The scoring rubric evaluates legal memoranda across several categories, including quality of questions presented (QPs) and brief answers (BAs), statement of facts (SOF), organization, and understanding of the legal landscape. High scores are achieved by well-structured writing with sufficient factual detail, precise legal analysis, clear organization guided by thesis statements and headings, and demonstration of understanding statutes and precedent. Lower scores are given for issues like clumsy writing, factual omissions, weak organization, and superficial legal analysis. The highest level of achievement receives a score of 7 points in most categories for extremely efficient, clear, and comprehensive legal analysis.
The scoring rubric evaluates legal memoranda across several categories, including quality of questions presented (QPs) and brief answers (BAs), statement of facts (SOF), organization, and understanding of the legal landscape. High scores are achieved by well-structured writing with sufficient factual detail, precise legal analysis, clear organization guided by thesis statements and headings, and demonstration of understanding statutes and precedent. Lower scores are given for issues like clumsy writing, factual omissions, weak organization, and superficial legal analysis. The highest level of achievement receives a score of 7 points in most categories for extremely efficient, clear, and comprehensive legal analysis.
The scoring rubric evaluates legal memoranda across several categories, including quality of questions presented (QPs) and brief answers (BAs), statement of facts (SOF), organization, and understanding of the legal landscape. High scores are achieved by well-structured writing with sufficient factual detail, precise legal analysis, clear organization guided by thesis statements and headings, and demonstration of understanding statutes and precedent. Lower scores are given for issues like clumsy writing, factual omissions, weak organization, and superficial legal analysis. The highest level of achievement receives a score of 7 points in most categories for extremely efficient, clear, and comprehensive legal analysis.
Open Research Superior Highly Proficient Proficient Developing Beginning
Memo (64 pts)* Achievement
SCORING RUBRIC QPs / Issues QPs are well structured, contain sufficient factual QPs are uniformly clear and contain As compared to the description for “Proficient,” QPs detail (not overboard), and maintain correct sensible information such that issues are in this category are frequently clumsily-worded. terminology from the rules. Each QP is evident to a reader. At times, structure is There are notable factual omissions and/or problems 3 points substantively precise and fluidly written. QPs clumsy and/or writer includes legal with terminology from the rules and/or legal don’t contain legal conclusions; appropriately conclusions or too many facts. conclusions. These qualities predominate. blend issues & facts. Occasionally, terminology from the rules is incorrect. These errors do not predominate. 3 2 1 BAs / Conclusions BAs contain brief summary of the rule, the most BAs are uniformly clear, content is BAs in this category are frequently clumsily-worded important facts (LSFs) upon which the issue will comprehensive, conclusions are precise, and (unnecessary detail or otherwise); there are factual turn, and a conclusion on the issue. Each BA is relevant rule information and terminology is omissions and/or rule terminology problems. These 4 points precise, tightly constructed, and fluidly written. present. Structure sometimes could be qualities predominate. improved, but problems do not predominate. 4 2-3 1 SOF LSF are included; any other facts are especially The SOF is well-executed overall, but some Facts are missing and/or selection of facts seems useful for context. SOF is balanced and objective generalizations or characterizations detract uninformed (cutting and pasting from fact pattern, 4 points & tells a readable story. Writing is crisp and from the factual context; such problems, e.g., resulted in far too many facts than context fluid; no editorializing; no legal conclusions. though, do not predominate. requires or, more likely, led to important omissions). 4 2-3 1 Organization of the Organization is A highly efficient and A sensible organizational approach is An attempt to employ If an organizational Analysis; Use of impeccable – thoughtful organizational evident, but info may be repeated organizational techniques approach exists, it is lost Thesis Statements meaning extremely approach is evident; thesis unnecessarily at times and/or compromise including thesis to the reader. The thesis and Point Headings efficient and statements, point headings, concision and clarity. The organizational statements, point statements, point (T) and appropriate umbrella paragraphs, and approach may seem forced or disjointed, headings, umbrella headings, umbrella Umbrella/Roadmap organizational roadmaps are clear, reflected by repeated rules or information, paragraphs, and paragraphs, and Paragraphs choices were made concise, and useful; these or by failing to connect to all relevant roadmaps, is evident, but roadmaps are absent or such that all info is elements guide the reader pieces of information in other parts of the on the whole is lack content and provide 7 points covered with no throughout. The paper. The paper does not employ umbrella problematically executed. no meaningful context repetition or organizational approach paragraphs and roadmaps as well as it could The problems with for the reader. confusion. Reader works well given the (skipping some or by confusing execution). execution are related to rarely pauses. number of issues, and is There may be some disconnect btwn the org content choices for these easy for the reader to of the RE and RA, but for the most part, the items, not to writing absorb. The paper exhibits RA mirrors RE. choices (scored in the internal organization as Style & Polish category). RA sentences/ paragraphs There is little indication follow the organization in that the paper used the RE the related RE. Writer as an organizational tool doesn’t comingle issues. for RA. 7 5-6 3-4 2 1 *PROFESSORS: Report to student (1) total score out of 64 points and (2) score in each subsection of the rubric. For end-of-semester scoresheet, multiply by 2 to produce total out of 128. See ORM Cover Note for other important information. Understanding of The paper demonstrates an understanding of the Overall, statutory interpretation meets with The key statutory language is not set forth or legal landscape (stat. statutory landscape. The writer sets out the mixed success, possibly related to an over- explained in full. interpretation and relevant statutory language, provides context complicated approach or by failing to fully circuit split) from legislative history, and employs principles explain how interpretive principles work to And/or, principles of statutory interpretation are of statutory interpretation to guide the reader to support the conclusions. absent or used haphazardly. The paper overlooks (evaluated the writer's predictions. In addition, the writer is relevant statutory provision(s) and/or fail to provide independently from transparent about the relevance of a circuit split The paper may overlook more minor (but additional context or justification from legislative RE and RA) and uses available tools (including principles of relevant) statutory provision(s) or fail to take history or the canons. There is a lack of transparency statutory interpretation, plus predictive district advantage of the opportunity to provide about the circuit split itself and/or why that is 6 points court cases and other persuasive cases), to additional context from legislative history or meaningful. The prediction is not anchored with a anchor and predict what the undecided circuit predictive district court cases. The rationale for what the undecided circuit is likely to do court would do. prediction for the undecided circuit seems because of under-attention to the guiding principles thin or overly conclusory, perhaps correct but of statutory interpretation and/or district court and not anchored well given the landscape. other persuasive cases.
5-6 3-4 1-2
RE: Rule Statements, All elements of a Rules (and subrules) are Most RE sections are complete and accurate. Synthesis is attempted but The paper suffers from Synthesis, and Rule highly proficient quoted as appropriate, and Most, though not all, rules are synthesized, is frequently problematic. repeatedly incomplete Explanation RE are present. paraphrased where effectively employing parentheticals to Signs of ineffective Rules (important In addition, appropriate and effective. illustrate the broader principles drawn out of synthesis include multiple components are 14 points synthesis of rules Rules are complete and the cases. Statutory rules may be left paragraphs of RE without omitted), or incoherent and explanations exceptionally well- unsynthesized by merely listing definitions connection to each other, RE sections, where the is highly explained; synthesis is rather than synthesizing various sections of or multiple fact-specific E reader struggles to find advanced, expertly accomplished the statute. Problems with depth of analysis sentences rather than the rule among the consistently where appropriate. and detail in case examples don’t principle-based sentences. statutory elements or taking reader Mandatory authority (if predominate. One or more aspects of cases listed. through rules in a present) is recognized as the Rule may be missing, thorough, controlling; persuasive (and though what is present is effective, and other) authority is accurate. There may be efficient manner. explained or justified. little to no variety in Writer expertly Minimal problems with depth of analysis for varies the depth of depth of analysis and detail various cases, inefficient analysis for in case examples. case examples, or too various cases and much/too little detail – crafts each these problems parenthetical to predominate. strengthen the analysis. 14 11-13 6-10 3-5 1-2 RA: Use of Source Use of a mix of Writer effectively relies on RA sections rely on a mix of authority, but do The paper treats all The paper appears over- Material in Analysis authorities is a mix of authority, not prioritize based on weight of authority, authority as the same, reliant on personal (including statutory extremely prioritizing based on where appropriate. At times, use of making no distinction judgment, rather than provisions, case law, effective, and weight of authority where persuasive authority is executed without between statutory rooted in the application secondary materials) analogies and appropriate. When using giving the reader an understanding of how it application and case of the authorities. distinctions are persuasive authority, writer is applicable. Any problems with application, and no Evidence of this is little 14 points nuanced and explains how and why that comparisons lacking detail or lacking distinction based on to no mention of persuasive. The authority is useful, in connections to courts’ reasoning don’t weight of authority, where statutory provisions or strongest addition to using it predominate. Writer at times addresses some appropriate. Opps for cases in the application analogies and effectively. Analogies and counterarguments, but analysis is a bit analogy and distinction to section (either in text or distinctions are distinctions explicitly conclusory. Papers in the higher range are binding cases are missed as citation). prioritized – with compare specific facts and substantially supported w/ authorities and in favor of conceptually weaker analogies connect those facts to the logical analysis and need some substantive simpler conclusions, and distinctions courts’ reasoning and revision before going to a supervisor or perhaps based on non- functioning as conclusions. Writer client. Papers in the lower range have more binding cases or under- supporting effectively raises and significant gaps in support and/or logic and analysis. Writer doesn’t analysis but not as dismisses would need more significant revision before effectively address the primary basis counterarguments. going to a supervisor or client. counterargs. These for conclusions. problems predominate. 14 11-13 6-10 3-5 1-2 Writing Style and Writing is not Writing is fluid and Thesis sentences are not all well-crafted (too The paper abides by good The paper on the whole Polish only fluid and sophisticated; language is narrow or broad). “A” sections employ rules of English, but is difficult to read and sophisticated, but polished and fine-tuned; thesis sentences to reinforce the conclusions, writing lacks flow, related understand given impeccable (no paragraphs are tightly- but they are inconsistent or done at various to failure to use pervasive stylistic errors, highly crafted. Thesis sentences levels of effectiveness. There is evidence of transitions, poor errors, failure to adhere 7 points polished). Memo are used effectively, and limited time to proofread based on less paragraphing and to rules of grammar or is a delight to read paragraphs support them. significant errors; errors do not predominate sentence structure, etc. punctuation. Or, there and evokes or detract from readability or overall strength There are enough errors in are so many technical comparisons to a of the analysis. writing or fluidity to errors in the paper that document distract the reader from the reader is frequently produced by an the analysis at times (must distracted from the experienced reread) /they predominate. content. practitioner. 7 5-6 3-4 2 1 Citation Competence Citation is used appropriately and consistently Some noticeable errors in citation format, but Cites are underused/missing in obvious places throughout the document. Sources can be these errors do not predominate. Reader AND/OR: enough errors that the reader questions 5 points readily identified based on the information generally would be able to locate source whether legal authorities support writer’s included in the citation. The paper demonstrates material. Importantly, citations on the whole prediction/analysis knowledge of citation rules and an awareness of are placed well (irrespective of occasional AND/OR: formatting is problematic enough that the significance of pointing the reader to legal technical errors). reader would have difficulty locating sources. authorities. Proper full and short pincites; proper alteration of quotes. 4-5 2-3 1