I enjoy seeing how people stumble upon this blog. One of my favorite ways someone found it was by searching, “how to sell baking soda as cocaine.”

Last week, someone found their way here by searching for “case law brief-templates.” After thinking, “Awww, a 0L prepping for classes,” I thought that I should devote a post to my method of briefing. For starters, don’t think that just because we call it a “brief” that it’s some kind of new beast. I think maybe we call it a brief to feel important. It’s a bad idea though, because 0L’s think that there’s one way of briefing that they have to figure out in order to succeed. I’m certainly guilty of over-briefing for at least a while during my first semester. To be honest, we could probably call it “prepping for class” and be more accurate.

That said, my briefing technique is a modified version of the one suggested by Law School Confidential (which is a good book that you should probably read). It’s called a book brief. Now, not everybody book briefs. Some people like to have their own thoughts down so they write all this out. The problem with that is that it takes time; I learned that the hard way. When you’re reading 12 cases a night, and you will once they break you in, if you have any hope of eating or going to the gym, or doing anything except prepping for classes, you’re probably going to have to book brief.

What is book briefing? Well, you’ll be doing all your writing and marking in your book. I use a combined note-taking and highlighting system. Don’t think that you have to use the same method, though. One of the highest ranked people in my class uses a yellow marker and a pen for her briefs. Anyway, here’s how I organize the colors:

These are the colors found in most 5-packs of highlighters. I also write in the margins as I read. I’ll bracket some lines of text and make a note about it. I especially mark anything that I think the professor might ask — don’t worry if you don’t have a feel for this yet, as each professor is different. My civ pro professor *always* asked specifically which courts were involved, while my torts professor could have cared less, but always wanted to have a discussion about the squibs. I think at least 1/4 my comments were annoyed notes like, “Dumbest argument ever.”

There are some drawbacks to this technique. The trick is to not highlight everything. Clearly almost all of the words within a case fall into one of these categories. You’ll learn what’s relevant after some trial and error. The real benefit of this technique comes when you’ve (1) memorized the color scheme; and (2) learned to highlight intelligently. So when your professor says, “Mr. Auriemma, in [previous case name] the court found that this type of case doesn’t warrant specific performance. What’s your argument?” Now you scan your book for blue highlights, and if you’re doing a good job briefing, you’ve highlighted the squib name, the facts, and made a note in the margin about what differentiates it from the present case.

When I finish the case, I go back to the beginning and draw a little picture about the case to jog my memory. When you’re reading so many cases (especially if your class lags behind and you’re reading way ahead) you can forget what the cases are about. A picture will help to remind you when you’re under pressure.

So that’s how I brief. Not everyone briefs this way, and it may not work for you. You’ll figure out what works for you, though. Try not to worry about finding the perfect way to brief. I don’t know that it’s possible to find the perfect method before the first 100 briefs.

For those of you lucky enough to be finished with 1L, how has your briefing technique changed since you began law school?