MPT Performance Test Items: File and Library Lawyering Tasks
The MPT is a closed-universe lawyering simulation. Each 90-minute task hands you a File (client intake notes, correspondence, contracts, pleadings, deposition excerpts) and a Library (statutes, regulations, cases, court rules, sometimes a secondary source), plus a Task Memo from a supervising attorney. Nothing else exists. The exam tests whether you can read instructions, extract the controlling rule, apply it to messy facts, and produce the specific document requested - not whether you remember substantive law.
Reading order that pays
- Task Memo first. It names the deliverable, the audience, the issues to cover, and any format or length instruction. Every paragraph you write should serve it.
- File second. Build a chronology and tag each fact to an element you expect to argue. Note gaps explicitly.
- Library third. Read each authority against those elements; flag which controls and which conflicts.
Genre discipline
- Objective memo: Question Presented, Brief Answer, Analysis with one heading per issue, Conclusion. Neutral verb choice ("likely," "the statute suggests").
- Persuasive brief: point headings stating conclusions, facts marshaled favorably, adverse authority acknowledged and distinguished.
- Client letter: plain language, options and risk, no citations.
- Drafting tasks: mirror the format of the sample in the File.
Worked example
Memo asks for an objective analysis of a non-compete's enforceability. The Library contains a statute voiding covenants unless written, signed, two years or less, and supported by consideration; Case A enforcing a three-year covenant; Case B voiding a covenant signed weeks after hire. Reasoning: the statute controls; Case A predates the amendment and is no longer reliable, so say so rather than citing it as support; apply elements to the File - signed offer letter, employment as consideration distinguishing Case B, eighteen-month term. Conclusion: likely enforceable; note any unresolved fact.
Traps that cost marks
Fact recitation without rule application; importing outside law; ignoring the unfavorable case; writing persuasively when asked for objective analysis; omitting headings; burying the answer under background; answering a question the memo did not ask.