How to Write MEE Answers - Part 1

Okay, let's talk about how to plan and write our answers. Now, since this is an essay exam, you might be thinking about how best to polish your prose for the MEE. And gorgeous writing is a skill, no doubt, but that's not what we're looking for here. We want to be mechanical in our approach so that every prompt can be addressed in roughly the same way.

And the point is to put you in a position to crank out six high-scoring essays in just three hours. Together, these are worth 30% of your overall bar score, so we're basically looking at about 5% of the total for each essay. We're going to be aiming for the same four-paragraph structure on every answer to every prompt: CRAC, or C-R-A-C, that's conclusion, rule, application, and conclusion, each usually in its own paragraph.

So if the question contains two prompts, then your essay will likely have two sets of CRACs for a total of eight paragraphs. And many of you will be familiar with this from law school writing classes, but don't worry if you're not. Once you've done a few of these practice questions, you'll start to see the rhythm of it right away.

And if you're used to writing IRAC, that is, I-R-A-C, or issue, rule, application, conclusion, no worries. This is very similar, and I'll talk in a minute about how to transform IRAC into CRAC. But first, a bit more about CRAC. Again, that's the structure we'll use to assemble our answers. That means for every single prompt, we're going to try to provide the following things, and in this order.

Conclusion

Your very first paragraph should be a one- or two-sentence conclusion. It is essential that you actually answer each prompt. So write a short and clear conclusion, like maybe two sentences max. And in almost every case, this sentence is going to have a "because" in it. So something like, "The court will not enforce this real estate transaction because the statute of frauds requires that the contract be signed." Focusing on that "because" helps ensure that you give a reason as part of your conclusion, and that's the best way to pick up the maximum number of points. Put it in bold or underline your conclusion, if you can. These are like the headers in a brief or a memo, and they'll make it easy for you to keep your thoughts organized and it'll also make it easy on the graders. And we want to do everything we can to make their lives easy.

Even if you write nothing else for a prompt, you want to make sure that you've given an answer to the question. And if that sounds demanding, keep in mind that the prompts you're going to encounter on the MEE generally won't be particularly esoteric. With a very few exceptions, they're going to be questions that you can answer in a single sentence.

Obviously, to get full credit, you have to do more than that. You've got to fully explain why your answer is the best one, but it's good to start by reminding yourself that these aren't going to be the kind of insanely complicated questions that you might've encountered on some of your law school finals.

State the Rule

The second thing is to state the rule, and this will be your second paragraph. This is the part where you state the legal rule as best as you can remember it. No points for being perfect, no need to cite cases or rule numbers. But we do want to let the grader know that we know what the rule is. So "Contracts for the sale of land require signature," or "An assault must cause another person to be in reasonable fear of an imminent battery." That's it. Just describe the equation, the rule you're going to apply. And if you can't quite remember it, just do your best, even if that means defaulting to some general legal principles like reasonableness, or even making something up. We'll come back and talk about that in a minute.

Apply the Rule

In the third paragraph, you'll apply the rule, and this is where you're going to spend most of your time, both on the bar exam and in your life as a lawyer: applying the rule to the facts. It's also where most of the points are to be had on the bar exam. So if you're feeling shaky on the statement of the rule, you can catch up a lot at this stage.

Now, hopefully, your careful reading of the fact pattern will make this relatively straightforward. The rule identifies certain facts as legally significant, like the mental state of the actor, for example, and it'll be your job to show whether the particular facts we've been shown lead to a yes, a no, or a maybe about whether the legal standard has been satisfied.

Sometimes, if the rule is complicated, for example, if it involves a four-factor test and two of the four factors need to be seriously analyzed, then you might want to write a paragraph for each factor as it applies to the facts.

Conclude Again

And then comes the fourth paragraph: conclude again. Now, this is, frankly, both last and least. This is the least important element of your MEE answer, so don't worry too much about whether you've answered the question "correctly. " Since you've already led off in the first paragraph with a strong statement of your conclusion, this is basically just a short wrap-up sentence to remind the grader of what you've already shown.

"Therefore, the contract is enforceable," or "Therefore, the action is a trespass. " This is more like punctuation than a full argument. You don't need to worry about including a "because" or an explanation.

So those are our four essential elements: conclusion, rule, application, conclusion. C-R-A-C, or CRAC. That's our recipe, and we're going to follow it again and again. We've already got a bit of an overview here, but let's unpack each of those elements in a little more detail.

Conclusion First or Issue/Rule First?

And, here, I have to note that while the elements should appear in that order, C-R-A-C, you might not always prefer to write them that way. So if you're really sure of your conclusion, then, by all means, go ahead and write it out first in bold, and then state the rule, and then do your application.

But that's not always going to be possible. Sometimes you might need to think things through. You might need to apply the rule to the facts in order to figure out what your conclusion is. And in some cases, you might need to jot down the issue first. That's fine. Do that in the first paragraph as a placeholder for the conclusion.

And after you write the next three paragraphs, the R, A, and C paragraphs, where you work out your thoughts and discover your conclusion, you'll simply go back and replace the issue with your conclusion in the first paragraph to make sure that the first thing the graders read is your answer to the prompt. And that's how you can transform IRAC, a work in progress, into CRAC, which is your final essay.

Again, if you're really sure of the conclusion, or if you need to write the conclusion just to keep yourself focused on the point of the question, then, by all means, do that first. But if you're not sure of the conclusion, don't get paralyzed and waste minutes trying to figure it out. Just jump straight to the issue or the rule, do your application of the rule to the facts, and write the conclusion later.

Just make sure that you do it. Leaving a question unanswered is like leaving points on the board, and we want to avoid that. Now, I'm going to walk through the steps here as if you're starting with the rule, so it's going to come across as kind of an R-A-C-C approach, but even if the conclusion is not the first thing you write, again, it should be the first part of the essay as the grader sees it. So in terms of the final product, make sure you stick to CRAC.

State the Applicable Rule

Let's start with stating the applicable rule. An essential element in any legal analysis is identifying the legal rule that applies in the situation. So we can start here with a brief statement of the doctrine that applies in the situation we've just read. We're not looking for nuance here. We don't need to hear about the evolution of the rule, or a lot of alternatives, or dissenting approaches, or anything like that. Just the kind of thing that you might stick on a flashcard if you were memorizing it.

Now, this should usually only take you a few sentences, maybe a paragraph, if the applicable rule is long or complicated. It might say something like, "Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, " or, for a lengthier one, "Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, a broad power that reaches channels, instrumentalities, and activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. If the regulated activity is itself commercial, then it can be aggregated for purposes of calculating substantial effects." That's one short statement of a rule, and one long statement of a rule. Now, obviously, the goal here is to state the rule as clearly and completely as we can. And sometimes, especially for a multifactor test, you might not be able to remember every last element.

So just do your best. Write out what you can. If you've got two of the three categories under the Commerce Clause, but you forget the instrumentalities or whatever, you're going to be fine. Again, the goal is to rack up points, not to be perfect. It's usually safe to assume that there will be just one rule per prompt, so once you've identified and stated the applicable rule, then it's usually okay to just move on.

But sometimes, not often, but sometimes, there might be more than one rule that applies. Like, maybe the question asks whether a certain speech restriction is constitutional, and you might think that it's not constitutional, both because it's viewpoint-based and because it's overbroad. If so, you'll want to state each rule separately, even in a separate paragraph. You might even label them like 2 A and 2B to keep things clear.

If You Don't Know the Rule. . .

But you might be worrying to yourself, what if I just have no clue what the applicable rule is? Like, I know that this is a question about the enforceability of a contract, but I just don't know what the standard of enforceability is.

That kind of thing is almost certain to happen to you at some point. There are going to be six questions here, and at least one or two, and maybe three, will end up being on subjects that you don't feel super comfortable with. In fact, it's a good idea to prepare for that feeling and to have a plan for what to do when you get caught flat-footed.

First thing is trust your instinct. You might actually know the rule, so trust yourself and go with the flow. Or you might be able to analogize to a doctrine that applies in some other similar situation. Like, if it's a question about regulation of advertising and you can't remember the test that applies to commercial speech claims, but you do know that the tiers of scrutiny apply to a lot of constitutional rights claims, just go with that, go with the tiers of scrutiny.

It'll show that you're in the right ballpark and it'll also make it easier to do the application and conclusion paragraphs of your essay, which can earn you a lot of points, even if you're not picking up points on the rule, on the R in CRAC.

But if you really can't think of the rule or really even anything to analogize it to, then make one up. And really, I mean it. Now, there's no points for imagination here. Don't make it something crazy. It should be something that both feels right, again, don't dismiss your instincts, and it's also simple enough to apply. So don't invent a ten-factor test. If you don't know the rule, you just want to state something plausible and simple and move on.

Talk about reasonableness if it's one of the many areas of law where reasonableness comes up, or fairness to the parties, or whatever the basic animating principles in the area of law might be. Just make sure that you state something as a rule or else you're not going to be able to complete the rest of your essay. You can't apply a rule if you haven't stated one, nor can you draw a conclusion.

But as long as you do state a rule, you can still pick up points for your analysis and application and for your conclusion, even if the rule is wrong. So it's absolutely worth the effort. Now, if you do have a multi-part rule, either because you actually remembered it or because you made one up, there's something to be said for creating a little miniature header for each element of the rule, just to make sure that you hit everything as you're applying that rule to the facts.

Apply the Rule to the Facts

And that brings us to the next paragraph in your essay. The next big step, and the one that should take the most time and space, is the application of the rule to the facts that you've been given. Now, you've done this kind of thing a hundred times before throughout law school, on exams and in classes or whatever.

And it's really no different here, except that we're going to be really quick and focused. In most situations, we're aiming for a paragraph worth of analysis. Now, I want you to get into the habit of always starting your application paragraph with the word "Here, " followed by a comma, or "In this case," followed by a comma, and then start talking about what these facts say about the outcome of the case.

And the only thing we're interested in here is the facts that are relevant to this rule, the rule that we've just stated. So every sentence you write should be making that connection over and over again. Like, "Here, the city plans to open the road for use by the general public, which means that it satisfies the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment," or "Here, the statute is neutral on its face because it does not explicitly discriminate on the basis of race, but it appears to have a discriminatory impact and intent." What you want to avoid is restating the facts except to the degree that they're relevant to your answer. Every fact should be there for a reason. And because you're pressed for time, you're just not going to be able to recap every fact from the fact pattern. Maybe just one or two or three things will be enough.

No editorializing, no summarizing, just application. That said, this is the most important letter in your CRAC. Focus on the application more than anything. You'll spend more time here and you'll pick up more points. And you probably heard this in law school a lot, but it's especially important now. If this damage is foreseeable, why? What facts in the fact pattern led you to say as much?

If this person has minimum contacts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, what were they? Are there any plausible counterarguments? This is the place where you want to show your work and connect the dots, so don't skip steps. If you've identified a three-part rule, then all three parts should show up here, even if it's just to dismiss them as either irrelevant or satisfied.

And don't skip over the stuff that seems too easy. If a contract was required to be in writing, and it was, then that's an important thing to say, even if it seems obvious to you.

Now, of course you'll need to engage thoroughly with the facts and the fact pattern here, and how you do that really comes down to your own preferences. My personal preference is to write this section fresh and then refer back to the fact pattern just to make sure I haven't missed anything essential. You've read the fact pattern closely and you probably, at this point, already have a good sense of what the most important facts are. So you can probably do the same thing. It'll save you time.

But if you need to scan back through the fact pattern again quickly, that's fine too. And, in fact, if you find yourself with extra time on a question, it's a good idea to scan back through the fact pattern before you move on, just to make sure that you didn't miss or misstate some important fact.

Sometimes you'll be in a better position to see that kind of thing after you've written the rest of your essay, like maybe there's a rule that didn't feel like it quite fully applied or a conclusion that didn't seem quite as airtight as you wanted. Maybe that's because there's a key fact in the fact pattern that you haven't utilized yet.

Write a One- or Two-Sentence "Conclusion"

Now that we've covered the rule and the application, the R and the A, let's talk about the two Cs, our conclusions. They play different roles, and we're going to approach them a little differently. The first and more important C is a one- or two-sentence answer to the prompt that contains a "because " statement identifying your major premise, that is, the rule or the reason for why you reached that answer.

And getting in the habit of using the word "because" serves two purposes. It'll help you remember to articulate your reason, because you can't write "because" and then not explain it, and it'll also catch the grader's attention, signaling that you've given a complete answer.

Now, MEE prompts come in a lot of different forms, but they're all asking you something. And that means it's especially important to answer each prompt. That's why we suggest that the conclusion appear as the first paragraph of the written answer in one or two bolded or underlined sentences.

I said that some students find it helpful to write out these conclusory answers, which can also function as headers, right after they read the fact pattern. While doing that, they can mentally come up with a game plan for how to allocate time according to what issues or rules will need more time and have more meat on the bone, and, therefore, more points.

If the conclusion is clear to you right away, you should absolutely feel free to do this. But if you're not sure, and that's what I've been doing here, that's fine too. Don't write a conclusion that commits you to the wrong approach, like the wrong rule, because then you're going to set yourself off down the wrong road and waste time.

But, again, whether or not you write the conclusion first, you absolutely can't skip it. This is what you're being asked, after all.