The Multistate Performance Tests (MPTs) count for 20% of a candidate’s overall score on the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and is designed to test the candidate’s practical, fundamental lawyering skills. Before the bar exam, read through the Bar Examiners’ overview of the MPT at http://www.ncbex.org/exams/mpt/preparing/ and the actual MPT instructions contained on the fifth page of this packet.
Possible Assignments Candidates may be asked to complete a range of tasks, including a memorandum to a supervising attorney, a letter to a client, a persuasive memorandum or brief, a statement of facts, a contract provision, a will, a counseling plan, a proposal for settlement or agreement, a discovery plan, a witness examination plan, a closing argument, a leave behind, or an early dispute resolution statement. Don’t worry if you’ve never drafted any or all of the assignments before. The bar examiners are not expecting you to apply any existing knowledge as to how these documents should be written. Rather, they are hoping to test your ability to follow instructions, write clearly, and organize logically.
Most Common Assignments Since 2005
Of the 59 MPTs administered since 2005, there have been:
30 Memoranda (51%)
14 Briefs (24%)
11 Letters (19%)
1 Articles of Association (1.5%)
1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (1.5%)
1 “Leave Behind” (1.5%)
1 Early Dispute Resolution Statement (1.5%)
One of the memos was a “Case Planning Memo,” and others have required the candidate to draft causes of action, a closing argument, contract provisions, arbitration provisions, and an association agreement.
Best Way to Get Additional Practice: 1) Select an MPT from the list on the following page, keeping in mind that the MPTs from July 2008 to February 2013 are available free of charge on the NCBEX website (you could select a more recent exam, but the NCBEX will charge $25 to download MPTs from the past 5 years).
2) Visit http://www.ncbex.org/about-ncbe-exams/mpt/preparing-for-the-mpt/ to print the
MPT and its point sheet (NCBEX hyperlinks can be temperamental, in which case, just start at ncbex.org, and click the “About NCBE Exams” link, etc.).
3) Write the MPT in 90 minutes.
4) Review the point sheet and “above average” answers for the MPT you completed. https://www.gabaradmissions.org/essay-and-mpt-questions-and-selected-answers and http://www.nybarexam.org/ExamQuestions/ExamQuestions.htm are great sources for above average student answers, but keep in mind that New York only used one of the MPTs on each of its bar exams prior to July 2016, so it will only have answers for half of the prior MPTs.
Prior MPTs Feb ’19 – State of Franklin Department of Children and Families v. Little Tots Child Care Center – Argument section of a brief in support of a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Franklin Department of Children and Families from revoking a license to operate a child care center.
Feb ’19 – In re Remick - Objective memorandum analyzing whether a client has a viable negligence claim against a “Good Samaritan” who assisted him when his car was stalled on the highway.
July ’18 – State of Franklin v. Hale – Brief in opposition to defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis that the prosecution failed to disclose Brady material and that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce hearsay statements despite the defendant’s claim of spousal privilege.
July ’18 – Rugby Owners & Players Association – Draft portions of the ROPA’s Articles of Association dealing with the association’s governance (e.g., quorum requirements, voting rules, filling vacancies on the board, naming a chair, apportioning revenue, and amending the articles), and explain each recommendation and how its language comports with both Franklin law and the clients’ wishes.
Feb ’18 – State of Franklin v. Clegane – Brief in support of the reading of victim-impact statements and requests for restitution, as authorized under the Franklin Crime Victims’ Rights Act (FCVRA), at the sentencing hearing for defendant Greg Clegane.
Feb ’18 – In re Hastings - Memo analyzing whether Danielle Hastings, a director on the board of directors for Municipal Utility District No. 12, can apply for and hold the county election judge position or the precinct chair position while maintaining her position on the board.
July ’17 - Peek et al. v. Doris Stern and Allied Behavioral Health Services - Brief on whether employees of a private firm hired by a county to run its probation department would constitute state actors for purposes of bringing a class action suit alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
July ’17 - In re Zimmer Farm – Objective memo whether the noise from a bird rescue project started by a farmer’s son amounted to a nuisance about which taxpayers were complaining
Feb ’17 - In re Ace Chemical – Objective memorandum analyzing three potential conflicts of interest, using the law to determine whether a conflict of interest exists and, if so, how the Firm should handle the conflict, and whether there is any action that the firm could take to ameliorate the conflict Feb ’17 - In re Guardianship of Henry King – Draft a proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a guardianship case in order to prevent the client’s brother from being named guardian July ’16 - In re Whirley - Objective memorandum setting out client’s case on the options available to pursue claims for breach of an implied warranty of “tenantability” requiring legal and factual analysis on a defect-by-defect basis July ’16 - Nash v. Franklin Department of Revenue - Legal arguments of a brief going to the Franklin Tax Court applying law to determine when a business is profitable and thus entitled to set off losses against tax deductions Feb ’16 - In re Anderson - Objective memorandum analyzing whether client would be considered an employee or an independent contractor under Franklin’s Worker’s Compensation Law
Feb ’16 - Miller v. Trapp - Draft a demand letter (persuasive) detailing grounds for client’s assault and battery claims, along with a brief memo (objective) explaining whether the client could expect to recover compensatory and punitive damages
July ’15 - In re Bryan Carr - Objective Letter to client advising him about his potential liability for certain credit card purchases made by his father
July ’15 - In re Franklin Aces - Objective Letter to client re: whether client has claim for copyright infringement against owner of sports team for unauthorized use of his design for a team logo
Feb ’15 - In re Harrison - Objective Memorandum re: theories of inverse condemnation when client’s application to have property rezoned has been denied
Feb ’15 - In re Community General Hospital - Persuasive Letter to government about client’s disclosures of patient health information without the patients’ consent in violation of HIPPA
July ’14 - In re Kay Struckman - Objective Memorandum to employer re: whether client’s proposed modification of retainer agreement to include an arbitration clause is ethical under the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct
July ’14 - In re Linda Duram - Persuasive Letter to the human resources department of an employer on behalf of an employee whose request for FMLA leave was rejected and who was threatened with termination
Feb ’14 - In re Rowan – Persuasive Brief on Appeal following denial of petition to obtain permanent U.S. residency following a non‐resident’s divorce
Feb ’14 - In re Peterson Engineering Consultants - Objective Memorandum to employer re: how to advise corporate client re: client’s policies on employee use of technology
July ’13 - Monroe v. Franklin Flags Amusement Park - Persuasive Argument Section of a Brief in support of a motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s negligence claims against firm’s client
July ’13 - Palindrome Recording Contract - Objective Memorandum to employer requiring bar candidate to re‐draft provisions of proposed recording contract
Feb ’13 - In re Wendy Martel - Opinion Letter to client (who is herself an attorney) identifying the ethical issues raised by her client’s insistence that no portion of the client’s settlement fees be shared with another attorney who worked on the case
Feb ’13 - In re Guardianship of Will Fox - Brief in Support of Motion to Transfer an action from a Franklin state court to a tribal court
July ’12 - State of Franklin v. Soper - Objective Bench Memorandum for a judge (the applicant is the judge’s clerk) that will help prepare the judge for an evidentiary hearing in a homicide prosecution
July ’12 - Ashton v. Indigo Construction Co. - Persuasive Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction on nuisance claim
Feb ’12 - Franklin Resale Royalties Legislation - Persuasive “Leave Behind” document that will convince legislators to vote in favor of legislation proposed by client
Feb ’12 - In re WPE Property Development, Inc. - Objective Letter to corporate client’s CEO analyzing the potential consequences of not filing a breach of contract complaint and possible theories of recovery after the statute of limitations period has run
July ’11 - In re Field Hogs, Inc. - Objective Memorandum analyzing whether an arbitration clause would protect client against tort claims, also requiring applicants to draft an arbitration clause
July ’11 - In re Social Networking Inquiry - Persuasive Memorandum to bar association arguing that using the social networking pages of a nonparty, unrepresented witness in a personal injury lawsuit would violate the Franklin Rules of Professional Responsibility.
Feb ’11 - Butler v. Hill ‐ Objective Memorandum and Persuasive Closing Argument regarding validity of client’s marriage
Feb ’11 - In re Magnolia County - Objective Memorandum re: whether a county’s condemnation action to acquire an easement would be preempted by a federal statute
July ‘10 ‐ In re Hammond ‐ Brief in Support of Motion to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum compelling an attorney to appear at a grand jury
July ’10 - City of Ontario - Objective Memorandum re: whether a court would grant preclusive effect to the city Liquor Control Commission’s decisions to grant or deny liquor licenses and recommending changes
Feb ‘10 ‐ State of Franklin v. McLain ‐ Persuasive Brief in Support of Motion to Suppress Evidence and in Support of Motion to Dismiss drug charge
Feb ’10 - Logan v. Rios - Objective Early Dispute Resolution Statement for client who owns toy store and has been sued by customer who slipped in a puddle of water in the store
July ‘09 ‐ Jackson v. Franklin Sports Gazette, Inc. ‐ Objective Memorandum on whether cause of action under Franklin’s right of publicity statute exists
July ’09 - In re City of Bluewater - Persuasive Letter responding to adversary’s attorney arguing that the City has the exclusive right to provide water and sewer service to area to be annexed by the City Feb ’09 - Phoenix Corporation v. Biogenesis, Inc. - Objective Memorandum evaluating the merits of motion to disqualify a law firm for improperly handling documents protected by the attorney-client privilege
Feb ’09 ‐ Ronald v. DMV ‐ Persuasive Memorandum on reasonable suspicion and blood alcohol content
July ’08 - Bohmer v. Bohmer - Objective Memorandum re: whether a Franklin court might agree that a client’s child custody dispute should be heard by a state of Columbia court based on the Franklin Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)
July ’08 ‐ Williams v. A‐1 Automotive Center ‐ Objective Memorandum on whether statements of auto repair shop owner are actionable and requiring bar candidate to draft causes of action for fraud claims
Feb ’08 - In re Velocity Park - Objective Memorandum identifying problems with client’s liability waiver and suggesting replacement for the waiver
Feb ’08 ‐ In re Lisa Peel - Objective Memorandum on whether blogger can be considered a "reporter" under the Franklin Reporter Shield Act
July ’07 ‐ Acme Resources, Inc. v. Robert Black Hawk et al. ‐ Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or to Dismiss or Stay on Jurisdictional Grounds
July ’07 - In re Mistover Acres LLC - Objective Memorandum evaluating client’s personal liability for aerial pesticide spraying by an LLC of which she is a member
Feb ’07 - In re Tamara Shea - Objective Memorandum re: whether client can maintain claims against property owner for breach of brokerage contract and against property purchaser for interference with contractual relations or interference with prospective economic advantage
Feb ’07 ‐ Glickman v. Phoenix Cycles, Inc. ‐ Persuasive Letter on client’s Family and Medical Leave Act Claims
July ’06 ‐ Larson Real Estate ‐ Objective Memorandum on real estate disclosure requirements
July ’06 - Parker v. Essex - Persuasive Memorandum to firm’s supervising ethics partner arguing that firm should not be disqualified from representing singer in case in which a firm associate had done some legal work for the firm’s adversary when working for another employer
Feb ’06 - Harris v. CBL - Objective Memorandum re: whether client owns copyright and whether he granted adversary an implied nonexclusive license to use it
Feb ’06 ‐ State of Franklin v. Butler ‐ Brief in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena of testimony of a mediator
July ’05 - In re Clarke Corporation - Opinion Letter re: client’s potential liability under the product line successor rule
July ’05 ‐ In re Brigham ‐ Letter Brief to zoning board in support of petition for use variance
Feb ’05 ‐ In re Rose Kingsley ‐ Objective Memorandum on attorney fee‐splitting agreements
Feb ’05 - Reynolds v. Preferred Medical Providers - Persuasive Letter to client’s insurance company’s attorney rejecting a demand to arbitrate and arguing why the Federal Arbitration Act and the Medicare Act do not preempt a state statute
Feb ’05 - In re Barnett - Objective memorandum explaining how and why apartment owner violated statutes prohibiting housing discrimination and whether clients are entitled to damages
Actual MPT Instructions
You will be instructed when to begin and when to stop this test. Do not break the seal on this booklet until you are told to begin. This test is designed to evaluate your ability to handle a select number of legal authorities in the context of a factual problem involving a client.
The problem is set in the fictitious state of Franklin, in the fictitious Fifteenth Circuit of the United States. Columbia and Olympia are also fictitious states in the Fifteenth Circuit. In Franklin, the trial court of general jurisdiction is the District Court, the intermediate appellate court is the Court of Appeal, and the highest court is the Supreme Court.
You will have two kinds of materials with which to work: a File and a Library. The first document in the File is a memorandum containing the instructions for the task you are to complete. The other documents in the File contain factual information about your case and may include some facts that are not relevant.
The Library contains the legal authorities needed to complete the task and may also include some authorities that are not relevant. Any cases may be real, modified, or written solely for the purpose of this examination. If the cases appear familiar to you, do not assume that they are precisely the same as you have read before. Read them thoroughly, as if they all were new to you. You should assume that the cases were decided in the jurisdictions and on the dates shown. In citing cases from the Library, you may use abbreviations and omit page references.
Your response must be written in the answer book provided. If you are using a laptop computer to answer the questions, your jurisdiction will provide you with specific instructions. In answering this performance test, you should concentrate on the materials in the File and Library. What you have learned in law school and elsewhere provides the general background for analyzing the problem; the File and Library provide the specific materials with which you must work.
Although there are no restrictions on how you apportion your time, you should allocate approximately half your time to reading and digesting the materials and to organizing your answer before you begin writing it. You may make notes anywhere in the test materials; blank pages are provided at the end of the booklet. You may not tear pages from the question booklet.
Do not include your actual name anywhere in the work product required by the task memorandum.
This performance test will be graded on your responsiveness to the instructions regarding the task you are to complete, which are given to you in the first memorandum in the File, and on the content, thoroughness, and organization of your response. 12 Suggestions for Success on the MPT: 1. Know the Instructions, Including the Court Structure of Franklin.
2. Precisely Follow Instructions in the “Task Memo” and any “Format Memo.”
3. Be Organized, and If There Is No Format Memo, Use Point Headings.
4. Use the Task Memo and the Cases as a Framework for your Outline.
5. Read the Task Memo and any Format Memo First, then SKIP TO THE CASES. Following the Cases, Go back to the Facts, and then Read the Statutes Last.
6. Ask Yourself What the Significance of the Assignment is Before You Write. i.e. What’s Happening in the Big Picture
7. Pay Attention to any Tests or Relevant Statutes in the Cases – They’re
likely useful.
8. Anticipate You Will Be Successful on Behalf of Your Employer and the
Client, But Use Your Common Sense. Better than 80% of the time you will be able to formulate a successful argument, but don’t force what isn’t there, and never ignore facts or law that are against your position.
9. Cite to the Relevant Sources, but Use Abbreviations – There is no need
for page numbers, full citations, or Bluebooking.
10.Begin with a 1‐4 Sentence Intro Identifying the Document and Any Procedural Posture.
11.Finish – a polished half‐answer will not score as high as a mediocre
complete answer, so do the best you can to finish within the time you have to write.
12.Synthesize, Don’t Summarize ‐ Don’t simply string together a series of
block quotations or case summaries; remember to write.
