Phase 1: Foundations

Sessions 1–6 (May 27 – June 15). Establishing the foundational skills all legal analysis builds upon.

Phase Overview

Duration

May 27 – June 15
Weeks 1–3 (Sessions 1–6)

Session Format

All In-Person
150 minutes each

Skills Focus

  • Critical reading and strategic annotation
  • Rule extraction from judicial opinions
  • Basic CREAC structure and framework
  • Rule synthesis from multiple cases
  • Introduction to analogical reasoning

Assessment

Problem Set 1 (Contracts) — Released Session 3 (June 3); MCQ/SA due June 7; Essay draft due June 14

Learning Arc

This phase establishes the foundational skills all legal analysis builds upon. Students move through a carefully scaffolded sequence: basic case reading → rule extraction → rule synthesis → introduction to the CREAC framework → producing their first full CREAC analysis. By the end of Phase 1, students will have written their first complete CREAC paragraph and begun developing self-awareness about their analytical process.

Sessions 1–2 (May 27 – June 1)

Reading & Rule Extraction

Build confidence in case reading. Students learn to extract rules from single cases and distinguish holding from dicta.

Sessions 3–4 (June 3–8)

Rule Synthesis & CREAC Foundation

Introduce CREAC framework. Students learn to synthesize rules from multiple cases and produce their first complete Rule paragraph.

Sessions 5–6 (June 10–15)

Application & Analogical Reasoning

Deepen understanding through Problem Set 1 feedback. Introduce analogical reasoning—comparing and distinguishing cases. Prepare students for Phase 2 synthesis challenges.

Session 1 (Wed May 27): Course Introduction & Diagnostic Assessment

In-Person

Learning Objectives

  • Students will understand the course structure, philosophy, and expectations
  • Students will complete a diagnostic writing assessment to establish baseline skills
  • Students will learn and apply foundational study strategies for legal education
  • Students will practice case briefing and annotation on a simple case

Session Activities

  • Welcome & Community Building: Establish course tone and classroom community. Present course goals: read like a lawyer, write like a lawyer, think like a lawyer.
  • Course Overview & Philosophy: Cover syllabus highlights: course structure, feedback model, scaffolded approach for Weeks 1–3, increasing independence for Weeks 4–7. Clarify course scope.
  • Study Skills Mini-Lesson: Teach evidence-based reading strategies. Introduce annotation techniques. Discuss time management for law school success.
  • Diagnostic Assessment: Students complete a timed, low-stakes writing task. This provides baseline data to inform your feedback and track growth.
  • Case Briefing & Annotation Practice: Explain case brief format (Rule, Issue, Facts, Holding, Application). Model on a simple case. Students practice in pairs.

Key Points

  • This course emphasizes practice and feedback as the path to improvement
  • Legal writing and analysis are learnable skills, not innate talents
  • Scaffolding is highest at the start and decreases over the 7 weeks
  • Tone-setting matters: students should feel this is a safe, collaborative space to take risks

Teaching Tips

  • Model annotation and case briefing explicitly—do not assume students know these formats
  • Frame the diagnostic assessment as low-stakes and exploratory, not evaluative
  • Maintain pacing during the 150-minute session; do not extend activities beyond allocated time
  • Introduce the CREAC framework poster but do not yet teach the framework—that comes in Session 3

Session 2 (Mon June 1): Critical Reading & Rule Extraction

In-Person

Learning Objectives

  • Students will identify and extract legal rules from judicial opinions
  • Students will annotate cases strategically for legal analysis
  • Students will distinguish holding (what the court decided) from dicta (what the court said in passing)
  • Students will write rule statements in complete, clear sentences

Session Activities

  • Rule Identification Mini-Lesson: Define a legal rule as a statement answering "what must be true for X to happen?" Show rules appearing explicitly in opinions and implicitly through judicial reasoning.
  • Annotation Practice: Introduce annotation symbols (underline for rule, star for holding, circle for key fact, box for dicta). Model on a simple case. Have students predict what to mark on the next section.
  • Guided Rule Extraction: Distribute cases. Students work individually to identify rules, holdings, and key facts. Then pair-share to explain their extracted rules to partners.
  • Case Analysis Application: Model how to apply a rule: given a rule and a client fact pattern, analyze whether each element is met. Students practice in pairs with a new fact pattern.
  • Synthesis Preview: Introduce the concept that legal analysis sometimes requires combining rules from multiple cases. Show a brief example. Preview this skill's development in Session 3.

Key Points

  • Rules are the foundation of all legal analysis
  • Every case contains a rule (explicit or implicit); the job is to extract it
  • Holding (what the court decided) is distinct from the rule (legal principle)
  • Rule statements can vary in wording; focus on understanding the principle, not memorizing exact language

Teaching Tips

  • Model annotation extensively with simple cases before students attempt independent annotation
  • Use annotation symbols consistently across all examples so students internalize the system
  • Circulate during practice to identify and correct misconceptions early (e.g., confusing holding with rule)
  • Watch for students who over-highlight; remind them that annotation is selective

Session 3 (Wed June 3): Rule Synthesis & CREAC Introduction

In-Person | PS1 Released

Learning Objectives

  • Students will synthesize rules from multiple cases into a coherent legal principle
  • Students will understand the CREAC framework (Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion)
  • Students will draft their first Rule paragraph as part of a complete CREAC analysis
  • Students will begin planning their Problem Set 1 response

Session Activities

  • Rule Synthesis Concept: Teach students that a single rule often emerges from synthesizing holdings across multiple cases. Show how to identify common threads and create a unified rule statement.
  • Deconstruct Exemplary CREAC: Walk through a strong CREAC paragraph section-by-section. Identify the Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, and final Conclusion. Discuss how each section supports the argument.
  • CREAC Framework Mini-Lesson: Present the CREAC framework. Explain each component: Conclusion (your answer to the legal question), Rule (the law), Explanation (how the law applies broadly), Application (analysis of specific facts), Conclusion (restate your answer).
  • Guided CREAC Drafting: Provide a scenario with multiple cases and a fact pattern. Working as a class, identify the issue, synthesize the rule, and draft a Rule paragraph together. Discuss revision choices.
  • Problem Set 1 Release & Planning: Distribute Problem Set 1 (contracts). Walk students through the prompt. Have them identify the legal issues and begin planning their response. Explain deadlines and format expectations.

Key Points

  • Synthesis is the skill of identifying a unified rule across multiple cases
  • CREAC is a structured framework that guides both the writing and the thinking process
  • The Rule section synthesizes the law; the Explanation section shows how the law works; the Application section analyzes the facts
  • This is the first time students write a complete CREAC—scaffolding is heavy here

Teaching Tips

  • Use the exemplary CREAC as a model to deconstruct, not as the only "right way" to write CREAC
  • When introducing CREAC, consider creating a visual anchor (poster or handout) that students can reference
  • Be explicit about the time commitment for Problem Set 1—students often underestimate the work required
  • Anticipate confusion about Explanation: students often confuse it with Application. Practice distinguishing them

Session 4 (Mon June 8): Problem Set 1 Debrief & Synthesis Workshop

In-Person

Learning Objectives

  • Students will reflect on common errors in their Problem Set 1 drafts
  • Students will deepen their understanding of rule synthesis through targeted practice
  • Students will consolidate foundational skills before moving into Phase 2

Session Activities

  • Problem Set 1 Debrief: Discuss common errors and misconceptions observed in student drafts. Use anonymized examples to illustrate both strong and developing work. Focus on rule completeness, fact-matching, and organization.
  • Rule Synthesis Workshop: Lead additional practice in synthesizing rules from multiple cases. Provide scenarios that challenge students to identify common principles across cases with different fact patterns or holdings.
  • Skill Consolidation: Review the skills from Sessions 1–3 (reading, rule extraction, synthesis, CREAC structure). Discuss how these skills build on each other and prepare for Phase 2 complexity.
  • Feedback Protocol: Explain how you will provide written feedback on their Problem Set 1 submissions. Discuss what students should pay attention to in feedback and how to interpret comments.

Key Points

  • Common errors include incomplete rule statements, forcing multiple rules into one paragraph, and vague application sections
  • Rule synthesis is difficult for many students; additional practice here prevents misconceptions from hardening
  • Students benefit from seeing patterns across their own work and peer examples

Teaching Tips

  • When discussing common errors, use multiple anonymized examples to make patterns clear and depersonalize feedback
  • This session is therapeutic—many students will feel anxious about their first real assessment. Maintain an encouraging tone
  • Circulate and listen during workshops to identify which students need additional scaffolding in Phase 2

Session 5 (Wed June 10): Problem Set 1 Essay Workshop & Self-Assessment

In-Person

Learning Objectives

  • Students will analyze feedback received on Problem Set 1 drafts
  • Students will revise their work with specific attention to rule completeness and fact-matching
  • Students will develop metacognitive awareness of their own analytical process
  • Students will reflect on growth and identify areas for continued development

Session Activities

  • Feedback Overview: Review the feedback framework: what different types of comments mean, how to prioritize revision suggestions, how to know when to ask for clarification.
  • Guided Revision Workshop: Using one example, walk through the feedback on a draft. Identify the main issues. Together, brainstorm revisions. Show how targeted changes improve clarity and argument strength.
  • Individual Revision Work: Students work individually to revise their Problem Set 1 submissions. You circulate, answer questions, and provide real-time guidance on revision choices.
  • Self-Assessment Reflection: Students complete a structured self-assessment: What do you now understand about legal analysis that you didn't before? What is still challenging? What will you do differently in Phase 2?
  • Debrief & Celebration: Celebrate the completion of their first full CREAC analysis. Discuss how Phase 2 will build on these foundations.

Key Points

  • Revision is a crucial learning opportunity—spending time on it pays dividends
  • Self-assessment develops metacognition: students learn to monitor their own understanding and growth
  • This session marks a transition from heavily scaffolded Phase 1 to the more independent work of Phase 2

Teaching Tips

  • Have sample revisions ready to show students who are unsure how to proceed
  • Self-assessment need not be lengthy—one paragraph reflecting on the three questions is sufficient
  • Struggling students often skip revision; prioritize meeting with them during this session to troubleshoot

Session 6 (Mon June 15): Analogical Reasoning & Problem Set 2 Release

In-Person | PS2 Released

Learning Objectives

  • Students will compare and distinguish cases using analogical reasoning
  • Students will apply analogical reasoning to anticipate and counter arguments
  • Students will prepare for the increased complexity of Phase 2 synthesis challenges

Session Activities

  • Analogical Reasoning Mini-Lesson: Teach the structure of analogical reasoning: identify a rule from one case, identify a new fact pattern, determine whether the new facts are analogous to or distinguishable from the original case, and apply the rule accordingly.
  • Model Analogical Reasoning: Walk through a worked example. Show how a court might apply a rule by analogy, and how it might distinguish a case as inapplicable.
  • Guided Practice with Pairs: Present a new scenario with a rule from a case and a different fact pattern. Students work in pairs to determine whether the rule applies by analogy or whether the cases can be distinguished. Debrief with whole group.
  • Problem Set 2 Introduction: Distribute Problem Set 2. Explain the assignment: students will now be asked to engage with more complex fact patterns and multiple rules. Frame this as a natural step up from Problem Set 1.
  • Phase 1 Wrap-Up: Celebrate the completion of Phase 1. Review what students have learned. Preview the focus areas for Phase 2 (more complex rule synthesis, multiple issues, deeper application).

Key Points

  • Analogical reasoning is how lawyers apply rules to new fact patterns
  • Courts reason about similarity and difference to determine whether precedents apply
  • Understanding analogical reasoning deepens understanding of the rule itself

Teaching Tips

  • Analogical reasoning can feel abstract to students; use concrete examples with clear factual similarities and differences
  • Pair work allows students to talk through the reasoning process and build confidence before moving to Phase 2 independence
  • Use this session to celebrate growth and build momentum into Phase 2

Phase 1 Teaching Notes

Key Challenges for Instructors

Pacing the 150-Minute Sessions

With six activities per session, pacing is critical. Build in time contingencies and be willing to abbreviate less essential activities if instruction on core content (rule extraction, CREAC structure) runs long. Consider pre-loading some examples so you can move quickly through setup.

Students Struggle with Rule Synthesis

Many students find synthesizing rules from multiple cases difficult. They may treat each case as separate rather than identifying the unified principle. Additional practice in Sessions 3–4, with multiple worked examples, helps address this. Watch for students who are struggling and provide extra office hours support.

Feedback Anxiety

Students' first feedback on Problem Set 1 can be anxiety-inducing. Maintain an encouraging tone. Emphasize that feedback is a gift and a learning tool. Show how feedback connects to concrete improvement strategies (e.g., "Your rule statement was missing the 'and' element; here's how to add it").

Diagnostic Assessment Use

Use diagnostic data to inform your teaching. If many students struggle with organization in their diagnostic essays, plan extra scaffolding on CREAC structure. If they struggle with rule completeness, dedicate additional time to rule extraction in Session 2.

What to Watch For with Struggling Students

  • Over-highlighting: Some students annotate nearly every sentence. Coach them to be selective—annotation is a thinking tool, not a coloring activity.
  • Confusion between rule and holding: They may cite case facts as the rule. Clarify: the rule is the broader legal principle that applies beyond the specific parties.
  • Incomplete rule statements: Rules with missing elements (e.g., "A contract is formed" without addressing all required elements). Use the Rule Extraction Guide to help them check completeness.
  • Application without analysis: They may state facts but not explain how the rule applies. Teach them to use a template: "This rule applies here because [fact] shows [element is/is not satisfied]."
  • Avoidance of revision: Some students submit their first draft unchanged. Meet individually to model revision and build their confidence in revising.

Pacing Tips

  • Create a timer for each activity segment and stick to it. This teaches time management and prevents one activity from consuming the whole session.
  • Have backup activities ready: if you finish early, students can annotate an additional case or draft a second rule statement.
  • Don't skip breaks—even a 5-minute break re-energizes students for the second half of the 150-minute session.
  • In pair work, assign pairs ahead of time so you don't spend time on logistics during the session.
  • Collect exit tickets or one-sentence reflections at the end of each session; these inform the next session's opening.

Transition to Phase 2

By the end of Session 6, students should have mastered foundational reading, rule extraction, and basic CREAC structure. They should feel confident writing a single-issue CREAC paragraph. Phase 2 will challenge them to handle multiple rules and more complex synthesis. Use the self-assessments from Session 5 to identify students who may need additional support in Phase 2 (e.g., students who are still struggling with rule completeness) and plan targeted interventions.

Phase 1 Mastery Checklist

By the end of Phase 1, students should be able to:

  • Read a judicial opinion strategically and identify key components (issue, rule, facts, holding)
  • Annotate cases using a consistent symbol system to mark rules, holdings, and key facts
  • Extract a complete rule statement from a single case
  • Synthesize rules from multiple cases into a unified legal principle
  • Identify and explain the Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, and Application sections of a CREAC paragraph
  • Draft a complete CREAC paragraph analyzing a single legal issue
  • Apply a rule to a client fact pattern using clear logical reasoning
  • Compare and distinguish cases using basic analogical reasoning
  • Revise their work in response to feedback with understanding of the "why" behind suggested changes
  • Reflect on their own learning process and identify areas for growth

Next Phase

Phase 2: Synthesis