How to answer law school essay questions

Disappointed by the answers given by my students in their midterm examinations, I find it compelling to write about the proper way to answer law school or bar examination essay questions.

First, I would like to state that law school examination questions are designed to gauge a student's ability to answer questions in a courtly, correct, and concise manner, all focusing on the answer's logic, law and language. Hence, a good answer to an essay question does not only contain the correct legal principle or rule but it also lays down in a logical and methodological manner, much like a lawyer would in his/her pleadings, the basis for the "yes" or "no" conclusion.

Second, it is important to emphasize that the format required in law school essay questions is not for some antiquated reason or tradition. It actually benefits two (2) participants in the examination: (a) the examinee; and (b) the examiner. This format is commonly known as the conclusion-reason-analysis-conclusion method or the CRAC method. Others prefer to call it the answer-law-analysis-conclusion method or the ALAC method but they are essentially the same.

Said format benefits the student because it guides him/her in laying down the answer. Hence, it ensures that the student does not meander in his/her answers. It also benefits the examiner because it assists in scoring the answer per paragraph or per part. For example, an answer that follows the CRAC method can be graded separately for the conclusion part, the reason part, and the analysis part.

The two things above having been said, the following can be considered as guiding principles in answering the law school essay questions. Note that these are not offered as the ultimate rules in answering questions in the bar examinations and, not being an exact science, they do not guarantee that the examinee will pass said examinations.

1. The answer must start with a "yes" or "no," unless the question requires a different manner of answering.
2. The first paragraph should contain a rephrasing of the question.
3. The first paragraph should contain a very short "because" portion that gives the examiner a sneak peak into what the second paragraph contains.
4. The second paragraph should contain a legal or jurisprudential principle that zeroes in on the actual issue in the question.
5. The student should focus on the ultimate issue that will resolve the whole problem without the need to meet each and every matter raised in the question.
6. While it is ideal to resolve every issue raised in the question, an ultimate answer should be able to satisfy the examiner that the examinee has a lawyer-like grasp of the legal question involved.
7. Smaller issues in the question may be resolved in a separate but short paragraph between the analysis portion and the last paragraph but should not be merged with the first or the second paragraphs.
8. The answer should be answer short as possible, considering that the examinee will check not only hundreds but thousands of questions.
9. If possible, each paragraph should contain only one sentence, each straight to the point.
10. The analysis portion is not meant to be a reiteration of the facts of the problem, Rather, it is the part where the examiner expects the student to mix the facts and the law.

In one of the questions I gave for my students' midterm examinations in Conflict of Laws, the students were asked the following.

Ms. Desiree, a Filipino, was sued by Mr. Durant, also a Filipino, for specific performance over a contract of sale over a motor vehicle, full payment for which she had already received from him. Ms. Desiree countered that the motor vehicle sold is located in Germany; hence, Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over it, following the lex rei sitae principle and invoking the principle of jurisdiction over the res. The judge, however, still ordered her to deliver said motor vehicle to him. Unable to do so, she was cited in contempt by the court. Ms. Desiree opposed the citation for contempt on the ground that Philippine courts have no power to order delivery of a piece of property that is situated outside the Philippine territory. Is Ms. Desiree’s argument correct? Why or why not?

To answer this question, of course, the student must be aware of the concept of jurisdiction over the person and actions in personam. S/he must be able to distinguish these principles from the concepts of lex rei sitae (the law of the place where the property is situated), jurisdiction over the subjection matter and jurisdiction over the res.

One of my students answered exactly in the same way below:

No, lex rei sitae principle in the case at bar is not applicable because the principle is not absolute.

In the resolution of conflict of laws case, if it is discriminatory and does not afford equal protection of the law to both parties, the court may bend the established rule since the resolution must be anchored to justice and social expediency, in addition, in the resolution of conflict of laws cases, what is being prayed for or the relief being sought of must be given utmost weight and must be the controlling factor. In conflict of laws cases, what is being considered is the enforcement of right, not the enforcement of judgment.

First, the answer is not even broken into paragraphs. Second, it mentions "in conflict of laws" too many times." Third, it invokes equal protection, discrimination, justice and social expediency, which are not even relevant to the question at hand. Fourth, it does not follow at all the CRAC format and shows no sign of attempt to do so. Needless to say, this answer got a score of 66.00%.

Notwithstanding the erroneous nature of the answer given by my student, it could be improved this way:

Yes, Desiree's argument is correct because the court's contempt citation violates the equal protection of the law.

Under the Constitution, no person shall be deprived of equal protection of the law. This means that laws that are unreasonably hostile and discriminatory are not allowed.

In this case, the court's citation of contempt against Desiree is hostile and discriminatory because it compels her to deliver a motor vehicle that is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, Desiree is correct in arguing that Philippine courts have no power to compel her to deliver property that is outside Philippine territory.

Surely, the above answer is NOT correct but it will probably garner a score of 71.00% or 72.00% if the examiner is in a good mood. Compare this to the answer given by my student, which will get a score below 70.00% even if the examiner is in the best mood.

To answer the question, the student must look at the question first and then go back to the facts of the problem. The question asks about the correctness of the contention of Desiree and her argument is that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction to order her to deliver property that is located outside the Philippines because of the principle of lex rei sitae (the law of the place where the property is located). Hence, the deeper question is whether courts can cite a person in contempt for noncompliance with such order to deliver. If Desiree is correct, then the court should not have cited her in contempt because the court had, in the first place, no power to order her to do the thing with which she did not comply.

In analyzing the question, it appears that the question of whether the court has the power to order delivery of a thing in Germany also resolves the question of whether the contempt citation was proper. Therefore, the student must resolve the question on the court's power because it is the ultimate issue in the problem.

The following is the answer I suggest:

No, Desiree's contention is not correct because an action for specific performance is in personam in nature. Hence, jurisdiction over the res is not required.

In actions in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the parties is sufficient for the court's exercise of power. Jurisdiction over the res is not required because what is sought by such action is impose an obligation against the defendant, not against the thing.

Here, when the court acquired jurisdiction over Desiree, it also retained the power to make orders or processes to enforce its judgment. In the case of specific performance actions, the defendant may be ordered by the court to perform a thing of which she is required under a contract. The location of the property, being in Germany, is immaterial because the court has jurisdiction over Desiree.

Hence, Desiree is not correct in invoking the lex rei sitae principle, especially because this only applies to the ownership and other real rights over the property.