“There is a system for handling the law school essay exam well. It's the single most important key to law school success. Its creator is Wentworth Miller, founder of LEEWS. A friend who made law review discovered that every one of his fellow editors had taken LEEWS in their first semester of law school, as had he. Other than this book, LEEWS is the best thing you could possibly have going for you.”
— PLANET LAW SCHOOL (1998), pp. 83, 89.*
(* Read our review of this provocative book and the full text of its description of LEEWS; also a review of PLANET LAW SCHOOL II.)
38th Year! • Well Over 100,000 Law Students Instructed
Sure. Law school requires hard work. Exams pose a different,
BETTER GRADES • COMPETE FOR A'S • B's MINIMUM
… OR YOUR MONEY BACK!**
For lessthanthepriceofacasebook (live program; about the same for the audio program [incl. shipping]), why not march confidently from day one toward grades commensurate with effort?
Live Program + Book OR equally effective Audio CD Program + Book
BECAUSE (RARE) LAW SCHOOL A's ARE POSSIBLE, EVEN PROBABLE
*See "Sample Exams." LEEWS enables an orderly, lawyerlike response.
**Click on "Guarantees" for the best assurances of satisfaction anywhere.
“It's not often that advice is easy—especially advice on a subject as endlessly distressing as law exams. Here it is easy. (The advice, anyway.) The answer? In a word — LEEWS.”
— LAW SCHOOL — GETTING IN, GETTING GOOD, GETTING THE GOLD (2008), p. 302
“We recommend ... preparing for law school with the Law Essay Exam Writing System ('LEEWS')--in addition to lots of hard work and lots of practice exams.”
– THE ART OF THE LAW SCHOOL TRANSFER, A Guide to Transferring Law Schools (2010), p. 8 (In the context, “... what should you do to get the great grades you are going to need to transfer?”)
“I wasn't going to come. I made that choice last semester. Three weeks ago I ran into one of the A's in my class, and I was surprised to find that 7 of the 10 A's attended LEEWS. Needless to say, I signed right up!”
— Art Jarrett, Temple '91 (Who then raised every grade a full point and made dean's list.)
Guarantee of satisfaction: How confident are we that, whether pre-law, 1L, 2L, 3L, or prepping for a bar exam, you'll find the audio version of LEEWS interesting, meaningfully different and useful, even transformative?... certainly well worth the modest price ($200, incl. shipping)? ... Return it, as received, within ten days following receipt for a full refund! You'll pay only return shipping.
BTW: If already in law school—1st term, 2nd term, 2L, 3L –, welcome to you as well. We suspect you've come to this website because ... As is true for most in law school, for the first time ever intelligence and hard work haven't translated to "A" grades. Moreover, although you hope A's are possible, your suspicion is they are not. (See the reason in the first footnote below.) Also, despite what you've read or heard (from friend, relative, upperclassman, lawyer, professor), you're highly skeptical of the claim LEEWS is so different and effective as to justify the time and (relatively minor) cost to do the program (even with exams rapidly approaching!).
Okay. I get that. It's why I wrote Gaming Emperor Law School. Download it free! You'll appreciate arguments and points made immediately. You'll learn much 3Ls, law professors, and lawyers don't know. (They haven't thought so long and hard about this as I have.) You’ll understand and appreciate that your approach to law school, studies, especially exams can and needs to be a lot different. As noted up top, rare law school A's can be not just possible, but probable!
— Wentworth Miller, LEEWS founder/instructor
An alternative to reading the extensive content at this website?
back to top
Legal writing is bad writing because it is so badly written. Oh wait… sorry, I meant to write, “legal writing is bad” but then had to “law school” the prose to make it sound “fact based.”
Not a big deal… because how absolutely awful legal prose are. See that! The subject came last and I added an unnecessary amplifier for a misplaced adjective- Get it? ha!
One might ask,
‘Why would you jump right to a conclusion, when you know the analysis is difficult?’
One might also write, “The analysis is difficult.”
Of course… no good lawyer would write such a conclusionary (not a real word) statement which one would assume that difficult analysis lends itself to “not jumping to conclusions.”
Yes, this is the common argument made in defense of the horribleness of legal prose: legal prose is somehow different than undergraduate liberal arts arguments because the legal mind must “think differently.” This is really tough analysis so you must not start with a “conclusion.”
While that is “kind of” (but not really) true. You do have to be vague instead of argue a thesis statement- but not true at all because you start by identifying the “issues” and the “rules” that frame your double negatives “but for” the inability to make positive statements (unless asked).
See that, I am writing like a lawyer! I just made a thesis statement while pretending not to make a thesis statement and then digressed into minutia that is stated as a part of a rule.
Ahem! The issues and the rules are not really thesis statements because they are not conclusions.
Never say, “D is liable for hitting P.”
Say, “D is subject to liability for hitting P with a hammer, because D hit P in the head with a hammer, and hitting someone in the head with a hammer is harmful or offensive contact because getting hit in the head with a hammer hurts and/or is offensive.” You say this after stating the rule of course… because god knows, if you don’t repeat parts of the rule in your analysis, then you must not understand the concept.
You must write something like, “C is subject to liability for negligence to J because had C not kicked over the trash can, J would not have fallen down. ‘But for’ the negligence of C, J would not have been hurt by the fall because falling down hurts.” Now, ramble on about actual/ legal cause and add something about proximity/ argue for intervening and lack of intervening causes, for and against proximate causation. Then make the bold conclusion that does not make a conclusion, “C may be subject to liability…”
Congratulations- B plus or better!
See… learn the rules and then write like you are a teenager on LSD explaining something to an alien and you’ll be fine…
Just kidding because I am joking and joking is a form of humor that pokes fun at something because poking fun at something can be funny!