Posted on by Brian - 2 Comments on Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Learn the Law for the Bar Exam

Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Learn the Law for the Bar Exam

A bar taker asked me to explain supplemental jurisdiction with an example. At 1:27 in the morning.

I was able to send her a response at 1:36 AM (9 minutes later)—without having a working knowledge of supplemental jurisdiction, and without flipping through outlines or Googling hypos.

How? I’ll show you below. (With examples using supplemental jurisdiction, Contracts remedies, the rule against perpetuities, hearsay, and more.)

The problem: When someone asks me about some law, I have to research it and explain it.

Or if you’re confused about how a rule works, you have to make sense of it theoretically and look at examples and hypos. How are you going to memorize (and use) the rule without understanding it?

This takes time and mental processing. And I don’t have the energy especially this late at night. Plus, I’m not a tutor, and people for some reason seem to think they can ask me random questions about supplemental jurisdiction instead of the tutor they pay thousands of dollars for (but I have a soft spot for people struggling with this death ritual).

Here’s an idea you can try for yourself if you’re stuck and not understanding a bar exam rule.

Table of Contents
show

Ask ChatGPT to explain the rule (supplemental jurisdiction example)

If you don’t know what ChatGPT is, it’s a trained language model that interacts with you in a conversational way—a type of artificial intelligence. It’s all the rage and getting better by the day: https://chatgpt.com/

If she was going to treat me like some kind of robot, then I was going to do the same…

I copied and pasted her question into ChatGPT verbatim. Here’s the answer that ChatGPT generated about supplemental jurisdiction:

Using AI (ChatGPT) to explain a rule with an example
Click to embiggen
Text version

Supplemental jurisdiction is a concept in federal court that allows a court to hear additional claims in a case that are related to the main claim, but do not necessarily fall within the court’s original jurisdiction. In general, a federal court will only hear a case based on supplemental jurisdiction if the main claim falls within the court’s original jurisdiction. If the main claim does not fall within the court’s original jurisdiction, the court will not have the authority to hear the case and will not be able to consider any additional claims under supplemental jurisdiction.

For example, suppose that a plaintiff is trying to avoid complete diversity in a case, which is a requirement for a federal court to hear a case based on diversity jurisdiction. In this situation, the plaintiff may try to bring additional claims under supplemental jurisdiction in order to keep the case in federal court. However, if the main claim does not fall within the court’s original jurisdiction, the court will not be able to hear the case and the plaintiff will not be able to avoid complete diversity.

What do you think?

Way better than something I could have come up with by doing manual Google searches for supplemental jurisdiction hypos and rule statements (and cross-referencing with Magicsheets).

Best of all, it saved me time and patience! Sometimes I just don’t have the time because of a full-time job that keeps me up. When I have to stay up until 4-5 AM, that technically makes it a 9-to-5 (AM).

Thanks to ChatGPT, the conversation ended in understanding:

ChatGPT is like a butler, a skilled assistant

Obviously, review for any flags before accepting the answer as gospel.

Also, form a good question. Like with many things, the quality of the output depends on the quality of the input. (Below, I’ll share a prompt you can give it to set the context.)

And be nice to the robot. Think of it as asking an assistant for a draft.

I used the generated answer to refresh myself and send her a revised version of the second paragraph.

(Because it would be overwhelming to dump the whole thing on her… which is rich coming from someone who sends 1,000+ word coaching emails, MBE practice questions, and case studies every week)

But this is a QUICK way to leverage AI to explain a rule and even get an example as a good starting point.

Example: Contracts remedies and third-party assignments

A “question” that has five questions across two topics if you parse it out

Am I back in law school with these Socratic questions? You’re lucky I have the patience of a saint and customer service that rivals Zippos.

(Please don’t abuse my people-pleasing tendencies. I’m just a one-man operation.)

"Dude, I don't know if you have a team or what, but I would've given you the money I gave Helix two times over in a heartbeat. I have a hard time buying into motivational speech type stuff and aside from Jon Grossman, Adaptibar's videos (especially repeat ones) were full of shit to me. Helix's live sessions and videos were the same. The motivation in the passer's playbook and your emails felt real and I found myself actually taking it to heart."

The silver lining is that the questions were quite particular. Drawing boundaries and parameters is great for ChatGPT (see below for more on prompt engineering).

ChatGPT, being a fabulous assistant, answered all questions in 9 paragraphs. What a champ!

Yes, it was a rather long answer, but it was like an organized research memo, much better than me manually researching and digging through multiple articles and cross-referencing my outlines.

So despite the person expecting heavy lifting from me (again, not a tutor), and despite my having no obligation to answer, I was able to educate myself with the answer, and in turn, provide answers without too much stress or deep research.

If there’s one thing I have standards for in life, it’s customer satisfaction.

Example: Explaining Evidence hearsay rules like you’re 10?

“Jarvis, ELI5 hearsay rules and exceptions.”

From “My last solution”, https://www.reddit.com/r/barexam/comments/1asip70/my_last_solution/

Update: The user from the above Reddit thread deleted the image for some reason, but they asked ChatGPT to explain hearsay evidence as if they were 10 years old. ChatGPT came back with an explanation of hearsay and examples of a few types of exceptions.

This is (was) pretty good! Analogies are a great way to understand a concept. Why do we need tutors (let alone me having to answer questions at 1 AM) at this point?

One way to improve this question would be to narrow it down to specific exception(s). Otherwise, it might pick random examples. See below for more on prompt engineering.

Example: Does Miranda apply to grand jury proceedings?

I got this random question in response to an inspirational email about last-minute suggestions for the week of the bar exam.

Nothing about the email itself. Just dives into the question.

I’ve been extremely busy at work, sleeping at 2 AM on the weekend because of urgent rush projects. I still made time to format and send the email.

If you’re going to treat me like AI, you get AI. I got this detailed answer from GPT-4o (the latest generative ChatGPT model as of July 23, 2024, the time of this update):

Text version

Miranda warnings, which are required to inform suspects of their rights during custodial interrogations by law enforcement, do not apply to grand jury proceedings. Here’s a detailed explanation:

Miranda Warnings Overview

  • Miranda Warnings: Required by the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), these warnings inform a suspect of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation.
  • Purpose: To protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during custodial interrogations by law enforcement.

Grand Jury Proceedings

  • Nature: Grand jury proceedings are a part of the pre-trial process where a group of citizens (the grand jury) determines whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and whether charges should be brought.
  • Role of Witnesses: Witnesses, including the suspect, may be called to testify before the grand jury. These proceedings are generally secret, and the rules of evidence are more relaxed compared to a trial.
  • Custodial Interrogation: Grand jury proceedings do not involve custodial interrogation by law enforcement. Instead, they are an inquiry into whether sufficient evidence exists to indict a suspect.

Applicability of Miranda Warnings

  • Not Required: Miranda warnings are not required during grand jury proceedings because:
    • The suspect is not typically in custody during their testimony.
    • The questioning is not conducted by law enforcement officers with the intention of eliciting a confession, but rather by prosecutors and sometimes the grand jurors themselves.
  • Fifth Amendment Protections: While Miranda warnings are not required, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination still applies. A witness (including the suspect) can invoke their Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions that could incriminate them.

Key Case Law

  • United States v. Mandujano (1976): The Supreme Court held that Miranda warnings are not required for grand jury witnesses because the setting does not involve the coercive pressures present in custodial interrogations.

Practical Implications

  • Witnesses’ Rights: Although Miranda warnings are not given, witnesses can still assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during grand jury proceedings.
  • Legal Representation: Witnesses can have legal counsel, although the counsel typically waits outside the grand jury room and can be consulted during breaks.

Conclusion

In summary, Miranda warnings do not apply to grand jury proceedings because these proceedings do not constitute custodial interrogation by law enforcement. However, witnesses retain their Fifth Amendment rights and can refuse to answer self-incriminating questions.

Pretty neat!

But I wasn’t sure about the last part about retaining rights under the 5th Amendment. Checking my Magicsheets, I saw that there can be 6th Amendment rights attached after formal charges, such as pretrial identification. Since “[g]rand jury proceedings are a part of the pre-trial process” according to ChatGPT, I figured it was a 6th Amendment right.

AI is like an assistant giving you a first draft of a memo. You still have to check its work.

Here was my response back (with an alteration to how rights are retained, from the 5th Amendment to the 6th Amendment):

Text version

Grand jury proceedings are a part of the pre-trial process where a group of citizens (the grand jury) determines whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and whether charges should be brought.

Miranda warnings do not apply to grand jury proceedings because these proceedings do not constitute custodial interrogation by law enforcement. However, witnesses retain their rights (under 6th Amendment?) and can refuse to answer self-incriminating questions.

Example: Explain the infamous “rule against perpetuities” (RAP)

From “CHAT GPT explained RAP to me perfectly”, https://www.reddit.com/r/barexam/comments/114y5bm/chat_gpt_explained_rap_to_me_perfectly/

How you can use ChatGPT to learn the law

If you’re stuck on a concept, try it out: https://chatgpt.com/

You’ll need an account, but it’s free. I encourage you to try this if you’re in need of answers to substantive questions in short order.

Ask ChatGPT to explain a rule

You can dive right in and ask a question like the examples above. What do you think about the answers you get?

If you need more clarification, respond with another question. You could highlight a specific portion of its answer and ask for clarification. You could ask for example scenarios and hypotheticals.

You could take it a step further and get extra practice and sample answers…

Generate practice questions and sample answers

This Redditor asked ChatGPT to write a simulated essay (MEE) question:

You can ask it to refine it the way you want, in this case, to write an answer as if it were someone who has 30 minutes to write an answer.

How else would you enhance the output?

  • Ask it to include more issues to identify in the question?
  • Ask about an issue that might be relevant to the generated question?
  • Break up the analysis into mini IRACs for each sub-issue?

Figuring out how to improve your practice and an answer are themselves part of practice.

Speaking of prompting ChatGPT…

Prompt engineering (good vs. bad questions)

I like to set the context with an initial background before asking.

Here’s the initial prompt I provided ChatGPT which you can swipe and modify as desired. It might help set the context for your new robo-buddy:

“You are BarGPT, an expert in legal principles and issues tested on the California Bar Exam and the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), each of which includes the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE). When I ask a question, I would like to hear an answer according to current law (or as up to date as your data allows). Any questions before we start?”

Remember that good questions lead to good answers. ChatGPT is pretty smart and can figure out what you’ll need, but a good question increases the chance that you’ll receive a tailored answer. It becomes less susceptible to interpretation.

Good questions often have specific boundaries and parameters. This is called “prompt engineering.”

Some of the examples provided above at least had specificity to their questions. We can debate whether there is such a thing as a stupid question, but there are good and bad questions.

Vague questions will get you vague, overwhelming, or useless answers. In real life, you may not even get an answer, unless you’re asking me a request like this and I begrudgingly answer while judging you:

How would you answer this? I have no idea what this person is doing wrong either. I can only give general suggestions.

I gritted my teeth and gave an empathetic answer along with a bulleted list of suggestions (just like ChatGPT! Because I asked it for help and massaged it to my liking):

My answer

No response even though they wanted help. Sometimes people just want to vent.

Perhaps my suggestions weren’t helping because they asked a vague “question” that demanded mind reading and magically changing the past so that they had started MBE practice sooner.

Remember that the quality of the output depends on the quality of the input. It’s simply more likely that you’ll prompt a good answer with a good question (usually clear, concise, and specific).

(Update: I got a response praising my AI-assisted answer after following up to get their thoughts. If I take time out of my busy day to answer you, please at least let me know you got my email.)

Do I sound frustrated? Hell yeah I am. That’s why I turned to ChatGPT in the first place.

Regardless, this is an opportunity for you to play around with it, which is another way to learn (just like when you get things wrong).

Let me know what you find with different types of prompts and questions! I’d be curious to see the creative ways you use AI to study for the bar exam.

Share This

2 Replies to “Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Learn the Law for the Bar Exam”

  1. Pingback: Bar Prep Is Overwhelming: How to Make Independent Choices
  2. Pingback: Taking the Bar Exam Doesn’t Have to Be Expensive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.