Knowledge-wise, by week four or so you should be pretty strong in the multi-state subjects, so you'll have a head start on the essay portion of the exam, of which often half -- if not most -- focuses on multi-state subjects.

As for the state-specific subjects, the process by which you review your outlines is the same as it is for the multiple choice questions. Read the outlines carefully, figure out the language and make sure it is all clear and understandable at a glance. Then go slowly through each outline, section by section, testing your knowledge, creating mini pop-quizes for yourself with each section. Make sure you can pass all the pop-quizes and then you can move on to the essay questions themselves. Don't worry if by the time you finish up the outline, you can't pass all the pop-quizes that you set up for yourself at the beginning of your self-examination. That knowledge will come with time and with additional practice on the essay questions themselves.

Of course, your first question is probably: well, what are these essay questions like anyways? Typically the main essay questions present a series of facts, and then you are expected to recite various legal rules, then explain how the facts fit into those rules and what the legal outcome would be.

Here's an example of a typical essay question, shortened for the purposes of this example:

Bob is walking down the street one day when he confronts a young woman. The woman growls menacingly and says, "I'm going to kill you someday!" She then runs off. About three days later Bob is doing some gardening in his lawn and the woman sees him. She doesn't plan to actually injure him, but decides to scare him by running at him full speed and then swerving away when she came within 10 feet or so. Bob, however, sees her coming, and, in trying to evade the attack early, hits his head on a water sprinkler and injures himself severely. What causes of action are there against the woman by Bob?

A knowledgeable test-taker might look at this case and think, hmm, well, first of all this is a torts issue, because torts involves law suits by one person against another for some kind of injury.

Then you notice that the first encounter between Bob and the woman doesn't involve physical contact, but just a verbal threat. That comes closer to the issue of ASSAULT (Dont' worry if you don't understand these concepts right now, or how I'm coming up with them. Just take note of the thinking style.)

In the second encounter, the woman wants to scare and threaten Bob -- again, elements that possibly consitute an ASSAULT. She never actually hits him, but Bob, in attempting to get away, does experience physical injury. Physical injury tort claims caused by another usually have to do with BATTERY. (There are also other claims that should be brought in and talked about here, particularly NEGLIGENCE, but for the interests of brevity I won't explore it now.)

So we have two incidents, the first involving an ASSAULT analysis, the second involving an ASSAULT and BATTERY analysis. So we look inside of our head, and find the legal frameworks for ASSAULT and BATTERY. And here they are:

A claim of ASSAULT can be satisifed if the victim can show:

• an act was committed that caused apprehension of harmful or offensive contact
• assailant had an intent to cause the act
• assailant caused the act
• also: act cannot be mere words, it must be a real action
• also: the physical threat need not be real, but can be fabricated
• also: the threat must be immediate, not far in the future

• an act was committed that caused harmful contact to victim's property or person
• assailant had an intent to cause the act
• assailant had caused the act

Now, the test-taker would probably write a very quick 30 second outline to himself, that will go something like this:

I. FIRST ENCOUNTER
A. Claim: ASSAULT
1. The Law
a. Act that caused apprehension
b. Intent
c. Causation
2. Application
a. Act caused apprehension, but threat not immediate
b. Act just a voice, no action
c. Intent existed
d. Causation existed, but act insufficient

II. SECOND ENCOUNTER

A. Claim: ASSAULT
1. The Law -- same standard as above
2. Application
a. Act caused apprehension, immediate threat, accompanied by action
b. Effort to cause apprehension intended
c. Woman caused act
d. Conclusion -- guilty of assault

B. Claim: BATTERY
1. The Law
a. Act that caused harm
b. Intent
c. Causation
2. Application
a. Act did cause harm, indirectly, which is alright
b. No intent to cause harm or to touch
c. Woman indirectly caused harm
d. Conclusion -- not guilty of battery because touch not intended

As you can tell by looking at the outlines, the pattern is repetitive and pretty straight-forward. First, in your mind, you cut up the fact pattern of the question into little sections -- either subject matter sections, or in this case, into events.

Then, you remember the law that applies, and you remember the legal framework that governs that law. Finally, you apply the framework against the facts, and come out with a verdict.

So, based on those outlines, here is a sample answer. Notice how strongly it adheres to the outlines:

I. FIRST ENCOUNTER

A. ASSAULT

One could argue that in the first encounter, in which the woman threatened Bob with death, that the woman would be guilty of assault.

To be successful in a suit for assault, the plaintiff must prove three things. First, he must show that an act took place that caused immediate apprehension of harmful contact in the defendant. Second, he must show that the defendant had an intent to cause that act. Lastly, he must show that the defendant actually caused the act to take place.

If the plaintiff brings a suit for assault based on his first encounter with the woman, he will not be successful. The woman had an intent to make Bob afraid for his life, and he did indeed cause apprehension in Bob. The threat was entirely verbal, however, and was not really accompanied by a physical action. Furthermore, the threat was not immediate, as the woman said that she would kill him "tomorrow," as opposed to immediately.

II. SECOND ENCOUNTER

A. ASSAULT

Bob might also bring a claim for assault against the woman with regard to their second encounter. In this case he probably would be successful. The woman rushed at him, in other words engaging in a physical act that made him worry for his own safety. Unlike in the first example, the threat was immediate, as evidenced by Bob trying to leap to safety. And the woman clearly was the reason behind Bob's apprehension, and had intended to cause that apprehension in him. As a result, all the requirements of a successful assault claim have been met.

B. BATTERY

Bob might also bring a claim for battery against the woman. To satisfy a claim of battery, the plaintiff must show three things. First, he must demonstrate that harmful contact took place. Second, he must demonstrate that the contact was caused by the defendant, and that the defendant intended to cause that contact.

Under the above analysis, Bob would not be successful if he brought a suit for battery against the woman. Bob was harmed as a result of what the woman did. But the woman had no intent to touch Bob at all. As a result, she cannot be held liable for battery.