LA Bar common mistakes
LA Bar · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering a Louisiana question with the majority/common-law rule (e.g., analyzing a tort claim under comparative fault when the question arises under Louisiana's Civil Code, or applying common-law joint tenancy to a Louisiana co-ownership question) without first asking whether the Civil Code supplies a different rule.
Most bar preparation and most law school training is common-law oriented; candidates default to the familiar rule and never run the Louisiana-specific check, especially on forced heirship, matrimonial regimes, and liberative prescription.
What to do instead
Before writing any Louisiana-substantive answer, force a 10-second checklist: (1) Is there a Civil Code or Code of Civil Procedure article that displaces the common-law rule? (2) Does the question use a civilian term (usufruct, predial servitude, legitime, collation, redhibition, lesion)? If yes, define it from the Code, not from common-law analogy. Build a one-page 'common law vs. Louisiana' contrast sheet for the ten topics most likely to diverge and review it daily.
On a civil procedure question, filing or opposing a motion in the wrong court or at the wrong time - e.g., raising a peremptory exception of prescription after the answer without considering the timing rules, or failing to notice that a dilatory exception must be raised before answering or the objection is waived.
Candidates memorize the names of the exceptions and motions but not the sequencing and waiver rules; they treat procedure as a vocabulary test rather than a timeline.
What to do instead
For each procedural device, memorize three things together: who may raise it, when it must be raised, and what happens if it is not. Draw a timeline from petition through answer, exceptions, discovery, and trial, and place each device on it. Practice by taking fact patterns and asking only 'what is the next procedural step and is it timely?' before analyzing merits.
On Professional Responsibility questions, spotting the conflict or confidentiality issue but stopping there - failing to state the required next step (informed consent confirmed in writing, withdrawal, screening, disclosure to the tribunal) or failing to identify who the client actually is in an entity or third-party-payor setting.
Candidates treat ethics rules as a list of prohibitions and answer 'the lawyer may not represent the client' without completing the analysis; they also skip the preliminary question of the scope of the representation.
What to do instead
Use a fixed four-step template for every ethics fact pattern: (1) Who is the client and what is the scope? (2) What duty is implicated (competence, confidentiality, loyalty, candor, fees)? (3) Is the duty breached or is there a permissible path (consent, screening, disclosure)? (4) What concrete action must the lawyer take now? Write the answer in that order, and always name the specific rule number you are applying.
Reciting a rule of law in the abstract on an essay and never applying it to the specific facts - e.g., stating the elements of adverse possession or of a redhibitory action without matching each element to a named party and a named fact.
Under time pressure, candidates dump memorized rule statements because they feel productive and safe, and they run out of time before reaching analysis; graders award most points for application, not recitation.
What to do instead
Adopt a strict 'rule sentence, then fact sentence' pairing: after every rule statement, the very next sentence must begin with a party's name and a fact. If you cannot pair a fact to a rule element, that element is not in issue and should be cut. Practice timed outlines where you write only headings plus the paired fact for each element.
Missing the threshold issue that changes everything - e.g., analyzing a Fourth Amendment search without first establishing whether there was government action and a reasonable expectation of privacy, or analyzing a contract without asking whether the Statute of Frauds or a condition precedent bars enforcement.
Candidates jump to the issue that looks most substantive and skip the gatekeeping question; exams are built so that the threshold issue is often the discriminator between a passing and failing answer.
What to do instead
For every fact pattern, spend the first two minutes writing a bare list of possible threshold questions: jurisdiction, standing, government action, statute of frauds, prescription, capacity, condition precedent, authentication. Cross off each one explicitly in your answer ('No statute of frauds issue because performance was completed') so the grader sees you considered it.
On Evidence questions, confusing the standard for admitting a hearsay statement with the standard for impeaching a witness, or failing to separate relevance, hearsay, and the Confrontation Clause into distinct analytical steps.
The rules overlap in the fact patterns and candidates collapse them into one 'is it admissible' question; they also forget that a statement can be relevant and non-hearsay yet still excluded.
What to do instead
Answer evidence questions in a fixed sequence: relevance, then hearsay (is it a statement? offered for its truth? any exemption or exception?), then constitutional or privilege overlay, then discretionary exclusion. For impeachment, separately identify the witness's in-court testimony versus an out-of-court statement and which rule governs each. Drill with short fact patterns where you write only the sequence headings.
On Trusts and Estates or Successions questions, ignoring forced heirship, legitime, collation, and the spousal usufruct, and instead distributing the estate purely by the terms of the will.
Candidates apply the testator's intent as if it were absolute and forget that Louisiana limits testamentary freedom; the forced heirship rules are technical and easy to skip under time pressure.
What to do instead
Before distributing any estate, run a mandatory three-line check: (1) Are there forced heirs, and if so what is the legitime and is the disposition reducible? (2) Is the surviving spouse entitled to usufruct or a marital portion? (3) Is there collation or a return of donations? Only after those lines do you honor the will's terms. Memorize the forced heirship thresholds and reduction mechanics as a formula you write out every time.
On Business Associations questions, failing to identify the correct actor and the correct duty - e.g., analyzing a shareholder's claim without determining whether it is direct or derivative, or applying the business judgment rule to a controlling shareholder's self-dealing transaction.
Candidates learn duties in the abstract and do not map them to the specific party (director, officer, controlling shareholder, promoter, partner, agent) whose conduct is challenged.
What to do instead
For every entity question, first name the actor and its role, then the duty that role owes, then the standard of review triggered by the facts (business judgment, entire fairness, good faith, fiduciary duty of partners). For shareholder litigation, explicitly state whether the harm is to the shareholder directly or to the corporation, and whether demand is required or excused.
On Contracts questions, treating the UCC and common law as interchangeable - applying the perfect tender rule to a services contract, or requiring consideration for a firm offer by a merchant.
Candidates learn both bodies of law in the same course and default to whichever rule they remember first; the fact pattern often does not announce which regime governs.
What to do instead
Make the first line of every contracts answer an explicit classification: 'This is a transaction in goods, so UCC Article 2 governs' or 'This is a services contract, so common law governs.' Then list the two or three places where the regimes diverge (formation, firm offers, modification, perfect tender, cure, unconscionability) and check each against your classification before analyzing.
On Real Property questions, conflating recording-system outcomes with title outcomes - concluding that the recording act decides who owns the property, rather than who prevails among competing claimants, and ignoring notice, inquiry, and shelter rules.
Candidates memorize the three recording acts as labels and never trace the chain of title or identify the competing interests and their timing.
What to do instead
For every recording question, draw the chain: identify each conveyance, its date, whether it was recorded, and whether the subsequent purchaser had actual, inquiry, or record notice. Then apply the jurisdiction's act to the specific competing pair. State explicitly what the result would be if the jurisdiction were a race, notice, or race-notice state, so you demonstrate the reasoning rather than a guess.