NG Bar Crim Lit common mistakes
NG Bar Crim Lit · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On criminal-law questions, the candidate identifies the correct offence label (e.g. robbery) and stops there, without working through whether the mens rea is satisfied for each element or whether a defence such as self-defence or intoxication negates it.
Bar prep rewards naming offences quickly, so candidates pattern-match the facts to a label and move on, treating the label as the answer rather than the start of the analysis. Under time pressure the element-by-element check feels redundant once the label 'looks right'.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed two-pass routine: first write the offence and list its elements in a margin, then for each element write one word (yes/no/unclear) tying it to a specific fact. Only after that pass consider defences. Practise on ten fact patterns where the obvious label is wrong because one element fails, so the habit is trained against the shortcut.
The candidate answers a criminal-law question by reciting the general rule and never addresses the specific exception the facts were built around, such as the thin-skull rule, transferred malice, or the distinction between attempted and completed offences.
Examiners bury the tested point in the last sentence of the facts. Candidates read for the story, recognise a familiar offence, and draft the standard rule, missing that the facts were constructed to test an exception or a borderline distinction.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the last two sentences of every fact pattern and ask 'what is unusual here?' Write the anomaly in one line at the top of the answer and make the answer's structure address it explicitly. Drill with fact patterns that differ only in one fact, so the candidate learns to spot which fact changes the legal outcome.
On property-law questions the candidate states a conclusion about ownership or priority without setting out the chain of title, the nature of each interest (legal or equitable, registered or unregistered), and the order of creation and registration.
Property answers feel intuitive: the candidate 'sees' who should win and writes the conclusion, skipping the formal steps. Candidates also conflate the language of registered and unregistered systems, especially where the exam uses a Torrens-style register.
What to do instead
Use a mandatory skeleton for every property answer: (1) identify each interest and its type, (2) state when it was created, (3) state whether and when it was registered, (4) apply the priority rule for that system, (5) state the conclusion. Write the skeleton headings even when the answer is short, so no step can be skipped under time pressure.
The candidate treats co-ownership, leases, and licences as interchangeable, or applies the wrong test for whether an arrangement creates a lease rather than a licence, without addressing exclusive possession, term, and rent.
These categories are taught together and share vocabulary, so candidates recall the words but not the distinct legal consequences. The facts often describe an arrangement in everyday language ('lodger', 'shared occupancy') that pulls the candidate toward the wrong category.
What to do instead
Memorise and apply the three-part lease test as a checklist (exclusive possession, definite term, rent or consideration) and then test exclusive possession against the facts (retained keys, services, control). Build a one-page comparison table of lease versus licence consequences and redraft three model answers from memory until the checklist is automatic.
On corporate-law questions the candidate ignores the separate legal personality of the company and attributes the company's acts, debts, or knowledge directly to a director or shareholder, or pierces the veil without identifying a recognised ground.
The facts are written about people, so the candidate reasons about the people. Veil-piercing is memorable and over-applied, and candidates forget that attribution requires a specific legal route (agency, identification, statutory liability) rather than general fairness.
What to do instead
Start every corporate answer with the sentence 'The company is a separate legal person' and then ask whether a specific legal route attributes the act or liability to the individual. Keep a short closed list of recognised grounds for disregarding personality and cite the route explicitly. Practise distinguishing director liability for breach of duty from company liability to third parties.
The candidate states that a director breached a duty without identifying which duty, to whom it is owed, the standard applied, and whether the business-judgement or authorisation route changes the analysis.
Duties are listed in the syllabus as a block, so candidates write a general paragraph about good faith and care instead of selecting the specific duty engaged by the facts. The overlap between duties to the company and obligations to creditors or shareholders blurs the analysis.
What to do instead
For every director question, write four labels before drafting: duty, beneficiary, standard, and any authorisation or ratification. Then analyse only the duty the facts engage, and state expressly whether the duty is owed to the company rather than to individual shareholders. Use short fact patterns where two duties are engaged and require the candidate to choose.
On ethics questions the candidate answers what a good lawyer would do morally rather than applying the specific rule, and does not distinguish the duty of confidentiality from the duty of disclosure to the court or to the client.
Ethics feels like common sense, so candidates skip the rulebook and reason from intuition. Confidentiality and disclosure are taught as slogans, and candidates do not separate the duty owed to the client from the overriding duty to the court.
What to do instead
Answer ethics questions in rule form: name the rule, state its scope, apply it to the facts, then state the permitted or required action. Maintain a two-column sheet separating confidentiality, privilege, and disclosure obligations, with the trigger for each. Practise scenarios where the client instructs silence about a fact that must be disclosed, so the conflict is resolved explicitly.
The candidate identifies a conflict of interest but stops at 'there is a conflict' without stating whether it is consentable, who must give informed consent, and what the lawyer must do if consent is refused or cannot be obtained.
Conflict rules are remembered as a prohibition, so candidates treat detection as the whole answer. The graduated response (disclosure, informed consent, withdrawal) is less memorable than the headline rule.
What to do instead
Memorise a three-step response chain for conflicts: identify and classify the conflict, determine whether informed consent is available and from whom, then state the fallback (decline or withdraw, and any steps to protect the client). Write the chain out for five different conflict scenarios until the sequence is automatic.
The candidate runs out of time because they allocate equal minutes to every question and over-write the first answer, leaving the final question answered in note form or not at all.
Candidates draft the first answer as if it were a coursework essay, then discover the clock. Without a per-question budget set in advance, the natural instinct is to keep writing while ideas flow.
What to do instead
Before starting, write the finish time for each question on the answer sheet and a hard stop for the current one. Cap the introduction at two sentences, and if time expires mid-answer, leave a one-line outline of the remaining points rather than nothing. Rehearse under timed conditions with the same question count as the real exam.
The candidate cites cases and statutory provisions from memory without checking that the citation supports the proposition, producing mismatched authority that undermines an otherwise correct answer.
Revision by flashcards trains recall of case names attached to topics, not the precise holding. Under pressure the candidate reaches for the nearest familiar name rather than the case that decides the point.
What to do instead
Build a one-line holding card for each key authority ('case - facts in one clause - rule in one clause') and revise only from those cards, never from topic labels. In practice answers, require the candidate to state the rule in their own words first and add the authority second, so a wrong citation cannot carry the reasoning.