About Rule the Bar

Built by people who've actually passed the hardest bar exams in the country — to make the essentials you need to pass affordable for everyone, not just the people who can drop $2,000+ on a course.

Why we built this

Bar prep shouldn't cost as much as a semester of tuition. Most courses bundle thousands of dollars of extras around the handful of things that actually move your score: the rules, real practice with explanations, and a way to remember it all under pressure. Rule the Bar strips it down to those essentials and prices it so every examinee can walk in ready.

Who's behind it

Rich

Rich

Founder · Florida-Barred Attorney

A non-traditional law student, Rich graduated with honors in 2024, ranked 4th in his class, then passed the February 2025 Florida Bar — scoring in the top 10% nationwide on the MBE. He took on the California Bar, one of the toughest in the country, while working full-time as an attorney — preparing exclusively through rule memorization and multiple-choice practice. It worked: he passed the February 2026 exam, which had a 30.9% pass rate.

Rich built Rule the Bar as the resource he wished he'd had preparing for both bars. He's also the author of Bar Necessities and shares his law-school and bar journey on social media, where his videos have reached millions — and he's been featured on a national ABC/Disney program, local news, and in People and Newsweek.

Blake

Blake

Florida-Barred Attorney · Development

Blake, a Florida-barred attorney, drives the development side of Rule the Bar — turning the method into the product. His focus is rule recall, exam strategy, and the memory techniques that make legal concepts actually stick, so what you study is what you remember on exam day.

He also serves as General Counsel of Beyel Brothers, Inc. — one of the ten largest crane companies in the United States — where he develops internal tools that turn the company's own data into decisions, drawing on insight across both its legal and financial operations. With an MBA and a strong finance background, he brings that same systems-builder approach to developing Rule the Bar.

Watch Rich work through real questions

A few of his videos reviewing and answering MBE-style and essay questions — with a short writeup of his approach and why it works.

Criminal Law: attempt & factual impossibility

Rich reads a classic MBE trap — a woman shoots her husband six times, but he'd already died of a heart attack seconds earlier. What crime, if any?

  • Never fight the facts. On the MBE you take them as true — if he was already dead, he was already dead. That rules out murder: she didn't cause his death.
  • The trap is attempt. "You can't attempt to kill someone who's already dead" feels right — but his being dead is a factual impossibility (a circumstance unknown to the defendant that makes the crime impossible), and factual impossibility is not a defense.
  • Run the elements: intent plus a substantial step. She intended to kill him, loaded the gun, and fired six times.

Answer: B — attempted murder. The takeaway he drives home: take the facts as given, and don't let factual impossibility talk you out of attempt.

Constitutional Law: writing a Dormant Commerce Clause essay

Rich takes a Con Law favorite — the Dormant Commerce Clause — and shows how to turn it into an easy, high-scoring essay with very few rules to memorize:

  • Spot the issue. You're in DCC territory whenever a state discriminates against interstate commerce, unduly burdens it, or tries to regulate wholly out-of-state activity.
  • Step 1 — facial discrimination. If the statute discriminates on its face, it's generally invalid unless the state proves an important local interest with no less discriminatory means (essentially strict scrutiny).
  • Step 2 — neutral law, incidental burden. If it's evenhanded, it's presumptively valid unless the burden on interstate commerce clearly outweighs the local benefit (Pike balancing).
  • Drop in the exceptions: the market-participant exception, or where Congress has authorized the state action.

His essay tip: because the test is all balancing, there's a ton to write about — so walk the steps, do the analysis, and commit to a conclusion. On essays, recognizing the framework and reasoning through it earns the points — the exact conclusion matters less.

Evidence: hearsay within hearsay (the "do we even care what they said?" trick)

A wife wants to testify that her husband told her the neighbor had said "I'm going to blow your head off." Admissible?

  • Rich's hearsay shortcut: don't recite the definition cold — just ask "do we care what they said?" If you only care that something was said (the classic "I'm alive" to prove someone was alive — they could've said anything), it's not hearsay. If the content matters, it is.
  • Here the threat is offered for its truth, so it's hearsay. The neighbor's own statement would come in as a statement of a party-opponent.
  • The trap: the question asks about the husband's statement — so this is hearsay within hearsay, and every layer must independently be non-hearsay or fit an exception.
  • The husband-to-wife layer has no exception (the "chance meeting" is bait for excited utterance — it doesn't fit) and no non-hearsay purpose. One broken link sinks the whole chain.

Answer: A — hearsay, not within any exception. Takeaway: spot multi-level hearsay and clear every level — don't let a valid party-opponent statement at one layer trick you into admitting the whole thing.

Start your free 5-day trial → every rule & 1,800+ MBE-style questions