Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

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

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen