• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Bar Exam Toolbox®

Get the tools you need for bar exam success

  • I Failed!
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
    • Writing Help: Essays/PT
    • MBE Help
    • Self-Study Program
    • Options – California
    • Options – UBE
  • Bar Exam 101
  • About
  • Blog
  • Podcast
  • Login

Walking Through A Scratch Paper Outline

December 30, 2019 By Mihal Ansik Leave a Comment

Walking Through A Scratch Paper OutlineFor many bar takers, outlining an answer before writing is a commonly skipped but crucial step to developing a successful answer.

Maybe it made sense for you to ignore pre-answer outlining in law school. Law school issue spotters can feel like frantic exercises in spaghetti-throwing: write as much as you can in three hours and see what sticks. Considering the one-hour-per-essay time limit, the bar exam may have that same frantic feeling, but it’s actually a much more precise and planned out process. In fact, the essays themselves, (with the exception of Evidence), are meant to be written in just 45 minutes. Planning time is built into the writing process.

This is why outlining is such an important tool for guiding your answers. It gives you a chance to put your attack plans into action by 1) slapping down the answer structures you have committed to memory, 2) prioritizing issues and assessing time allocation, 3) and building out IRAC.

Slapping Down Answer Structures

Almost as important as memorizing the law is memorizing how you’ll be writing about it. For example, you always want to structure your Negligence answer pretty much the same way. The same goes for a 5th Amendment discussion, or a Contract formation question. The examples go on and on, because every topic has its ‘slapdowns;’ the cluster of issues that you will be writing on autopilot, because they get written the same way every single time.

Of course, you can’t bring past answers into the bar exam with you to use as templates. The next best thing is your pre-answer outline. Once you recognize that a fact pattern is triggering one of your go-to slapdowns, you want to get those issues down on paper. Of course, you want to include all the issues you’ve spotted in your facts, but having those templates memorized as a foundation will help you incorporate remaining issues around and within it. So, if I have a Negligence question in front of me, the first thing I’m doing is quickly writing out:

Negligence 

Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages

Duty

Cardozo – foreseeable P, ‘zone of danger’/ Andrews – owed to all

Standard of Care

Breach

Did breach of SOC – injury

Causation

Actual – but for

Proximate –foreseeable

Damages

Defenses

Contributory Negligence

Assumption of Risk

I haven’t filled in facts yet, and I also have not included the applicable standards of care yet. I’ve left space to add those in based on the facts. But first, I’m getting these basics down. If you have this structure memorized, it should only take seconds to write this all out, and having this roadmap as a reference point will actually save you time later on as you’re writing.

Prioritizing Issues and Assessing Time Allocation

Let’s continue with this Negligence example as it relates to prioritizing other issues. Let’s say I’m working on the February 2008 Torts question. I know, based on my issue spotting, that I’ll be writing up two causes of action: Negligence and Strict Liability, specifically, Ultrahazardous Activity. I know, from all my practicing, that Negligence is a hefty issue, with at least half a dozen sub-issues nested within it. I also know that Ultrahazardous Activity has, depending on how you break it up, three major elements: (1) the defendant is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity, (2) that is uncommon to the community, (3) and cannot be made safer, regardless of how much care is taken.

Based on this, I know that even though there may be ambiguity within the Strict Liability discussion that will require some robust counterarguing, it will not be as long as the Negligence discussion. This means that, looking at my outline below, I now have a visual of how my time will be allocated. Out of the 45 minutes I have left after outlining, I’ll aim to spend 25-30 on Negligence, which will leave 15-20 for Strict Liability. You don’t need to write these times down, but doing so may help keep you accountable to the time limits. In a perfect world, I will stay on the low end for each issue, which will give me a few minutes at the end to proofread, or at least take some deep breaths before moving on to the next essay.

I. Negligence (25-30 mins)

Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages

Duty

Cardozo – foreseeable P, ‘zone of danger’/ Andrews – owed to all

Standard of Care

Anticipated Trespasser

Reasonable Care of Property

Duty to Warn of Dangerous Artificial Condition

Attractive Nuisance 

Dangerous artificial condition

Knows/should know children likely to frequent  

Child unlikely to appreciate risk 

Risk of harm vs. Cost of safety  

No reasonable care 

Breach

Did breach of SOC à injury

Causation

Actual – but for

Proximate – foreseeable

Damages

Defenses

Contributory Negligence

Assumption of Risk

II. Ultrahazardous Activity (15-20 mins)

Inherently Dangerous

Uncommon to Community

Cannot Be Made Safer

Building Your IRAC

Finally, my outline will not only serve as a roadmap for my issues but, to throw in another metaphor, it will also be the bones of my IRAC. The Header (e.g. “Duty,”) is my “I.” The rule (e.g. “Cardozo + foreseeable P/Andrews + owed to all”) is my “R.” The legally significant facts I plug in will inform my “A,” and, when appropriate, I’ll even note a possible conclusion. So, at the end, using the same Torts question as an example, the ‘duty’ part of my Negligence outline will look like this:

I. Negligence (25-30 mins) [Overall I]

Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages [Overall R]

Duty [I]

Cardozo – foreseeable P, ‘zone of danger’ / Andrews – owed to all [R]

  • P’s home is ‘adjacent’ to substation, playing in field (Cardozo) [A]
  • P is part of ‘all’ (Andrews) [A]

Conclusion: PLC owed P duty of care. [C]

Feel free to pull up this Torts question, and see if you can fill out the rest!


Ready to pass the bar exam? Get the support and accountability you need with personalized one-on-one bar exam tutoring or one of our economical courses and workshops. We're here to help!


 

About Mihal Ansik

Mihal is a tutor for the Law School Toolbox and Bar Exam Toolbox. Teaching has been integral to Mihal’s work for over a decade. Prior to law school, she led creative workshops and academic classes in prisons, tutored elementary school students struggling with reading comprehension, and spent five years working as a Court Advocate in Brooklyn, NY, where she developed trainings and advocacy tools for incarcerated and system-involved youth.

While at Harvard Law School, Mihal continued incorporating education and mentorship into her law school experience. She was a mentor and team leader with Harvard Defenders, chaired the Community Building Committee for the Prison Legal Assistance Project, and joined a research paper team exploring the context and impact of legal education. Mihal graduated with a Harvard Public Service Venture Fund Fellowship and Berkeley Law Foundation Fellowship, went on to receive an Equal Justice Works Fellowship sponsored by Morrison and Foerster, and currently provides legal services and educational tools to women working to reunify with their children and families after incarceration.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Let us know you are not a spammer! * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Primary Sidebar

  • Podcast
  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

About Us

Want to pass the bar exam? Of course you do! We’re here to help. You’ll find lots of helpful free content at Bar Exam 101, in the Bar Exam Resource Hub, and on the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast. For more hands-on help, take a look at our courses and workshops and bar exam tutoring options. Please get in touch with any questions!

COVID-19 Updates

Please visit the COVID-19 updates page for the latest news on bar exam postponements.

Recent Posts

Podcast Episode 119: Listen and Learn — Anticipatory Repudiation (Contracts)

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, in an episode from our "Listen and Learn" series, we're talking about anticipatory repudiation, … [Read More...] about Podcast Episode 119: Listen and Learn — Anticipatory Repudiation (Contracts)

Reading on Screens—Where will you encounter it?

Reading on Screens—Where will you encounter it?

As lawyers and law students, we are living in an increasingly digitized world. From law school to the bar exam to practice, many tasks that were … [Read More...] about Reading on Screens—Where will you encounter it?

Podcast Episode 118: More on Memorization for the Bar Exam

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, we're revisiting the best memorization techniques for long-term retention of material. There are … [Read More...] about Podcast Episode 118: More on Memorization for the Bar Exam

I Failed the Bar Exam. Should I Wait Until After the Covid-19 Pandemic to Re-Sit?

Should I Wait Until After the Covid-19 Pandemic to Re-Sit if I failed the Bar Exam?

As 2020 closed and perhaps the most bizarre and uncertain bar exam season comes to an end, we are now faced with the reality of bar exam … [Read More...] about Should I Wait Until After the Covid-19 Pandemic to Re-Sit if I failed the Bar Exam?

Podcast Episode 117: Listen and Learn — Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law)

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In this week's episode, as part of our "Listen and Learn" series, we're talking about an important area … [Read More...] about Podcast Episode 117: Listen and Learn — Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law)

Need to Pass the Bar Exam?

Sign up for our free weekly email with useful tips!

Footer

  • Podcast
  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • I Failed!
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Bar Exam 101
  • About
  • Blog
  • Podcast
  • Login
  • Privacy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Refunds
  • Contact

Copyright 2021 Bar Exam Toolbox®™