How to Write MEE Answers - Part 2

I think of MEE prompts as falling generally into two categories. There's the "yes, no, maybe" prompts and the "what's the issue" prompts. And although they're set up slightly differently, which is why I'm going to describe them both, your written conclusion's basically going to look the same: a bolded or underlined sentence or two answering the question and providing some explanation.

Two Kinds of Prompts = Two Kinds of Conclusions

1. Yes, No, Maybe Prompts

Let me start with the first form. Sometimes the prompt you get is going to be really specific. "Under the Fifth Amendment, is this city's construction of this road constitutional? " For something like that, we need a sentence that says yes, no, or maybe, and sometimes maybe is the best we can do. That's fine.

But we also want to say something about why, or at least what the applicable principle is. I like to use the word "because" as much as possible when answering prompts. So your first sentence might say, "The city's construction of the road is constitutional under the Fifth Amendment because it is a takings for public use and just compensation has been paid." The "because" in that sentence makes it a lot better than a simple yes, because, there's that word again, it shows that you know that you were applying the correct legal rule.

2. What's the Issue Prompts

The second kind of prompt is more general. Now, I think about these as issue prompts because we'll need to identify the issue before we can answer the prompt. So let's say that the prompt is, "Will the court admit the officer's testimony? " That's clearly an evidence question, but it doesn't tell us what the relevant legal issue is.

We need to identify what that is in addition to providing an answer to the specific question. So the statement "Yes, the court will admit the officer's testimony " is a conclusion, but not one that's going to win us too many points. What we want to do is say something about why, something that shows we know what the legal issue is and how the rule applies.

So let's say, having read the fact pattern, that admissibility here turns on the applicability of the hearsay exception, then our conclusion might be something like, "The court will admit the officer's testimony pursuant to the present sense impression hearsay exception." Now we're talking. You've identified and applied the relevant rule, as well as given a clear answer to the prompt. And note that the phrase "pursuant to " did the same work as the word "because " in that example just a minute ago.

Now, it's fine if your conclusion is a maybe or a probably. We've seen the NCBE analysis for a bunch of old MEE questions, and it's clear that for some of them, the graders have been told, "Look, there are multiple acceptable conclusions here. We're just interested in the strength of analysis." If you have the time and the space to do a little bit of "on the one hand, on the other hand," that's great too. It'll help you pick up some points. The main thing is just to make sure that you've answered the questions you've been asked.

Quickly Restate Your Conclusion

Fourth, and finally, we're going to quickly restate our conclusion in the last paragraph. A common way to do this, which, again, can make things easy for the grader, which is always a good thing, is to start the sentence with "Therefore" (comma).

So once you've written that, you've committed yourself to some kind of conclusion. And it's fine if it's a "maybe " or a "likely," something along the lines of "Therefore, a court is likely to find that this road is an unconstitutional taking. " Note that this conclusion is different from the first one because it doesn't include a "because. " You've already explained yourself at this point, so you're really just wrapping things up here.

Once you've covered those four elements, you'll have a nice four-paragraph essay with one paragraph devoted to C, one paragraph devoted to R, one paragraph devoted to A, and one paragraph devoted to your final C. And that should be your default approach to all MEE prompts.

That said, there are a few situations in which a rigid application of CRAC can be difficult, like if you have a multifactor test with a bunch of rule statements baked into it, or a situation where there are two possible rules and you need to apply them both. Here are a few examples.

Simple Examples

First, some matters are so simple that they will hardly support a full CRAC treatment. In evidence, for example, you'll typically start with a relevance analysis. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact that matters to the case more or less likely. And unless there's a standalone prompt specifically to evaluate relevance, you can probably get through it in less than the four paragraphs that CRAC would typically recommend.

For example, you might say something like, "The mechanic's testimony is admissible because it indicates that there was a problem with the woman's brakes at the time of the collision, which makes it more likely that she was at fault. " That's a single sentence that includes a C, an R, and an A, and that's plenty.

The same thing might come up with legal issues that are really like necessary brush clearing. So in contracts, for example, you'll need to identify whether the UCC or the common law rules apply, but you don't need to do a full CRAC analysis for that. Just say whether it's a, for example, contract for goods, in which case you're dealing with the UCC, or not, and then it's the common law, and then move on.

Complex Examples

The other variations on CRAC arise when the prompt is more complicated than the standard one-rule, one-application version that we've been discussing. I'm going to walk through three forms of these more complicated CRAC variations, but it's really not essential that you memorize them or anything like that. You're still going to be starting with C-R-A-C, just altering it slightly to fit the rhythm of the prompt. So, here, there are really three kinds of questions to look out for.

Example 1

First, there are questions where the applicable rule is itself a multifactor test. So let's say it's a property question about adverse possession, which has a bunch of different elements. A person seeking to establish adverse possession must show that his or her possession is (1) actual, (2) open and notorious, (3) exclusive, (4) hostile, and (5) continuous for the statutory time period. That's five distinct and necessary requirements. How should you apply CRAC in a situation like that?

Well, your first conclusion will follow the usual formula: an answer to the prompt, including a "because " that identifies your major premise, something like, "Anna has failed to establish adverse possession because her possession of the land has not been exclusive or continuous for the statutory time period," or whatever.

And the rule statement will look the same as if there were just one element to the rule. You'll just list all the factors of the test together. And for simplicity's sake, I really recommend numbering them as you go, like (1) actual, (2) open and notorious, and so on. That'll make things easier, both for you and for the grader.

So far, our C and R look the same as they would with any other question. But then when we get to application, we're going to change things up and do an application and conclusion for each element, one after the other. So "Here, Anna has established actual possession because she is living on the land. Therefore, the first element is satisfied." And you'll do the same thing on down the line, just repeating A-C, A-C, until you go through each element of the test. And your applications here will necessarily be short, especially if you're dealing with something like adverse possession that has so many different factors to apply.

Example 2

A second variation on CRAC arises if you've got what you might think of as a compound rule, one that basically takes two steps to apply. Now, as with the multifactor test, you won't be able to get there through a standard CRAC analysis because you've got more than one rule and application to perform.

So let's say that the prompt asks about whether a particular statement is admissible. You think that it is, because although it's hearsay, it's an excited utterance and therefore actually falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. Note that you're doing two things there: concluding that it's hearsay, and also that it's an excited utterance. How can you CRAC that?

Well, you start, as always, with an overall conclusion that gives your answer to the prompt and your reason why. So you might say something like, "Sunil's statement is admissible because although it is technically hearsay, it is also an excited utterance and thus not excluded by the rule against hearsay." You might even break it into a few sentences and give more detail about the reasons for each. "Sunil's statement is admissible. Normally it would be excluded as hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, but because this statement is an excited utterance, it is not excluded by the rule against hearsay." As that statement of conclusion suggests, what we're really looking at here are two prompts, both of which we have to resolve in order to reach our overall conclusion. And the easiest way to attack that is usually to do an R-A-C for each. State the hearsay rule, apply it to the facts, and state your conclusion for that rule ( i.e., this is indeed hearsay). Then state the rule for excited utterances, apply that to the facts, and state your conclusion for that rule (i.e., this is indeed an excited utterance).

That means you'll have one overall C at the top, followed by two separate RACs. And that's different than the multifactor rule we discussed above where we stated the rule all at once and then just did a series of separate ACs.

Example 3

Finally, you might end up modifying CRAC if it's unclear which rule should apply, or if you need to apply two alternative rules. This is different than the previous category, where we knew we needed to apply two different rules: first hearsay, then exception. Now what we're looking at is a prompt where, for example, evidence might be admissible either as lay opinion or as expert opinion, but your basic approach can be the same as it was for the hearsay exception question.

Give your single, overall conclusion, including a "because" statement, and then do a separate RAC for each of the two alternatives: if the evidence is evaluated as a lay opinion, and if it is evaluated as an expert opinion.

Make It Easy On Your Grader

Again, the point of all these structures isn't to give you another set of rules to memorize. It's to make it as easy as possible for you to translate your legal knowledge into points on the bar exam.

And if it starts to feel mechanical, that's great. That means you're developing routines that'll kick in automatically on the day of the bar exam so that your essays come together, one after the other, bit by bit, without you ever having to worry about writer's block. That'll make things easier on you, and they'll also make things easier on your grader.

And if there's anyone we want to make things easy on, it's your grader. Remember that this person is going to be reviewing stacks and stacks of MEE answers, and they're going to be doing it using a formula provided by the bar examiners. You're not going to win extra points by being especially funny or clever, or by quoting Shakespeare, because those things aren't on the grading rubric.

You're going to win this grader's heart by writing an essay that is super clear, both substantively and visually. Your writing is going to be straightforward and simple. And visually, your answer is going to signal right away that you've covered all the essential elements because the grader will look down and see a nice, clean four-paragraph CRAC for almost every prompt.

How to Use the NCBE's Analyses

Now, as part of your materials, you've got an analysis of each answer provided by the NCBE. These are a great resource, but it's really important to know how to use them. First, and I really can't stress this enough, you should not try to replicate this kind of an answer when you write your essays.

Think of these as an analysis, which is how they're labeled, after all, rather than a model answer. No one, and I say this as someone who teaches law for a living, could write an answer as clean and polished in the tiny bit of time that you're allotted. Our goal is not to match this. It's to rack up as many points as possible, and the point of the analysis is to show us how to do that.

Few other things worth noting. First, note that the point percentages are allocated between the prompts, not for the statement of legal questions at the top of the analysis or for the summary just below it. Those are there for our benefit and we can use them to help clarify what's important. But the points come from answering the prompts, not for writing a nice essay with a sparkling introduction or identifying the legal questions up at the top.

Also, note that the prompts tend to be roughly evenly weighted. So if there's two, they'll probably be worth between 40 and 60% each, and if there are three, they'll probably be worth between 25 and 40% each. Of course, that's just a general rule and sometimes it'll be different. Like if one of the prompts involves some complicated multipart rule, it could be worth up to 70 points.

Given the time pressures, I personally don't think there's a whole lot to be gained in terms of trying to guess whether one or another prompt is worth more points. Just give each prompt as much time, attention, and space as it demands, and you'll more or less naturally get to the right proportions. If one's a little longer and more complex, well, that probably means it's worth more points.

But if you're way out of whack, like if you're starting to spend five times as much space on one prompt than on another, then it's probably best to reconsider and rebalance your efforts a little. Don't spend extra time polishing up one essay when there are others waiting to be answered. Remember, each one is a chance to rack up points, and that's our goal here.