IN Bar common mistakes
IN Bar · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On MBE questions, the candidate reads the fact pattern, recognizes a familiar doctrine (e.g., hearsay, negligence per se), and selects the answer that states the rule correctly without checking whether the call of the question asked for the best argument, the most likely outcome, or the exception.
Bar prep trains rule recall, so the brain pattern-matches to the doctrine and treats a true statement of law as a correct answer. The MBE deliberately includes true-but-unresponsive distractors and questions that hinge on the precise call.
What to do instead
Before reading the choices, underline the call of the question and restate it in your own words ('which argument best supports exclusion?'). Eliminate any choice that is legally accurate but does not answer that specific call, and practice 20 questions per session tracking only call-of-the-question errors.
The candidate answers MBE questions from a gut feeling about 'what seems fair' rather than naming the element or rule that controls, then cannot explain after the fact why the chosen answer is right and the others wrong.
Many fact patterns are written so the intuitively appealing answer is the trap (e.g., a sympathetic plaintiff who loses on duty or causation). Without a stated rule, the candidate has no anchor to reject the emotional pull.
What to do instead
Use a fixed written protocol for every question: identify the subject, state the controlling rule in one sentence, apply each fact to each element, then match. During review, write the rule and the reason each wrong choice fails; if you cannot articulate it, flag the topic for re-study.
The candidate spends three to four minutes on a single hard MBE question, running short of time and guessing on later questions that are easier, including questions in a stronger subject.
Sunk-cost thinking and the fear of leaving a question blank cause over-investment. The MBE is scaled by total correct answers, so a hard question and an easy question are worth the same point.
What to do instead
Set a hard per-question cap (about 1.8 minutes on a 200-question exam). If the rule is not surfacing within that window, pick the best remaining choice, mark it, and move on. Practice with a visible timer and a 'no return' rule to build the habit.
The candidate memorizes isolated rules but cannot sort a mixed set, so on the MBE they misidentify the subject (treating a contracts issue as a remedies issue, or a criminal procedure issue as evidence) and apply the wrong framework.
Study is usually organized by subject in blocks, but the exam interleaves subjects. Subject-switching costs are real and untrained.
What to do instead
Shift most practice to mixed sets after the first pass. Before answering, write the subject and sub-topic at the top of the scratch paper; if the label is wrong, the analysis is wrong. Do timed mixed sets of 33 questions to mimic exam rhythm.
On MEE essays, the candidate writes a conclusory paragraph ('Therefore, the contract is enforceable') without stating the governing rule or applying facts to each element, losing the bulk of the points even when the conclusion is correct.
Candidates confuse issue-spotting with analysis, and under time pressure they write conclusions because rules feel obvious. Graders award points for rule statements and fact application, not for the final answer alone.
What to do instead
Adopt a rigid IRAC/CREAC template per issue: bolded heading, one-to-three-sentence rule with elements, then a fact-by-fact application naming the parties, then a short conclusion. Practice under 30-minute timed conditions and self-grade against the rubric categories (issue, rule, analysis, conclusion).
The candidate spots only the obvious issue in an MEE fact pattern and misses secondary issues (e.g., discusses formation but not the Statute of Frauds, or negligence but not comparative fault or damages caps), leaving easy points unclaimed.
Facts are read once for story rather than mined for triggers. Secondary issues are often signaled by a single clause (a writing, a date, a jurisdiction, a party's status) that the candidate skims past.
What to do instead
Read the facts twice: first for the story, second with a checklist of issue triggers per subject (writing/SoF, jurisdiction/choice of law, capacity, timing/deadlines, party status). List every candidate issue before writing, then allocate time so each gets at least a rule sentence and application.
The candidate writes a long narrative essay that restates facts and buries the analysis, running out of time before reaching the last issue or the final question in a multi-part prompt.
Fact recitation feels productive and safe, and candidates underestimate how long rule-heavy prose takes to write by hand or under typing constraints. Multi-part prompts often carry points in the last part.
What to do instead
Budget time by issue and by prompt part before writing (e.g., 5 minutes outline, 20 minutes writing, 5 minutes review). Never restate facts except as applied ('because A mailed the acceptance on May 1...'). Answer every part of the prompt even if briefly; an unaddressed part scores zero.
The candidate treats the MPT as a knowledge test, importing memorized law or writing a generic essay instead of following the file and library to produce the specific document the task requests (memo, brief, letter, contract provision).
The MPT is a closed-universe skills test, but years of doctrinal study condition candidates to reach for remembered rules. They also ignore the task memo's formatting and audience instructions.
What to do instead
Read the task memo first and write down the deliverable, audience, and required sections. Treat the library as the only source of law and cite it. Practice at least four full 90-minute MPTs with self-grading on organization, use of authority, and adherence to the requested format.
On the MPT, the candidate reads the library thoroughly but skims the file, missing the client's key facts, the adverse facts, and the procedural posture that determine which authorities apply and how the document must be framed.
The library looks like 'the law' and feels more important, while the file looks like background. But the MPT grades on accurate use of the specific facts in the file, including unfavorable ones.
What to do instead
Reverse the reading order: task memo, then file (noting facts, dates, parties, and adverse facts in a grid), then library. Draft an outline that maps each file fact to the element it proves before writing.
The candidate neglects the objective-scoring mechanics: leaving MBE answers blank, failing to write anything on an essay part, or ignoring the MPT's formatting and citation instructions, forfeiting points that require no additional knowledge.
Time pressure and perfectionism produce blank answers, and candidates underestimate how formatting, headings, and citations contribute to MPT and essay scores. Some candidates also misallocate study time to low-yield topics instead of shoring up high-frequency subjects.
What to do instead
Adopt a no-blank rule: always mark an MBE answer and always write at least a rule sentence and conclusion for every essay part. Build a one-page MPT formatting checklist (headings, citations to library, requested document type). Track practice scores by subject and redirect study hours to the lowest-yield areas.