Appellate Brief Rubric*

_____________/48

Score on assignment = _____________/96

(*Points /48 must be doubled)

Highly Proficient Proficient Developing Beginning

1
 In addition to full compliance with
(7 points) (2) Statement of the Case, (3) Statement ofBasic Brief Components: (1) Statement of
each applicable Local Rule, each basic
brief component demonstrates
effective persuasive techniques,
appropriately and accurately
incorporating specific facts and
reference to the law consistently in
the Issue,
ways that favor the client. Each
component clearly communicates its
intended information, and the basic
brief components present a solid
foundation for the argument,
providing support for the substance
of the argument. There is a
persuasive theme and it is used
effectively, where appropriate, in the
basic components. Organizational
choices make sense and support the
underlying content of each basic brief
component. Overall, these
components are crisp, sophisticated,
and properly detailed.
6-7 points
Facts,
ent, (5) Conclusion
Each component evaluated here is
written in accordance with the
applicable Local Rule. There are
signs of sophisticated choices in
organization, use of facts,
incorporation of law, and other
persuasive techniques, though not
consistently throughout all
components. Despite some minor
weaknesses, each component is
persuasive in tone, with clear
evidence of which side is
represented through the brief.
Though a theme is present, it may
be underdeveloped in some of the
components. For the most part,
sound organizational choices
support the underlying content of
each basic brief component, but
there may be some over- or under-
detailed content, or some lack of
crispness.
3-5 points
2
Each basic brief component is
legitimately attempted, but several
components fall short in that they
could have been presented more
persuasively. Some of the ways to
fall short here include the following:
necessary information is omitted,
signs of poor or no organizational
choices, objective tone, failure to
comply with the applicable Local
Rule requirements for content.
There is a hint at a theme, but most
basic brief components do not
successfully incorporate the theme.
Weak organizational choices
pervade several of the components.
2 points
One or more basic brief components
are missing from the brief or one or
more are so poorly executed, they
offer little to the reader. A failure to
understand the purposes of the basic
brief components is evident from the
poor execution of one of more basic
brief components. There is no clear
theme, or the theme used is so poorly
executed as to detract from the
strength of the basic brief
components, or the theme may be
erroneous on the facts or law. There
is little to no evidence of
organizational choice and there are
errors or misstatements of law or
facts, or both.
1 point
 Highly Proficient
The argument section is well-
Argument / Point Headings (7
organized by issue/ argument and
Organizational Choice in
sub- argument, and generally follows
TREAT. Any variations on TREAT
reflect strategic and persuasive
rationale, and support the overall
persuasive strength of the argument
or sub-argument. No paragraphs
begin with “In X case;” Rule and
Explanation sentences and
paragraphs are organized from
general to specific; and Application
sections are organized into
points)
paragraphs mirroring the organized
RE principles (rather than case by
case or fact by fact). The argument
includes umbrella/introductory
paragraphs where appropriate and
the umbrella paragraphs are used
effectively and persuasively.
Roadmaps are used as an
opportunity to reinforce the
argument, rather than present an
objective list of what follows. Point
headings are parallel, succinct,
complete (legal conclusion + LSFs),
and persuasively written. A reader
has a clear and persuasive sense of
the argument by reading just the
point headings. Organizational
choices and content of point
headings further develop and
support the theme.
6-7 points
Proficient
A concerted effort has been made at
organization and TREAT. However,
some arguments or elements could
be better placed and there is an
overall lack of crispness between
arguments, RE and RA, or the
issue(s). There may be rare
instances of the following:
paragraphs beginning with “In X
case;” RE sentences or paragraphs
organized other than general to
specific; A sections organized by
facts or authorities, rather than by
principle. On the whole,
umbrella/introductory paragraphs
are used where appropriate to
introduce subdivisions and are
constructed in a persuasive manner;
there are some signs of objective
tone in the roadmaps, but not
enough to detract from the strength
of the argument. Point headings are
strong but could be improved by
more explicit fact content, a more
streamlined structure, or more
obviously persuasive tone. There
are some signs of the theme in the
organizational choices and point
headings, but the theme could be
better or more clearly developed.
3-5 points
3
Developing
The argument overall is confusingly
structured. Rules and Explanation
on the issues are often blurred.
Organizational aspects of TREAT are
not as well-executed as papers in
the category to the left, suggesting
failure to consider organizational
choices or poorly executed
organizational choices. There may
be pervasive use of “In X case,” to
begin paragraphs, and for the most
part, the application sections are
organized around facts or
authorities, rather than by principle
(following the RE).
Where appropriate,
umbrella/introductory paragraphs
are legitimately attempted, but lack
clarity, or are overly objective, or fail
to include a persuasive roadmap.
Point headings are clear but suffer
substantively, structurally, or lack a
persuasive tone. There may be hints
at the theme, but not enough to
indicate clearly to the reader that
was intentional.
2 points
Beginning
The argument demonstrates a lack of
organizational method. For example,
there is no distinction among the R, E,
and A and/or information related to
R and E is definitely blended or
blurred (when that is inappropriate
given the legal issues). The
Application sections are case-by-case
or fact-by-fact rather than
synthesized and organized by RE
principle. There is a weak attempt to
include umbrella/introductory
paragraphs where appropriate; they
are so confusingly written as to
detract from the strength of the
argument. Any roadmaps are
presented objectively. Or there are
no umbrella/introductory
paragraphs and no roadmaps, and
using them would have contributed
to the strength of the argument’s
organization. Point headings lack
structural and substantive clarity.
There is no sign of the theme in the
organizational choices of the
argument and crafting of point
headings.
1 point
 Highly Proficient
The paper explains rules thoroughly
Sophistication of Argument
but pointedly in favor of the party
represented; a deep understanding of
the legal issues is evident in the
(11 points)
rhetoric, structure, and content of the
argument. The argument is
enhanced with policy rationales and
other non-rule-based authority, if
appropriate and persuasive. Counter-
arguments are anticipated,
persuasively addressed and analyzed
to further support the party’s
position. Counter-arguments are
incorporated into the primary
argument, rather than presented as
what the other side may argue,
followed by a response. The
appropriate standard(s) of review is
used to frame the argument; the
standard is infused effectively and
persuasively throughout the
argument (e.g., explaining how the
court should view the facts and legal
analysis below, and demonstrating to
the court how to rule within the
standard of review).
9-11 points
Proficient
The paper demonstrates solid
command of the legal issues, but
persuasive techniques are lacking at
times (rhetorically or substantively).
Better choices could have been
made in terms of explaining or
supporting the position and some
lack of sensitivity to factual nuances
in the problem is apparent. The
paper is solid but fine-tuning is
necessary, e.g., more persuasive
analysis of counter-arguments. The
appropriate standard(s) of review is
included in the argument and there
are signs of the standard
incorporated into the argument.
There are also missed opportunities
to frame the argument within the
standard of review (e.g., not
explicitly linking the standard to
how the court should view the facts
and legal analysis below, or not
explaining how the court should use
the standard in ruling on the case).
5-8 points
4
Developing
The paper demonstrates a rather
surface-level understanding of the
legal issues and factual nuances.
The legal arguments are correct but
overall could be deeper and more
compelling in content and
presentation. There are few if any
misstatements of law or fact, but the
end result is lack-luster in some
respects. E.g., it may be, at times,
confusing, overly conclusory, or
under-appreciative of factual
details. The appropriate standard of
review(s) is included in the
argument, but it is, on the whole, left
out of the substance of the
argument and used merely as a
statement of the applicable
standard of review. There are signs
of legitimate attempts to
incorporate the standard of review
into the argument, but these
attempts are underdeveloped (e.g.,
merely restating the standard).
3-4 points
Beginning
The arguments either lack significant
content or are confusingly presented
so as to mask such content. They
generally fall flat, or are under-
explored/explained, and these
deficiencies are more pervasive than
in papers that fall into the Developing
range. Factual details are overlooked
and/or misunderstood. Some lack of
command of the legal issues and/or
problem in general is evident. The
appropriate standard of review(s) is
included in the argument, but it is
completely left out of the substance
of the argument and used merely as a
statement of the applicable standard
of review. Or the paper fails to
identify the standard of review, or the
wrong standard of review is
identified.
1-2 points
 Highly Proficient
The paper demonstrates strong and
Argument (11 points)
Use of Authorities in
comprehensive research ability and
nuanced reading of the applicable
law. Authorities are well-selected,
analyzed, and not over-quoted. They
are used accurately to define, explain,
and apply the rules and sub-rules.
Persuasive authority is used in a
sophisticated and appropriate
manner. Authorities are synthesized
to demonstrate an understanding of
the legal arguments present in the
brief. Analogies and distinctions are
illuminating, nuanced and well-
crafted; they are explicit and
expressly compare and contrast to
the facts of the case in specific and
helpful ways and are used to support
the legal arguments/conclusions.
Analogies and distinctions are
supported not only by factual
content, but by clear and substantive
inclusion of the court’s rationale to
support the conclusion drawn in the
brief. The brief appropriately and
persuasively incorporates the lower
court’s opinion, referencing it as
necessary in framing and organizing
the arguments.
9-11 points
Proficient
The paper demonstrates strong
command of the research.
Authorities are used accurately but
at times not effectively. E.g., key
authorities are present but are
quoted where deeper analysis is
necessary resulting in some
unsynthesized RE; there is room for
further research, or even when best
authorities are selected, they might
have been further pushed or
probed; analogies and distinctions
are strong but could be more
explicitly tied to conclusions and
could more effectively focus on
nuanced factual similarities and
distinctions. There may be some
lack of rationale to support the
conclusion for why the analogy or
distinction matters to the argument.
Some factual comparisons or
contrasts may be narrowly drawn,
missing an opportunity for broader
application, resulting in a shallow
analysis, but this is rare. Persuasive
authority is used appropriately and
accurately as a buttress to
mandatory authority (vs. treated as
equal to mandatory authority). For
the most part, the brief
appropriately and persuasively
incorporates the lower court’s
opinion, referencing it as necessary
in framing and organizing the
arguments.
5-8 points
5
Developing Beginning
The paper demonstrates a weak The paper does not demonstrate
command of the research, either by adequate research, and/or misses a
failure to use the authorities major element of the problem. E.g.,
effectively, failure to use appropriate key cases are omitted and/or used
and relevant authorities, or both. incorrectly. There are insufficient
Unsynthesized R, E, and A pervades factual comparisons, and/or any
the argument, and persuasive comparisons that were made are
authority is treated as mandatory uniformly weak. Overall, it seems that
with no argument for how or why the student has not gotten her “hands
the court should rely on those dirty” with the authorities (and
persuasive authorities. Analogies perhaps the problem overall).
and distinctions are Conclusory statements (conclusions
underdeveloped and are not without legal support) pervade the
persuasively constructed; nuances analysis and generalizations
are repeatedly overlooked and characterize the case comparisons.
presumptions that are not fully The lower court’s opinion is not
supported are made. Factual incorporated into the brief.
comparisons and contrasts are often
narrowly structured; this narrow
view of the facts in the precedent
cases results in a shallow analysis
and missed opportunities at
persuasion. A paper falls into this
range if it fails to identify or analyze
one or more minor sub-arguments.
An attempt is made to incorporate
the lower court’s opinion, but the
opinion is not effectively used to
frame and organize the arguments.
Or there may be a misstatement or
misinterpretation of the lower
court’s opinion.
3-4 points 1-2 points
 Highly Proficient
Writing is fluid and sophisticated;
Writing Style (7 points)
language is polished and fine-tuned;
paragraphs are tightly-crafted.
Thesis/topic sentences are used
effectively and consistently, and
paragraphs support them.
Substantive and generic transitions
within and between paragraphs are
well-executed, making the brief a
pleasure to read. The paper contains
few, if any, errors in style, grammar,
or punctuation.
6-7 points
Citation is used appropriately and
(5 points)Citation and Formatting
consistently throughout the
document. Sources can be readily
identified based on the information
included in the citation. The paper
demonstrates knowledge of citation
rules and an awareness of the
significance of pointing the reader to
legal authorities. Proper full and
short pincites; proper quotes. There
are no formatting issues (per the
Local Rules).
5 points
Proficient
Writing overall is crisp and clear, but
word choice/syntax could be
improved in places and/or
ratcheted up or down in terms of
persuasion. Thesis/topic sentences
are generally used effectively, but
not always. Similarly, though on the
whole transitions are well-done,
there are some places lacking
transitions or some transitions
could be more effectively executed.
Errors in writing or proofreading do
not detract from readability or
interfere with the overall strength of
the argument.
3-5 points
Some noticeable errors in citation
format, but these errors do not
predominate. Reader generally
would be able to locate source
material. Importantly, citations are
placed well (irrespective of
occasional technical errors). There
are at most a small handful of
formatting issues (per the Local
Rules), but these are minor, limited,
and/or not distracting.
3-4 points
Developing Beginning
The paper comports with basic The paper on the whole is difficult to
grammar rules but lacks flow read and understand given pervasive
because of failure to use transitions, stylistic errors, such as failure to
poor paragraphing, sentence adhere to rules of grammar or
structure, etc. Though there may be punctuation. Or, there are so many
evidence of proofreading, the paper technical errors in the paper that the
suffers from enough easily-avoided reader is frequently distracted from
errors to distract the reader from the content. There is evidence the
the analysis, but these are student did not have time to
occasional, not pervasive flaws. proofread.
2 points 1 point
Cites are underused or missing in obvious places.
AND/OR: There are enough errors that the reader questions whether legal
authorities support writer’s prediction/analysis.
AND/OR: Citation formatting is problematic enough that reader would have
difficulty locating sources.
AND/OR: Formatting errors (per the Local Rules) are more than a handful,
more than minor, or distracting.
1-2 points