MN Bar common mistakes
MN Bar · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a personal jurisdiction question involves a nonresident defendant, the candidate analyzes only the state long-arm statute or only the constitutional minimum contacts, then concludes jurisdiction is proper or improper without completing both steps.
Bar prep materials often present the two-step analysis separately, and under time pressure candidates collapse it into a single 'contacts' test. The mistake persists because many practice fact patterns involve defendants who clearly satisfy both prongs, so the omission goes undetected.
What to do instead
For every PJ question, write two headings on scratch paper: 'Long-arm statute' and 'Due process.' Under the first, state whether the statute reaches the conduct (or whether the state has an enumerated basis such as domicile, consent, or waiver). Under the second, apply minimum contacts, purposeful availment, relatedness, and fair play. Only if both are satisfied may you conclude jurisdiction exists. Practice with hypos where the long-arm statute is narrower than the Constitution (e.g., a state that enumerates specific acts) so the two-step structure becomes automatic.
On a Fourth Amendment search question, the candidate identifies government action and a reasonable expectation of privacy, then stops without addressing the warrant requirement, the applicable exception, and the scope of the search.
Criminal procedure is taught as a checklist of exceptions, and candidates memorize the names (consent, plain view, automobile, exigency) without practicing the full analytical sequence. Under exam pressure they name an exception without showing why it applies to the facts or whether the search stayed within its scope.
What to do instead
Use a fixed four-step template for every search question: (1) Was there government action? (2) Did the defendant have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or item searched (or was there a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area)? (3) If yes, was there a warrant? (4) If no warrant, which exception applies, and did the police act within its scope? Write each step in one sentence before moving on. Drill with fact patterns that turn on scope (e.g., automobile exception limited to the passenger compartment and containers therein) so you learn to state the limit, not just the label.
In a UCC Article 2 question, the candidate applies common-law contract rules to formation, modification, or the statute of frauds without first noting that Article 2 governs the transaction because it involves a sale of goods.
First-year Contracts emphasizes common-law doctrine, and candidates default to it. Article 2's differences (firm offers, modification without consideration, the merchant's confirmatory memo, the perfect-tender rule) are learned as exceptions, so under time pressure the candidate forgets to switch frameworks.
What to do instead
Begin every contracts essay with a one-line classification: 'This is a sale of goods, so UCC Article 2 governs,' or 'This is a services contract, so common law governs.' Then, for each issue, explicitly state the Article 2 rule and contrast it with the common-law rule only if relevant. Build a one-page chart of the ten biggest Article 2/common-law differences and review it before each practice set. On multiple choice, eliminate any answer that applies common-law consideration to a UCC modification.
On a hearsay question, the candidate labels a statement 'hearsay' or 'not hearsay' without identifying the declarant, the out-of-court statement, and the purpose for which it is offered, and without considering whether a non-hearsay use or an exception applies.
Hearsay is taught as a definition plus a long list of exceptions, and candidates try to pattern-match the facts to an exception name. They skip the foundational step of identifying the statement and its proponent's purpose, which is what actually determines admissibility.
What to do instead
For every hearsay issue, write four lines: (1) the declarant; (2) the statement; (3) the purpose (truth of the matter asserted vs. effect on the listener, impeachment, verbal act, etc.); (4) conclusion. If the purpose is truth, then check exceptions in a fixed order: party admissions, then firmly rooted exceptions (excited utterance, present sense impression, then-existing condition, business records, public records, judgment, etc.). Practice with statements that are non-hearsay for one purpose and hearsay for another (e.g., 'I'm a police officer' offered to show the listener's state of mind).
In a real property question involving a landlord-tenant or conveyance issue, the candidate states the general rule but fails to apply the specific doctrine that controls the facts, such as the implied warranty of habitability, the covenant of quiet enjoyment, or the recording act's effect on a subsequent purchaser.
Real property contains many overlapping doctrines, and candidates memorize definitions without practicing which doctrine is triggered by which facts. The result is a rule statement that does not connect to the question asked.
What to do instead
For each property essay, identify the relationship (landlord-tenant, concurrent owners, buyer-seller, mortgagor-mortgagee) and the transaction stage (lease, sale, financing, recording). Then list the doctrines that apply at that stage before writing. For recording questions, always state the jurisdiction's recording act (race, notice, race-notice), whether the subsequent purchaser had notice (actual, inquiry, record), and whether the conveyance was properly recorded. Practice with a chart of the three recording acts and a chart of leasehold covenants so the trigger facts become recognizable.
On a torts question, the candidate analyzes duty and breach but omits causation (actual and proximate) or omits the element of damages, and on negligence per se or strict liability questions fails to state the applicable standard.
Torts is taught element-by-element, but candidates under time pressure write about the most factually vivid element (usually breach) and assume the others. Causation in particular is easy to skip because the facts often make it seem obvious.
What to do instead
Use a five-element checklist for every negligence question: duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, damages. Write a sentence for each even if the facts make it seem clear. For strict liability and products liability, state the standard (e.g., defective condition unreasonably dangerous, foreseeable plaintiff) before applying. For negligence per se, identify the statute, the class of persons, and the type of harm. Practice with short hypos where one element is contested (e.g., proximate cause with an intervening cause) so you learn to address it explicitly.
In a business associations question, the candidate conflates the roles of agency law, partnership law, and corporation law, and applies the wrong default rule (e.g., applying corporate limited liability to a general partnership or applying partnership unanimous consent to a corporation).
The domain combines three related but distinct bodies of law, and bar prep often presents them together. Candidates memorize rules without tagging each rule to its entity type, so under pressure they pull a rule from the wrong category.
What to do instead
Before answering, write the entity type at the top of your answer: agency, general partnership, limited partnership, LLC, or corporation. Then use an entity-specific checklist: for partnerships, default rules on profit sharing, management, and dissociation; for corporations, the business judgment rule, duty of care and loyalty, and shareholder voting; for agency, actual/implied/apparent authority and ratification. Build a comparison table of the default rules across entity types and review it weekly. On multiple choice, eliminate answers that apply a rule from a different entity.
In a wills and trusts question, the candidate states the rule for validity (testamentary capacity, intent, formalities) but fails to address the consequence of a failed will or trust, such as intestate succession, ademption, lapse, or the effect of a no-contest clause.
Wills and trusts are taught as a sequence of validity rules, and candidates stop once they conclude the will is valid or invalid. The exam often asks what happens to the property, which requires the next step.
What to do instead
For every wills question, after concluding on validity, write a second paragraph: 'If the will fails, the estate passes by intestacy as follows...' and list the heirs under the applicable intestacy statute. For specific bequests, check ademption, lapse, and anti-lapse statutes. For trusts, check whether the trust is charitable or private, whether the rule against perpetuities applies, and whether the trustee has duties of loyalty and prudence. Practice with hypos that combine a defective will and a partial intestacy so the second step becomes habitual.
In a secured transactions question, the candidate identifies that a security interest exists but fails to address attachment, perfection, and priority in sequence, and does not apply the correct priority rule (e.g., first to file or perfect vs. a buyer in ordinary course).
Article 9 is rule-dense, and candidates memorize definitions of attachment and perfection without practicing the three-step analytical sequence. Under time pressure they jump to priority without establishing whether the interest was attached and perfected.
What to do instead
Use a three-column worksheet for every Article 9 question: Attachment (value given, debtor has rights in collateral, security agreement authenticated), Perfection (filing, possession, control, automatic), Priority (first to file or perfect, PMSI, buyer in ordinary course, lien creditor). Write one sentence per column before analyzing priority. For priority disputes, state the competing claimants and the specific priority rule that resolves the conflict. Practice with fact patterns involving a PMSI in inventory and a buyer in ordinary course so you learn to apply the special rules, not just the general first-to-file rule.
On a conflict of laws or family law question, the candidate applies the forum's substantive law without addressing choice of law, or applies a general family law rule without checking the specific statute or the effect of a foreign judgment.
Conflict of laws is often studied as a separate topic and not integrated with family law or contracts, so candidates fail to see the choice-of-law issue embedded in a family law fact pattern (e.g., a divorce decree from another state, a child custody order, or a prenuptial agreement governed by another state's law).
What to do instead
For any fact pattern involving parties or events connected to more than one state, write a threshold paragraph: 'Choice of law: the forum will apply its own choice-of-law rule, which for [tort/contract/property] is [rule].' Then apply the chosen law. For family law, check the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act for custody orders, and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act for support orders. Practice with hypos that combine a foreign judgment and a family law issue so you learn to spot the choice-of-law question before applying substantive rules.