ID DH Juris common mistakes
ID DH Juris · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On a civil-law fact pattern, the candidate answers by reciting the abstract elements of the institution (e.g., listing the requirements of a contract or of ownership) and never applies each element to the specific facts, so the answer would read identically for any similar problem.
Civil-law training rewards memorizing systematic doctrine and code structure, and candidates reproduce that structure under time pressure because it feels authoritative and safe. They treat the question as a recall prompt rather than a reasoning prompt, and they run out of time before reaching application.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed two-column habit: state the rule in one sentence, then immediately write 'In these facts, X satisfies element 1 because...' for every element. Never leave a rule statement without a matching factual sentence. Practice by taking past fact patterns and writing only the application sentences, then checking that each rule element is visibly matched to a fact.
The candidate identifies the correct criminal offence but omits the subjective element analysis (intent, negligence, dolus eventualis, or the specific mental element of the offence) and skips the justification and excuse stages entirely.
Candidates conflate the question 'which offence?' with 'is the person guilty?'. They front-load the definition of the offence and then run out of time, or they assume that once the act and result are established the mental element is obvious.
What to do instead
Use a strict three-stage checklist for every offence: (1) objective elements (act, result, causation), (2) subjective elements (intent, knowledge, negligence), (3) unlawfulness and culpability (defences, justification, excuse). Allocate roughly one third of the answer time to stage 3. Even if you conclude there is no defence, write one sentence saying why each plausible defence fails.
The candidate writes a generic essay on the constitutional principle (e.g., proportionality, rule of law, separation of powers) without identifying the specific constitutional or statutory provision engaged and without applying a structured proportionality or legality test to the measure in question.
Constitutional law questions invite broad normative discussion, and candidates default to the political-theory language they learned in lectures. They also fear that a rigid test will look mechanical, so they avoid committing to a structure.
What to do instead
Always anchor the answer in a named provision first, then run the test step by step: legitimate aim, suitability, necessity (least restrictive means), and balancing. For administrative measures, run legality, then competence, then procedure, then substance. State the conclusion for each step explicitly rather than only at the end.
In a company-law question the candidate confuses the roles and liabilities of the board, the shareholders' meeting, and individual directors, and fails to distinguish the company's legal personality from that of its members when analysing who is liable or who has standing.
The vocabulary overlaps (directors act for the company, shareholders own it) and candidates carry over intuition from partnership or agency law. The separate legal personality point feels too basic to state, so it is silently assumed and then contradicted later in the analysis.
What to do instead
Before writing, draw a three-box diagram: company, board, shareholders' meeting. For each actor write the decision it may take, the duty it owes, and the remedy for breach. Explicitly state the separate personality conclusion at the start of any liability question, then test whether any exception (e.g., liability of a de facto director, or piercing) applies.
The candidate answers a civil-procedure question about admissibility, burden of proof, or the scope of a claim without distinguishing which party bears the burden, what the standard of proof is, and whether the issue is procedural or evidentiary.
Procedure is taught as a sequence of steps, and candidates memorize the sequence without internalizing who must prove what. Under exam pressure they describe the hearing rather than analyse the legal test.
What to do instead
For every evidence question, write three labelled lines first: issue, burden (who bears it), standard (balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt). Then apply. For procedural questions, identify the stage of proceedings and the applicable rule before discussing the merits, and check whether a procedural defect is curable or fatal.
On an ethics question, the candidate states the correct abstract duty (confidentiality, conflict of interest, candour) but does not identify the specific rule or professional code provision, does not flag the conflict as it arises on the facts, and does not say what the lawyer should actually do next.
Candidates treat ethics as a values question where a morally sound answer suffices, and they are reluctant to give an instruction ('you must decline the retainer') because it feels prescriptive. They also miss the timing issue: many conflicts crystallize before the retainer is accepted.
What to do instead
Structure every ethics answer as: (1) name the duty and the code provision, (2) identify the trigger fact and the moment it arose, (3) state the concrete action (decline, withdraw, disclose and obtain informed consent, escalate to the bar), (4) state the consequence of non-compliance. Practice by writing the 'what to do' sentence first and building the analysis backwards from it.
The candidate cites authority from memory with an inaccurate or invented citation, or cites a case for a proposition it does not actually stand for, and does not signal uncertainty where it exists.
Exam conditions reward fluency, and candidates believe a named case strengthens an answer even when the detail is shaky. The habit is reinforced by summaries that compress holdings into slogans detached from their facts.
What to do instead
Cite only authority you can state accurately: party names, year, and the one-sentence holding. If you cannot recall the citation, describe the principle and attribute it to the statute or to settled doctrine instead of inventing a reference. Before the exam, build a one-page list of the twenty authorities you will actually use and verify each holding against its facts.
The candidate writes a long unstructured answer that buries the conclusion, uses headings inconsistently, and leaves the examiner to infer which issue is being addressed at each point.
Candidates write in the order they think, which is exploratory rather than argumentative, and they fear that signposting wastes words. Many have never practised writing under a word limit with a marking rubric in view.
What to do instead
Use a fixed skeleton: short answer up front (two sentences), then numbered issues, each with rule, application, conclusion. Use headings that name the legal issue. Write the conclusion first for each issue, then justify it. Time-box each issue and leave the last ten minutes for a structure pass, not for new content.
The candidate ignores the question's instruction verb ('advise', 'discuss', 'critically evaluate', 'draft') and produces the wrong genre of answer, for example a neutral academic survey when asked to advise a named client, or an advisory memo when asked to evaluate a rule.
Candidates read the facts carefully but skim the instruction line, and they default to the essay format they practised most. The difference between advising a client and evaluating a rule is rarely drilled explicitly.
What to do instead
Underline the instruction verb before reading the facts, and write a one-line plan stating the genre: 'This is advice to X, so I must reach a recommended course of action.' For 'evaluate' questions, commit to a position and defend it. For drafting tasks, follow the formal requirements of the instrument (parties, recitals, operative clauses, signature block).
The candidate runs out of time because they spend disproportionate effort on the first question or on restating facts, and then writes a thin, conclusory answer to the final question, which often carries equal marks.
The first question feels most tractable and candidates over-invest to secure marks, while the last question is answered under panic. Candidates also restate the facts because it fills space and delays the harder analytical work.
What to do instead
Before writing, allocate minutes per question in proportion to marks and write the allocation on the answer sheet. Cap fact restatement at one or two sentences ('The facts raise three issues: ...'). If time is short on a later question, write the issue list and the rule for each issue rather than a single unfinished paragraph, since issue-spotting earns marks even without full analysis.