Legal Research, Writing, and Ethics
This domain tests practical lawyering: finding and validating authority, writing it persuasively, and complying with professional conduct rules.
Research
Start with secondary sources to frame the issue, then move to statutes and annotated codes, regulations, and controlling cases. Verify with a citator to catch negative subsequent history and overruling. Distinguish mandatory from persuasive authority, and confirm jurisdiction and date before citing.
Writing
Use CREAC: conclusion, rule, explanation, application, conclusion. Draft point headings that are full sentences, roadmap the argument early, and write in active voice with precise verbs. Quote only when the exact language matters; otherwise paraphrase and cite.
Ethics
Competence includes technological competence; diligence and communication are continuing duties. Confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6 is broader than privilege. Concurrent conflicts under Rule 1.7 require informed consent when the representation is not prohibited; former-client conflicts arise under Rule 1.9 when matters are substantially related. Rule 3.3 requires disclosing adverse controlling authority in the governing jurisdiction. Trust funds go in a separate account with no commingling.
Worked example
You locate an appellate decision from a neighboring district contrary to your position. Rule 3.3 does not require citing every adverse case; it requires disclosing adverse controlling authority in your jurisdiction. Cite it, then distinguish it on its facts or note its persuasive weight only if it is genuinely on point - silence about controlling adverse authority is a candor violation.
Traps
- Equating confidentiality with attorney-client privilege.
- Assuming client consent cures every conflict.
- Overlooking a citator's negative treatment.
- Depositing client funds into an operating account.