Discover JD-Next: Bridge

Give your incoming 1L students a head start on law school.

What is JD-Next Bridge

JD-Next Bridge is an 8-week course offered to incoming students to help prepare them for the rigors and expectations of law school.

Why Students Benefit:

Scientifically proven to raise law school GPA by .2, our program offers a preview to students, helping them adapt quickly to law school and increasing their chances of persistence and bar passage. With JD-Next, students will be prepared and ready on day one of law school.

Why Law Schools Benefit:

JD-Next is a powerful tool that can help identify students at risk while providing them extra support before school even begins, aiding persistence and their overall success. Our program can also be used to help you with waitlist or contingency admission status.

And with flexible pricing and course lengths, law schools can decide which incoming students should take the course and for how long.

Course Details

JD-Next is asynchronous, self-paced, and fully online. Students can access our content from anywhere and will have access to a course facilitator to help guide them.

Click for Full Course Details

Interested in learning more about JD-Next Bridge?

Aspen Publishing and JD-Next are committed to your success. For any questions regarding the JD-Next Program, please email jd.next@aspenpublishing.com.

Expectation Damages*

Calculate expectation damages, considering the duty to mitigate.

Legal Test for Consideration*

Apply the legal test for consideration, including both elements of legal value and bargained-for-exchange

Gratuitous Promise*

Distinguish between a gratuitous promise and a contract supported by consideration. Apply the rule for inadequacy of consideration and policy goals centered around free market principles. Identify sham or nominal consideration and the legal implications of each.

Past Consideration*

Identify the issue of past consideration and apply the rule that past consideration cannot serve as consideration to support a contract. Identify the elements of promissory estoppel.

Insufficient Illusory Promise*

Identify an illusory promise as insufficient to support a contract. Determine whether a court would infer an implied reasonable efforts standard to a given scenario. Apply the rule for illusory promises to determine when or how reasonable efforts might be inferred.

Objective Theory*

Apply the objective theory of contracts to a given scenario, particularly where subjective intent and objective conduct diverge. Spot the issue of mutual mistake, identifying where a mutual mistake may have occurred and the legal consequences.

Bargaining and Unilateral Offer*

Distinguish between an invitation to bargain and a unilateral offer. Apply the rule that a modification cannot be made to a unilateral offer once the offeree has accepted via performance.

Offeree Acceptance*

Identify the issue of whether an offeree has accepted an offer via the manner specified by the offeror.

Promissory Estoppel*

Apply the legal test of promissory estoppel to a fact pattern, including the elements of whether the promisor would reasonably expect the promisee to rely, and whether the promisee did in fact rely on the promise to his or her detriment.

Dispositive Facts

Identify legally determinative facts, distinguishing them from narrative or irrelevant facts.

Conclusion (Holding)

Describe the holding or conclusion as in a FIRAC case brief. Select the best version of a holding, identifying the rule applied in the case and the legally relevant facts.

Issue

Recall the elements of a strong issue statement and use those criteria to select the best issue statement for a given case or fact pattern.

Procedure Posture

Identify facts related to the procedural history of a case or fact pattern. Identify the court issuing the opinion, which party sought relief, what motion was at issue, and the disposition of the lower court.

Rules

Identify and articulate the rule applied in a given case or fact pattern. Select the best version of the rule, identifying what was essential to the rule, what elements it may have contained, and what reasoning the court may have used to support the selection or application of the rule. Distinguish between reasoning relevant and irrelevant for supporting the rule.

FIRAC

Identify and distinguish between the elements of a FIRAC case brief given multiple elements of a FIRAC brief, including narrative facts, determinative facts, issue statements, rule statements, analysis, application, and the holding.