Demand Letter

Scope

This file covers the demand letter as an MPT task type: what a demand-letter task asks the examinee to produce, how it differs from a client letter and from an objective memorandum, the structure the released NCBE materials use for the task, and how NCBE's grading instructions and point sheets treat it. 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 demand 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: the File contains source documents with all the facts of the case, and the specific assignment is described in a memorandum from a supervising attorney [S1][S2]. The exam is set in the fictitious state of Franklin, in the fictitious Fifteenth Circuit [S3]. NCBE's lawyering-task list names "a persuasive memorandum or brief," "a letter to a client," and "a proposal for settlement or agreement" among the example tasks, and the skills the MPT tests include "communicate effectively in writing" and "complete a lawyering task within time constraints" [S2]. A "demand letter" is not separately named on NCBE's preparing page, but the released MPTs show the task type in use: February 2016 MPT-2 (Miller v. Trapp) asked examinees to draft a demand letter addressed to the opposing party's attorney [S2][S4].

What a demand-letter task asks for (NCBE/national). The released firm guidelines in Miller v. Trapp define the document: "[a] demand letter states our client's legal claims and demands that the opposing party pay damages and/or take or cease taking a certain action," and it "is designed to advocate a position and to persuade the recipient" [S4]. The task memo in that packet directed the examinee to draft "(1) A demand letter addressed to Attorney Leffler, written for my signature" that "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 and leaving the specific damage amounts blank for the partner to fill in later [S4]. The task therefore asks the examinee to marshal the File facts and the Library law into a persuasive, one-sided presentation aimed at getting the opposing party — or, as in Miller v. Trapp, opposing counsel — to pay or to take (or cease) a particular action, short of litigation [S4]. The closed-universe machinery is the same as for every MPT: the analysis must be drawn from the File facts and Library authorities, and the Library provides sufficient substantive information because "the MPT is not a test of substantive law" [S2].

How the demand letter differs from a client letter and from an objective memorandum (NCBE/national). The demand letter's audience is the adversary or the adversary's counsel, and its purpose is advocacy: the Miller v. Trapp guidelines say a well-written demand letter "should set forth the strongest credible arguments on behalf of our client so that there is room for negotiation" [S4]. That distinguishes it from a "letter to a client," which appears separately in NCBE's task list and, in legal-writing convention, explains the analysis and advice to a lay client in plain language [S2]. It also distinguishes it from a "memorandum to a supervising attorney," the example task conventionally understood to present balanced, objective analysis [S2]. The contrast is one of purpose and audience, not of analytical rigor: the demand letter must still state the governing rules from the Library accurately and apply them to the File facts — a persuasive letter built on misstated law or invented facts is not what the task or the point sheet rewards [S2][S3][S4]. (The characterizations of the client letter's plain-language register and the memorandum's neutrality are legal-writing convention, not NCBE point-sheet doctrine [S2].)

Structure (grounded in the released packet; the task memo controls). The Miller v. Trapp firm guidelines state that a demand letter "typically includes" seven components: (1) a brief statement indicating that the lawyer represents the client in the matter; (2) a brief statement of the purpose of the letter; (3) a succinct but persuasive statement of facts; (4) a thorough analysis of the bases for the client's claims, integrating both the facts and the applicable law and responding to arguments made against the claims; (5) a blank space for a specific settlement demand or amount, to be filled in by the supervising partner; (6) a deadline by which the opposing party must comply, "usually one or two weeks"; and (7) the consequences of failing to comply by the deadline, including the risks of litigation for the opposing party [S4]. In broader U.S. drafting practice, demand letters sometimes add a reservation-of-rights clause stating that the letter does not waive the client's claims, but the released guidelines include no such component and NCBE's materials do not address it [S4]. The task memo in the File controls the details — the Miller v. Trapp task, for example, directed that the attached jury-verdict summaries be used in the companion memo but "do not cite them in the demand letter" [S4] — and MPTs "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].

How the point sheet grades it (NCBE/national). NCBE's MPT point sheets "describe the factual and legal points encompassed within the lawyering tasks" [S4]. The Miller v. Trapp drafters' point sheet evaluates the demand letter component by component: examinees "must follow the guidelines and draft a demand letter ... that includes each of the seven listed components" [S4]. It then checks the substance of the advocacy — that the letter sets forth the strength of the client's claims and her eligibility for compensatory and punitive damages; argues the elements of each claim (for example, that Trapp's conduct constituted assault, addressing the intent and well-founded-apprehension elements, and that his actions constituted battery); addresses eligibility for compensatory damages for the identified losses, with the requested amounts left blank; makes the case for punitive damages; and follows the task memo's directives [S4]. The companion memo task is graded separately — in Miller v. Trapp, the memo had to recommend specific damage amounts for each category, with reasoned analysis, so the partner could fill in the demand letter [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," and its MPT pages state that between July 2026 and July 2028 most jurisdictions will transition from the MBE, MEE, and MPT to the NextGen UBE [S1].

ELI-10: Explain It Like I'm 10

[HYPOTHETICAL — NOT A REAL CASE] Your big sister lent her rare game controller to a kid at school. The kid dropped it in a puddle, and now it doesn't work. The kid's mom says: "Too bad — it was probably already broken, and we're not paying for it." Your sister is furious and wants her money back.

She hands you a folder: a photo of the controller before she lent it, the text where the kid said "I'll bring it back Monday," the receipt showing what it cost, and the school's one-page rulebook section on borrowed property. She says: "I'm too mad to write this myself. You write the letter. It goes to the kid's mom — she's the one who can pay. Say who you are and that you're writing for me. Say what we want: $120 for the controller, paid by Friday. Tell our side of the story — the part where the kid promised to take care of it. Say the rule: if you borrow something and break it, you owe the cost of replacing it. And say what happens if she doesn't pay by Friday — we'll take her to small-claims court and it'll end up costing her more. Don't write her side of the story; you're on my side. But don't make anything up — everything in the letter has to come from this folder or that rulebook page. You have an hour and a half, and no internet."

So you write the letter. It is one-sided on purpose. You do NOT mention that your sister once spilled soda on the kid's backpack — it's true, but your job is to advocate for your sister, not to be neutral. You make the strongest credible case you can, you set the Friday deadline, and you state what happens if the mom ignores it. The letter works because every fact in it traces back to the folder and the rulebook.

Translating back to the real rule: you just wrote the MPT's demand-letter task — the folder is the File, the school rulebook is the Library, the kid's mom is the opposing party (standing in for opposing counsel, like Attorney Leffler in the released February 2016 Miller v. Trapp task), and your persuasive letter stating the claim, the facts told favorably, the legal basis, a demand, a deadline, and the consequences is exactly the structure NCBE's released demand-letter guidelines describe [S4]. The "hour and a half, no internet" is the 90-minute closed-universe constraint, and the "everything has to come from the folder" rule is the point of the exercise: advocacy — yes, but advocacy grounded in the File facts and Library law, which is how the MPT is graded [S2][S3][S4].

Real Case Reference (if applicable)

No published judicial decision squarely addresses the demand 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 demand-letter tasks in actual use: February 2016 MPT-2 (Miller v. Trapp), in which the examinee drafted a demand letter to opposing counsel for the supervising partner's signature [S4].

Key Takeaways

• A demand letter "states our client's legal claims and demands that the opposing party pay damages and/or take or cease taking a certain action" and "is designed to advocate a position and to persuade the recipient"; in the released materials it appears as a letter to opposing counsel — February 2016 MPT-2 (Miller v. Trapp) asked for a demand letter addressed to the opposing party's attorney, written for the partner's signature [S4].
• The Miller v. Trapp guidelines describe seven typical components: statement of representation; statement of purpose; succinct but persuasive statement of facts; thorough analysis of the bases of the claims (facts and law integrated, responding to counterarguments); a blank space for the settlement demand; a compliance deadline, usually one or two weeks; and the consequences of noncompliance, including the risks of litigation [S4].
• The demand letter differs from a client letter (which, by convention, explains analysis to a lay client) and from a memorandum to a supervising attorney (by convention, balanced analysis): its audience is the adversary or the adversary's counsel, and its purpose is one-sided advocacy that leaves room for negotiation [S2][S4].
• The analytical core is not relaxed: the demand letter must state the governing rules from the Library accurately and apply them to the File facts, because the MPT is not a test of substantive law and the Library supplies the law [S2][S3].
• MPTs are graded on responsiveness to the task instructions given in the first memorandum in the File, plus the content, thoroughness, and organization of the response [S3]; the Miller v. Trapp point sheet checks the seven components and the substance of the advocacy — elements of each claim, eligibility for compensatory and punitive damages, and compliance with task-memo directives [S4].
• The demand letter is not separately named among NCBE's example lawyering tasks (which include "a persuasive memorandum or brief," "a letter to a client," and "a proposal for settlement or agreement"), but it is a verifiable released task type [S2][S4].
• NJ-specific: New Jersey administers the UBE (minimum passing score 266), so NJ candidates take the MPT; nationally the MPT is 20% of the UBE total score on the 400-point scale [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) — includes MPT-2, Miller v. Trapp (demand letter task), 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