Boost Your Exam ScoresStarting Today!
Learn law faster with our proven process created by attorneys.
“It's so good my classmates thought I was cheating.”
Trusted by Law Students Nationwide
Where our students study
The AcedExams Method
Your Guided Path to Acing Exams, FAST!
Are you confused, overwhelmed, or stressed about exams?
Have you ever wondered how some students just get it?
We pull back the curtain and show you exactly how to dominate exams so you celebrate when you see your results.
Study on your own time
No more choosing between sleep and a scramble. Open the path when life allows — and still walk in ready.
Practice exactly how you'll be tested
Open the exam and recognize the pattern. Practice already looked like the real thing — traps, timing, and all.
Measured, so you know it's working
Stop guessing if you're ready. See what's weak, what's solid, and that every hour actually moved the needle.
Earn for studying
The grind pays you back. Honest study stacks into a lighter bill — progress you can feel and afford.
Verifiable to the Source
Not AI slop. Prepared by attorneys. Citation-backed.
AI-generated content is everywhere in legal education — and it is annoying, especially when a wrong rule costs you points.
Everything here is prepared by attorneys, then put through a rigorous verification process against source authority — so you never have to wonder whether a rule is incorrect, slop, or otherwise useless.
Step 1 · Answered
This is a real Contracts question from our bank
Riverside Hospital sent MedPro Supplies a signed purchase order for 5,000 disposable surgical gowns. The order said nothing about indemnity or dispute resolution. MedPro mailed back its standard confirmation, repeating quantity and price but adding an indemnity clause and a requirement that disputes be arbitrated. Both are merchants. MedPro delivered the gowns, Riverside paid, and the gowns were used. Riverside later claimed a shipment was defective and filed suit in court. MedPro demanded arbitration under its confirmation form.
In Riverside's lawsuit, is a court likely to require Riverside to arbitrate its dispute with MedPro based on the arbitration clause in MedPro's confirmation form?
- AYes, because arbitration clauses are always enforceable to promote efficient dispute resolution.
- BYes, because additional written terms automatically become part of every sale-of-goods contract.
- CNo, because Riverside's purchase order expressly rejected all additional boilerplate terms.
- DNo, because the arbitration clause is an additional term that may materially alter.
Correct · D
D is correct. This transaction is a sale of goods between merchants, so the battle of the forms rules apply. Riverside's signed purchase order was the offer. MedPro's confirmation was a definite expression of acceptance. It repeated the dickered terms but added indemnity and arbitration provisions. Those are "additional terms," not part of the original offer. Between merchants, additional terms can become part of the contract only if certain conditions are met. One key limitation is that an additional term will not be incorporated if it would materially alter the contract. Clauses that change how disputes are resolved, such as mandatory arbitration provisions and broad indemnity requirements, often have significant practical and legal consequences. Courts frequently treat them as material alterations because they surprise or substantially shift risk. Here, the parties formed a contract for gowns based on the matching terms of the order and confirmation, and they performed under that contract. The arbitration clause was only a proposal for an added term. Because it is the kind of term that may materially alter the bargain, a court is unlikely to treat it as having silently become part of the contract. Riverside therefore cannot be compelled to arbitrate based solely on MedPro's boilerplate.
Rule tested
UCC § 2-207(2)
The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless:
Related authority
UCC § 2-207(1)
A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.
UCC § 2-207(2)(b)
they materially alter it; or
UCC § 2-207(3)
Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of this Act.
Created by licensed attorneys
All material is prepared by attorneys who have been exactly where you are — and know what works on exam day and what doesn't.
Everything is cited
We maniacally cite real rules, cases, and sources so you know what we say is backed by the same authorities examiners use to test you.
Reviewed before it ships
Every piece moves through multi-stage review against source authority — if it will not improve your score, we simply do not publish it.
Try each product below!
Multiple choice
Questions Written the Way Examiners Write Them
We write questions for EVERY rule you need to know, each one testing a different angle, so by the end you recognize the pattern no matter how the facts are dressed up.
“These questions finally feel like the real exam.”
Multiple angles on every rule
Rules are tested from several directions rather than once, so applying them becomes instinct in the contexts examiners actually use.
Difficulty that matches your exam
Choose law school difficulty or bar exam difficulty and practice at the level you are actually being graded against.
An explanation for every option
Not just why the right answer wins, but what each wrong answer was designed to catch — expandable option by option.
The trap you keep falling for, named
Every wrong answer is tagged by type, so your performance page can tell you the specific pattern that costs you points instead of just showing a percentage.
Citations to the exact rule tested
Each question links to the source rule behind it, so a miss sends you to the authority rather than a guess.
Work the question like a real exam
Cross out options you have eliminated, highlight the stem and the answer choices, and flag anything you want to revisit.
Modern fact patterns worth reading
Scenarios are current and concrete, which keeps a two-hour session from turning into forced repetition.
Practice straight from the outline
Open any concept in a guided course and fire questions on that exact rule — no hunting through a generic question dump.
Points on every first correct answer
Correct answers earn study points the first time you get them, and those points reduce your subscription price.
Work a real exam question
Pick a subject and difficulty, commit to an answer, then read the reasoning and the authority behind it.
Priya, a shareholder of Valley Regional Hospital, filed a derivative action alleging that Valley's board approved above‑market leases with a real estate company owned by director Lopez. While the suit was pending, the board renegotiated the related‑party leases at significantly lower rates, saving Valley substantial annual costs. After the case was dismissed as moot, Priya moved for an order requiring Valley to reimburse her litigation expenses.
If the court finds that the derivative action produced a substantial benefit for Valley, how should it rule on Priya's motion for expenses?
Analytics
Know Exactly What Is Working and What Is Not
See the broad brush strokes of your performance in seconds — enough to spot the major gaps worth your time — then drill down concept by concept until every data point tells you precisely where to focus.
“I stopped guessing what to study next.”
Drill from course to concept
Expand a course into its outline and see attempted, correct, accuracy, citations tested, and last studied for every node.
Your recurring reasoning errors
Wrong answers are grouped by type and ranked by how often you fall for them, with the questions behind each pattern.
What you have actually mastered
Concepts with enough attempts and high accuracy are surfaced separately, so you can stop re-reviewing what is already solid.
Study streak that sticks
A running day count sits next to your accuracy so momentum is part of the picture — not something you track in a separate app.
Filter by difficulty
Separate law school difficulty from bar difficulty so one does not mask the other.
Effort over time
See time studied and work completed across ranges from a week to a year, split by question type.
Open a live performance page
Expand a course and see accuracy, volume, and the error patterns behind the misses.
Your performance
Torts · Negligence
Completion
69 of 111 questions
Accuracy
51 correct answers
Day streak
Practiced 6 of last 7 days
By concept
Expand any row for correct counts, citations tested, and where the misses cluster.
Top error patterns
Expand to see why the pattern keeps showing up — and which recent misses fit it.
Essays
Write, Then See Exactly Where the Points Are
Multiple choice tells you whether you know the rule. Essays tell you whether you can use it. After you submit, compare your work to a model answer rigorously written by attorneys for maximum points — the same full-credit standard examiners use when they score essays.
3 short answers and 1 full essay per month on Basic. Unlimited on Pro.
“I finally see where the points actually go.”
Scored on the parts that earn credit
A five-part rubric covering issue, rule, both sides of the analysis, and conclusion — so a low score points at a specific weakness, not a vague impression.
Attorney-written model answers
Every model answer is rigorously crafted by attorneys for maximum points — the full-credit standard examiners use when scoring your essays, not a generic sample outline.
Level 1 — short answers
Short prompts built to target a specific rule analysis, so you can drill the exact doctrine you are weak on without wading through a full exam fact pattern.
Level 2 — exam-like essays
Longer, exam-style fact patterns so you practice organizing issues, managing time, and writing under the same conditions you will face on test day.
Earn serious study points
Graded essays pay out study points the first time they are scored — often among the highest point awards in the product — and those points reduce your subscription price.
Highlight the prompt while you work
Mark up the fact pattern and the call of the question as you read, then keep those marks when you review your submitted answer.
Your answer beside the model
Review side by side on desktop, or stacked on a smaller screen, so every gap between what you wrote and full credit is obvious.
Grouped by the rule being tested
Essays are organized under the rule they test, with the rule text shown, so you can drill one doctrine until it holds.
Try again and watch the score move
Start a fresh attempt on any essay. Past attempts stay listed with their scores so improvement is visible.
See where the points actually land
Toggle score levels and compare a real submission against the attorney-written model.
Essay prompt
Torts · Negligence — duty & breach
Facts
Dana owns a corner café. After a winter storm, ice forms on the sidewalk directly in front of her entrance. Dana notices the ice at 7:00 a.m. but opens for business without salting or posting a warning. At 8:15 a.m., Paul, a regular customer, slips on the ice while entering, fractures his wrist, and sues Dana for negligence.
Call of the question
Discuss whether Dana owed Paul a duty of care and whether she breached that duty. Analyze both sides and conclude.
Compare a sample submission to the model
Your submission
Incomplete — gaps the model fills
The issue is whether Dana is liable to Paul for negligence. Dana owed Paul a duty because he was a customer at her café. Landowners have to keep their property safe. Paul slipped on ice in front of the entrance, so Dana breached by not salting the sidewalk. Dana might say the storm just happened, but she still should have put up a sign. Therefore Dana breached her duty and is liable.
Model answer
Attorney-written for maximum points
The issues are (1) whether Dana owed Paul a duty of care as a business invitee, and (2) whether she breached that duty by failing to salt or warn about ice she had actually noticed. A landowner owes invitees a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe and to warn of known latent dangers. Actual notice of a hazardous condition triggers a duty to remedy it within a reasonable time or warn. Paul was an invitee: he entered for Dana’s business purpose. Dana had actual notice at 7:00 a.m. and still opened without salting or warning. A jury could find breach. Dana may argue the storm was recent and that a short interval before remediation was reasonable — but opening for customers without any warning undercuts that defense. Dana owed Paul a duty of care and likely breached it by failing to remedy or warn about ice she had actually seen before inviting customers onto the sidewalk.
Master the Law for Less Than a Cup of Coffee Per Day
Start for free or join Pro for full access today!
Basic
$0/month
Try our materials free and get your first score increase — no payment method required.
- Guided courses built for maximum points
- Access to all practice materials, with a monthly limit
- Unlimited case opinions and expert analyses
- Socrates included for basic usage
- Earn study points to use later
Study Buddy
$29/month
Two Pro accounts at $29/month each—22% off.
- Everything in Pro, for both of you
- Two separate and private accounts
- 22% off Pro while you stay linked
- Switch buddies anytime
- No long-term obligations
Pro
$37/month
Full access for law school, the bar, and beyond.
- Unlimited access to all materials
- Full practice exams
- Detailed performance tracking
- Superior Socrates access
- Study points discount your price
Trusted by Law Students Nationwide
Compare plans
Everything side by side
See exactly what Basic, Study Buddy, and Pro include before you choose.
| Feature | Basic $0/mo | Study Buddy $29/mo | Pro $37/mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Course / study-path access | Limited | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Practice questions | 25/mo | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Short answer questions | 3/mo | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Graded essays | 1/mo | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Performance tasks (MPTs) | 1/mo | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Practice exams | |||
| Practice MPRE exam | |||
| Custom quizzes | |||
| Law school & bar difficulty | |||
| Expert explanations | |||
| Performance tracking | |||
| Dictionary | |||
| Socrates® | Limited | Expanded | Expanded |
| Study Points discount | Earn for later | ||
| Citation-backed content | |||
| Case opinions & expert analyses | |||
| Highlight & bookmark cases |
Practice Bar Exams
Sit the Whole Thing Before It Counts
Stamina and timing are separate skills from knowing the law, and the only way to build them is a full sitting under the clock.
“I can't emphasize enough how good the practice exams and explanations are — they took the pain out of prep week.”
All three sections in one sitting
Multiple choice, essays, and performance tasks in a single attempt, switched by tab the way a real exam day is segmented.
Per-section countdown
Run it timed and each section carries its own clock, with automatic submission when time expires.
Untimed when you are building up
Take the same exam without a clock while you are still learning the format.
A review that explains the score
Results break down what you missed and which concepts cost points, and unscored written sections can still be graded afterward.
Tracked with everything else
Attempts appear on your performance page so exams become milestones in the path rather than one-off events.
Month-to-month, not a lump sum
Full bar prep on a month-to-month plan — not the hundreds or thousands most courses ask for up front.
Look inside a full practice exam
See what a complete sitting includes — and what scored review gives you back afterward.
Five practice bar exams
Full UBE sitting
Each of the five exams includes every section you will face on exam day — timed or untimed.
MBE
6 hours · two 3-hour sessions
200 multiple-choice questions
MEE
3 hours
6 essay questions
MPT
3 hours
2 performance tasks
After you finish, scored review and concept-level analytics unlock automatically.
Performance tasks
A Real File Based on Real Cases for Real Practice
The performance task does not test what you memorized — it tests whether you can build a usable work product from materials you have never seen. That only improves by doing it.
1 per month on Basic. Unlimited on Pro.
“This is the first time I felt like things were under my control.”
The complete file and library
Work from the actual case file documents and library sources in a tabbed reader, exactly as the task intends.
Highlight, draft, and autosave
Mark up the case file and library as you read, keep materials beside or above your draft, and let the draft save itself. Highlights persist for the next pass.
Scored on the six lawyering skills
The 24-point rubric follows the NCBE skills — problem solving, legal analysis, factual analysis, communication, task management, and ethics — rolled up so you see which skill cost you.
Graded the moment you submit
Submission sends your work product for scoring automatically and reveals the model answer, rather than making you request it.
The model answer as an outline
See how a full-credit response was organized, plus the key issues a strong answer had to reach.
Standard and component-based tasks
Practice both single memo or brief tasks and multi-part component tasks with their own answer formats.
Open a real performance-task file
Move through the case file and library, then see how the work product is scored.
Performance Task · Brief
Persuasive brief
Other torts · Claims based on defamation and invasion of privacy, defenses, and constitutional limitations
Dr. Elena Vargas of EcoConsult LLC seeks representation against Citizens for Clean Groundwater and the Middleburg Gazette. On May 12, 2026, the coalition distributed leaflets at a town meeting accusing Dr. Vargas of falsifying groundwater tests for the Apex Landfill project and concealing 2018 EPA sanctions that suspended her license.… Prepare a persuasive brief analyzing liability under Franklin authorities. Apply Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558 and 559 to determine whether the statements constitute false and defamatory communications, whether unprivileged publication occurred through leaflets, speech, ar…
- Focus only on defamation under §§ 558 and 559 and related false-light privacy issues
- Do not address other privacy torts or affirmative defenses
Memorandum to Examinee
Memorandum · May 20, 2026 · Dana Carraway → Examinee
Memorandum Buckman & Carraway Attorneys at Law 240 West End Highway Middleburg, Franklin 33905 To: Examinee From: Dana Carraway Date: May 20, 2026 Re: Vargas v. Citizens for Clean Groundwater and Middleburg Gazette Dr. Elena Vargas, an environmental scientist at EcoConsult LLC, seeks our representation in a defamation and invasion of privacy action. The defendants are the citizen group Citizens for Clean Groundwater and the Middleburg Gazette. On May 12, 2026, the group distributed leaflets at a town meeting accusing Dr. Vargas of falsifying groundwater test results for the Apex Landfill project and concealing 2018 EPA sanctions that suspended her license for six months. On May 18, 2026, group leader Martin Hale repeated these claims in a public speech. The Gazette published an article on June 1, 2026, repeating the accusations. The group's website also posted cropped intimate photographs taken from Dr. Vargas's personal social media account, presented without context to suggest professional impropriety. Dr. Vargas denies any falsification or sanctions. […]
Model answer
The Statements Are False and Defamatory Communications
Rule
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 defines a defamatory communication as one tending to harm reputation by lowering estimation in the community or deterring association.
- Section 558(a) requires a false and defamatory statement concerning another as the first element of defamation liability.
Application
- Flyers accused Dr. Vargas of falsifying Apex tests and concealing 2018 EPA sanctions; transcript and article repeated identical claims; Henderson and Rivera confirm such professional-misconduct accusations qualify as defamatory per se.
- Dr. Vargas denies falsification or sanctions; case file establishes statements are false; Mendez holds similar accusations lower professional reputation.
Conclusion
- All publications satisfy the false-and-defamatory element under §§ 558(a) and 559.
Defendants Made Unprivileged Publications to Third Parties
Rule
- Restatement § 558(b) requires an unprivileged publication to a third party; § 577 defines publication as intentional or negligent communication to one other than the defamed and treats each repetition as a separate publication.
Application
- Leaflets distributed at town meeting reached attendees; Hale speech at May 18 meeting communicated to audience; Gazette article reached subscribers; website posts reached online viewers; Rivera and Mendez hold each medium constitutes separate publication.
- No privilege applies; defendants intentionally disseminated to third parties.
Conclusion
- Multiple unprivileged publications to third parties occurred via leaflets, speech, article, and website.
Defendants Acted with Fault Amounting at Least to Negligence
Rule
- Restatement § 558(c) requires fault at least amounting to negligence on the part of the publisher.
Application
- Coalition failed to verify public records before accusing Vargas of sanctions; Gazette published without contacting Vargas or checking licensing records; Henderson and Rivera hold failure to verify readily available information satisfies negligence.
- Mendez confirms negligence when coalition made no reasonable inquiry before publication.
Conclusion
- Defendants acted with at least negligence.
Statements Are Actionable Irrespective of Special Harm
Rule
- Restatement § 558(d) requires either actionability irrespective of special harm or existence of special harm; professional-misconduct statements are typically actionable per se.
Application
- Accusations of falsifying tests and concealing sanctions impute professional dishonesty; Henderson and Rivera hold such statements actionable without special harm.
- No proof of special damages needed.
Conclusion
- Statements are actionable per se under § 558(d).
Multiple Publications Create Separate Liabilities
Rule
- Section 577(2)–(3) provides each repetition constitutes a separate publication and one who repeats is liable as if originating the statement.
Application
- Leaflets, Hale speech, Gazette article, and website posts each repeat the core accusations; Rivera explicitly treats each as an independent cause of action.
Conclusion
- Four separate publications support independent defamation claims.
Out-of-Context Photographs Support False-Light Privacy Liability
Rule
- Mendez recognizes that posting cropped personal photographs without context alongside defamatory text raises false-light invasion-of-privacy claims independent of defamation.
Application
- Website displayed cropped beach and party photos from Vargas's personal Instagram with text implying professional impropriety; Rivera notes such photographs raise separate false-light concerns; Mendez reverses summary judgment on identical facts.
Conclusion
- Privacy claim is independently viable.
Conclusion: Liability Established on All Elements
- Every element of Restatement §§ 558 and 559 is satisfied by the leaflets, speech, article, and website; photographs add false-light liability; Henderson, Rivera, and Mendez compel denial of any dispositive motion and support proceeding to trial.
Socrates
Meet Socrates
Socrates is your powerful study companion every step toward becoming a lawyer. Unlike GPT, Claude, and other chatbots, Socrates doesn't invent material — everything it says is grounded in truthful cases and cited to the same sources you'll be citing on exams and when you practice law. Oh… and it scored a 95% on the bar exam!
Included on Basic with a monthly budget. Much larger budget on Pro.
“It's literally 1000x better than any professor or lawyer… how is this even legal??”
Grounded in our own library
Answers are retrieved from four sources — the citation rule bank, case opinions, the legal dictionary, and secondary treatises — not from open-web guesswork.
Every answer carries citations
Responses end with numbered endnotes, and rule, case, and term references become clickable chips that open the underlying text.
It knows what you are looking at
Ask a question on a case, a quiz review, an essay, or your performance page and Socrates picks up that context automatically instead of making you re-explain.
It knows where you are weak
Your own performance data informs its answers, so study advice reflects the topics actually costing you points.
Bring your own materials
Pro users can upload outlines, syllabi, and readings to a personal library, organize them in folders, and attach them to a conversation.
Conversations and projects that persist
Threads are saved and titled automatically, and can be grouped into projects so a semester of questions stays organized.
Read an answer that cites its sources
Follow the numbered endnotes — every claim points back to authority in our library.
Socrates
Your study companion for outlining, hypos, and exam prep — grounded in real citations, cases, and dictionary entries. Tap a citation to read the rule text.
I'm outlining landowner duties for my Torts midterm. If a shopkeeper saw ice at the entrance and opened without salting or warning, what's the duty analysis for an invitee?
Study Buddy
Bring a Classmate, Both Pay Less
Studying with someone is the oldest retention trick there is. Link accounts with a classmate and you both get full Pro at a lower price, while keeping your work entirely separate.
$29 per month each, versus $37 for solo Pro
“My buddy and I are lowkey dominating exams.”
Twenty-two percent off, for both of you
Each account bills $29 a month instead of $37, and the discount holds for as long as you stay linked.
Two real accounts, not a shared login
Separate logins, separate progress, separate performance data. Your classmate never sees your scores.
Everything in Pro, each
Both accounts get unlimited practice, practice exams, custom quizzes, and the full Socrates budget.
Simple invite
Send an email invitation and your classmate sets up their own account from the link.
Your points stay yours
Each account keeps the study points it earns, and those apply on top of the Study Buddy discount.
Change partners whenever
Switch to a different study buddy, or move to solo Pro, without losing your account or your history.
See the Study Buddy price
Full Pro for $29 each instead of $37 — then preview the invite your classmate would get.
Study Buddy
$29/month each
$37 solo Pro → 22% off for both of you
Custom practice
Build the Set You Need Tonight
When you know exactly what is shaky, a generic question dump wastes the hour. Pick the concepts, pick the length, and run only what you need.
Pro
“As if it couldn't get any better.”
Choose down to the concept
Walk the outline tree and select individual concepts across multiple courses, with the available question count shown on each.
Target what you got wrong
Include or exclude questions you have already seen, already answered correctly, or previously missed.
Set your own length
Choose how many questions come from each concept you picked, up to what exists.
Explanations on your terms
Decide whether explanations appear after each answer or wait until the end.
Pick up where you stopped
Sessions save, so an interrupted set can be finished later and reviewed once complete.
The same cited question bank
Every custom set draws from the same attorney-written questions — with per-option explanations, trap tags, and the rule each one tests.
Build a quiz the way you would in the app
Choose the exam, concepts, and length — same builder, live.
Legal Dictionary
Definitions With the Authority Attached
A one-line definition rarely settles a legal question. Each entry carries its sources, worked examples, and the cases where the term does real work.
Free, no account needed
“So that's what that rule means…”
Sources and authorities, expandable
Each definition lists the authorities behind it, grouped by category, with the full rule text available on demand.
Separate senses handled separately
Terms that mean different things in different contexts get numbered senses instead of one blurred definition.
Worked examples
See the term used in a concrete situation with the supporting authority named.
The cases that use it
Related cases appear with the passage where the term shows up highlighted, plus an exam-importance rating.
Common questions answered
Short FAQs handle the distinctions students actually get stuck on.
Browse or bookmark
Move through the dictionary by letter, and save terms you keep coming back to.
Look up a real legal term
Open an entry and see the definition, authorities, examples, and linked cases together.
Consideration
/kənˌsɪdəˈreɪʃən/noun
- 1
A bargained-for exchange of legal value that makes a promise enforceable as a contract.
- 2
In some contexts, the motive or inducement for a conveyance — distinct from contract consideration.
Example
A promises to pay B $500 if B paints A’s fence. B’s painting is consideration for A’s promise; A’s promise is consideration for B’s performance.
MPRE
Crush the MPRE for Free
The MPRE is short, patterned, and easy to underestimate. Sit a full practice exam under the clock, then drill the rules that cost you points — without buying a separate ethics program.
Free on Basic
“I crushed ethics without buying another course.”
A full practice MPRE exam
Sit a timed ethics exam that mirrors the real sitting — then review every miss with explanations tied to the rule that was tested.
The whole course alongside it
Readings, importance markers, and practice at every professional-responsibility node, so exam review sends you straight back into the rule.
Built for short sessions
Work ethics in pieces beside coursework instead of blocking out a dedicated month for a standalone program.
Same analytics as everything else
Results feed your performance page so MPRE misses show up next to the rest of your weak spots — not in a separate silo.
Attorney-written and cited
Questions and readings cite the authorities examiners use, so you are practicing the same standards the MPRE grades against.
Included on Basic
Available on Basic at no extra charge — you do not buy a second ethics product after you already started studying.
Peek inside the free MPRE exam
A timed ethics sitting on the free plan, then the scored review of every miss.
MPRE
Full practice ethics exam
A complete timed sitting covering the professional responsibility rules the MPRE tests — then review every miss against the cited rule.
60 multiple-choice questions
Timed sitting
Covers regulation of the profession, client-lawyer relationship, conflicts, confidentiality, and the other heavily tested MPRE topics.
Scored review + course drill-down
See accuracy by topic, then jump into the Professional Responsibility course to fix the exact rules you missed.
Study points
The More You Learn, the More You Earn
Points accumulate as you do real work and convert into a discount on your subscription. They never expire, and you keep earning them on the free plan before you ever pay.
Earn on any plan. Applies as a discount once you are on a paid plan.
“I literally get paid to study… how is this real?”
Earned for work that counts
Points come from first-time correct answers, graded essays scored on the rubric, and completed performance tasks — harder work is worth more.
They become money off
Your balance converts into a credit on your monthly invoice, shown as its own line so you can see exactly what your studying saved.
They never expire
Nothing resets monthly and nothing is lost by taking a break. The balance is yours.
Earn before you pay
Points accumulate while you are on the free plan, so the balance is already waiting if you upgrade later.
Visible as you go
Your balance and the discount it currently buys sit in your settings, next to accuracy and progress.
Stacks with other discounts
Points still apply when you are on Study Buddy pricing, so the credit shows up on top of the lower monthly rate.
Watch study points become credit
See how completed work lands on the ledger and converts into money off your plan.
- Multiple choice
- 4,670 study points
- Essays
- 1,570 study points
- Performance tasks
- 1,040 study points
Total points
7,280 study points
Monthly discount
$7.28
10 pts = $0.01 off
Start free. Stay free as long as you like.
Basic is a real plan that will get you real results. You can start boosting your exam scores today without any obligations, hidden fees, or surprise upcharges.
We give so much value for free because we were once in your shoes and genuinely want you to succeed — and once you see results, we hope you crave even more and upgrade later.
Get results today
You'll get everything you need to start boosting your exam scores, step-by-step.
Upgrade anytime
There's no hidden fees, trial window, or sudden upcharges — upgrade anytime you want, or stick with free if that works best for you.
Your points carry over
You can earn points on Basic and use them later when you upgrade to Pro for a discount.
(No card required.)
Trusted by Law Students Nationwide
Want to see what an upgrade adds? Compare plans