• Interpreting MBE Scores for the July 2025 Bar Exam

    Update:

    • NYS BOLE released the July 2025 bar exam results on October 23, 2025. See the results here.
    • Texas Board of Law Examiners have released the results of the July 2025 bar exam here.
    • The Supreme Court of Florida has posted the results from the July 2025 bar exam here. The results are listed by each applicant’s anonymous Bar Applicant File Number. No names are released.

    The July 2025 bar exam results will be coming out soon. Most states release the July exam results around October to November. However, some states release them earlier. In Florida, the July bar results are scheduled to be released on Monday, September 22, 2025. The New York State Board of Law Examiners (NY BOLE) releases their July bar exam results around late October to early November. An email is sent out to candidates with specific date and time announcements. Texas Bar Exam results for July are also released in mid-October. California Bar Exam results for the July 2025 bar exam will be released on November 7, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. 

    For candidates who do not pass the bar, interpreting the results to improve for next time can be challenging. The MBE scores can be confusing because one has to interpret the meaning of raw and scaled scores and the percentages for each subject. Here’s how to decode your MBE score report and use it to focus your preparation.

    Raw Score

    The MBE has 200 questions but only 175 questions are graded. The remaining 25 questions are experimental questions that the NCBE analyzes to determine which ones to use for future exams. The scores for those 25 questions are not counted in your total score. The raw score is simply the number of questions you answered correctly out of the 175 graded questions. Do not confuse your raw score to be out of 200.

    Note that you cannot determine in advance of the exam how many questions you must answer correctly to achieve a specific scaled score. This is due to the process of equating explained below. 

    Scaled Score

    The NCBE converts your raw score into a scaled score using a statistical process called equating. Equating exists to ensure that the scores from one exam are comparable to another exam. For example, if the July 2025 exam was more difficult than the July 2024 MBE, the equating process would adjust raw scores upward to compensate for the increased difficulty. This is done so that the scaled scores represent the same level of competence regardless of which exam one takes. 

    The scaled scores for the MBE range from 40 to 200.

    Subject Area Percentages and Passing Scores

    When you receive your MBE scores, you will notice something that reads like, ‘MBE Percent Below’. Each of the seven MBE subjects are listed below: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Real Property, and Torts. There is a corresponding number next to each subject. That is the percentage of people who are below you in that specific subject for that particular bar exam. For example, if you see “Torts: 60.2,” it means that in Torts you scored more than 60.2% of the candidates who took the bar exam with you. Remember that your MBE scores reflect your performance as relative to other test takers who sat for the same exam with you.

    This breakdown is important because it allows you to see your subject areas of strengths and weaknesses and plan your future study schedule accordingly.

    The MBE is only one part of the bar exam. Your final score is a combined score of the MBE, essays (MEE or other state-specific essays) and the MPT. The MBE score you need to pass varies by state, depending on how much weight is given to the MBE. 

    In California, the bar exam is graded on a 2000-point scale. The passing score is 1390. The MBE and written portion are each weighted 50%. This means that you need a scaled MBE score of roughly 139 to pass if your written score is also 139.

    In Florida, the MBE and the Florida-specific essay portion are each weighted 50%. An average scaled score of 136 is required to pass the exam.

    In New York, which is a Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) jurisdiction, the passing score is 266 out of a possible 400. The MBE counts for 50% of the total UBE score. A scaled MBE score of 133 is considered a passing score if the written portion is also 133.

    In Texas, which is also a UBE jurisdiction, the passing score is 270 out of 400. The MBE is weighted at 50% of the total score, so you would need a scaled MBE score of 135 to pass if your written score is also 135.

    Most states do not require a minimum MBE score to pass. A high score on the written portion can often compensate for a lower MBE score but the specifics vary from state to state. Always check with your state’s bar for the most current guidelines on scores as these may change from year to year.

  • A Guide to Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) and Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) for the Bar Exam

    Jurisdiction is a core concept for Civil Procedure on the bar exam. The two frequently tested concepts to know are: Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction.

    The Fundamental Distinction: What vs. Who

    • Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) is about whether the court havs proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
    • Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) is about whether the court has proper jurisdiction over the parties to the action, especially the defendant.

    Constitutional Limits

    • Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal courts have limited jurisdiction under the constitution. They can only hear cases that clearly meet constitutional requirements.
    • Personal Jurisdiction: Before a forum state can exercise jurisdiction over non-resident individuals, it must meet the constitutional requirement of sufficient minimum contacts. This protects individuals from being hauled into courts where they have no meaningful connection.

    Two Ways to Subject Matter Jurisdiction

    A federal court can only exercise SMJ if the case falls into one of two categories:

    1. Federal Question: If the plaintiff’s claim “arises under” any one of the below federal law, the federal court has SMJ.

    • US Constitution
    • Federal Statutes
    • Executive Actions
    • Treaties

    2. Diversity of Citizenship: The case must meet both of the below two requirements:

    • Complete Diversity: No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant,
      AND,
    • Amount in Controversy: The amount of damages must exceed $75,000, not including interests or costs.

    Personal Jurisdiction: State Residents vs. Non-Residents

    For State Residents: Jurisdiction can be established through any one of the three traditional bases:

    1. Consent (Express or Implied), OR
    2. Presence and Service: Defendant present and served within the forum state, OR
    3. Domicile: Defendant is domiciled in the forum state

    For Non-Residents: The Two-Step Analysis

    1. Long-Arm Statute: The state must have a law allowing jurisdiction over the non-resident.
    2. Sufficient Minimum Contacts: This is a constitutional test. The defendant must have sufficient minimum contact with the forum state such that asserting PJ over him does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This constitutional test includes four key elements:
      • Purposeful Availment: The defendant deliberately availed benefits and protections of forum state
      • Foreseeability: It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s activities in the forum state could subject the defendant to being haled into court there.
      • Relatedness of Claim: The claim arises from the defendant’s conduct or contact with the forum state.
        • General Jurisdiction: Systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state such that the defendant is essentially “at home” there.
        • Specific Jurisdiction: The claim arises from the defendant’s specific activity in the forum state.
      • Fairness Factors Even if the above elements are met, the court must consider whether exercising jurisdiction is fair and does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.
        • Convenience of forum to parties
        • State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
        • Other interests including interstate efficiency and plaintiff’s interest in the forum.

    Conclusion

    • SMJ focuses on the case; PJ focuses on the parties.
    • Both have constitutional limits protecting different interests.
    • SMJ requires either federal question OR diversity + amount to exceed 75K
    • PJ uses traditional bases for state residents. For non-residents, PJ requires long-arm statute + “sufficient minimum contacts” test.

  • Should Bar Exam takers apply the Lemon test or Historical Practices and Understandings standard for Freedom of Religion’s Establishment Clause?

    The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law that respects the establishment of religion. The Establishment Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court created a three-part analysis to determine whether a law violated the Establishment Clause.

    Under the Lemon test, the Court held that for a government action to be constitutional:

    1. It must have a secular purpose
    2. Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
    3. It must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

    The Historical Practices and Understandings Test

    In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), the Supreme Court stated it had “long ago abandoned” the Lemon test which had “invited chaos” in lower courts and led to “differing results” in materially identical cases. Id. The Court said that in place of Lemon and the endorsement test, it has instructed lower courts to interpret the Establishment Clause by reference to historical practices and understandings based on the founders’ understanding. Id. The Court also said that the Establishment Clause analysis should focus on “original meaning and history”. Id. However, the Court did not expand on the application of this analysis, nor provide a substitute test that could be easily applicable to a factual situation.

    In Kennedy , the thrust of the Court’s focus lied in evaluating whether there was any kind of coercion in joining a religious activity.

    Whereas the Lemon test focused on the secular purpose/effect of a law, the new test focuses on the historical acceptance of a practice.

    Bar Exam Implications

    Generally, Establishment Clause would be more relevant for essay questions that require showcasing one’s knowledge of the rule and the application of it. On bar exam essay questions, explicitly acknowledge the decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton . Explain that the Court has moved away from the Lemon test and towards an analysis of “historical practices and understanding” which has a focus on the founders’ understanding, and on original meaning and history. When you are analyzing the fact pattern, evaluate whether there is any kind of coercion in joining a religious activity, or refraining from it. Finally, consider applying the Lemon test to show your understanding of it, and the doctrinal shift and philosophical differences between the two approaches. In conclusion, prioritize explaining the new standard developed by the Court in Kennedy, but acknowledge the older Lemon test.

    Our Constitutional Law flashcards offer a concise summary of the doctrinal shift and the new three-part Historical Practices Test.

  • Bar Exam Study Strategy: Laying Your Foundation for July 2025 Success

    With just two months until the July bar exam, this is when serious preparation begins. Whether you’re starting fresh or already deep in study mode, right now you should focus on one critical element: mastering black letter law.

    Why Black Letter Law Mastery Matters in the Early Days of Your Prep

    At this stage, your primary focus should be on the black letter law – the fundamental legal rules and definitions that are consistently tested. You cannot apply the law if you don’t know it inside and out. 

    BarTaker’s quizzes are specifically designed to help you actively learn and thoroughly test yourself on these essential rules and definitions. They provide immediate feedback, helping you identify areas where your understanding of the law needs reinforcement. Don’t just passively read; engage with the material and test your memory.

    Develop a Structured Study Schedule

    Create a detailed study schedule. You may need to tweak it after a month once you understand your strong and weak areas. But in your early weeks of prep, stick to your schedule and develop strong study habits. 

    Break down your time by subject, and allocate dedicated slots for active learning and review. Consistency is key. Even if it’s just a few hours a day, sticking to a routine will build momentum and ensure you cover all necessary ground.

    Incorporate time specifically for drilling black letter law. This is where Bartaker’s quizzes can be a daily staple. Use them to start each study session as a warm-up, or to end a session by solidifying what you’ve just learned.

    Embrace Active Learning: Don’t Just Read

    The bar exam isn’t about memorizing entire textbooks. It’s about understanding concepts and applying them to factual scenarios. Instead of passively reading outlines, engage in active learning to ensure you know the law so that you can apply it to the facts. This includes:

    • Quizzing yourself: Testing pinpoints what you know and where you need to focus more. Our interactive quizzes are built precisely for this purpose.
    • Creating your own outlines or flashcards: Rewriting information in your own words helps solidify understanding.
    • Explaining concepts aloud: If you can teach it, you understand it.

    Right now is your opportunity to truly learn black letter law. Don’t wait until the last minute to begin memorizing. Start now, use effective tools like Bartaker’s interactive quizzes to cement the legal rules, and build a strong foundation for your July 2025 success.

  • Making Memorization Engaging: What BarTaker and The New York Times Poetry Challenge Share

    On April 28, 2025, the New York Times launched a week-long poetry memorization challenge using Edna St. Vincent Millay’s poem “Recuerdo.” Writers A.O. Scott and Aliza Aufrichtig explain that memorization can be a pleasurable experience rather than drudgery, noting how in the past poetry recitation was valued and commonly practiced in classrooms. But this tradition has largely disappeared. The Times’ poetry memorization challenge includes an interactive quiz that helps readers memorize the poem step by step, starting with learning the first two lines. The technique includes reading the full poem three times and they offer three video readings by Ada Limón (U.S. Poet Laureate), Ina Garten (cook and author), and Ethan Hawke (actor and author) in order to guide the participants through this 1919 poem about a night spent riding the Staten Island Ferry.

    The Times article highlights the enduring value of memorization, especially when applied to something meaningful such as poetry. The technique of using an interactive quiz set up like a game makes memorizing poetry both accessible and rewarding. It transforms what might seem like a tedious task into an engaging experience.

    This approach mirrors what we do at BarTaker for bar exam applicants. Memorization of black letter law is essential for passing the bar, but rather than presenting it as a burdensome requirement, BarTaker guides users through similar interactive quizzes that facilitate deep learning of legal rules. Through our carefully designed approach, we reframe memorization not as a rote exercise but as an engaging and meaningful activity that builds lasting knowledge.

    The techniques of memorization have remained fundamentally the same for centuries, from Roman times to the present day. We review information, then attempt to recall it using cues—like filling in missing words in a sentence. This engages us in active learning, imprinting the information in our memory cells. When done effectively, this process creates lasting retention.

    At BarTaker, our goal is for you to memorize black letter law not just for exam day, but for years afterward—ensuring the knowledge remains accessible when you’re writing a legal brief, conducting a consultation, or appearing before a judge. What you learn becomes a permanent professional asset, serving you first as a bar applicant and throughout your career as an attorney.

  • Tenancy-in-common on the Bar Exam

    Tenancy-in-common is a frequently tested essay topic on the bar exam.

    When studying this topic, focus on four key issues: 

    • how to create a tenancy-in-common,
    • different ways to destroy a tenancy-in-common (whether intentionally or accidentally),
    • rights and duties of co-tenants, and, 
    • consequences of breaching a tenancy-in-common.

    Definition

    Tenancy-in-common is a form of ownership where two or more individuals hold undivided interest with equal right to possession in the same property.

    Key Characteristics

    Tenancy-in-common has several distinguishing features that set it apart from other forms of ownership. 

    First, there is no right of survivorship – each co-tenant’s interest passes through a will or intestacy to their beneficiary upon death, not to the other co-tenant(s). 

    Second, co-tenants enjoy the right to freely transfer interest, meaning each co-tenant can convey, sell, devise in will, or gift their interest without restriction. 

    Third, non-equal shares of interest in property are permissible allowing co-tenants to hold different percentages of ownership. 

    Fourth, all co-tenants have equal right to occupy or possess the land, even if their share of interest in the property is less than half.

    Under modern law, when there is more than one owner of property, tenancy in common is presumed by default. When two or more owners try to create a joint tenancy but any one of the four unities are not present, tenancy-in-common results.

    Common issues that arise in Tenancy-in-Common

    When preparing for the MBE and Essays, these areas of conflict are commonly tested:

    1. Possession issues: Ouster and constructive eviction scenarios, as well as splitting rent from subtenants.
    2. Accounting: Each co-tenant’s right of reimbursement for repairs, improvements, and mortgage payments.
    3. Partition: Analyzing voluntary and judicial partition situations.

    A suggested essay for practice on this topic is the July 2015 California Bar Exam which tests creation, conveyance, accounting and contribution issues arising in a tenancy-in-common.

  • How BarTaker’s Quizzes Reinforce Learning For The Bar Exam Through Active Recall

    Active recall is a powerful learning strategy because it forces your brain to work harder to retrieve information, which strengthens your memory of it. Instead of passively reading notes or highlighting material repeatedly, active recall involves testing yourself—like answering questions without looking at your notes. This mental effort strengthens neural connections in your brain, similar to how exercise builds muscle. The process engages multiple brain regions simultaneously and also triggers the release of dopamine when you successfully recall information, creating a reward system that reinforces learning. Research consistently shows this method is significantly more effective for long-term retention than passive review techniques.

    BarTaker is built on the science of active recall to help users truly learn and retain the legal rules and definitions tested on the bar exam. Unlike traditional study methods that rely on highlighting or memorization, our quizzes require users to actively engage with the material by analyzing multiple options and applying correct legal rules and definitions. This process reinforces learning through mental effort. 

    BarTaker’s format gently introduces new topics while providing hints that nudge users to engage with the material.  We’ve ensured comprehensive coverage of both heavily tested and less commonly tested topics, so users are fully prepared. 

    Each quiz is short and focused—typically 20–30 questions—making it easy to fit into a daily routine, whether someone has 30 minutes or two hours to study.  With the ability to retake quizzes and our upcoming analytics feature that will identify which areas need additional review, BarTaker creates a personalized active learning experience that significantly enhances retention of complex legal concepts. 

    All of this makes BarTaker not just a study tool, but a smarter way to learn.

  • Contract Formation: Offers under the UCC vs. Common Law

    Contract formation occurs when parties move from preliminary negotiations to a mutually agreed-upon set of obligations. Contract formation requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and common law approach contract offers with some nuances. On the bar exam, identifying an offer is essential since it can impact whether there is a contract formation and available remedies. Additionally, if the question involves remedies, it may influence the correct answer.

    Offer: 

    An offer is a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain. 

    First, the person making the offer (the offeror) must demonstrate intent, or present willingness, to enter into a contract. However, not every communication qualifies as an offer. Courts analyze offers using an objective, reasonable person standard.  Advertisements, preliminary negotiations, solicitation bids, catalogs, and auction bids are generally not considered offers because they either lack a specific offeree or fail to demonstrate present willingness to enter into a contract. Instead, these are considered invitations for an offer.

    Second, an offer must contain definite and certain terms. These include ascertainable quantity, time (which courts may supply if reasonable), identity of the parties, price (which is required for property transactions but may be determined by courts in other cases), and subject matter, which must be clear enough for courts to determine the content of the bargain. A common acronym is QTIPS.

    Third, an offer must be communicated to the offeree. The offeree must have knowledge of the offer before acceptance can occur.

    UCC Offer: A Broader Perspective

    The UCC, which governs contracts for the sale of goods, takes a broader, more flexible approach to offers. See UCC § 2-206(1)(a): an offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances.

    Thus, under the UCC’s broad interpretation, an offer can be made in any reasonable manner and medium, unless the offeror explicitly states otherwise. The UCC is more concerned with facilitating a contract and upholding the parties’ intentions, even if some terms are left open. For instance, the UCC only requires quantity and subject matter to be definite, while the other terms—time, identity of parties, and price—can be supplied by the courts based on what is reasonable at the time of delivery. (only Q & S out of QTIPS) 

    Note: contracts involving the sale of real property always require the parties to state the price. That is because property is unique and courts do not supplement parties’ intentions on the value of property. UCC does not govern real property contracts. They are governed by the common law.

    Common Law Offer: Stricter Requirements

    Common law, which governs contracts for services and real estate, adheres to a stricter rule for offers. This stricter approach reflects the common law’s emphasis on certainty and preventing courts from having to “create” a contract where the parties’ intentions are unclear. 

    Examples

    • UCC: A merchant offers to sell “a certain quantity” of widgets. Even if the price isn’t stated, a court may imply a reasonable price based on market value.
    • Common Law: A homeowner offers to sell their house. The offer must include the price to be valid.

    Conclusion

    Understanding the differences between UCC and common law contract formation is crucial for issue spotting on the bar exam.

    To learn more about offers, take our quiz on “Contract Formation“.

  • California’s First Experimental Bar Exam: What to Expect in February 2025 

    Each year, approximately 16,000 applicants take the California General and Attorneys Bar Exam. Beginning in February 2025, the State Bar is introducing significant changes to the administration of the California General Bar Exam (CBX), including switching the exam vendor, introducing remote testing and smaller in-personal testing locations, and some new policies for applicants. Here’s a breakdown of the upcoming changes:

    Key Changes to the February 2025 California Bar Exam

    1. CA Bar Exam Subjects Remain the Same: The subjects tested on the bar exam will remain the same, including:
      • Constitutional Law
      • Contracts
      • Criminal Law and Procedure
      • Civil Procedure
      • Evidence
      • Real Property
      • Torts
    2. CA Switches from the NCBE MBE Exam to Kalpan CBX MCQ Exam: The most significant change is the switch from the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) to Kaplan for the multiple-choice portion of the exam.
      • What’s changing: The California Bar Exam will no longer use the NCBE developed MBE questions. Instead, Kaplan has come onboard to develop multiple-choice questions (MCQs) starting in February 2025. 
      • About Kaplan: Kaplan is a well known education company specializing in test preparation materials including bar exam courses and books. Given the clear conflict of interest in this situation, Kaplan has ceased to offer California-specific bar exam preparation courses and materials, but it continues to offer bar exam prep for other states.
    3. Remote and In-Person Testing: The exam is being offered both remotely and at smaller in-person test centers.
    4. Changes to the Structure in February 2025:

    The Experiment: Testing New Ideas

    The February 2025 exam is being considered an “experiment” with two main goals:

    1. Quality Control: Testing Kaplan’s new MCQs for accuracy and fairness.
    2. Exploring Future Options: Experimenting with remote testing, open-book exams, and extended time to see if these methods could become a part of the bar exam in the future. 

    Phases of the Experiment

    • Phase 1 (Nov 2024): Kaplan conducted its first experiment in November 2024 with new MCQs. Bar takers participated in a 90-minute session with 49 MCQs, covering seven subjects (7 questions per subject).
    • Phase 2 (July 2025): This phase will test Kaplan’s essays and short questions since in future Kalpan will also develop essays and PT for Day 1 of the exam. Phase 2 of the experiment exam will occur as a third day of the July 2025 CBX. The State Bar is planning to run this experiment to also test an open-book exam concept and applicants would be split into two groups: one with and one without access to personal notes and web content.

    Participation Incentives

    • Score Adjustments: Participants in the experiment may receive a scaled score with an adjustment of up to 40 points. The State Bar will determine and announce the exact adjustment of the scores after the exam. 
    • Eligibility: The experiment was open to:
      • Law students in their final year of study.
      • Applicants who are eligible to take the California Bar Exam in 2025, including repeat takers and those with testing accommodations.

    Looking Ahead: What’s Next?

    • Remote and Open-Book Exams: One major aspect being tested is whether remote testing and open-book exams could become part of the California Bar Exam in the future. This will depend on the success of the experimental phases.

  • Introducing BarTaker

    Bar Exam Preparation Through Active Learning

    At BarTaker, our mission is simple: help aspiring lawyers learn, retain, and recall fundamental law with confidence.  Traditional bar prep often relies on passive learning through rote memorization, a method that can be overwhelming and ineffective, especially under the pressure of exam day. We want to change the way bar takers prepare for one of the most challenging exams in their legal careers.

    So, what exactly is BarTaker?

    Our core offering is a series of interactive quizzes on black letter law that are designed to enhance memorization and retention.  We start with bite-sized flashcards to walk you through the law, then follow up with handcrafted quizzes that actively test your knowledge and help you identify weak areas in your understanding of legal rules and definitions. Our active learning methods ensure that you’re not relying on luck on exam day.

    Many bar exam candidates struggle with memorizing the sheer volume of legal rules and definitions. The California Bar Exam alone requires learning over 3,000 legal rules. It is an intimidating amount of information to master. BarTaker addresses this challenge head-on.  Our flashcards introduce you to the law. Our quizzes test what you’ve learned through active engagement. 

    Active learning occurs where you engage with your content by asking questions, analyzing issues and solving problems. BarTaker’s quizzes put this in practice by presenting legal rules and asking you to identify them, complete definitions, fill in missing elements, or recognize incorrect statements. This interactive process ensures that you master legal rules and all its elements.

    Understanding vs. Memorization: Finding the Right Balance

    There’s often a debate about whether memorization of law is required for the bar exam.  The truth is, while a deep understanding of legal concepts is essential, the bar exam also requires you to know black letter law.  Essays require bar takers to demonstrate clear explanations of legal rules, and the MBE tests their ability to apply those rules to specific scenarios.  Success often hinges on knowing legal definitions and specific keywords.

    BarTaker helps you learn these rules and definitions so that while writing essays you can confidently explain the law in your own words, and for MBE questions you can apply your knowledge to identify the correct answer.  We bridge the gap between memorization and understanding.

    How to use BarTaker

    BarTaker’s quizzes are organized by MBE subjects and topics, allowing you to pick and choose your focus areas. We offer a performance dashboard to track your progress in specific subjects and topics.  If you’re tackling a new subject, we recommend spending a few days working through all the quizzes in that category.  A week later, revisit the material for a spaced repetition to reinforce your understanding.  For refreshing your knowledge, mix up the subjects and take a few quizzes daily.  As you transition into timed essay practice, take the relevant quizzes on BarTaker to refresh your knowledge of the law.  Closer to the exam, dedicate short, regular sessions to reviewing key concepts and keeping your knowledge sharp.


    Try us

    Whether you’re just starting your bar prep journey or looking to reinforce your existing knowledge, try our free subject or or sign up for our 3-day free trial to see if BarTaker is right for you.