sboghossian Justinian — Legal Essay Grader
When to use this
Use this skill when:
- A student submits a practice essay or exam answer for grading
- A trainer needs consistent, rubric-based feedback across multiple submissions
- A bar candidate wants scored mock answers with a model answer comparison
- A law professor or TA wants automated first-pass scoring before human review
This skill grades the written output; [[justinian-irac-coach]] coaches interactively during drafting. Use both: coach first, then grade the final draft.
Inputs required
- Student essay — the full text to be graded
- Fact pattern / question — what the essay was supposed to address
- Student level —
1L,2L/3L,bar candidate, ortrainee lawyer(defaults tobar candidateif unspecified) - Jurisdiction (optional) — if the question tested a specific jurisdiction's law, note it so rule-accuracy scoring is calibrated
Grading dimensions
Six dimensions, each scored 0–10.
1. Issue spotting (0–10)
Did the student identify all legally significant issues?
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | All major and minor issues spotted; hierarchy correct |
| 7–8 | All major issues spotted; one minor issue missed |
| 5–6 | Most major issues; one major issue missed |
| 3–4 | Multiple major issues missed |
| 1–2 | Only surface issue spotted |
| 0 | No issue identification at all |
Grader action: List every issue the fact pattern contained. Mark each as (spotted / missed / partially addressed). Deduct proportionally.
2. Rule statement (0–10)
Is each rule accurate, complete (all elements), and properly sourced?
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Accurate, complete, sourced (statute / principle / leading case) |
| 7–8 | Accurate + mostly complete; minor element omitted or source missing |
| 5–6 | Partially accurate; key element misstated or wrong statute cited |
| 3–4 | Rule present but substantially inaccurate or missing elements |
| 1–2 | Only a vague reference to a legal concept |
| 0 | No rule stated |
MENA-specific calibration: Verify that the student cited the correct instrument (e.g., distinguishing UAE Federal Decree-Law 33/2021 Arts. 9–10 for non-competes from DIFC Employment Law, or the Lebanon Code of Obligations and Contracts from a French Civil Code article).
3. Application (0–10)
Does the student tie each rule element to specific facts?
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Element-by-element analysis; specific facts quoted; both sides considered where facts permit |
| 7–8 | Most elements applied to facts; one element argued abstractly |
| 5–6 | Facts mentioned but connection to elements unclear; one-sided |
| 3–4 | Rule restated; facts paraphrased; no genuine connection drawn |
| 1–2 | Conclusion jumps over analysis |
| 0 | No application attempted |
4. Conclusion (0–10)
Is the bottom line clear and does it follow from the application?
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Clear per-issue conclusion; overall disposition stated; logically derived |
| 7–8 | Clear on most issues; one conclusion weakly supported |
| 5–6 | Conclusion present but introduces reasoning not in Application |
| 3–4 | Hedged to point of uselessness or contradicts Application |
| 1–2 | Only final words without reasoning |
| 0 | No conclusion |
5. Organization (0–10)
Is the IRAC structure visible? Does the essay flow logically?
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | IRAC clear per issue; headings or clear structure; issues in priority order |
| 7–8 | Good structure; one issue buried or out of sequence |
| 5–6 | Loose structure; reader can follow but work is needed |
| 3–4 | IRAC parts mixed together; hard to follow |
| 1–2 | Stream-of-consciousness; no discernible structure |
| 0 | Completely unstructured |
6. Writing quality (0–10)
Is the prose clear, concise, and grammatically correct?
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Clear, concise, professional; no errors |
| 7–8 | Generally clear; occasional run-on or awkward phrase |
| 5–6 | Understandable but wordy or grammatically inconsistent |
| 3–4 | Clarity impedes comprehension |
| 1–2 | Frequent errors; difficult to parse |
| 0 | Unintelligible |
Score format
OVERALL: [0–100] (computed as sum of six dimension scores × 10/6 — rounded to nearest integer)
ISSUE SPOTTING: [X/10]
RULE STATEMENT: [X/10]
APPLICATION: [X/10]
CONCLUSION: [X/10]
ORGANIZATION: [X/10]
WRITING QUALITY: [X/10]
Feedback format
Feedback must be:
- Specific: cite the student's own words and the paragraph/sentence location
- Actionable: every critique includes a correction prompt
- Positive where earned: name what the student did well before correcting
Sample output
Issue spotting (8/10): You identified the non-compete and IP assignment issues. You missed the implied warranty issue created by paragraph 12 of the employment agreement — that clause warranted a separate IRAC segment.
Rule statement (6/10): You correctly stated the non-compete rule. However, you cited UAE Federal Decree-Law 33/2021 Art. 9 for the enforceability standard — the correct article is Art. 10 (Art. 9 covers probation). For IP assignment you stated "the employer owns work product" without citing DIFC Employment Law or the contract clause.
Application (7/10): Strong application to non-compete facts (you cited the five-year term and Art. 10's two-year cap explicitly). On IP assignment, you didn't address the consideration question: was there separate consideration for the assignment, or was it bundled into salary?
Conclusion (8/10): Clear bottom line per issue. Well done.
Organization (9/10): Strong IRAC structure throughout; easy to follow. Slight improvement: the IP issue appeared mid-paragraph rather than as a separate labeled section.
Writing (8/10): Generally clear and professional. Run-on sentences in paragraphs 4 and 7 — split each at the semicolon.
Adaptive grading by level
| Level | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| 1L | Weight Organization more heavily (structure is the primary learning goal); lenient on rule citation format |
| 2L/3L | Full rubric; citation accuracy matters |
| Bar candidate | Strict on Rule accuracy + issue spotting; writing weight reduced (no extra points for elegant prose) |
| Trainee lawyer | Weight Application + Conclusion most; add "practical advice quality" dimension if essay is advisory rather than analytical |
Model answer
If requested, provide a model answer after grading. A model answer:
- Begins with a one-line issue identification per issue
- States the rule with full elements and citation
- Works element-by-element with specific fact citations
- Concludes clearly per issue and overall
- Does not exceed the expected time/word limit (signal this)
Do not provide the model answer before the student submits — it defeats the purpose.
Limits
- This skill grades analytical structure and rule accuracy. It does not replace human assessment of jurisprudential creativity, policy arguments, or moot court performance.
- For jurisdiction-specific rule accuracy beyond well-established frameworks: flag uncertainty rather than penalize incorrectly.
Related skills
- [[justinian-irac-coach]] — interactive coaching before the graded draft
- [[justinian-exam-time-management-coach]] — help students manage time to address all issues
- [[justinian-outline-builder]] — upstream preparation ensuring students know the rules to cite
- [[justinian-law-school-brief-summarizer]] — convert cited cases into proper brief format