ND Bar common mistakes
ND Bar · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On an MBE question, selecting an answer choice because it states a correct legal rule, even though the rule does not resolve the precise issue asked in the call.
Recognition bias: several choices contain accurate black-letter statements, and under time pressure the familiar rule feels safer than testing relevance to the call.
What to do instead
Read the call first, write a one-word issue cue, and reject any choice that is true but not dispositive. For each remaining choice, ask: 'Does this rule, applied to these facts, answer the call?'
Applying the wrong burden or standard of proof in evidence and criminal procedure questions, such as treating a preliminary admissibility fact as requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Candidates memorize labels like 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'preponderance' but do not attach them to the specific proceeding or preliminary issue.
What to do instead
Build a one-page matrix: criminal trial = beyond a reasonable doubt; civil trial = preponderance; suppression hearing = preponderance; FRE 104(a) preliminary admissibility = preponderance. Drill scenarios, not labels.
Answering Fourth Amendment or due process questions from a personal sense of fairness, for example upholding a search because the officer acted in subjective good faith without first finding a warrant exception.
Law school policy discussion and moral intuition displace doctrinal sequencing under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Use a fixed checklist: government action, reasonable expectation of privacy, warrant, exception, exclusion, then good faith. Do not reach good faith until the exception analysis is complete.
Spending four or five minutes on early MBE questions and then guessing randomly on the last thirty because time has run out.
Perfectionism and fear of missing a hidden issue cause candidates to ignore the average 1.8-minute pace.
What to do instead
Practice with a hard stop at 1.8 minutes per question: flag, guess, move. Set pacing checkpoints at questions 34, 67, and 100. Never leave a bubble blank.
On an MEE answer, writing a conclusory rule such as 'The contract is enforceable' without stating the elements the rule requires.
Time pressure and fact-pattern immersion lead candidates to skip the rule skeleton and jump straight to a conclusion.
What to do instead
Before writing, list the elements in the margin. Draft the rule with each element named and its source (UCC, Restatement, constitutional provision), then apply each element to a specific fact.
Missing a sub-question because the call asks whether X is liable to Y and whether Z can recover, and the answer addresses only X.
Candidates skim the call and treat the first interrogative as the whole question.
What to do instead
Underline every interrogative word and every party in the call. Outline one heading per sub-question before drafting, and verify each heading has an answer.
Reciting rules without applying them to the facts, such as stating 'A statement against interest is admissible' but never identifying the declarant, the interest, or corroboration.
Exam anxiety produces a rule dump, and candidates mistake volume of law for analysis.
What to do instead
Use a 'because' discipline: every rule sentence must be followed by 'Here, ...' with specific facts. If a sentence could appear in a textbook without change, rewrite it with facts.
On an MPT, writing a memo that answers a different question than the task memo asks, for example discussing every possible claim when the assigning attorney requested only the client's strongest argument.
Candidates skim the task memo and default to a familiar law-school memo template.
What to do instead
Read the task memo twice and write on scratch paper: purpose, audience, tone, format, and the exact question. Outline only the requested issues; discard attractive but unasked issues.
Copying long passages from the file or library verbatim into the MPT draft instead of synthesizing the rule and using facts selectively.
Uncertainty makes verbatim copying feel productive, and candidates fear omitting something important.
What to do instead
Read the library with a purpose and take short citations, not block quotes. Draft a synthesized rule in your own words, then cite file facts by party name and date rather than reproducing paragraphs.
Running out of time on the MPT before producing a complete document because research consumed most of the allotted period.
Candidates lack phase discipline and keep reading authorities hoping for certainty.
What to do instead
Enforce fixed phases: 15 minutes to read and outline, 30 minutes to research, 45 minutes to draft, 15 minutes to revise. Use a visible timer and stop research at the phase boundary even if not perfectly certain.