Client Letter

Scope

This file covers the client letter as an MPT task type: what NCBE's materials say about it, how it differs from the objective memorandum (audience and register), how letter-format tasks appear in NCBE's released MPTs, the conventional structure of a client letter, and how NCBE's grading instructions and point sheets treat the task. It does not cover the other MPT task types in depth, and it covers NJ-specific MPT administration only in a single closing sentence.

Legal Explanation

What the MPT is and where the client letter fits (NCBE/national). The MPT is developed by NCBE and administered by user jurisdictions as part of the bar examination [S1]. It consists of two 90-minute items, each built from a File and a Library [S1]. The File contains all the facts of the case, and the first document in the File is a memorandum from a supervising attorney containing the instructions for the task [S1][S3]. The Library contains the legal authorities needed to complete the task, and the MPT is not a test of substantive law: the Library materials provide sufficient substantive information to complete the task [S2]. The exam is set in the fictitious state of Franklin in the fictitious Fifteenth Circuit, and examinees are told to read the Library cases thoroughly as if they were all new [S3]. NCBE's lawyering-task list includes "a letter to a client" alongside "a memorandum to a supervising attorney," a persuasive memorandum or brief, and the other task types, and the skills the MPT tests include "communicate effectively in writing" and "complete a lawyering task within time constraints" [S2]. The instructions advise allocating approximately half of the 90 minutes to reading and digesting the materials and organizing the answer before beginning to write [S3].

What a client-letter task asks for (NCBE/national). NCBE's overview materials do not publish a model client letter, and its instructions do not mandate a particular format for the response [S2][S3]. The task memo that opens the File defines the assignment, and the response is graded on responsiveness to those instructions plus the content, thoroughness, and organization of the work product [S3]. As the task type is conventionally understood in legal-writing practice, a client-letter task asks the examinee to explain the legal analysis and the firm's advice to the client — who is not a lawyer — in plain language, conveying the client's legal position, the options available, and a recommendation; that conventional description, rather than an opened NCBE client-letter packet, is the source of this account of the task's content [S2]. What is not conventional but structural: the same closed-universe machinery applies, so the analysis must still be drawn from the File facts and Library authorities, and the examinee must still sort relevant material from irrelevant [S1][S2].

How the client letter differs from the objective memorandum (NCBE/national). NCBE's task list puts the two on opposite sides of the audience divide: "a memorandum to a supervising attorney" versus "a letter to a client" [S2]. In legal-writing convention, that audience shift is the defining feature of the client letter: the tone and vocabulary move from lawyer-to-lawyer shorthand to plain language, and the organization follows what the client needs to understand and decide [S2]. What does not change is the analytical core — the response must still state the governing rules from the Library accurately and apply them to the facts in the File [S2][S3]. The released materials confirm that task memos control the details and that format mandates are the exception, not the rule: the February 2016 MPT-1 (In re Anderson) objective-memo task directed, "Do not include a separate statement of facts, but be sure to incorporate the relevant facts, analyze the applicable legal authorities, and explain how the facts and law affect your analysis and conclusion," and its drafter point sheet notes that "No specific formatting guidelines are provided" beyond the task memo's directives [S4].

Letter tasks in the released materials (NCBE/national). NCBE publishes free released MPTs and point sheets from past administrations [S2], and those packets show letter-format tasks in real use. In February 2016 MPT-2 (Miller v. Trapp), the task memo asked the examinee to draft both of the following: "(1) A demand letter addressed to Attorney Leffler, written for my signature" — with the instruction that the letter "should persuasively state the basis for Miller's assault and battery claims against Trapp and argue that Miller will be able to recover compensatory and punitive damages," following the firm's attached guidelines on drafting demand letters — and "(2) A brief memo to me" recommending the specific damage amounts the client could reasonably expect to recover at trial [S4]. The drafter point sheet grades the demand letter component by component: a statement that the lawyer represents the client, a statement of purpose, a succinct but persuasive statement of facts, a thorough analysis of the bases for the client's claims, a blank settlement amount, a compliance deadline, and the consequences of failing to comply [S4]. That task is a letter to opposing counsel — an advocacy document — rather than a "letter to a client"; it is cited here because it is the letter-format task verifiable in the released packets opened for this topic and it shows how NCBE's point sheets treat letter work product [S4]. A released example of the client-letter task type itself, and the point-sheet treatment specific to it, could not be opened within this topic's research budget, so nothing above about the client letter's audience or content is represented as NCBE point-sheet doctrine (logged in _status/unverified_items.md) [S2].

Structure (convention; the task memo controls). In legal-writing practice, a client letter conventionally opens with the firm letterhead and a salutation, states its purpose in plain language, explains the relevant law and how it applies to the client's situation, sets out the client's options and next steps, and closes with the attorney's signature; the structure follows what the client needs to understand and decide. NCBE's instructions do not mandate those elements — the MPT "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" [S3]. The task memo in the File controls the format, and, as the released packets show, task memos may impose specific directions (the February 2016 objective-memo task, quoted above, is one example) [S4].

How the point sheets grade it (NCBE/national). NCBE's MPT point sheets "describe the factual and legal points encompassed within the lawyering tasks" [S4]. For letter work product, the released point sheet shows the graders working through the components the task memo and the firm's guidelines called for, evaluating whether the letter includes each one and analyzes the facts and law supporting the client's position [S4]. Because a client-letter point sheet was not opened for this topic, the grading specifics of the client-letter variant itself are not separately verified [S4].

New Jersey context (NJ-specific). New Jersey administers the Uniform Bar Examination with a minimum passing score of 266, so New Jersey candidates take the MPT as part of the UBE [S5]. The MPT's weight is national: the MPT is 20% of the UBE total score, which is reported on a 400-point scale (MBE 50%, MEE 30%, MPT 20%) [S6].

Currency note (NCBE/national). NCBE describes the UBE as "the legacy Uniform Bar Examination, administered through February 2028," as most jurisdictions transition to the NextGen UBE [S2].

ELI-10: Explain It Like I'm 10

[HYPOTHETICAL — NOT A REAL CASE] Your grandmother got a letter from the city saying her garden fence is six inches over the neighbor's property line, and she owes a $400 fine. Grandma is upset and confused — the city's rulebook is 40 pages long, and the letter is full of words like "encroachment" and "adjudication." She doesn't want to talk to the city herself, and she doesn't want to pay $400 for something she thinks is a mistake.

She hands you the envelope: the city's letter, a copy of the property survey, photos of the fence, and the rulebook. She says: "Sweetie, you're good at explaining things. Read all of this, figure out what the rule really says and whether my fence actually breaks it, and then write ME a note — in words I can understand — telling me where I stand, what my choices are, and what you'd do if you were me. Don't write to the city, don't write to a lawyer; write the note for me. And you have to finish in an hour and a half, and you can't look anything up — just this envelope."

So you dig through the envelope. Some of it matters (the survey, the fence photos) and some of it is junk (a coupon flyer that fell in). The rulebook has the real rule on page 12 — and also 10 pages about parking that have nothing to do with fences. You write Grandma a note that says, in plain words: here's the question; here's what the rule says; here's what I found in the envelope; here's what your options are (move the fence, ask for a hearing, pay the fine); and here's what I'd recommend. No "pursuant to," no legal jargon — because the note is for HER, not for a judge or another lawyer. She reads it, understands it, and decides.

Translating back to the real rule: you just wrote the MPT's "letter to a client" — the envelope is the File, the rulebook is the Library, your grandmother is the client, and your plain-language note explaining her legal position, options, and a recommendation is exactly the client-letter task NCBE lists among its MPT lawyering tasks, testing your ability to communicate effectively in writing [S1][S2][S3]. The fence rule from the rulebook is the "Library" law you had to apply accurately, and the one-and-a-half-hour, envelope-only limit is the 90-minute closed-universe constraint that governs every MPT item [S1][S3]. And the note was written for Grandma, not for a supervising attorney — which is what makes it a client letter rather than an objective memorandum [S2].

Real Case Reference (if applicable)

No published judicial decision squarely addresses the client letter as an MPT task type — the MPT is an exam instrument defined by NCBE's published materials, not litigated doctrine. The governing authority is NCBE's own description of the MPT and its lawyering tasks [S1][S2], the instructions examinees receive with each MPT [S3], and the released MPTs and point sheets NCBE publishes, which show letter-format tasks in actual use [S4].

Key Takeaways

• A "letter to a client" is one of NCBE's listed MPT lawyering tasks, and the MPT tests the ability to "communicate effectively in writing" and to complete a lawyering task within time constraints [S2].
• The client letter and the objective memorandum sit on opposite sides of the audience divide — "a memorandum to a supervising attorney" versus "a letter to a client" — so the defining shift is register: plain language and a structure that follows what the client needs to understand and decide [S2].
• The analytical core does not change: the client letter must still state the governing rules from the Library accurately and apply them to the facts in the File [S2][S3].
• The task memo in the File controls the assignment; NCBE's instructions do not mandate a letter format, and the MPT is graded on responsiveness to the task instructions plus the content, thoroughness, and organization of the response [S3].
• Released MPTs show letter-format tasks in use: February 2016 MPT-2 (Miller v. Trapp) asked for a demand letter to opposing counsel following the firm's drafting guidelines, and the point sheet graded the letter component by component; point sheets "describe the factual and legal points encompassed within the lawyering tasks" [S4].
• A released client-letter packet and its point sheet were not opened within this topic's research budget, so client-letter-specific grading claims rest on NCBE's lawyering-task list and general legal-writing convention, flagged inline as unverified [S2].
• NJ-specific: New Jersey administers the UBE (passing score 266), so NJ candidates take the MPT; nationally, the MPT is 20% of the UBE total score [S5][S6].

Sources

• [S1] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "MPT (Multistate Performance Test)," https://www.ncbex.org/exams/mpt (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S2] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "Preparing for the MPT," https://www.ncbex.org/exams/mpt/preparing-mpt (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S3] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "Instructions for Taking the MPT" (PDF), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/Instructions_MPT_2023.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S4] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "February 2016 MPTs and Point Sheets" (PDF), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/2016-Feb-MPTs-PointSheets.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S5] New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners, "Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) Information," https://www.njbarexams.org/ube (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S6] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "UBE Bar Exam Scores," https://www.ncbex.org/exams/ube/ube-scores (verified 2026-08-20).

Not Legal Advice