3 Common Law Essay Mistakes — And How to Fix Them
Studying law means mastering both content and communication. Even when you understand the topic, your grade can fall short if your writing lacks structure, depth, or clarity. At LawTutorPro, we help students refine their legal writing so their ideas shine through with precision and confidence.
Here are three common pitfalls that hold students back — and how you can avoid them.
1️⃣ No Clear Structure — Start with a Roadmap Paragraph
A strong essay doesn’t wander; it guides the reader. Without structure, your argument can feel confused or aimless, no matter how intelligent your points are.
💡 The fix: Begin with a roadmap paragraph. Think of it as your essay’s GPS. In one short opening paragraph, tell the reader:
📘 Example Illustration
Is cryptocurrency "property" capable of forming the subject matter of a trust? What implications does this have for the three certainties? Discuss
Roadmap paragraph:
WHAT: The ruling in AA v Persons Unknown [2020] which recognised cryptocurrency as “property” capable of forming the subject matter of a trust, marks one of the most significant developments in modern equity. As a novel, intangible, and decentralised asset class, its unique features—fungibility, pseudonymity, volatility, and reliance on blockchain technology—test the traditional boundaries of property and trustee obligations. HOW: This essay will critically analyse how this emerging recognition affects the three certainties of a valid private express trust—intention, subject matter and objects—as was held in Knight v Knight (1840), CENTRAL ARGUMENT: arguing that cryptocurrency’s treatment under trust law introduces new evidential, custodial, and conceptual challenges. As Lloyd Brown notes in “Cryptocurrencies and Trustees: What Are the Risks?” (2023), “trustees must adapt traditional doctrines to digital realities without undermining equity’s core principles.”
✅ Why it works:
It tells the reader what the essay covers (cryptocurrency and the three certainties).
It outlines how the analysis will proceed (critical examination of its effects).
It signals the central argument (new challenges for traditional trust principles).
It ends with an authoritative reference that sets the academic tone.
2️⃣ Weak Analysis — Don’t Just Describe, Argue Using Case Law and Commentary
Many students can describe the law perfectly but stop short of analysing it. Listing statutes and summarising judgments is only the first step. The real marks come from applying those rules to the facts and evaluating judicial reasoning.
💡 The fix: Use case law not as decoration but as ammunition for your argument.
Ask yourself:
What principle does this case actually establish?
Does it support or challenge my conclusion?
How might another case interpret it differently?
Is there an academic who supports my argument?
📘 Example illustration:
To what extent does the decision in Stack v Dowden [2007] clarify the principles governing ownership of the family home?
Analytical Paragraph:
WHAT: In Stack v Dowden [2007], the House of Lords reaffirmed that equitable ownership turns on the parties’ common intention, inferred from conduct rather than financial contributions alone. Although the judgment sought to provide structure, Lady Hale’s reliance on “the whole course of dealing” blurred the evidential threshold, prompting refinement in Jones v Kernott [2011]. HOW: In Jones, the Supreme Court confirmed that where no express agreement exists, the court may infer or impute the parties’ intentions based on their conduct after separation—broadening judicial discretion even further. Comparing the two cases reveals the judiciary’s ongoing tension between fairness and certainty—a tension that continues to limit doctrinal clarity. ACADEMIC COMMENTARY: As Martin Dixon observes, the current approach invites judicial subjectivity and generates “uncertainty as to when a constructive trust will arise,” such that “clarity has been sacrificed for discretion” (Dixon 2023, pp. 214–216). CONCLUSION: Thus, while Stack advanced the discussion, its flexible reasoning arguably perpetuated the very inconsistency it aimed to resolve.
✅ Why it works:
Explains precisely how Jones refined Stack (through inferred/imputed intention).
Integrates up-to-date academic commentary for authority.
Ends with a succinct evaluative conclusion tied to the question.
3️⃣ Overusing Quotes — Show Your Understanding in Your Own Words
Long quotations might look impressive, but they can dilute your own voice. Examiners want to see your grasp of the law, not a collage of other people’s words.
💡 The fix: Paraphrase key ideas wherever possible, and use direct quotes sparingly — only when the exact wording is legally or academically important. Always follow a quotation with an explanation in your own words.
📘 Example illustration:
Has the doctrine of promissory estoppel evolved into an independent source of rights?
Before (weaker approach):
In Central London Property v High Trees House [1947], Lord Denning said, ‘A promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms properly apply.’ This shows that promissory estoppel stops someone going back on their promise. However, Combe v Combe [1951] said it’s 'a shield, not a sword.'
⚠️ Why this is weak:
It strings together quotations and case facts without analysis or interpretation.
The writer repeats Denning’s words but never explains their meaning or impact.
It feels summary-based rather than critical.
After (improved approach):
Denning LJ’s dictum in Central London Property v High Trees House [1947] laid the foundation for promissory estoppel by preventing a party from going back on a promise when it would be inequitable to do so. Denning sought to temper strict contract rules with fairness, though later authorities such as Combe v Combe [1951] confirmed that the doctrine remains 'a shield, not a sword.'
✅ Why it works:
Uses the same cases and facts as the weak version but expresses them analytically.
Shows comprehension and context instead of copying quotations..
Integrates authority smoothly while keeping the student’s own voice at the centre.
⚖️ Final Thought
Writing like a lawyer isn’t about sounding complicated — it’s about being clear, logical, and persuasive.
Start with structure, argue with evidence, and keep your own voice strong throughout.
If you’d like more support mastering these techniques, join the LawTutorPro Study Club for weekly writing tips, essay clinics, and live Q&A sessions.
👉 Visit www.LawTutorPro.com to explore our 1:1 tutoring packages and get personalised guidance for your law
degree.
Copyright: LawTutorPro
Struggling with coursework?
At LawTutorPro, we specialise in helping students write clear, structured answers that actually impress examiners. Whether you’re stuck spotting issues or unsure how to apply case law, tailored support can boost your confidence—and your grades.
New students receive a 10% discount with the code WELCOME10 (applies to all packages except for pay-as-you-go tutoring). See our Tutoring page for details.
📞 Book a free 15-minute consultation
Disclaimer
LawTutorPro provides educational tutoring and revision services to help students improve their legal knowledge, skills, and academic performance. We do not guarantee specific grades, exam outcomes, or future earnings. All results depend on individual effort, prior knowledge, and personal circumstances. LawTutorPro is not a regulated legal qualification provider.
Our materials, resources, and courses are protected by copyright and intellectual property laws. No content may be duplicated, reproduced, or distributed without our written consent.
Participation in any LawTutorPro services is voluntary, and no guarantees of success are made. Clients are responsible for applying the learning, engaging with the tutoring process, and managing their own study commitments.