Egzamin Adwokacki common mistakes
Egzamin Adwokacki · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the kazus (case study), the candidate writes a general academic essay on the institution (e.g. the nature of representation) instead of applying the norm step by step to the facts given, and never states which facts are legally relevant and which are background.
The candidate learns the law from textbooks and commentaries, where the order is doctrine first and example second, and transfers that order to the exam. Under time pressure the essay feels safer because it does not require committing to a result, and the candidate fears that a definite conclusion will expose an error.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed working template for every kazus: (1) identify the legal relationship and the parties, (2) list the facts that are elements of a norm and strike out the rest, (3) state the applicable provision with its number, (4) subsume each fact under each element, (5) give an unambiguous conclusion and, where the question asks, the remedy. Practise on past exam-style states of fact with a 45-minute timer and count how many words go to doctrine versus application; application should dominate. Force yourself to write 'Therefore...' at the end of every analytical block.
The candidate cites an article number without the provision's content and without checking that it is still in force in the wording applicable on the date of the facts, and does not notice that a special provision (lex specialis) displaces the general one they used.
Candidates memorise article numbers from older editions of statutes and from notes taken before a major amendment (for example the successive amendments to the Civil Code, the Labour Code and the Commercial Companies Code), and they revise by reading summaries rather than the consolidated text. The exam tests the current state of the law, and a correct reasoning built on a repealed wording scores zero.
What to do instead
Never write a provision number without paraphrasing its content in the same sentence. Before the exam, build a one-page list of recent amendments for each major statute and check the consolidated text on the official legislative database. In every kazus, deliberately ask 'is there a special rule for this contract, this employee group, this company form?' and cite the special provision first, then the general one only as a fallback.
In the criminal-law part the candidate confuses the statutory elements of an offence with the conditions of culpability and with procedural obstacles, and answers a question about criminal liability by describing the penalty instead of the elements.
Criminal law is taught as a system (structure of the offence, unlawfulness, guilt, stages of commission, forms of complicity) but examined through short factual questions. Candidates who revise only the Special Part by offence names skip the General Part, which is where most of the marks lie, and they answer the question they find easier rather than the one asked.
What to do instead
For each offence you revise, write four lines: the protected legal interest, the objective elements, the subjective elements (intent, and whether negligence is punishable), and the penalty range. Then do the same in reverse: given facts, decide first whether the elements are met, then unlawfulness (defences), then guilt (insanity, mistake, minority), then only afterwards the penalty and its measurement. Train the distinction between attempt, preparation and completed offence with three short hypotheticals each.
In administrative law the candidate challenges the merits of the administrative decision in an appeal or a complaint to the administrative court, instead of identifying the correct procedural remedy, the correct authority and the correct deadline, and mixes up the appeal (odwołanie) with a request for reconsideration or with a complaint to the voivodeship administrative court.
Administrative procedure is a code of formal steps and deadlines, and candidates who study it as substantive administrative law never internalise the sequence: act, appeal to the second-instance authority, then complaint to the court. The instinct from civil law is to argue the substance, and the candidate forgets that the court reviews legality, not expediency.
What to do instead
Draw the procedural chain for each type of act (decision, order, permit, licence) on one page: which authority issued it, which authority reviews it, the deadline counted from delivery, and what the reviewing body can do (annul, amend, remit). Memorise that the administrative court controls legality and that the grounds of complaint are procedural and legal, not factual. Practise drafting the actual appeal and complaint with the formal requirements and the fee, not just describing them.
In labour and social security law the candidate applies the Civil Code directly to an employment relationship, or answers a social security question by describing the benefit instead of checking the contribution title, the insurance period and the benefit's own conditions.
The Labour Code contains its own hierarchy of sources and its own protective rules, and the Civil Code applies only where the Labour Code refers to it. Social security law is perceived as a separate, technical subject and is under-revised, so candidates fall back on general civil reasoning and on intuition about who 'deserves' the benefit.
What to do instead
For every employment-law problem, start from the Labour Code provision and only then ask whether a Civil Code rule applies by reference. Build a table for social security: contribution title, obligation to register, conditions of the benefit, the organ competent to decide, and the appeal route to the court. Revise the difference between an employment relationship, a civil-law contract and self-employment, because most exam traps sit exactly there.
In company law the candidate answers questions about representation, liability of management board members and share transfers using general rules without distinguishing the company forms, and ignores the registration effect (entry in the register) that determines when a change takes effect against third parties.
The Commercial Companies Code is long and candidates revise it selectively, usually the limited liability company only. They also treat registration as a formality rather than as a legal event, so they miss the constitutive versus declaratory distinction, which is the core of most company-law questions.
What to do instead
Build a comparison grid for the partnership and company forms: formation, representation, liability of partners and of the management board, transfer of interests and shares, and which changes require registration and with what effect. For each question, first name the company form, then apply its rule. Learn the distinction between a constitutive entry and a declaratory entry with one concrete example each, and revise the rules on the management board's liability towards the company and towards creditors.
In family and guardianship law the candidate decides the case on the parties' wishes or on a general sense of fairness, without anchoring the answer in the best-interests-of-the-child standard and without identifying which court has jurisdiction and which procedure applies (matrimonial case, guardianship case, or a case between parents).
Family law feels intuitive and moral, and candidates rely on that intuition rather than on the code. The procedural layer is taught separately, so the candidate knows the substantive institution but not the route by which the court decides it, and cannot say what the court may order and how it enforces it.
What to do instead
For every family-law problem, state the procedural mode first (which court, which type of case, which participants), then apply the substantive rule, then test the result against the child's welfare, explaining in one sentence why the outcome serves it. Revise the powers of the guardianship court and the consequences of a failure to comply with contact or maintenance orders. Keep the maintenance rules and the grounds for divorce and separation in a separate one-page summary.
In property and succession law the candidate transfers the civil-law concept of ownership and the rules of inheritance directly onto land and mortgage registers and onto the acquisition of an inheritance, forgetting the constitutive character of the register entry and the difference between the acquisition and the acceptance of an inheritance.
These are the most formalised parts of civil law, and candidates learn the substantive institutions without the registration and procedural layer. The register and the succession certificate are treated as technicalities, yet the exam question usually turns precisely on the moment at which a right is acquired or lost.
What to do instead
Separate in your notes three layers for each right: how it is acquired between the parties, when it takes effect against third parties, and how it is evidenced (register, succession certificate, notarial deed). Learn the presumption of the accuracy of the register and the rules protecting a purchaser in good faith. For succession, draw a timeline from death through acceptance or rejection and the declaration of acceptance or rejection, and mark the deadlines and the effects of each step.
In constitutional and institutional law the candidate answers with political or factual commentary about current events and institutions instead of the constitutional norm, and does not check which organ is competent and under which procedure a conflict is resolved.
Constitutional law attracts opinion, and the candidate has read the news more recently than the text of the Constitution. The subject is examined through precise questions about competence and procedure, and a well-written political argument earns nothing, while a short answer citing the article earns full marks.
What to do instead
Revise the Constitution article by article with a one-line summary of each, and build a competence map: who appoints whom, who may dissolve which organ, who decides a dispute between organs, and which body reviews the constitutionality of a statute and with what effect. For every question, write the article number and the organ before any commentary, and remove adjectives from your answers.
In ethics the candidate answers what a good lawyer would do in general terms, without identifying the specific duty engaged (conflict of interest, confidentiality, advertising, fees, or the duty to refuse a case) and without the consequence of breach, including disciplinary liability.
Candidates treat ethics as a soft subject that cannot be revised and rely on personal morality. The code of professional ethics and the law on the professions are precise texts, and the exam rewards the named duty and its consequence, not a moral judgement.
What to do instead
Memorise the code of professional ethics as a list of duties with a concrete example of breach for each, and pair each with the disciplinary consequence and the effect on the mandate. Practise short scenarios: a conflict between two clients, a client who asks the lawyer to present false evidence, an approach to the opposing party, advertising, and the handling of client funds. In each, name the duty, the provision, the correct course of action and the sanction.
In EU and international law the candidate applies national law to a cross-border situation without checking the applicable law, the jurisdiction and the direct effect and supremacy of EU law, and cites the Treaty without the specific regulation or directive that governs the matter.
EU law is revised as a set of general principles, and candidates do not connect it to the private and administrative law they already know. They also forget that a regulation applies directly while a directive needs transposition, and that the national court must interpret national law in conformity with EU law.
What to do instead
For every cross-border problem, run a fixed sequence: is there an EU competence and a specific instrument, is the provision directly effective, what does the national court do, and which court has jurisdiction under the relevant regulation. Learn the difference between a regulation, a directive and a decision, the principle of conforming interpretation and the conditions for state liability. Pair each principle with one landmark ruling and its holding in a single sentence.