They say: “1L will scare you to death. 2L will work you to death. 3L will bore you to death. And then, after dying three times, the bar exam sends you to hell.”

It’s memorable. It’s dramatic. It’s . . . technically flawed.

👉 Grammatically, the sentence says the bar exam died three times.

Why? Because of a dangling modifier.

The phrase “after dying three times” is supposed to describe you. But readers instinctively attach introductory modifiers to the nearest noun—and here, that noun is “the bar exam.”

Of course, no one hearing it actually thinks the bar exam died three times.

Context saves the saying.

But in legal writing, you don’t get to rely on context to rescue unclear structure.

A dangling modifier in a brief, contract, or statute doesn’t just sound off—it can create real ambiguity.

So while the saying works rhetorically, it breaks a rule you can’t afford to ignore.

A cleaner (if slightly less punchy) version would be:

“And then, after dying three times, you face the bar exam—which sends you to hell.”

Not as poetic. But precise.

And in legal writing, precision wins.

💌 Amanda

#Dear1L
#DearLegalWriter

P.S. A dangling modifier occurs when a modifying phrase isn’t clearly attached to the word it’s meant to describe. Readers will default to the nearest noun—whether that’s what you intended or not.

P.P.S. What about the sentiment of the saying? Did you find it to be true in your experience?