NM Bar common mistakes
NM Bar · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reads the entire fact pattern before looking at the call of the question, then re-reads the facts to find what was actually asked.
Law-school habit of issue-spotting from facts. MBE fact patterns are written to be plausible under several doctrines, so reading without the call primes the candidate toward the wrong issue and burns 30-45 seconds per question.
What to do instead
Read the call first and paraphrase it in a word or two ('hearsay?', 'PJ?', 'duty?'). Then read the facts once, marking only facts that bear on that call. After choosing, confirm the answer responds to the call and is not merely a true statement of law.
Applies common-law contract rules (mirror image, consideration, parol evidence) to a sale-of-goods fact pattern, or applies UCC 2-207 to a services deal.
The exam mixes goods and services and the facts rarely announce 'this is a UCC question.' Candidates default to the doctrine they reviewed most recently.
What to do instead
Before any doctrine, write 'UCC' or 'CL' on scratch paper. For hybrids, identify the predominant purpose. UCC governs transactions in goods; common law governs services, land, and insurance. Only then check specific UCC rules such as 2-207, 2-302, or perfect tender.
On a personal-jurisdiction fact pattern, analyzes minimum contacts at length but never checks subject-matter jurisdiction, venue, or notice, even when the call asks whether the case may proceed in that court.
MBE civil procedure questions reward the issue with the most facts, and personal jurisdiction has the most. Subject-matter jurisdiction feels obvious and gets skipped.
What to do instead
Run a fixed three-step checklist on every civil procedure question: (1) subject-matter jurisdiction, federal question or diversity with complete diversity and more than $75,000; (2) personal jurisdiction, contacts plus fair play plus consent or waiver; (3) venue and notice. The answer must be consistent with all three.
Finds but-for cause and selects the answer resting on cause-in-fact when the correct answer turns on proximate cause or a superseding cause.
Cause-in-fact is easier to test and feels sufficient. Proximate cause requires a policy judgment that candidates avoid under time pressure, especially when a later event appears in the facts.
What to do instead
After finding but-for cause, always ask two questions: was the harm within the risk that made the conduct negligent, and did an unforeseeable intervening act break the chain? Eliminate any answer that stops at cause-in-fact when the facts include a later event or an unusual plaintiff.
Analyzes whether a law violates a constitutional right without first asking whether there is state action, or applies strict scrutiny to a law that involves only an ordinary economic classification.
The call often names the right, such as free speech or equal protection, and candidates jump straight to the standard. State action is unstated and easy to forget; tier selection is rushed.
What to do instead
First line of analysis: is the actor governmental, or a private actor performing a public function or significantly entangled with the state? Then pick the tier before discussing the law: fundamental right or suspect class gets strict scrutiny; quasi-suspect class gets intermediate; everything else gets rational basis.
Writes the MEE essay as one continuous narrative without headings, issue statements, or a separate conclusion.
Time pressure and law-school habit. Candidates try to save time, but graders score by issue, and a wall of text hides the analysis even when the law is right.
What to do instead
Use the call's own subparts as headings. Under each: rule in one or two sentences, application to named facts, conclusion. Reserve 60-90 seconds at the end to add a one-line conclusion for every subpart, even if it is only 'likely yes' or 'likely no.'
Spends 45-50 minutes on the first essay, leaving 20 minutes for the last essay or skipping it entirely.
The first essay is often the one the candidate knows best, and perfectionism plus an unenforced clock takes over. All six essays are weighted equally, so one long essay costs more than it gains.
What to do instead
Set a hard 30-minute timer per essay. At 27 minutes, stop and move on, leaving bullet-point gaps to fill later if time permits. Within an essay, write the easiest subpart first if it unblocks the rest. Practice full six-essay sets with a visible clock.
Addresses only the issue the call seems 'about' and ignores secondary parties, defenses, or the second clause of a compound question.
MEE calls are often compound, such as 'Discuss the claims of A against B and C.' Candidates answer the first clause and forget the rest, and they omit defenses like the statute of frauds unless the call names them.
What to do instead
Before writing, list every party, claim, and defense named in the call as a numbered checklist. After drafting, tick each one. If a defense is factually supported, analyze it even when the call does not name it.
Produces a legal memo when the task asks for a letter to a client, an email to a partner, or a draft contract provision.
Candidates practice memos in law school, so the instruction letter is skimmed and the requested format is treated as cosmetic. The MPT scores adherence to the deliverable as part of the task.
What to do instead
Read the task memo twice and underline the deliverable, audience, and tone. Before writing, set up the required heading block (To/From/Re or Dear ___) and match the register: a client letter uses plain English and no internal library citations; a partner memo uses formal analysis.
Summarizes the authorities in the library instead of applying them, or imports outside law not found in the file.
The library is self-contained and unfamiliar. Candidates fall back on describing cases rather than using them, and they worry about a missing rule that is not in the file.
What to do instead
Treat the library as the only law. For each authority, write one line: the rule plus how it applies to a named fact in the file. Every paragraph should answer the client's question rather than describe a case. Reserve time to read the full file and outline before drafting.