Failing to Spot All Relevant Issues
Overlooking Secondary Causes of Action
One of the most frequent MEE writing errors occurs when a candidate stops after identifying the primary, most obvious legal theory. MEE prompts are designed with a primary issue that carries the bulk of the points, but they almost always contain secondary causes of action that separate the passing scores from the high-percentile ones. For example, in a Torts essay focusing on negligence, a candidate might correctly analyze the breach of duty but completely overlook a potential claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) or a secondary theory of Strict Liability for abnormally dangerous activities. Graders use a point-sheet system where each identifiable issue is assigned a specific value. If you ignore the secondary claim, you effectively cap your maximum possible score for that question, regardless of how brilliant your primary analysis is. To avoid this, look for "leftover" facts in the prompt—if a fact does not fit into your primary analysis, it is likely there to trigger a secondary issue.
Missing Threshold Doctrinal Questions
Successful UBE essay issue spotting requires an understanding of legal hierarchy. Candidates often jump straight into the "meat" of a dispute without addressing the threshold doctrines that determine if the court can even hear the case. In Civil Procedure, this might mean diving into the merits of a Summary Judgment motion while failing to address whether the court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction or if Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. These threshold issues are often worth significant points because they demonstrate a candidate's ability to think like a lawyer who must first clear procedural hurdles. In Contracts, a threshold question might be whether the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or Common Law applies. Failing to establish this framework at the outset often leads to applying the wrong substantive rules later, creating a domino effect of errors that can devastate an essay score.
Ignoring Procedural or Jurisdictional Issues
Many candidates treat the MEE as a purely substantive law test, ignoring the procedural context in which the facts arise. This is a critical mistake in subjects like Evidence or Criminal Procedure. For instance, in an Evidence question, identifying the Hearsay rule is only half the battle; the candidate must also address the procedural requirement of a proper foundation or the specific burden of proof required for an exception to apply. Jurisdictional nuances, such as the difference between Specific and General Personal Jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause, are frequently tested but often glossed over by candidates who focus only on the underlying tort or contract dispute. To capture these points, always ask: Does this court have the power to act, and has the proper procedure been followed to invoke that power? Addressing these elements shows the grader that you understand the systemic reality of legal practice.
Weak or Inaccurate Rule Statements
Reciting Overly Broad or Vague Rules
MEE rule statement mistakes often involve providing a "dictionary definition" of a law rather than a functional legal rule. For example, stating that "negligence is when someone is careless" is insufficient for the MEE. A high-scoring rule statement must be precise: "To establish a prima facie case for negligence, the plaintiff must prove a duty, a breach of that duty, actual and proximate causation, and damages." Vague rules prevent you from performing a structured analysis because they lack the specific elements that serve as the roadmap for your application section. When rules are too broad, the grader cannot tell if you actually know the law or are simply guessing based on general intuition. Precision in wording shows the grader that you have mastered the black-letter law and are ready to apply it to complex scenarios.
Misstating Key Elements of a Doctrine
In the context of improving MEE scores, accuracy is paramount. Misstating a single element of a rule can lead to a completely incorrect conclusion. For instance, in Property law, confusing the requirements for an Easement by Prescription with those for Adverse Possession—such as the requirement of "exclusive" use—can lead to a failed analysis. Examiners look for specific "buzzwords" and elements within your rule statements. If you omit the "intent to permanently deprive" element in a Larceny analysis, you have missed the core of the crime. These errors often occur under the pressure of the 30-minute time limit. To combat this, you should memorize short, punchy rule blocks for frequently tested topics. Accuracy in these elements signals to the grader that your subsequent analysis is built on a solid legal foundation.
Confusing Similar Rules from Different Subjects
Candidates frequently struggle with "cross-pollination" errors, where they apply a rule from one subject to a similar-looking issue in another. A common example is applying the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure rules to a private security guard’s actions, forgetting that the Bill of Rights generally requires State Action. Another frequent confusion occurs between the Business Judgment Rule in Corporations and the standard of care for fiduciaries in Agency or Trusts. While the concepts are related, the specific legal standards and burdens of proof differ significantly. To avoid this, categorize your study by subject and explicitly note where rules diverge. If you find yourself applying a rule that feels out of place, pause and verify that the legal actor in the prompt (e.g., a private citizen vs. a government official) actually triggers that specific doctrine.
Insufficient Fact-Based Analysis
Conclusory 'Because I Said So' Reasoning
Perhaps the most damaging of all UBE essay analysis flaws is the conclusory statement. This occurs when a candidate states a rule and then jumps immediately to a conclusion without showing the work. For example: "The defendant committed a battery because he hit the plaintiff." This is a zero-point analysis. To earn credit, you must bridge the gap: "The defendant’s act of swinging the bat was a volitional movement. When the bat struck the plaintiff's shoulder, it resulted in a harmful contact. Because the defendant intended to swing the bat toward the plaintiff, the intent element is satisfied." Graders are instructed to reward the reasoning process, not just the correct answer. If you find your paragraphs are only two sentences long, you are likely failing to explain the "why" behind your conclusion.
Failing to Apply All Rule Elements to Facts
Every element mentioned in your rule statement must be addressed in your analysis. A common error is defining a four-part test but only discussing two of the parts in the application section. For example, if you define the requirements for a Preliminary Injunction—likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest—you must have a corresponding sentence or paragraph for each. If the prompt does not provide much information for one element, you should still acknowledge it: "While the facts are silent as to the public interest, a court would likely find..." This demonstrates a systematic approach. Graders look for a one-to-one correspondence between your rule elements and your factual application. Skipping an element is the equivalent of leaving a question partially unanswered.
Not Analyzing Both Sides of a Disputed Issue
High-scoring MEE answers often recognize that legal issues are rarely open-and-shut. A major mistake is failing to engage in counter-arguments, especially when the facts suggest a close call. For instance, if a prompt involves a potentially "unconscionable" contract, you should analyze why the contract might be unconscionable (procedural and substantive) but also provide the opposing argument for why it might be an enforceable, arm’s-length transaction. Using phrases like "The defendant will argue..." or "On the other hand..." shows the grader that you can anticipate litigation strategies. This depth of analysis is often what elevates a score from a 3 to a 5 or 6 on the NCBE’s 1-6 grading scale. It proves you understand the nuances of the law and the ambiguity of the facts provided.
Poor Time Management and Pacing
Spending Too Long on a Single Question
One of the most common UBE essay formatting errors is not an error of content, but of time allocation. The MEE consists of six essays to be completed in three hours, averaging 30 minutes per essay. Candidates often get "stuck" on a subject they know well—such as Constitutional Law—and spend 45 minutes crafting a perfect answer. This inevitably leaves them with only 15 minutes for the final essay. Because the MEE is a game of accumulating raw points across all sections, a 6 on one essay and a 1 on another is significantly worse than two 4s. You must be disciplined enough to stop writing when the 30-minute mark hits, even if you feel you have more to say. The marginal utility of the fifth page of an essay is much lower than the first page of a new one.
The Perils of Not Outlining First
Many candidates fear that spending time outlining will waste precious writing minutes, but the opposite is true. Spending 5 to 7 minutes outlining ensures that you have identified all issues and organized your IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) structure before you begin typing. Without an outline, you are prone to "stream of consciousness" writing, which leads to rambling, missed issues, and circular reasoning. An outline acts as a checklist; as you write, you can cross off each issue, ensuring you haven't forgotten the secondary cause of action you spotted during your initial read. It also prevents the need for messy deletions and reorganizations halfway through the 30-minute block, which can be fatal to your pacing and clarity.
Running Out of Time for a Conclusion
While the conclusion is often the shortest part of an IRAC, omitting it can make an answer feel unfinished and may confuse a grader who is scanning for your ultimate stance. A conclusion should be a clear, one-sentence answer to the specific question asked. If you are rushing at the end, you might provide a brilliant analysis but fail to actually state who wins or whether the evidence is admissible. This leaves the grader to guess your final position. To avoid this, if you see you have only two minutes left, skip to the end and type a quick conclusion for each remaining issue in your outline. This ensures that you have technically completed the IRAC cycle for every point you intended to raise, preserving the structural integrity of your response.
Disorganized Answer Structure
In the high-pressure environment of the bar exam, some candidates abandon the IRAC formula in favor of a narrative or "bullet point" style. This is a significant mistake. Graders are trained to look for the IRAC structure because it mirrors the way legal memorandum and judicial opinions are written. When you deviate from this, you make the grader's job harder. They have to hunt for your rule or search for where your analysis begins. A confused grader is less likely to award discretionary points. Even if the law is complex, sticking to the Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion format ensures that you meet the minimum requirements for a professional legal response. It provides a skeletal framework that supports even the most complicated legal arguments.
Jumbling Multiple Legal Issues Together
Merging multiple legal issues into a single, massive paragraph is a recipe for losing points. For example, if a Contracts question involves both an Offer/Acceptance issue and a Statute of Frauds issue, these should be treated as separate IRAC blocks. Jumbling them together often leads to "rule soup," where the elements of different doctrines get tangled, making it unclear which facts apply to which rule. Each distinct legal issue deserves its own heading and its own dedicated space. This organizational clarity allows the grader to check off points on their rubric systematically. If you treat three issues as one, the grader might only see one of them, effectively ignoring the other two-thirds of your work.
Lacking Clear Transitions and Headings
Headings are not just aesthetic; they are functional tools that guide the reader through your logic. A common mistake is failing to use bold or underlined headings to demarcate different sections of the answer. Use the "Call of the Question" to create your headings. If the prompt asks, "1) Is the contract enforceable?" and "2) What damages are available?", your essay should have two clearly labeled sections. Within those sections, use transitional phrases like "Furthermore," "In contrast," or "Consequently" to show the relationship between your ideas. Clear transitions demonstrate that you are not just listing facts and rules, but are weaving them into a cohesive argument. This professional presentation can subtly influence a grader’s perception of your competence.
Neglecting the 'Call of the Question'
Answering a Different Question Than Asked
It is remarkably easy to get distracted by an interesting but irrelevant legal issue and fail to answer the specific question posed by the examiners. This often happens when a candidate has a "pet" topic they have studied extensively. If the question asks whether a statement is admissible under the Hearsay rule, do not spend three paragraphs discussing the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure implications of how the statement was obtained unless the prompt specifically asks for it. You do not get "bonus points" for extra information; in fact, you may lose points for failing to demonstrate the ability to identify the relevant legal task. Always re-read the call of the question before you start writing and again after you finish your outline to ensure you are on target.
Forgetting to Advise the Client Directly
Many MEE prompts are framed as a request for advice from a senior partner or a client. A common mistake is providing a theoretical academic treatise rather than practical legal advice. If the prompt asks, "How should the attorney advise the client?", your conclusion should reflect that: "The attorney should advise the client that they are likely to prevail on the breach of contract claim but may face a counterclaim for contributory negligence." This shows that you understand the role of an attorney as a counselor. Failing to frame your answer in the context of the requested advice can make your response feel disconnected from the hypothetical scenario, potentially lowering your score on the "professionalism" or "application" metrics used by some jurisdictions.
Occasionally, the MEE will ask for a specific format, such as a memorandum to a partner or a letter to a client. While this is more common on the Multistate Performance Test (MPT), it does occur on the MEE. Ignoring these instructions is a sign of poor attention to detail. If a memo is requested, include a "To/From/Date/Re" header. If a letter is requested, use a professional salutation and closing. While the substantive legal analysis remains the most important factor, following the requested format demonstrates that you can follow instructions and produce practice-ready work product. It is a simple way to ensure you are meeting all the examiners' expectations and avoiding easy-to-miss points.
Ineffective Exam Day Writing Habits
Illegible Handwriting and Poor Spacing
For those who handwrite the exam, legibility is a major factor. If a grader cannot read your words, they cannot give you points. Even for those who type, poor spacing can make an essay difficult to digest. Avoid "walls of text"—large blocks of prose without paragraph breaks. Use white space strategically to separate your IRAC sections. A well-spaced essay is easier for a grader to navigate and makes your key points stand out. If you are handwriting and realize you have made a mistake, draw a single neat line through the error rather than scribbling it out. A clean, professional-looking exam paper conveys a sense of confidence and order that can positively impact your score.
Excessive Cross-Outs and Last-Minute Insertions
Last-minute changes often do more harm than good. If you realize in the final minute that you missed a minor point, it is usually better to leave the essay as is than to try to wedge a disorganized sentence into the middle of a paragraph. Excessive cross-outs and arrows pointing to text in the margins make the essay look frantic and disorganized. This is where the 5-minute outline becomes your best friend; it prevents the need for these desperate measures. If you must add information at the last second, do so in a new, clearly labeled paragraph at the end, rather than trying to disrupt the flow of your existing analysis. Consistency and flow are key to a high-scoring response.
Failing to Number Answers Clearly
In the rush of the exam, some candidates forget to clearly label which question they are answering. If you are using a digital platform, ensure you are typing in the correct text box for Question 1, Question 2, and so on. If you answer Question 3 in the box for Question 2, it can lead to significant administrative headaches and potentially a zero for that section until it is manually corrected—if it is corrected at all. Similarly, within an essay, use the numbering provided in the call of the question (e.g., 1, 2, 3 or a, b, c) to organize your response. This alignment between the prompt and your answer makes it easy for the grader to see that you have addressed every part of the task, ensuring you receive full credit for your effort.