I echo the above advice. I was a borderline pre-law candidate and law school grading didn't come naturally to me. But I ended up doing well.
I have two main pieces of advice:
1) Passion is the greatest attribute for a law student. Try to find a way to see the interesting aspects of each area. I found that study techniques became somewhat irrelevant if I read all the cases and knew how they fit together. Passion allows you to really absorb the principles and reality behind the law.
To use Dworkin's analogy, I treat the law like a series of stories (sometimes its a sit com lol). But, if you think of your favourite TV show, you don't need notes to remember that Walter killed Hank and that Skyler and Jesse now hate Walter and why. On a deeper level, you know that the TV show is a story about Walter becoming a villain. If you find the story interesting, your brain soaks it up. Same for law.
Everyone has specific techniques that help them, but generally, I have found that my best exams were the ones where I didn't need CANS. I didn't need CANS because it already knew the law, and knew the law because I genuinely wanted to know it.
2) Focus on analysis. Writing down "the law" doesn't usually get you many points (maybe enough for a C). I had very very small CANS. They were essentially the size of the class syllabus. Even then, I rarely used them. I generally found that you only really need to know enough law to "slam down the rule" in a sentence or two. Brevity here is key. I would typically spend 2.5/3.0 hours analyzing the facts in depth: "Did Walter kill Hank out of necessity? Could he argue self-defence? Did Skylar really know enough about Walters operation to give her the mens rea of an accomplice? Was she being willfully blind about Walters business or could she really argue that she didn't know? Was she under duress? Was she still under duress if she began directing Walters business activities? etc"
Most exams usually have so so so many factual angles when you dig into them. The best exams are thorough with the facts and lighter on the law. You really only have to dig deeply into the law when the question poses a truly difficult legal question: i.e. "Can Skylar argue duress if a third-person (her child) is the one under threat? Does Duress require subjective or objective fear of harm?" When you get to these types of questions, you can really get into a discussion of law. Usually these questions reveal themselves AFTER you begin digging into the facts.
Knowing when to dive into a deep legal discussions is a matter of judgement. That judgement is informed by your knowledge of the law (see my first point). "A" answers typically "dive into the law" or "dive into the facts" at the appropriate junctures.
Anyways, they say that advice is simply nostalgia with the ugly bits painted over and sold for more than it is worth. Take with salt.