MS PT Juris common mistakes
MS PT Juris · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On multiple-choice questions, selecting the first answer that states a correct legal rule without checking whether it actually resolves the specific facts and call of the question.
Under time pressure, candidates recognize a familiar rule and stop reading, falling for distractor choices that are accurate statements of law but irrelevant to the question asked.
What to do instead
Before selecting, re-read the call of the question and ask: 'Does this choice answer the question asked, given these facts?' Eliminate choices that are true but unresponsive. Practice with questions where the correct answer is not the most obvious rule statement.
On Constitutional Law questions, analyzing a law under the wrong level of scrutiny (e.g., applying strict scrutiny to a commercial speech regulation or rational basis to a suspect classification) without first classifying the right or classification at issue.
Candidates memorize scrutiny tiers but skip the threshold step of identifying the constitutional right or suspect class, leading to a mismatch between the standard and the government interest.
What to do instead
Always begin constitutional analysis by explicitly naming the right or classification and its corresponding scrutiny level. Create a one-page chart mapping rights/classes to scrutiny tiers and review it before practice questions.
On Contract Law questions, conflating the formation elements (offer, acceptance, consideration) with defenses to formation ( Statute of Frauds, unconscionability, mistake) and analyzing them in the wrong order.
Candidates learn doctrines in isolation and fail to apply a structured sequence, so they miss that a contract was never formed before reaching a defense.
What to do instead
Use a checklist: (1) Was there mutual assent? (2) Was there consideration? (3) Are there any defenses? Apply the checklist to every fact pattern, even simple ones, until it becomes automatic.
On Criminal Law and Procedure questions, confusing the burden of proof and standard of review at different stages (e.g., probable cause for arrest vs. reasonable suspicion for stop, or beyond a reasonable doubt at trial vs. preponderance at sentencing).
The standards are taught together and sound similar; candidates memorize definitions but not the stage at which each applies.
What to do instead
Build a table of police actions (stop, frisk, arrest, search warrant, sentencing) and the corresponding standard. For each practice question, identify the procedural stage before selecting an answer.
On Tort Law questions, skipping the duty analysis and jumping straight to breach or causation, especially in negligence per se or special duty situations.
Candidates assume a duty exists whenever someone is injured, overlooking that duty is a legal question that may be absent (e.g., no special relationship, no foreseeable plaintiff).
What to do instead
For every negligence question, state the duty rule explicitly (general duty, special relationship, statute, etc.) before analyzing breach. Use the phrase 'The threshold issue is whether defendant owed a duty to this plaintiff' as a writing prompt.
On Property Law questions, mixing up the recording statutes (race, notice, race-notice) and applying the wrong one to determine priority between competing interests.
The statutes differ by only a few words, and candidates memorize labels without understanding the operational difference.
What to do instead
Write out each statute in full and create a hypothetical with three parties (O, A, B) to see how each statute changes the outcome. Practice identifying which statute a jurisdiction has from a fact pattern before analyzing priority.
On Evidence Law questions, admitting or excluding evidence based on relevance alone without considering hearsay, its exceptions, or the Confrontation Clause.
Candidates stop analysis once they find the evidence is relevant, forgetting that relevance is only the first hurdle.
What to do instead
Use a two-step framework: (1) Is it relevant? (2) Is it hearsay? If hearsay, is there an exception or exclusion? Then check constitutional issues. Apply this to every evidence question.
On Civil Procedure questions, analyzing personal jurisdiction before subject matter jurisdiction, or vice versa, without recognizing that both must be satisfied and that the order affects the analysis.
Candidates treat the topics as separate and do not integrate them into a single lawsuit framework.
What to do instead
For each civ pro question, ask: (1) Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? (2) Does it have personal jurisdiction? (3) Is venue proper? Then proceed to procedural issues. Practice with questions that test multiple jurisdictional concepts.
On Legal Research, Writing, and Ethics questions, citing a case or statute without Shepardizing or checking subsequent history, and failing to recognize conflicts of interest.
Candidates focus on finding authority but neglect validation and ethical screening, which are heavily tested.
What to do instead
For research questions, always ask: 'Is this authority still good law?' For ethics, systematically check for conflicts (current client, former client, third-party) before advising. Use mnemonic checklists for both.
On Current Legal Developments and Jurisprudence questions, relying on general knowledge from law school rather than recent Supreme Court decisions, and missing recent changes in statutory interpretation or constitutional doctrine.
Candidates study outdated outlines and do not update with recent cases, assuming the exam tests only settled law.
What to do instead
Review the past two years of major Supreme Court decisions and significant statutory amendments. Create a timeline of recent cases and their holdings, and practice applying them to hypotheticals.