Bar Exam (July 2026) & LSAT Tutoring! UBE tutoring (MBE & MEE) is available for all students taking the UBE. Florida Bar Exam tutoring (Part A & Part B) is available for all students taking the Florida bar exam. NextGen UBE tutoring is available for all students taking the NextGen UBE. LSAT tutoring is available for all students taking the LSAT. Reach out to me directly @ silvermanbarprep@gmail.com for bar exam tutoring and @ silvermanlsat@gmail.com for LSAT tutoring.
Bar Exam results from the February exam have started to roll in.
Once scores are publicly released, I'll post here in this post the pass percentages for each state. Listed, for comparison, will be the percentages for both February '26 and February '25. Also listed when available will be the number of examinees in each state who took the most recent exam.
The results are color coded as follows:
Green = a beat in 2026 compared to 2025 🙂
Red = a beat in 2025 compared to 2026 ☹️
Blue = a tie in 2025 compared to 2026 😶
The writers of the MBE like to test on the topic of motions. There are pretrial motions, motions made during trial, and post-trial motions. This post focuses on the latter: motions made after the verdict.
There are two motions to keep in mind here, and the first is a motion for a new trial. A party must make this motion within 28 days of the judgment. There are a number of reasons why a judge might grant this motion.
Each of the following is a potential ground:
~ the judge gave an erroneous jury instruction
~ new evidence was discovered that could not have been discovered before with due diligence.
~ misconduct was committed by a juror, party, lawyer, or etc.
~ the judgment is against the weight of the evidence
~ damages are inadequate or excessive (more on this later).
The second post-trial motion to note is the motion for relief from order of judgement. The grounds for this motion are more demanding and the timeline in which to make the motion is longer. Rather than 28 days, this motion can be made any time if due to a clerical error, and within a reasonable time (up to a year) if due to anything allowable other than a clerical error.
Specifically, the following grounds are allowable:
~ clerical error
~ mistake, or excusable neglect
~fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party
~ newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered with due diligence with enough time to make a motion for a new trial and existed at the time of trial
~ a void judgment
The next topic does not specifically fall under the category of a motion, but is motion adjacent. Rather than moving for a new trial if damages are inadequate or excessive, the court might suggest remittitur and additur.
With remittitur, the court offers plaintiff the choice as to whether to reduce the damages decided by the jury or to accept a new trial. Additur is similar to remittitur, but with a twist: the defendant is given the option as to whether to increase the damages award or to accept a new trial. An important distinction here is that although remittitur is allowable in both state and federal court, additur is only allowable in state court. The Seventh Amendment prevents a federal court from recognizing additur.
There are four categories of "foundational skills" that the NextGen UBE aims to test:
There are four categories of "foundational skills" that the NextGen UBE aims to test:
There are four categories of "foundational skills" that the NextGen UBE aims to test:
There's plenty yet to learn about the NextGen UBE. But with a few jurisdictions administering the exam as early as this coming July, it's important to understand some basic facts about this test. Below are some fundamentals about this new exam. This post here focuses more on the structure of the exam; future posts will have a heavier focus on content.
~ The test runs 9 hours. There are three sessions: a morning session of 3 hours, an afternoon session of 3 hours, and then one additional morning session of 3 hours. As for a second 3-hour afternoon session, that won't be a part of the NextGen exam, but I do expect some jurisdictions to take advantage of that time period to administer a state-specific component.
~Each of the three sessions of the exam has the exact same format: 40 multiple choice questions, 2 integrated question sets, and one performance task. Adding up the three sessions amount to in total 120 multiple choice questions, 6 integrated question sets, and 3 performance tasks. Not all multiple choice questions count towards the score: 100 of the 120 count, and 20 are used as experimental questions for future tests. Likewise, 1 of the 6 integrated question sets will be a non-scored experimental section.
~In each of the three sessions, test takers will have 72 minutes to answer the multiple choice questions (1.8 minutes per question), 48 minutes to answer the integrated question sets (24 minutes per set), and 60 minutes to answer the performance task.
~Multiple choice questions are presented in two formats; in one format you're asked to select 1 answer from a list of 4 answers; in the other format, you're asked to select 2 answers from a list of 6 answers. Partial credit is available when asked to select 2 answers.
~Integrated Question sets are presented in two formats: drafting sets and counseling sets. Drafting sets contain one medium-length question, and there are two types: one type provides a draft document (or sections of a draft document), and asks candidates to identify errors while explaining the errors or suggesting revisions. The other type asks candidates to draft a document or portions of a document. Counseling sets contain both short answer questions and multiple choice questions. Partial credit is available except for multiple choice questions requiring only one answer.
~Performance tasks are presented in two formats: standard performance tasks which focus on a single, longer writing assignment, and legal research performance tasks which include multiple choice questions and short answer questions, followed by a medium answer question. Partial credit is available except for multiple choice questions requiring only one answer.
~The lowest scaled score that one can receive on the NextGen UBE is 500; the highest scaled score that one can receive is 750. Multiple choice questions contribute to 49% of the score, integrated question sets contribute to 21% of the scaled score, and performance tasks contribute to 30% of the score.
Look out for more on this exam, as more information is disclosed!
All best to those who are preparing for the February bar exam! Posting will resume soon after the exam to assist with the LSAT and the Bar Exam (including the NextGen UBE). Keep an eye out for a post organizing all of the February bar exam results as they come in.
A student asked a question that I thought was important enough to address here.
Definite conclusions are not necessary on a bar exam. There may be times when a conclusion is definite (I'm thinking of, say, an issue asking whether diversity jurisdiction is satisfied), but the fact that some conclusions are definite does not mean that you've done something wrong if some of your conclusions are indefinite. In fact, and this is something that over the years, I've seen students struggle with, the bar exam writers are looking for nuance: they are looking for answers that understand and respect the complexity in a given legal issue and aren't so quick to advocate for one side winning, even if the question tells you that you represent a specific party in the lawsuit. Most answers do have one side that is stronger than the other, and the conclusion is an opportunity to let the graders know that you recognize that. But not all answers. For some, the best conclusion is that more information is needed to draw a conclusion. When you get into advocacy mode and decide that in order to convince the graders that you've come up with the right conclusion you've got to downplay any strengths of the opposing side, you end up leaving many points on the table. Get those points; they'll benefit you more than they'll benefit the table.The framework here does take time and effort to get good at. But, (and I don’t mean to say that this is the only way to write a bar exam essay), it’s the approach I teach to maximize scores.
Spot the legal issue. Let the graders know you’ve spotted it. Clearly and succinctly. Write down the legal rule(s) that will help you to analyze the legal issue. Here’s the part that takes practice. Although you’re writing down the full rule(s), you have to work on seeing the individual components of the rule. Not the engine, each component of the engine. Certain components might need their own definitions. In your mind, that rule has to break up into component parts, because legal analysis requires analyzing each component part of a rule. Might come naturally for some; others might need lots of practice. Analyze each component part of the rule by explaining how both sides will claim that the individual component benefits them. So, for example, “contact” is a component of battery in Torts. If it’s questionable if contact was made, explain what both sides will say about this. It may true that as to a specific component, the argument only runs one way. Don’t force those; that’s fine, too. Once you’ve analyzed each component (when applicable), bring all the components back together to draw a probable conclusion as to how the issue you’ve spotted will likely be resolved.A helpful way to learn self defense is to separate the defense into situations in which non-deadly force is allowable from situations in which deadly force is allowable. There's more to say about deadly force, but first, non-deadly force.
A person who is not initially at fault may use such non-deadly force as the person reasonably believes is necessary to protect against the imminent use of unlawful threat upon that person. There is no duty to retreat prior to using non-deadly force.
It's worth noting the word "reasonably" above. A word like that turns this test into one that focuses not on the subjective perception of the person claiming self defense, but instead asks whether a reasonable person would have believed that the non-deadly force was necessary. This objective standard also applies when deadly force is involved. You'll see the word "reasonably" used often in this post.
The use of deadly force for self defense has a bit more complexity to it. A person may use deadly force only if the person is without fault and is confronted with unlawful force. Further, the person claiming self defense must reasonably believe that imminent death or great bodily harm is threatened upon that person.
There is generally no duty to retreat before using deadly force (and this is the majority rule to apply by default on the UBE), but the minority view is that a person must retreat before using deadly force if retreat can be done safely. But even the minority view does not require retreat if the attack occurs in the victim's home, the attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest, or the assailant is in the process of robbing the victim.
Occasionally, an initial aggressor will claim the privilege of self defense. If one is the initial aggressor, one may not use force (deadly or non-deadly) in defense unless the initial aggressor withdrew from the confrontation and communicated to the other the desire to withdraw, or if the victim of the initial aggressor suddenly escalates a confrontation by the initial aggressor and the initial aggressor has no opportunity to retreat.
The above sets forth all the rules for self defense that you'll need to know, but there are a few topics that are adjacent to self defense, and worth noting. Occasionally someone might claim a privilege to defend others rather than oneself. A person can defend others if the person reasonably believes that the other has the legal right to defend himself. The person defending the other can use the degree of force that the person reasonably believes the other has the legal right to use.
Lastly, a person can use non-deadly force to defend their dwelling if the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry into or attack upon the dwelling. Deadly force is never allowable to defend the dwelling, but it may be used to prevent a violent entry into the dwelling if a person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent a personal attack on themself or on others or to prevent a felony in the dwelling.
