Law School Addendum - Explanatory vs C&F

Law School Addendum - Explanatory vs C&F

Law schools use the word "addendum" for two documents with opposite governing rules.

• The explanatory addendum is invited. You decide something in your file — a term of grades, a score difference, a gap — needs context. It is optional, it is short, and several schools cap it. Its two most common cases have pages of their own: the GPA and academic addendum and LSAT addendum examples.
• The character-and-fitness addendum is triggered. A specific question on a specific school's application returned "yes", and that school now requires a document. The schools that address its length tell you there isn't one — and what their questions reach differs school by school, which is why what each school publishes about those questions is recorded on a page of its own.

Berkeley Law proves the split on one page. Its optional Academic Potential Addendum carries a "350 word maximum, 11 point font, double-spaced, with 1 inch margins". Its character-and-fitness addendum, further down that same page: "There is no word or page limit, and you should feel free to take as much space as is required to fully address the incident." A 350-word cap on the document you chose to write; no ceiling at all on the one you were required to write.

Writing either like the other is the failure. Everything below comes from what law schools and LSAC's own applicant guidance publish, with links and check dates; the school pages were last re-fetched on 2026-09-01. Our law rubric shelf splits the two for the same reason. For how every other written piece in a J.D. file compares this cycle, the 2026-27 law school essay prompt crosswalk is the school-by-school map, and the rest of the law writing guides sit on the law school essays hub.

The one thing this post will not do

It will not tell you whether to disclose anything. Not "probably", not "when in doubt", not "most schools want to know about this." Disclosure duties are set by the exact question printed on each school's own application, and the same applicant can owe different answers to different schools in one cycle. There is no national floor to lean on:

"The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) does not set policy for any jurisdiction regarding which information is requested to help determine an applicant's character and fitness to practice law."

— NCBE, Character and Fitness (checked 2026-07-29). The same page notes that decisions about which questions to require, modify, or omit are made by "the admitting authority in each jurisdiction."

So read your school's exact question, and where its scope is unclear to you, ask that school's admissions office. Nothing here is legal advice or a prediction about any bar authority. What follows is how to write a document you have already decided to submit.

For the whole family in one place — every addendum type a J.D. application invites, each school's own instruction and published limit, and one short shape per type — start from law school addendum examples, which owns the taxonomy and deliberately publishes no sample character-and-fitness disclosure.

What schools mean by "addendum"

LSAC's applicant guidance on LawHub names both triggers in two adjacent sentences, which is where the confusion starts:

"You can include academic or LSAT addenda if you want to share more information about the circumstances surrounding your undergraduate performance or an LSAT score."

"Typically, you'll need an addendum if you answer 'Yes' to any of the questions in the 'character and fitness' or 'academic history' sections of an application."

— LawHub, Addenda (checked 2026-07-29; emphasis ours)

Michigan Law restates the split in two words. Its optional invitation is to "clarify" something in your application; an affirmative answer to a conduct question requires a supplemental statement providing "complete details." Clarify versus complete details, in two adjacent fields of one form. Both phrases are on Michigan's J.D. application page, read on 2026-09-01 through a headless browser because the site refuses ordinary automated requests. The longer phrase we quoted in July — "complete details, including dates and resolution" — comes from Michigan's published annotated application, and that file returned an HTTP 500 error every time we tried it on 2026-09-01, so we quote the live page instead and flag the PDF as unretrieved rather than as confirmed.

Document one: the explanatory addendum

Invited, optional, and short. Four published facts are worth having before you write a word.

You may not need one at all. Yale Law School's application components page, updated as of July 2026, permits addenda "if any are necessary for a full representation of their candidacy" — then adds the sentence most advice pages skip: "It is not necessary to include any addenda, and many applicants do not include any." An addendum is not a box that goes unfilled.

Schools often split the shelf into separately capped categories. Texas Law publishes distinct optional statements for undergraduate performance, standardized test performance, and résumé/education gaps — then caps each one: "Each optional statement may not exceed one (1) double-spaced page with a minimum 11-point font size and 1-inch margins." The form's structure is itself the argument that "addendum" is not one thing.

Where a cap exists, it is tight. Berkeley's 350 words is the smallest published number here, and it applies to exactly this document: "If you do not believe that your standardized test score(s) or academic record accurately reflect your ability to succeed in law school, then you may tell us why." Where that addendum sits among Berkeley's other optional writing is set out in Berkeley Law's personal statement and optional essays.

One issue per document beats one document for everything. Michigan's form says "You may submit as many addenda as you need." Richmond asks that "all written submissions should include headers or titles identifying each separate item" — the easiest instruction in this genre to follow, and the least repeated.

LSAT addendum

If you arrived from a score-difference question, this section stands alone. It is the family treatment: where the LSAT addendum sits beside the other two, and what schools publish about triggering one. For the write-it-or-don't decision and sentence-level models, LSAT addendum examples is the page for that.

Of the six schools we checked on 2026-07-29, exactly one publishes a numeric trigger — and it makes the addendum mandatory, not optional. Richmond Law:

"An LSAT addendum must be included to discuss score discrepancies of more than eight (8) points, or optionally if there is context that you feel should be shared with the Admissions Committee related to your LSAT preparation or performance."

— University of Richmond School of Law, Apply (checked 2026-07-29)

Note the wording: more than eight points, and must.

The rest of the sample publishes an invitation with no number. Berkeley: "You may write an addendum to provide context for score and performance differences." Texas invites candidates who believe "one LSAT or GRE score is more representative than another" to explain. Yale: addenda "may include, for example… a history of under-performance on standardized tests."

A five-point rule of thumb circulates widely in application advice. No school in this sample publishes it. The takeaway is not a different number — it is that the number is whatever your schools wrote down, and five of the six we checked wrote down nothing.

What the document is for, in the published language: context for why one administration or academic period may not represent your potential. LawHub names the usual circumstances — "health issues, work schedules, an overextended social life, familial obligations, or technical issues on test day." (Test-day disruption is a live category; see our coverage of the return to in-person LSAT testing.)

What it is not for. Re-arguing the score: the reader has the report open, so disputing the number spends the document on the one fact already visible. Explaining an increase: a higher second score generally speaks for itself, unless a school like Texas invites you to say which score is more representative — there, the prompt is the instruction. Doubling as a personal statement: different document, different job.

Shape: one short paragraph — what happened, fixed to a date range, and what the rest of the record shows. Where a school publishes nothing, Berkeley's 350-word cap on the closest equivalent document is the most defensible calibration anchor available.

Document two: the character-and-fitness addendum

Triggered by a question, and that question — not this post, not any general rule — defines what the document contains.

Required, where a school says so. Berkeley: "If you answer 'Yes' to any of the character and fitness questions in the application, we require that you attach an addendum explaining the circumstances." Georgetown Law: "please explain fully in a separate statement."

One document per topic. Richmond is the most specific: "If an applicant answers 'yes' to any Character & Fitness question, an individual addendum must be submitted to address each specific topic regarding any criminal charges, academic dismissals or code of conduct violations, or disclosures within your application." That cuts against the instinct to write one long document covering everything.

Length is not the constraint; completeness is. Berkeley and Georgetown publish no ceiling. Richmond asks that addenda be "long enough to fully disclose and explain each topic."

An affirmative answer is not, by itself, the end. Two published lines, from two different kinds of source:

"Note that an affirmative answer to any of these questions does not necessarily preclude or even prejudice admission to Berkeley Law… We regularly admit, enroll, and graduate law students who have responded affirmatively to questions in this section."

— UC Berkeley School of Law, Ready to Apply (J.D.), an admissions-office instruction (checked 2026-07-29)

"Please know that a C&F isn't disqualifying, and will not prevent you from getting into law school."

— Yale Law School's Access to Law School program, an applicant resource from the school's Law and Racial Justice Center — program guidance, not an admissions-office rule (checked 2026-07-29)

Both statements concern the law school admissions stage. Neither is about any bar authority, and neither is a prediction about your file — Berkeley notes its own questions "do not represent all the possible questions, topics, or considerations a state Bar might inquire about," and that its office offers individual advising. That is the right destination for a question about scope. This post is not.

The two documents side by side

How to structure either one

The same four beats serve both, with different emphasis. This is a shape, not a template — a fill-in-the-blank addendum fits your facts to someone else's sentences instead of to your school's question.

1. Only the facts the question names. Name the thing in the first sentence: which term, which score, which window, which question you are answering. Dates and outcomes, no build-up. Explanatory: enough to make the metric legible, no more. Character-and-fitness: every fact the question asks for, stated once.
2. What you did. Your own actions, in the active voice. This is the beat euphemism destroys.
3. What changed. Where something actually changed, say what. Where nothing changed because nothing was anyone's fault — a dismissed matter, a no-fault administrative action, a documented health event — this beat can be one neutral sentence or absent entirely. It is not a remorse quota. LawHub's tone advice asks applicants to be "contrite"; that framing fits some disclosures and not others, and a question can be answered completely and neutrally.
4. What it means now. Explanatory: the counter-evidence already in the file — the later terms, the higher score, the work record. Character-and-fitness: current status, and nothing past it.

Then stop.

Three failure modes, with the rescue for each

Two constructed illustrations of disclosure fog, written by us: "an incident occurred during my second year" and "the matter was subsequently addressed." Both read as careful. Neither tells a reader what happened or how it ended.

Two opposite over-corrections are just as common. The apology spiral — paragraphs of remorse, self-criticism, and promises — buries the facts under performance. The blame spiral — the roommate, the proctor, the professor, the software — answers a question nobody asked and displaces you from your own document. The objection to both is the same, and it is not moral: each crowds out the information the school actually requested. No school in this sample asks for contrition; several ask for completeness.

Character-and-fitness addenda by disclosure type

The four beats above are the shape. What changes between one disclosure and another is which question you are answering, which facts that question names, whether anyone else has to send something, and how the school wants an update if the picture changes after you submit.

Six situations follow. Where a school publishes the wording itself, it is quoted. Where it does not — and for most schools it does not, because the questions live inside the LSAC application form — the honest instruction is the same one UVA prints on its own page: "Specific requirements for disclosure are included on the application." Read yours there, in its exact words, before you write anything. None of what follows tells you whether your situation falls inside your school's question, and none of it is sample disclosure text.

1. A traffic ticket or a minor citation.

• What triggers it. The criminal-conduct question — and its carve-outs are not the same from one school to the next. Columbia's preview application asks whether you have "ever been cited, charged with, indicted, convicted or tried for, or pleaded guilty to, the commission of any felony or misdemeanor or the violation of any law, except minor parking violations": a carve-out for parking, and nothing else. Duke's published instruction reaches "all disciplinary charges, arrests, criminal charges, or criminal convictions" with no traffic carve-out at all. Same applicant, two scopes, one cycle.
• Order of facts. The citation, its date, the jurisdiction, the disposition and its date, and anything else the question names. One paragraph is usually the whole document.
• Register. Flat. A speeding ticket does not need a narrative arc, and building one invites the reader to wonder what the arc is doing there.
• The one thing to confirm with the school. Whether a civil infraction that never became a criminal charge sits inside the wording you were asked. Columbia's own instruction points you to the same place: "Should you have questions about whether or not to report an infraction, you are strongly encouraged to contact the Office of Admissions for clarification."

2. Academic discipline.

• What triggers it. Usually a separate question from the criminal one, and often a broader one. Columbia's academic-conduct question asks whether you have "ever been on academic probation or subjected to disciplinary action for scholastic or other reasons by any college, university, graduate school, or professional school you have attended", and adds: "This should include matters that have been expunged." Michigan's public page states that if you answer either of its conduct questions in the affirmative, you must submit a supplemental statement providing "complete details" (Michigan's own emphasis).
• Order of facts. Institution, the finding as the institution recorded it, when, the sanction and its dates, whether anything appears on the transcript, current status.
• Register. This is the beat euphemism destroys. "An incident occurred" answers nothing; the reader is checking whether the question was answered at all.
• The one thing to confirm with the school. Whether a third-party letter is also required, and where it goes. Columbia asks that the dean or administrative officer in charge of student records send a detailed explanation to a dedicated address for the two academic-conduct questions. Duke's is conditional and narrower: a "yes" to its school-related conduct question means "you will be required to have the dean, registrar, department supervisor, judicial officer, or academic officer with access to official records from your institution submit a letter directly to the Office of Admissions" — and where the institution has no record, "have them submit a letter indicating so."

3. A criminal charge with a disposition.

• What triggers it. The criminal question, and some schools name the contents of the answer inside the question. Columbia's asks for "a detailed, complete, and truthful explanation, including a statement of the charge(s), the disposition thereof and the underlying facts", and warns that you "should have available and be prepared to submit or exhibit copies of police and court records regarding any matter you disclose in reply to this question." Duke asks for "details, the status of any disciplinary action or judicial sanctions, and the final resolution of the issues involved."
• Order of facts. The charge as charged; the date; the court or jurisdiction; the plea or finding; the disposition and its date; completion of any conditions; current status. Then stop.
• Register. Name the conduct in ordinary words once, early. Litigating the charge inside an admissions document spends the space on an argument nobody asked for, and it is the fastest way to turn a short answer into a long one.
• The one thing to confirm with the school. Whether documents go in with the application or only on request, and whether an outcome that ended without a conviction sits inside the wording you were asked. That is a question for that school's admissions office, or for a lawyer. It is not one this page can answer.

4. An expunged or sealed matter.

• What triggers it. Nothing reliably — and that is the point. This is the one place where two questions on the same application can point in opposite directions. Columbia's academic-conduct question expressly reaches expunged matters ("This should include matters that have been expunged"). Its criminal question expressly releases them: "You may answer 'no' if your record has been expunged or sealed; if your conviction was vacated; if you were the subject of a juvenile delinquency or youthful offender proceeding; or if you have received a pardon." Duke's instruction excepts "arrests, criminal charges or criminal convictions that have been expunged from your record" from the duty it describes.
• Order of facts. Whatever the question you are answering asks for. If its carve-out covers your situation, there may be no document to write.
• Register. Not applicable yet. The work here is reading, not writing.
• The one thing to confirm with the school. All of it. This is the single most common place where an applicant's assumption and a school's wording come apart, and both Columbia and Berkeley print an invitation to ask them directly. We do not answer it, and neither does a general rule you read anywhere else.

5. A change after you have already submitted.

• What triggers it. Not a question — a duty clause, and several schools publish one. Duke: "You have an ongoing obligation to report any conduct that would require you to answer 'Yes' to any of the questions in this section during the pendency of your application. If you are admitted, the obligation to report conduct applicable to the questions in this section continues until your first day of class at Duke Law School." Berkeley: "If your answer to any of the character and fitness questions contained in this application becomes affirmative after you submit your application, you are required to notify the Admissions Office in writing. Failure to disclose and/or notify us will result in the revocation of your offer of admission." Texas: applicants "are under a continued obligation to notify the law school immediately of any and all circumstances and events that may occur from the date an application is submitted to the first day of enrollment that may change any of the responses to their application." Stanford: "until the application has been finally acted upon (and until the first day of attendance, if you are accepted and enroll), you are obligated to advise the school of any changes in the information previously furnished." Cornell: "you are required to update us about any changes that take place after the submission of your application."
• Order of facts. What changed, when, and the same fact set the original question asked for — with a first line that says plainly which question this updates.
• Register. Administrative. This is correspondence, not an essay, and it is the one document in this family where being early is worth more than being polished.
• The one thing to confirm with the school. The channel. Columbia's preview application says notification of events responsive to its character-and-fitness questions "must be emailed" to its admissions address; Berkeley says in writing to the Admissions Office. Guessing the channel is an avoidable failure. Applicants hit this every cycle — one thread from 2026-04-04 (1scdry0) is an applicant working out how to amend a character-and-fitness answer after submission.

6. An academic-integrity finding involving AI.

• What triggers it. Not the school's AI rule for this application — those are two different documents. A finding at a college or university is academic discipline, and it reaches the same academic-conduct question as any other finding: Columbia's wording above is the clearest published example.
• Order of facts. The institution, the finding as the institution recorded it, the date, the sanction, whether it appears on the transcript, current status.
• Register. The same as any other academic-conduct answer. The temptation here is to argue about detection accuracy; a school's question asks what was found and what happened, not whether the finding was right.
• The one thing to confirm with the school. Whether an informal resolution that produced no formal sanction sits inside the question's wording. Separately, and unrelated to the disclosure question: our law school AI policy dataset is where to look up what each school publishes about using AI on the application itself, and the certification in the live form is what counts over any dataset, including ours. The ask is real and recurring — a thread from 2025-11-10 (1otmg5c) is one applicant asking how to navigate an addendum after an AI-related finding — but the shape of the document is the answerable part, and whether the finding falls inside your school's question is not.

None of the six is a template, and none is a decision. Applicants ask specifically for somewhere to have this document read: a thread from 2025-10-12 (1o4f2wr) is one applicant looking for a character-and-fitness addendum review and finding that general essay-workshop formats do not fit the document. What a reader can usefully check is whether the first lines identify the exact question, whether the facts answer it completely, and whether anything is in there that the question did not ask for.

What each school asks you to disclose

Whether an event must be disclosed is never our judgment. It is set by the exact question printed on each school's own application, and the same applicant can owe different answers to different schools in one cycle. What each school publishes about those questions — the wording where a school prints it in full, whether it publishes an instruction instead, whether an explanatory note or FAQ sits beside it, and the date each page was read — is recorded school by school in law school character and fitness questions, quoted. Read the question that governs you there, and then in the application in front of you, which is the only text that settles anything. This page picks up where that one stops: how to write the document an affirmative answer triggers.

The school's question now, and a different question later

The document you write this fall answers an admissions office's question. A bar authority's questions come years later, they are written by a different body, and they are not the same questions. Berkeley says so on the page where it collects the addendum: its own questions "do not represent all the possible questions, topics, or considerations a state Bar might inquire about", and it adds that being admitted to the law school neither suggests nor ensures eligibility for admission to any state, federal, or other bar. Texas puts the same point the other way round, noting that applicants convicted of a serious crime are eligible for admission to the law school, while state bar rules may still make practice impossible in some states. And there is no national floor underneath either question — the NCBE sentence at the top of this page is explicit that each admitting authority writes its own.

The practical consequence for the document in front of you is narrow: answer the question your school actually asked, completely and accurately, and keep records of what you sent. Predicting a later body's conclusion is not something this page, a rubric, or any general guide can do, and treating a school's question as a proxy for a bar authority's is how a short answer turns into a speculative essay.

How long, actually

Every row checked 2026-07-29.

Read the two columns down and the pattern is unmistakable: where schools publish a ceiling, they publish it for the explanatory addendum; where they publish "no limit", it is for the character-and-fitness one. The optional document is the one with a word cap. The required document is the one where they tell you to take the space you need.

Two honest mechanics. Page counts are not verifiable from pasted plain text, so word calibration is the only workable proxy — roughly 150 to 500 words covers "a paragraph or two" through about one page. That range is subordinate to your school's own instruction, which supersedes any number here. Personal statements follow a different spread: see the 2026-27 law school essay prompt crosswalk, which carries each school's published statement limit beside its prompts.

Before you run any tool over an addendum

Assistance rules are school-specific, and at least one school names addenda by name.

• Richmond prohibits "using generative AI to draft your personal statement, addenda, short answers, or other written components of the application in lieu of your own original work," and using AI "to substantially re-write your work." It permits spelling and grammar checks and "editing your original writing with AI tools to assist with length or clarity, while preserving your ideas, structure, and substantial content" — and requires applicants to disclose the tools used and how.
• UCLA's rule reaches the whole file: "The use of any artificial intelligence tools to assist in the completion of this application is prohibited."
• UVA's published language — "The statement should be written in your own voice without the help of artificial intelligence tools" — is written about the personal statement, leaving addenda unresolved rather than permitted (checked 2026-09-01; the page refuses ordinary automated requests and was read with a headless browser).
• Michigan's public instruction covers written submissions generally: "In general, applicants ought not use generative artificial intelligence tools as part of their drafting process" (J.D. application page, checked 2026-09-01 via headless browser). The certification you actually sign sits inside the application and in an annotated application file we could not retrieve on 2026-09-01 — read the live version in the form and decide from that, not from this summary.

Absence is not permission. A school page with no AI rule does not authorize AI review — the LSAC application certification or a portal instruction may be stricter. Review your school's current authorship, AI, and assistance rules before using any review tool — they differ school by school, they change by cycle, and the sentence you sign is what counts, over any summary, including this one. GradPilot reviews writing you already wrote and never drafts replacement prose; what you do with feedback under your school's rule is your call. Submit only your own writing. Our law school AI policy dataset is where to look up a school's published language, and the live certification is what counts, over any dataset, including ours.

Getting a second read

Few applicants have anyone to ask about a document like this. An addendum rubric checks what a reader checks: whether the first lines identify the exact issue or question, whether the facts and timeline are kept tight for an explanatory addendum and complete for a disclosure, whether context connects to the record without claiming to erase it, and whether the ask is answered without becoming a second personal statement.

Three limits, plainly. It reviews writing — it does not decide what you disclose, and it is not legal advice. It cannot see a transcript, score report, court record, school file, or bar application, so it cannot verify a disclosure against a record it has never seen; paste the exact question you were asked, and the review works against that. And addendum reviews are private to you: this rubric has no share link and no third-party reviewer seam — deliberate, given what the character-and-fitness arm contains.

Two free Quick Reviews are available each day; your first Full Review costs $5 and is typically ready in about 2–3 minutes. The mechanics are in how a law school statement review actually works, and the addendum is one of six law rubrics on the law statement review page. For the other supporting document that runs on rules of its own, see our guide to law school letters of recommendation through LSAC.

Before you submit

• Which document am I writing — invited, or triggered by a question?
• Do I have my school's exact question in front of me, in its exact wording?
• Are the facts in the first two sentences, or three paragraphs down?
• Is anything in here that the question did not ask for?
• If the school publishes a limit, am I inside it?
• If several topics returned "yes", does each have its own document with its own header?

One word, two documents. The one you chose to write should be short enough that a reader finishes it before deciding it mattered. The one you were required to write should be complete enough to answer the question that triggered it.

Sources

Sources checked on 2026-09-01 unless a date is given beside the entry. Retrieval note: unless stated otherwise, each page was fetched directly from the school's own domain and read as text. Two sites refuse ordinary automated requests and were read with a headless browser, recorded inline where they are quoted (Michigan, UVA). One file did not return at all and is flagged as unretrieved rather than quoted as current (Michigan's annotated application, HTTP 500 on 2026-09-01). Richmond sits behind a consent wall, so a plain fetch returns an empty page; its rows carry the 2026-07-29 check date.

• NCBE, Character and Fitness — no jurisdiction-wide policy; each admitting authority sets its own questions (checked 2026-07-29).
• LawHub (LSAC), Addenda — the "if you want to" / "you'll need" split, and the length guidance (checked 2026-07-29).
• Duke Law, J.D. application — the full public character-and-fitness instruction, the expunged exception, the conditional dean's letter, and the ongoing duty to the first day of class.
• Columbia Law, preview application, Fall 2026 — the six questions, the split treatment of expunged records, the dean's-letter trigger, and the post-submission notification instruction. This is the Fall 2026 file; on 2026-09-01 it was still the only preview application posted, so every Columbia line here is last cycle's wording.
• UC Berkeley School of Law, Ready to Apply (J.D.) — the addendum requirement, the no-limit sentence, the post-submission notification duty, the "does not necessarily preclude or even prejudice" sentence, and the bar-qualification paragraph.
• Georgetown Law, application requirements — "explain fully in a separate statement" (URL updated this cycle; the previously cited path now redirects).
• Texas Law, Apply — the optional-statement categories and their one-page cap, "Character and Moral Fitness", and the continued-obligation paragraph. No lookback appears on this page.
• University of Michigan Law School, apply to the J.D. program — "clarify", "complete details", "as many addenda as you need", and the generative-AI instruction (read 2026-09-01 with a headless browser). The school's annotated application PDF returned HTTP 500 on every attempt that day.
• University of Virginia School of Law, J.D. application information and its J.D. FAQ — "Specific requirements for disclosure are included on the application", and the personal-statement AI sentence (read 2026-09-01 with a headless browser).
• Cornell Law School, J.D. FAQ — the disciplinary-record answer, the accuracy-and-update paragraph, and "a Dean's Certification is no longer a required element" (URL updated; the previously cited path now 404s).
• Yale Law School, application components — the addenda sentence, and the post-admission dean's certification with its revocation clause.
• Harvard Law School, J.D. application components — the single public character-and-fitness line and the bar-qualification paragraph.
• Stanford Law School, J.D. application process — the ongoing duty to advise the school of changes.
• UCLA School of Law, first-year J.D. applicants — "We do not require a dean's certification", and the application-wide AI prohibition.
• University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, J.D. FAQs — no public character-and-fitness content beyond the bar-qualification paragraph.
• University of Richmond School of Law, Apply — the individual-addendum-per-topic rule, the LSAT addendum trigger, and the AI-use rules (checked 2026-07-29).
• Yale Law School, Access to Law School free resources — program guidance, not an admissions-office rule (checked 2026-07-29).
• Applicant threads on r/lawschooladmissions, cited by thread id and date only: 1o4f2wr (2025-10-12), 1otmg5c (2025-11-10), 1scdry0 (2026-04-04). One sentence each, no usernames, no service names.