Phase Overview

Learning Arc

Building on foundational CREAC skills developed in Phase 1, students learn to work with multiple legal sources, use precedent strategically to support and distinguish positions, and manage complex multi-issue analysis. They develop judgment about which issues matter most and allocate their analysis accordingly. This phase culminates in their first timed assessment (ICA1), which tests the transfer of all skills under time pressure and in a closed-universe setting.

Session 7 (Wed June 17): Explaining and Distinguishing Precedent

Remote | Strategic use of case law in legal argument

Learning Objectives

• Students will explain how precedent cases support (or fail to support) a legal position
• Students will distinguish unfavorable cases by identifying key factual differences
• Students will apply precedent and distinction strategically in legal analysis
• Students will address counterarguments using precedent

Key Concept: Strategic Use of Precedent

Explaining precedent: When a case supports your position, make the connection explicit. Show similarities: "This case is on point because both the precedent and our facts involve..." Demonstrate how the holding or reasoning applies directly.

Distinguishing precedent: When a case cuts against your position, don't ignore it. Identify key factual, procedural, or legal differences. "Although [adverse precedent] might seem to apply, it's distinguishable because that case involved [X], while our situation presents [Y]."

Analogical reasoning: Connect your fact pattern to favorable precedent by identifying similarities in legally relevant facts. Show why the same rule or reasoning should apply.

Session 7 Activities

Model Explanation and Distinction: Display two cases (one favorable, one unfavorable to your client). Walk through: how to explain the favorable case (similarities, why it supports your position), how to distinguish the unfavorable case (key differences, why it doesn't control), how to address the strongest counterargument a skeptical reader might raise.

Guided Practice with Mixed Cases: Present a fact pattern with 3-4 cases representing different positions. Students work through: Which cases support our position and why? Which cut against it? How can we distinguish the unfavorable ones? How would we organize this in a written analysis? Emphasize that good legal writing acknowledges adverse authority and explains why it doesn't control.

Assessment Emphasis

Students should understand that explaining and distinguishing precedent is a core skill they'll demonstrate in Problem Set 2 and refine further through In-Class Assessment 1.

Session 8 (Mon June 22): Multi-Issue Analysis and Problem Set 2 Debrief

In-Person | Identifying, organizing, and analyzing multiple legal issues

Learning Objectives

• Students will identify and analyze multiple legal issues in a complex fact pattern
• Students will recognize when issues are related vs. separate and distinct
• Students will allocate analytical depth appropriately across issues
• Students will apply multi-issue organizational strategies

Key Concept: Each Issue Requires Separate CREAC

Core insight: One fact pattern often raises multiple distinct legal questions. Each requires separate CREAC analysis (conclusion, rule, explanation, application). Common student errors at this phase: miss subtle issues, over-combine related issues into one analysis, analyze one issue thoroughly while under-analyzing others, fail to prioritize.

Related vs. separate issues: Sometimes facts raise questions that share the same legal rule but involve different applications. These are separate issues requiring distinct CREACs. Other times, issues are truly related (analysis of one informs the other). Students must develop judgment about when to combine and when to separate.

Session 8 Activities

Problem Set 2 Debrief: Share aggregated patterns from Problem Set 2 without naming individuals: common issues that students missed, issues that were over-combined or under-analyzed, examples of strong multi-issue organization, areas where students need to deepen analysis. Use de-identified student work to illustrate patterns.

Issue Identification Workshop: Distribute a complex fact pattern. In small groups, students: list all potential legal issues, write each legal question in one sentence, note which issues are related or dependent, prioritize by importance or logical sequence. Groups compare lists and debrief: why did some groups identify different issues? What makes an issue "separate"?

Analysis Planning: For one identified issue, have students outline a CREAC paragraph together: state a focused conclusion, identify the applicable legal rule, plan explanation (analogous cases, relevant principles), sketch the application to these facts. This demonstrates they understand structure and can transfer it to new legal questions.

Bridge to Next Phase

This session sets the stage for timed assessment. Students need confidence that they can identify multiple issues quickly and organize a complete analysis under time pressure.

Session 9 (Wed June 24): In-Class Assessment 1 (ICA1)

Remote ICA1 | 75-minute timed assessment

Learning Objectives

• Students will revise Problem Set 2 based on feedback, strengthening their analysis
• Students will understand In-Class Assessment 1 format and expectations
• Students will practice timed analytical writing
• Students will build confidence for timed performance

In-Class Assessment 1 Format

Duration: 75 minutes total (hybrid format)

Part A (Targeted Questions): Short-answer or outline-format questions testing specific skills: issue identification, rule statement, or application to a scenario. These are designed to build momentum and clarify expectations.

Part B (Focused Essay): A shorter essay prompt than Problem Set 2, but same genre (closed-universe, multi-issue analysis). Tests whether students can synthesize foundational and synthesis skills under time pressure.

Closed-universe: All necessary law and facts are provided in the assessment materials. Students are not expected to research or know external law.

Session 9 Activities

Feedback Overview: Review the key feedback themes from Problem Set 2 (patterns, not individual comments). Identify the most common areas needing improvement. Frame this as normal mid-course development, not deficiency.

Guided Revision: Work through one de-identified PS2 response as a class. Show: where the analysis was incomplete, what the feedback flagged, how a revision would strengthen it. Have students identify at least one issue in their own PS2 and revise it in real time. Collect these revisions for partial re-credit or formative feedback.

In-Class Assessment 1 Format Explanation: Walk through a sample ICA1 (from a prior term if available) or a practice version. Explain: how much time to allocate to Part A vs. Part B, whether to outline first, how to handle multiple issues when time is limited. Demystify the assessment.

Timed Practice: Conduct a 30-minute timed practice on a single issue or simpler scenario. Afterward, debrief: How did time pressure feel? What's your strategy for staying organized under time? Did you outline or draft directly? This is low-stakes practice building confidence.

Addressing Mid-Course Struggles

This session is a crucial check-in point. Students may be experiencing fatigue, doubting their progress, or struggling with one particular skill. Normalize this as part of the learning arc. Emphasize what they've already accomplished and what ICA1 is designed to measure (progress from baseline, not perfection).

Session 10 (Mon June 29): ICA1 Debrief & PS3 Release

In-Person | ICA1 debrief; PS3 released

Assessment Overview

Format: 75-minute closed-universe exam (hybrid administration)

Content: Multi-issue analysis drawing on foundational and synthesis skills. Students demonstrate: issue identification, rule statement, precedent explanation/distinction, application, and organized reasoning under time pressure.

Grading timeline: Collect materials at end of session. Grade and return feedback within 48 hours so students see results before moving into Phase 3.

Before In-Class Assessment 1

• Prepare materials: exam prompt, fact pattern, legal authorities (cases, rules), answer sheet or submission platform
• Brief students on logistics: start time, time announcements (75 min, then at 30 min and 10 min remaining), submission procedure, any technology requirements
• Explain accommodations process and confirm any approved accommodations with students
• Remind students of permitted materials (closed-universe, so limited to what you provide)
• Set tone: this is a low-pressure assessment of their progress, not a high-stakes exam. It measures what they've learned so far

During In-Class Assessment 1

• Proctor the exam: monitor room, note any technical issues
• Make time announcements at milestones (75 min start, 30 min remaining, 10 min remaining, time's up)
• Answer procedural questions only (e.g., "Can I ask for clarification on a word?" - yes; "Can you explain the rule?" - no)
• Do not intervene in students' analysis. If a student finishes early, allow them to sit quietly or leave
• Maintain a neutral demeanor. Do not communicate concern if a student looks stuck

After In-Class Assessment 1

• Collect all materials (exam, fact pattern, legal authorities). Account for all copies
• Do not discuss the assessment content with students until feedback is complete
• Grade using a consistent rubric aligned to Phase 2 learning outcomes: issue identification, multi-issue organization, rule statement, use of precedent, application under time constraints
• Return graded assessments with detailed feedback within 48 hours. Include both strengths and specific areas for improvement
• Brief students on feedback patterns and key takeaways (similar to the PS2 debrief in Session 8) before releasing individual feedback

Problem Set 3 Release

Release Problem Set 3 to students immediately after completing In-Class Assessment 1. This signals the transition to Phase 3 (Mastery) and maintains momentum. PS3 is more complex and demanding, building on skills demonstrated in ICA1.

Teaching Notes for Phase 2

Transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2

In Phase 1, students learned to construct a single, well-reasoned CREAC analysis. Phase 2 asks them to do more: work with multiple sources, exercise judgment about precedent relevance, organize complex multi-issue analysis, and perform under time pressure. This is a significant jump. Some students will need explicit reassurance and scaffolding.

Signals that a student is struggling: Misses issues entirely, over-combines issues, provides complete analysis of one issue but skeletal analysis of others, freezes under time pressure, avoids engaging with unfavorable precedent, or shows signs of impostor syndrome after a strong Phase 1.

Strategies: Offer individual office hours during this phase. Share your own writing process and mistakes. Normalize that synthesis is harder than foundation-building. Point out progress explicitly ("You identified three issues in Session 8; in PS2 you caught four").

Managing the Hybrid Format

Sessions 7 and 9 are remote. This requires deliberate engagement strategies: use breakout rooms for small-group work, rotate who speaks in discussions, use shared documents for real-time collaborative writing, and poll or chat frequently to check understanding.

In-person sessions (8 and 10) should take advantage of synchronous presence: conduct peer review, facilitate group discussions on the spot, proctor the high-stakes assessment in controlled setting.

Proctoring In-Class Assessment 1

Accommodations: Confirm all accommodations (extra time, reader, scribe, separate space) are in place before the assessment. These should be arranged and documented in advance, not day-of.

Minimal intervention: Your role during ICA1 is logistical, not pedagogical. Do not explain rules, clarify facts, or offer hints. If a student seems stuck, a calm presence is better than intervention.

Environment: A quiet, low-distraction room helps students focus. If testing remotely, ensure a stable connection and screen-sharing setup to monitor participation.

Common Mid-Course Struggles

Time management under pressure: Some students over-plan and run out of time before writing. Others skip planning and produce disorganized work. Help them find their rhythm in Session 9 practice. Some will need explicit permission to use a one-minute outline even in a 75-minute window.

Issue identification: A few students consistently miss issues or misidentify what counts as a distinct issue. Point them to Session 8 materials and consider a follow-up individual check-in.

Precedent discomfort: Some students struggle to explain why cases do or don't apply. This is where Session 7 becomes crucial. Return to analogical reasoning. Model the move from facts to rule to application explicitly.

Perfectionism and scope creep: Students sometimes try to over-analyze or second-guess themselves in timed settings. Emphasize that ICA1 measures progress from their baseline, not perfection. Some struggle will be normal and expected.

Imposter syndrome: After Phase 1 success, Phase 2 difficulty can trigger doubt. Reframe: you're learning harder skills. This is growth, not decline. Share data (if you have it) about how students typically perform across phases.

Preparing for Phase 3

As Phase 2 concludes, begin priming Phase 3 themes: students will work with longer assignments, manage even more complex issues, and refine their strategic choices about what to emphasize. ICA1 performance is a diagnostic tool for Phase 3 planning.

Phase 2 Summary

Skills Carried Forward to Phase 3

Phase 3 builds directly on Phase 2 skills. Students will tackle longer, more complex assignments, apply synthesis skills to even messier scenarios, refine issue prioritization, and develop strategic judgment about scope and emphasis. The closed-universe, timed format of ICA1 is the first assessment of their ability to do sophisticated legal analysis under real-world-like constraints.