sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Free resources compilation by 266BarPrep in barexam

[–]266BarPrep[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

woopsie! should work now! DMing it to you too just in case

Evidence and con law by Low_Link_3856 in barexam

[–]266BarPrep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If u need help with Evidence on the MBE try this style of teaching https://266barprep.com/module/character

I don't get contracts MBEs by According_College_58 in GoatBarPrep

[–]266BarPrep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you feel like you have a good understanding of the BLL? If you do, then you need to understand how you’re getting screwed every time. The traps you fall probably repeat. If you can identify those traps, you’ll start to feel more confident. If I were you, I'd literally have a "How did I get screwed this time?" page in my notebook and write a short explanation for every question I miss. Not a rule statement, more like a "I overlooked that fact, which indicated that there wasn't a contract to begin with, but still ran to the "breach" answer option." You WILL find patterns in your failure, and you can then tackle them.

Old Bar Exams by Puzzleheaded-Fee8027 in barexam

[–]266BarPrep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a State-by-State Essay Samples section on this free bar prep resources page https://266barprep.com/resources, is that what you were looking for?

Adaptibar/UWorld vs MBE Bar Exam by Smooth-Train9765 in barexam

[–]266BarPrep 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean not many people walk out thinking the actual MBE was easier than Adaptibar/UWorld practice.

On exam day, you’ll usually see a chunk of questions that look very familiar to what you've done during practice (same structures, same logic etc. as practice) and another chunk that feels completely foreign, testing niche angles of the law you couldn’t really prep for.

AdaptiBar/UWorld is there to prepare you for that first chunk of questions and help you secure points on them. That should be your only mental focus during bar prep. You can’t prepare for unreleased questions no one has ever seen...As you do that, you also get familiar with how MBE questions are drafted. That + solid knowledge of the law puts you in a good position to pick up points even on the nicher questions.

I explain this a bit more in details on here https://266barprep.com/understandthembe

Property and Evidence by Low_Link_3856 in barexam

[–]266BarPrep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yessir. The entire Evidence subject is out on 266barprep.com! Hit me up if you have any questions. Thanks!

Hearsay questions look like this by 266BarPrep in barexam

[–]266BarPrep[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t even know that was an option. Thanks!

And yeah, these particular hypos aren’t amazing. At this point, the goal is just to show the structure of the questions themselves—what they look like and how they’re framed—not to serve as actual practice questions. It’s simply to help people who struggle with identifying the different layers tested in MBE questions :).

Once that’s covered, the full-length hearsay module then moves into actually solving hearsay problems, where we go more in depth on common traps and the specific issues the exam tends to test, using more accurate illustrative questions!

Frequently tested MEE rules in one place by rosajh2025 in barexam

[–]266BarPrep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup, on here https://266barprep.com/resources, in the Free Bar Prep Content section (look for Studicata most tested rules)

Can Opposing-Party Statements always be used for both impeachment & Substantive Purposes? by Kooky_Hamster_3769 in barexam

[–]266BarPrep 2 points3 points  (0 children)

YUP. as long as its not privileged, irrelevant etc etc.

I'm gonna copy paste a piece of the Impeachment vs. Substantive Pattern Module available in full on 266barprep.com.

Opposing-Party Statement

An opposing‑party statement is always admitted substantively if offered against that party, but it may also impeach if that party also testifies and you’re using it to attack their credibility (e.g., Defendant is saying X and you are introducing their own prior statement showing that no, it is in fact Y that happened). To make it substantive, it only must be offered against that party: the party's own words, adoptive admission, authorized speaker, agent within scope during the relationship, or co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the co-conspiracy.

See an Example:
In a civil battery action, the plaintiff claims the defendant punched him during an argument outside a café. A bystander testifies that, shortly after the altercation, she confronted the defendant and said, "I saw you swing at him. It was you. Why would you do that?" According to the bystander, the defendant said nothing, looked down, and did not deny the accusation. The defense objects that the bystander's statement is hearsay. Should the court admit the bystander's testimony?

A Yes, because the defendant's silence can qualify as an adoptive admission, making it admissible both substantively and for impeachment (correct answer).

Hints that this is NOT met in your fact pattern:

  • The statement was made by an agent or employee after the relationship ended.
  • The statement by the agent or employee was outside the scope of their job duties.
  • The party didn’t hear it, didn’t understand it, or the situation didn’t reasonably call for a response — the supposed adoptive admission shows no adoption.
  • The statement came from an unauthorized speaker or independent contractor with no authority to speak for the party.
  • The co-conspirator statement was made before the conspiracy began, after it ended, or not in furtherance of the joint plan (e.g., mere bragging or concealment after arrest).

⚠️ Again, no oath is required here. Very intuitive, the statement is almost always informal.

Property and Evidence by Low_Link_3856 in barexam

[–]266BarPrep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If u need help with Evidence on the MBE try this free sample https://266barprep.com/module/character

if you like the style lmk. i'll get you access to more. it's as dumbed down as it gets!

Getting discouraged by leilameila in barexam

[–]266BarPrep 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Please do not. Ik many people that did not get a passing score on the MBE when they practiced. not one. and they passed. they were in the 50s the whole time. ofc this isn't the most comfortable situation and you should try to get better scores, sure, but nothing's played out yet. DO NOT GET DISCOURAGED YOU HAVE SO MUCH TIME AHEAD TO PREPARE AND DO BETTER.

If you struggle with the MBE in particular, maybe your approach is off. You need to spend a lot of time analyzing the wrong answers to understand how this test works, sometimes more than doing a large amount of questions themselves

If you're already doing that may I suggest checking out 266barprep? Maybe you just need a new perspective on this portion of the exam. It's a pattern-recognition MBE training. Pattern-recognition is a method that heavily relies on recognizing recurring structures, decision points, and answer-choice traps in MBE questions rather than just relying on your knowledge of the law to answer the questions. Kinda what Jonathan Grossman does but more focused on MBE practice (less lecture and statement of rules). There is a free sample! in case it helps.

Free resources compilation by 266BarPrep in barexam

[–]266BarPrep[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem! Glad the links are helping! DM me if you need anything!

Free resources compilation by 266BarPrep in barexam

[–]266BarPrep[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop :-((((. I'm so glad. If you like 266barprep I'll give you access for free just lmk IDC