naming offences; they neglect the element-by-element application, intent forms, and the interaction of qualification, privileging and exculpation.
What to do instead
Use a fixed written structure for every hypothetical: (1) establish the act and its objective elements, (2) establish unlawfulness and defences, (3) establish guilt/intent forms, (4) address participation, attempt and concurrence, (5) conclude. Apply each element to a named fact in one sentence before moving on.
Confusing procedural roles and stages in criminal procedure - mixing the positions of the public prosecutor, the injured party, and the private prosecutor, or applying trial-stage rules to the investigation stage.
Procedure is learned as a sequence of headings, and candidates do not build a mental timeline of who may do what at which stage; similar-sounding institutions blur together under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Draw a one-page timeline of the criminal process with a column for each actor's powers at each stage. Before answering, locate the question on the timeline and name the stage explicitly in the first line of the answer.
Treating constitutional review as a free-standing appeal on the merits, arguing that a court decision was wrong rather than identifying the specific constitutional defect (competence, procedure, or a protected right) and the correct procedural route.
Candidates carry over a general appellate mindset and do not distinguish ordinary remedies from constitutional complaint mechanisms, so they choose the wrong procedure and the wrong standard of review.
What to do instead
Memorise a short decision tree: what is challenged, on what ground (formal or substantive), by whom, within what time limit, before which body. For each answer, state the ground and the procedural basis before discussing substance.
Answering an administrative-law problem by discussing only the legality of the administrative act and ignoring the procedural conditions (standing, time limits, exhaustion of remedies, silence of the administration) that determine whether the challenge is admissible at all.
Substantive legality is more interesting to study, and admissibility rules are scattered across the syllabus, so candidates analyse merits first and never reach the threshold questions.
What to do instead
Adopt a mandatory admissibility checklist as the first paragraph of every administrative answer: competent body, standing, form, time limit, prior remedy. Only then address legality. Drill this order until it is automatic.
In company-law questions, describing what a company organ generally does instead of resolving the specific issue - whether a resolution is valid, who has authority to bind the company, and what the consequences of a defective decision are for the company, the organ members and third parties.
Candidates memorise organ functions as descriptive lists and lack a model for testing validity and consequences; they stop at description because they are unsure of the effect of defects.
What to do instead
For every corporate-governance question, run a three-step test: competence (who may decide), procedure (how the decision must be formed), effect (valid, voidable, or ineffective, and toward whom). Write the conclusion on validity and consequences explicitly.
In labour-law problems, applying only statutory minimums and ignoring the hierarchy of sources - collective agreement, employment contract, internal rulebook - and the rule that a contractual term more favourable to the worker prevails.
Candidates revise statutes in isolation and do not practise the 'more favourable rule' comparison, so they give the statutory answer even where a collective agreement or contract changes it.
What to do instead
For each labour question, list the applicable sources in order and compare their effects on the specific entitlement. State expressly which source governs and why, including the favourability principle where it applies.
Answering an ethics question by reciting generalities about integrity and professionalism instead of naming the concrete duty engaged, the specific conduct that breaches it, and the disciplinary consequence or required course of action.
Ethics is perceived as common sense and is under-prepared; candidates substitute moral vocabulary for the professional rules and their procedural enforcement.
What to do instead
Build a table of core duties (conflict of interest, confidentiality, competence, fees, handling client property, advertising) each with a concrete breach example and the disciplinary outcome. In the exam, name the duty, match the facts to the breach, and state the consequence and the correct alternative conduct.
Missing or misstating the practical-procedure elements of a lawyer's work - calculating a deadline, identifying the competent court or the correct fee and form - and treating these as minor details after the substantive analysis.
Candidates prioritise substantive law and leave procedural arithmetic to the end, when time is short; deadline rules and court competence are also easy to confuse because they vary by matter type.
What to do instead
Reserve the final minutes of every answer for a 'mechanics' line: competent body, form, deadline with the calculation shown, and fee consequence. Practise deadline calculations (start date, counting rules, expiry on a non-working day) as standalone drills until they are reliable.