||[May. 13th, 2003|06:09 am]
|||||Birds chirping as it begins to get light||]|
Okay, got through test number one, and think I at least didn't embarrass myself. I remembered to state the law, cite the rules, etc., for every question to which that applied. Got off to a bad start, writing three lines of justification for why the first question in the "True/False and explain why" short answer section was True, before realizing that I had it all wrong (Rule 20, you fool, not Rule 18!), but I was armed with an erasable pen and made quick work of hiding the evidence of my stumble in the blocks. Had the experience of one question for which I had no notes, no clue, but the vague feeling that I had been to that lecture sometime in the pain-killer-fogged past (I confirmed later that I had indeed taken notes on the topic - in the wrong section of my notebook), and I almost convinced myself to skip the question and come back to it, but I did the old, start answering the question by writing down the question (The reason why a plaintiff would cite 11(b)(3) in a complaint is...) and the answer bubbled forth in my head, so that worked. Managed to make the required three-page essay out of a question that could have been answered in one sentence, and fought to keep the "Rule 11 is our friend" Dr. Science tone out of the "pick three rules and discuss why they are important for fair litigation" question (THAT 3-page essay turned out to be a full Blue Book as I had enough to say for 3 pages for each of them).
Haven't had any of the "Oh, crap, that should have been..." moments, so I either did well or had no idea WTF I was doing. In either event, that one is behind me, and I am starting to get a grasp of Contracts. If the world can just avoid bitchslapping me any further, I might get through this with sanity salvageable.