Bar Exam: MEE Writing

The Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) is the six-question written portion used by many jurisdictions as part of the Uniform Bar Exam. It is not a test of literary flair. It is a timed, lawyerly performance: identify legally relevant issues, state usable rules, apply those rules to the given facts, and do it in an organized way that makes grading easy.

Strong MEE writing is built on four skills that reinforce each other: issue spotting, rule statements, organized analysis, and time allocation. Master those, and the MEE becomes predictable even when the subject mix is not.

What the MEE is really testing

MEE questions are designed to reward competent, efficient legal reasoning. Graders are not looking for perfection or exhaustive doctrinal discussion. They are looking for evidence that you can:

• Recognize what legal questions the facts raise
• Provide the governing legal standards in a workable form
• Reach a defensible conclusion supported by facts
• Communicate clearly under time pressure

That last point matters more than many examinees realize. A correct idea buried in a disorganized paragraph often earns less credit than a slightly incomplete answer that is well-structured and easy to follow.

Time allocation: the non-negotiable foundation

The MEE gives you six essays in a fixed window. In most UBE administrations, the practical reality is about 30 minutes per question. That time budget includes reading, outlining, writing, and a quick check for omissions.

A reliable allocation for each essay looks like this:

• 3 to 5 minutes: read the call of the question and facts, identify tasks
• 3 to 5 minutes: outline headings and sub-issues
• 18 to 22 minutes: write the answer using the outline
• 1 to 2 minutes: quick scan for missing elements, unclear conclusions, or skipped issues

The purpose of an outline is not artistry. It is insurance. It prevents the common MEE failure mode: spending too long on the first issue and discovering you have no time left for the remaining parts. Since graders award points issue-by-issue, leaving a subquestion blank is usually worse than writing a concise, partial analysis for each.

How to avoid time traps

Certain issues invite over-writing: hearsay exceptions, secured transactions priorities, constitutional tests, and family law property divisions. If you sense yourself listing rules without applying them, stop and move to analysis. A good internal check is this ratio: your rule should take fewer lines than your application. The MEE rewards applied law, not memorized outlines.

Issue spotting: read like a grader, not like a student

Issue spotting is the ability to translate facts into legal questions. The easiest way to improve is to read the call of the question first. The call tells you what the examiners want and narrows the universe of possible issues.

Then read facts with a purpose: identify legally meaningful facts, not every detail. For example, in a Contracts essay, a line about “the letter arrived two days later” may matter a lot because it points to offer and acceptance timing. In a Torts essay, “the warning label was missing” is a neon sign for duty, breach, and product defect theories.

A practical checklist while reading

As you read, ask:

• Who is suing whom, and for what result?
• What legal relationship exists (contract, fiduciary duty, property interest, government actor)?
• What mental states are described (intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence)?
• What procedural posture matters (motion, admissibility, standard of review)?
• What dates, communications, and transfers matter?

You are not trying to catch every conceivable issue. You are trying to catch the issues that the facts and call strongly support.

Rule statements: accurate, usable, and graded-friendly

A rule statement on the MEE should be correct, complete enough to guide analysis, and phrased in a way that matches how points are commonly awarded. Think in elements and factors.

For instance, a rule statement that says “negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages” is a start, but it may be too thin if the issue is causation. A more usable version is: negligence requires duty, breach, actual cause (but-for), proximate cause (foreseeability), and damages. That gives you the structure to analyze the facts.

At the same time, avoid turning your rule section into a treatise. Graders want the rule that answers the question presented. If the issue is whether a statement is hearsay, state the definition and the relevant exception, not every exception you remember.

How to write rules when you are uncertain

You will sometimes be unsure about a detail, like a precise time period or a minority rule. The safest approach is to state the general rule confidently and keep the phrasing flexible:

• Use “generally,” “typically,” or “in most jurisdictions” when appropriate.
• Focus on elements and the reasoning process.
• Do not invent specificity you cannot support.

A vague but accurate framework applied well can score surprisingly well. A specific but wrong rule can sink an otherwise good answer.

Organized analysis: IRAC, but actually useful

Most bar takers are told to use IRAC. The problem is not IRAC itself, but using it mechanically. On the MEE, organization is about helping the grader award points quickly.

A strong structure usually looks like this:

• Clear heading that matches the call
• Short issue statement (one sentence)
• Rule in elements or factors
• Application that walks through those elements using specific facts
• Conclusion that answers the subquestion directly

Use headings like a roadmap

Headings are not decoration. They signal that you spotted the issue and they compartmentalize your answer. Even simple headings like “1. Admissibility of the statement” or “2. Whether the contract was formed” can improve readability and scoring.

When an essay has multiple subparts, mirror them. If the call asks (a) and (b), write “A.” and “B.”. Graders are humans moving fast. Make it easy to see you answered everything.

Analysis must be factual, not theoretical

The application section is where points accumulate. Tie every element to a concrete fact. Compare competing arguments briefly when the facts support both sides, then choose a conclusion.

Example of high-scoring analysis behavior:

• “Here, the buyer’s email stated ‘I accept your offer’ and was sent before the revocation was received, so acceptance was effective first.”
• “Because the driver saw the pedestrian and accelerated, a fact-finder could infer intent or at least recklessness.”

Notice the pattern: legal element, then fact, then implication.

Write conclusions that actually conclude

A conclusion should answer the call with a yes/no (or likely/unlikely) and name the winning party when possible. Avoid hedging everywhere. You can acknowledge uncertainty while still concluding: “A court would likely find…” is better than “It depends.”

Building an MEE answer that scores under pressure

A practical writing approach that works across subjects:

1. Convert the call into headings. If the prompt asks for “all claims and defenses,” list the likely claims as headings.
2. Under each heading, write the elements as mini-checkpoints. This keeps you from forgetting steps.
3. Apply facts as you go. Do not dump all facts in one paragraph.
4. Keep paragraphs short. One element, one paragraph is often enough.
5. Move on when you have earned the point. The MEE is about coverage as much as depth.

Common MEE mistakes and how to prevent them

Spending too long on the first issue

Fix: outline first and use a time checkpoint. If you are at minute 20 with two subparts left, you must compress.

Writing rule blocks with little application

Fix: after every rule, force yourself to write “Here,” and connect to the fact pattern.

Missing the call of the question

Fix: read the call first, and reread it before you write your final conclusion.

Disorganized answers with no headings

Fix: use headings even if they are basic. Organization is a scoring tool.

Ignoring counterarguments when the facts clearly support them

Fix: include a brief “However” sentence when appropriate. Acknowledge, distinguish, conclude.

What consistent practice should look like

Improvement on the MEE comes from repetition with feedback. The most efficient practice cycle is:

• Do a timed essay
• Compare your issue list to a model or grading checklist
• Rewrite only the rule statements you missed or misstated
• Re-outline the essay in five minutes to train quick organization

You are training two things simultaneously: legal recall and performance under constraint. The goal is not to write the perfect essay. The goal is to produce six competent, complete, well-structured answers on exam day.

Closing perspective

MEE writing is a craft: spot the issues the facts are built to test, state workable rules, apply them in an organized way, and respect the clock. When those four pieces are in place, your essays read like a lawyer’s work product, which is exactly what the MEE is designed to reward.