This list is my subjective ranking of the lecturers for the NY BarBri course. You can feel free to agree or disagree and I'll try to update the ranking periodically.
- Roger E. Schechter (George Washington) -- Torts
This man is in a league of his own. I could honestly listen to his lectures as entertainment. He is funnier than most sitcoms and he is really straightforward. If all BarBri lecturers were this good, it might be worth the money! - Roger E. Schechter (George Washington) -- Domestic Relations
I liked the Torts lecture slightly better, but this should really be ranked 1A because it's almost as good. - Paula A. Franzese (Seton Hall) -- Property
Franzese is amazing. She is entertaining, clear, concise, and funny. Prior to having Schechter, I liked her lecture the best, but the gulf between them is much bigger than the gulf between her and Simons. - Michael A. Simons (St. John's) -- Criminal Law
Simons is engaging, clear, and, dare I say, almost entertaining. - Michael A. Simons (St. John's) -- Evidence
Yes, he gets ranked slightly below himself. A bit less entertaining here, but just as clear. - Richard D. Freer (Emory) -- Corporations
Freer is just a tiny bit below Simons. He is funny, irreverent, and engaging. He does kind of sound like he's on a huge caffeine high the entire time though, but not necessarily in a bad way. He is the Frankie Hejduk of BarBri lecturers. - Richard D. Freer (Emory) -- Federal Jurisdiction
All of Civ Pro I and II in 3 hours. Yet, he's just as crazy (in a good way) as for corporations. He realizes that the subjects he teaches are boring and self-awareness helps keep him more engaging as a lecturer. - Paula A. Franzese (Seton Hall) -- Secured Transactions / Commercial Paper
Franzese is not nearly as good here, but that might be a result of the material. This is some of the most dry and boring material on the bar. - J. Kip Cornwell (SHU) -- Criminal Procedure
Cornwell is somewhat boring, but explains the material fairly clearly. He is about what I expected out of these lectures. - Paul M. Lisnek -- Professional Responsibility
Lisnek was actually much better for his MPRE lecture. This New York specific version seemed less focused and poorly organized. - David S. Sokolow (Texas) -- Contracts
Sokolow is solidly in the middle tier of lecturers. He knows he's not entertaining, but tries to teach clearly and avoid ridiculous jokes. In short, he does his job with little fanfare. - Joe Tom Easley -- Conflict of Laws
Similar to Sokolow, he's very clear, very straightforward and just goes over the material. Can't complain, but certainly won't remember him in 5 years. - Tanya K. Hernandez (George Washington) -- Trusts
She has a good energy level about a boring subject, but has a verbal tic of saying "humh" after a rhetorical question that gets annoying after a few hours. - Erwin Chemerinsky (Duke) -- Constitutional Law
Every lecturer tells bad jokes riddled with puns. Chemerinsky takes the cake though. His style is similar to Cornwell's: straightforward and pretty boring. - Michael J. Kaufman (Loyola) -- Agency and Partnership
I've heard that many people really like him, but he seemed genuinely crazy to me. - Vincent C. Alexander (St. John's) -- NY Practice and Procedure
Alexander uses ridiculous voice inflections and repeats himself much too often. Many times it feels like he is lecturing to 4th graders rather than law school graduates. He gets a few points for trying I guess. - Erica Fine (BarBri) -- Wills
I said at the top that this is just one person's subjective ranking. I'm not trying to be mean about this. That being said, Fine is dreadful. She struggles to read from the handout she prepared, she fails to provide clear statements of the rules, and her hypos are the least clear of any BarBri lecturer. About the only reason I can figure that she is allowed to continue to lecture for BarBri is because she is the Eastern Regional Associate Director of BarBri. Others seem to share my assessment.
