NALS ALP common mistakes
NALS ALP · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Citing a statute, rule, or case by memory in a written answer without verifying the exact section number, subsection, or citation format before finalizing the document.
Candidates study legal concepts in outline form and practice recall of holdings rather than citation mechanics, so under time pressure they reconstruct citations from memory and drop subsections, misstate section numbers, or use an outdated citation convention.
What to do instead
Build a personal citation checklist for each document type you produce (memo, pleading caption, notice, client letter) and run every citation through it before submission. Practice writing three or four full documents with a rulebook open, then repeat the same documents closed-book and compare against the checklist. Treat any citation you cannot verify as a placeholder to be confirmed, never as finished text.
Answering ethics questions with what feels fair or efficient in the scenario rather than applying the specific rule of professional conduct that governs the situation, such as the duty of confidentiality versus the duty to disclose.
Candidates rely on general impressions of right and wrong, which are usually correct in direction but wrong in the specific rule, scope, or exception the question tests. They also confuse related duties like confidentiality, privilege, and the duty to keep the client informed.
What to do instead
Create a one-page matrix of the core duties (competence, confidentiality, conflicts, communication, fees, supervision, candor) with the trigger facts and the exceptions for each. For every practice ethics question, write the rule name and the exception before choosing an answer, and review any question where your reasoning did not name a rule.
Mixing up the sequence of civil procedure steps, for example placing a responsive pleading before service, or applying the wrong deadline to an answer or motion response.
Procedure is learned as a list of topics rather than a timeline, and many candidates memorize deadlines without anchoring them to the triggering event that starts the clock.
What to do instead
Draw a single timeline from intake to judgment and annotate each step with its triggering event and deadline. Redo practice questions by first identifying the triggering event, then the deadline, then the consequence. Rebuild the timeline from memory weekly until the sequence is automatic.
Drafting client correspondence or internal memos that state conclusions without the facts, authority, or reasoning that support them, producing documents that read as opinion rather than legal analysis.
Candidates focus on finishing the document and demonstrating the answer, so they skip the structure that makes legal writing persuasive and verifiable, especially under timed conditions.
What to do instead
Use a fixed skeleton for every analytical document: issue, governing rule, application to the facts, conclusion. Draft the rule and application sections first, then write the conclusion to match. Practice writing short memos where every sentence either states a fact, states a rule, or connects the two, and delete anything that does neither.
Treating the unauthorized practice of law and the scope of a paralegal's role as a single rule, and therefore giving advice or selecting documents for a client when the correct behaviour is to relay information or refer the decision to the supervising attorney.
The line between explaining a process and giving legal advice is subtle, and candidates answer based on what a helpful employee would do rather than where the role boundary sits in the scenario's facts.
What to do instead
Write out three parallel columns for common client interactions: what a paralegal may do, what requires attorney direction, and what must be refused and escalated. Practice classifying scenario actions into those columns, and for each refusal write the exact sentence you would use to redirect the client to the attorney.
Ignoring conflict-of-interest screening at intake, such as failing to check whether the firm already represents an adverse party or whether a prior consultation created a conflict.
Candidates treat conflicts as a dramatic scenario reserved for large matters and overlook routine screening steps that occur before any substantive legal work begins.
What to do instead
Memorize the intake checklist as an ordered sequence: identify all parties and related entities, run the conflict search, document the result, and flag any prior contact with the firm. Practice with short fact patterns where the conflict is buried in a related entity or a former client, and state in writing which rule applies and what step follows.
Failing to protect confidential client information in everyday office technology use, such as emailing documents without encryption, sharing passwords, or discussing a matter on unsecured channels.
Candidates separate ethics from office technology and answer technology questions on convenience and speed, missing that confidentiality obligations extend to how information is stored and transmitted.
What to do instead
Map each common task (sending a draft, storing files, remote access, disposing of documents) to the confidentiality duty it implicates and the safeguard required. For practice questions, identify the information at risk first, then the safeguard, then the rule that imposes it, and review any answer where you chose speed over protection.
Misreading the call of the question, for example answering which party prevails when the question asks which motion should be filed, or choosing the best answer when the question asks for the exception.
Under time pressure candidates read the facts, form an impression, and select the answer matching that impression without returning to the final line of the prompt.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed reading order: read the last line first, then the facts, then the last line again. Underline or note the exact task word (file, prevail, except, most likely) before evaluating options. In review, tag every missed question by whether the cause was knowledge or misread task, and track the ratio.
Producing documents with formatting and caption defects, such as a missing case number, incorrect party designations, or an improperly formatted signature block, that would cause rejection at filing.
Candidates concentrate on the substance of the document and treat the caption, certificate of service, and signature block as boilerplate to be filled in later, so structural errors survive to the final draft.
What to do instead
Create a document assembly checklist that starts with the caption and ends with the certificate of service, and complete those sections first rather than last. Practice assembling a full filing from a blank page within a time limit, then audit it against the checklist before comparing to a model.
Managing time by allocating equal effort across all questions, so the candidate runs out of time on the final section or rushes questions that carry the same weight as ones already answered carefully.
Candidates do not know their own pace per domain and do not practice under exam timing, so they discover the shortage only in the last minutes.
What to do instead
Take two timed practice sections and record minutes per question by domain. Set a per-question ceiling for your slowest domain and a checkpoint time for the halfway mark. Practice the discipline of flagging a question, moving on, and returning only after all questions are answered once.