An effective case comparison identifies a fact that mattered to the authority and explains why a similar or different fact matters to the client. Merely saying that two cases are ‘similar’ leaves the reader to supply the reasoning.
Choose legally significant facts
Find the facts the authority used to explain its result. Avoid comparing incidental details such as a person's occupation unless the rule makes that detail relevant. Your comparison should illuminate a requirement in the standard you are applying.
Explain the analogy or distinction
Describe the authority's important fact, identify the corresponding client fact, and explain the consequence of the resemblance or difference. This structure gives the comparison a purpose. A long case summary followed by one sentence about the client usually hides the most important step.
Address difficult authorities
If an authority seems unfavorable, determine whether a material factual difference changes its application. If it does not, acknowledge the obstacle and explain its effect on the requested advice or argument. Do not omit a supplied source simply because it complicates your preferred result.
Worked example
An analogy with an explained consequence
A fictional library decision rejected an inference because a message had been returned unread. The client's file instead contains a reply discussing that message. Assume the packet makes actual review relevant.
Starting approach
The client's case is different from the library case, so the client wins.
A stronger approach
In the library decision, the returned message did not show review. Here, the reply discusses the message's contents, supporting an inference that it was reviewed. That factual difference weakens the opposing comparison on the awareness issue, although the remaining requirements still need analysis.
Why the change matters
The revision identifies the authority's decisive fact, the corresponding client fact, and why the difference matters under the supplied standard. It does not claim that distinguishing one authority resolves the whole assignment. Use the same structure for an unfavorable analogy rather than omitting it.
Common mistake: A shared label or a different outcome alone is not an analytical comparison.
Original teaching example created for this guide. Illustrations are not released exam questions, actual student submissions, or official grading standards.
Use a complete packet in performance test practice to test this method under the selected question’s instructions. The online simulators provide a place to practice reading, planning, and writing together.
Try this in your next session
Write one analogy and one distinction using the same library case. In each, finish the sentence ‘This matters because…’ with an explanation tied to the legal standard.
Your practice checklist
Put the method into practice.
Practice real past bar exam essays and performance tests online, then use individual attorney feedback to plan your next answer. Available test types depend on your package.
These are practice suggestions, not official grading criteria or a prediction of exam results. Follow the instructions and timing for your selected question and current exam administration.