ILE common mistakes
ILE · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In a professional conduct scenario, the answer only advises the client ('I would explain the position to Mr X') and never identifies the specific Code principle or outcome engaged, whether a conflict or confidentiality issue arises, or the internal escalation route to the COLP or compliance officer.
Conduct is treated as general knowledge and revised last; candidates answer from instinct and forget that marks are awarded for naming a principle and a prescribed action, not for a sympathetic reaction.
What to do instead
Answer every conduct scenario with a fixed skeleton: (1) who is my client; (2) conflict and confidentiality check; (3) the named principle or outcome engaged; (4) the competing duty (to the court, a third party, or the firm); (5) the concrete action - decline, cease acting, disclose, escalate to the COLP, report to the regulator; (6) record the decision in writing on the file.
Naming authorities as a list - 'the literal rule, the golden rule, Pepper v Hart' - without setting out the material facts and ratio of each and without applying it to the words or facts actually in the question.
Revision notes are organised as case lists, so the candidate reproduces the list and assumes recognition alone earns the application marks.
What to do instead
Use a three-line note for every authority cited: material facts in one line, ratio in one line, then an express 'this applies here because...' sentence tied to a specific fact. A case cited without an application sentence earns nothing.
Treating a reply that introduces new or altered terms as an acceptance, then concluding that a binding contract exists on the original terms.
The mirror-image rule is learned as a slogan; under time pressure the candidate sees a reply and ticks 'acceptance' without comparing the terms side by side.
What to do instead
Write the offer terms in one column and the reply terms in the other. If any term differs, label the reply a counter-offer, state that it destroys the original offer, and then ask separately whether the counter-offer was accepted. Conclude only after that comparison.
Advising that the innocent party 'can terminate and claim damages' without addressing whether the breach was repudiatory, whether the right to terminate has been lost by affirmation or lapse of time, and how the damages would be measured.
Remedies are memorised as a single sentence and election is skipped because it feels like a detail rather than a separate issue.
What to do instead
Run a remedies ladder in order: classify the term (condition, warranty, innominate), identify the breach, state whether termination is available, test election and affirmation, then damages - expectation measure, remoteness, mitigation, and any limitation or liquidated damages clause. Finish by stating whether specific performance or an injunction is available and why it is discretionary.
Writing 'X is guilty of theft' on the first line and then listing facts, instead of taking each element of the offence in turn and testing the evidence for the actus reus and the mens rea separately.
Candidates answer from a moral reaction to the facts; the element-by-element discipline of criminal analysis is unfamiliar and feels artificial.
What to do instead
Build a table with one row per element (appropriation, property, belonging to another, dishonesty, intention permanently to deprive), a column for prosecution evidence, a column for defence evidence, and a column for the conclusion. Then address burden and standard of proof and any defence, and only then the likely charge and plea.
Answering a land question by reciting the statutory or case-law test in the abstract - listing the characteristics of an easement, or the requirements for overreaching - without ruling each requirement in or out on the facts and without a separate registration and priority analysis.
Land is learned as a set of rules; under time pressure the candidate reproduces the rule and stops, missing the application and priority marks.
What to do instead
Convert every test into a numbered checklist and write 'satisfied / not satisfied / arguable because [fact]' against each item. Then add a priority paragraph: legal or equitable, registered or unregistered, purchaser for value or not, overreaching or not, and the chronological order of events with dates.
In a trusts or probate problem, jumping straight to distribution of the estate before establishing validity of the will and the order of deaths, or using the three certainties as bare labels without testing each one against the words used.
Candidates enjoy the arithmetic of distribution and start there; the preliminary issues feel like preamble rather than the marks.
What to do instead
Work strictly in sequence: order of death, validity of the will (capacity, intention, formalities, revocation), interpretation and the three certainties, ademption and abatement, inheritance tax, then distribution. Present a beneficiary-by-beneficiary schedule so each step is visible to the marker.
Writing the client letter or attendance note in the wrong register - untranslated legal jargon for a lay client - and omitting one or more of costs, next steps, timescales and how to make contact.
Candidates imitate the style of judgments and textbooks they have been reading rather than writing for the actual reader.
What to do instead
Draft to a fixed skeleton: what we discussed, what I advise and why in plain English, what happens next with dates, what it will cost and when, what I need from you, and how to contact me. Read it back as the client and strike out every phrase the client would have to look up.
Answering a practice management question in purely abstract terms - 'the firm should improve its cash flow' - with no figures, no comparison of options and no recommendation.
Business awareness is treated as common sense rather than a subject with its own method and vocabulary.
What to do instead
Do the arithmetic and state your assumptions: hourly rate multiplied by chargeable hours, lock-up days, WIP and debtor days, margin per matter. Set two options side by side, recommend one, and state the risk and the measure you would monitor.
Portfolio entries written as a narrative of what happened ('I attended the meeting and took notes') with no mapping to the assessment criterion, no redacted supporting evidence and no reflection on what would be done differently.
Candidates confuse describing work with evidencing competence, and leave the portfolio to the end of the period so entries are written from memory.
What to do instead
For each criterion write one entry in four labelled parts: the criterion quoted, the task and your specific role, the evidence reference (anonymised attendance note, letter, draft, supervisor sign-off), and a reflection identifying what you would do differently. Capture each entry within a week of the event while the detail is fresh.