Closing Argument and Other Formats

Scope

This file covers the MPT task formats beyond the classic objective memorandum, persuasive brief, and client-letter types — above all the closing argument, which NCBE lists among the tasks an MPT might assign — and NCBE's guidance that task types vary from administration to administration, so the deliverable and its format are defined by the task memorandum that opens the File, not by a fixed list [S2]. It also covers the practical implications of that variability (read the task memo first; budget the 90 minutes). It does not cover the internal drafting conventions of any single task type in depth — sibling topics cover the memorandum, the persuasive brief, the client letter, and the demand letter — and it does not cover NJ-specific MPT administration logistics beyond a single contextual sentence.

Legal Explanation

The MPT's closed universe (NCBE/national). The Multistate Performance Test is NCBE's written performance-test component of the bar examination, administered by user jurisdictions [S1]. Each of the two 90-minute items is built from a File (the factual materials: the first document is a memorandum from a supervising attorney containing the instructions for the task, and the File may also include transcripts of interviews, depositions, hearings, or trials, pleadings, correspondence, client documents, contracts, and similar materials) and a Library (the cases, statutes, and regulations needed to complete the task) [S1]. The MPT is not a test of substantive law — the Library supplies what the examinee needs — and the exam is set in the fictitious state of Franklin in the fictitious Fifteenth Circuit [S2][S3]. Examinees are told to concentrate on the File and Library, and to spend roughly half of the 90 minutes reading, digesting, and organizing before they begin to write [S3]. Responses are graded on responsiveness to the task instructions in the first memorandum of the File, plus the content, thoroughness, and organization of the work product [S3].

NCBE's task list includes a closing argument (NCBE/national). NCBE's "Preparing for the MPT" page states that the MPT's skills are "tested by requiring examinees to perform one or more of a variety of lawyering tasks," and that "examinees might be instructed to complete any of the following: a memorandum to a supervising attorney, a letter to a client, a persuasive memorandum or brief, a statement of facts, a contract provision, a will, a counseling plan, a proposal for settlement or agreement, a discovery plan, a witness examination plan, or a closing argument" [S2]. Two features of that list matter for this topic. First, it is expressly illustrative ("might be instructed to complete any of the following"), not exhaustive — the format is whatever the task memo assigns [S2]. Second, the closing argument is the only item on the list that is an oral-advocacy form transplanted into a written exam: the MPT is a written test, so a closing-argument task means producing the argument as a written work product for trial counsel to use, drawn from the record assembled in the File [S1][S3]. NCBE's own materials opened for this topic do not include a released closing-argument MPT, so the internal conventions graders expect of one (organization of the argument, how the point sheet would grade it) are flagged below as unverified [S2][S4][S5][S6][S7][S8][S9].

The format is defined by the task memo, and it varies (NCBE/national). Because the task memo controls, released MPTs show formats that range far beyond the classic memo/brief/letter. In the July 2020 packet (opened for this topic), MPT-1 (In re Alice Lindgren) asked the examinee to draft a persuasive cover letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services supporting a U-visa petition: the supervising attorney's memo said the letter "is our only opportunity to argue that the facts and the law support our client's eligibility for a U visa," and the drafters' point sheet describes the deliverable as "a formal business letter to USCIS that also functions as a persuasive 'brief' arguing Lindgren's eligibility" [S4]. The same packet's MPT-2 (Fun4Kids Terms of Service Agreement) is titled after a contract, but the task memo actually asked for a memorandum analyzing issues and making recommendations, prescribed a per-issue format ("Issue: [brief statement]… Analysis and Recommendation: [recommendation and reasons]"), and expressly told examinees, "Do not draft the terms of service agreement" [S4]. Even the packet title, in other words, does not define the deliverable — the task memo does [S4].

Recent administrations confirm the rotation (NCBE/national). NCBE's free MPT Summaries for February 2022 through February 2026, all opened for this topic, show the formats rotating across eighteen items in nine administrations: objective memoranda (e.g., Painter v. Painter on divorce, In re Hill on a boat purchase, State of Franklin v. Iris Logan on charging decisions, Otto v. Nolan on marriage), persuasive briefs and arguments to the court (e.g., State of Franklin v. Ford, a persuasive argument in support of a motion to sever drafted under office guidelines for persuasive briefs; B&B Inc. v. Happy Frocks Inc., a persuasive brief on a profits remedy with trial-transcript excerpts in the File; Dobson v. Brooks Real Estate Agency, an argument section of a brief in support of a motion in limine; Randall v. Bristol County, a persuasive argument in support of summary judgment; Lowe v. Jost, an argument to admit expert testimony), an advice letter to a client (Martin v. The Den Breeder, drafted under the firm's guidelines for advice letters), and privilege-analysis memoranda (In re Gourmet Pro) [S5][S6][S7][S8][S9]. Notably, none of those nine administrations used a closing argument, even though the task list names one [S5][S6][S7][S8][S9]. That is precisely NCBE's point: the examinee must be prepared to complete whatever task the supervising attorney's memorandum assigns, familiar or not [S2][S3].

The closing argument as an MPT task (NCBE/national; format-level specifics unverified). Combining NCBE's task list with the MPT's documented structure, a closing-argument task would work as follows: the task memo would direct the examinee to draft a closing argument for trial counsel in the matter in the File; the File would supply the record — the MPT File can include trial or hearing transcripts, and released advocacy tasks have used trial and hearing transcripts and testimony excerpts as the record (e.g., the Happy Frocks profits brief and the Lowe v. Jost expert-admission argument both drew on trial and motion-hearing transcripts in the File) [S1][S6][S8]; and the Library would supply the governing law [S1]. The response would be written, and graded like every other MPT task — on responsiveness to the task memo plus content, thoroughness, and organization [S3]. Because a closing argument is persuasion aimed at a factfinder, the work product would marshal the record evidence and the law in support of the client's position and ask for a specific result. The specific organizational conventions NCBE's drafters expect of a closing-argument task, and how a released point sheet would grade one, could not be verified from any free released packet opened in this build (the July 2020 packet and the February 2022–February 2026 summaries contain no closing-argument task) [S4][S5][S6][S7][S8][S9] — those specifics are.

Practical implications (NCBE/national). Three habits follow from all of this. First, read the task memo before anything else: it is the first document in the File, it defines the deliverable, the audience, and the format, and it can even forbid a seemingly obvious deliverable, as the Fun4Kids memo did [S1][S4]. Second, do not assume the format from the packet title or from the classic list: NCBE's list is illustrative, and released packets have paired a persuasive agency letter with a prescribed-format memo in a single administration [S2][S4]. Third, budget the 90 minutes — roughly half for reading, digesting, and organizing the File and Library, and the remainder for writing — because every MPT, whatever its format, is graded on responsiveness to the task instructions and on content, thoroughness, and organization [S3]. NCBE's drafters' point sheets, published with released MPTs, set out "all the points the drafters intended to raise in the problem," which is how graders operationalize the task [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 [S10]; nationally, the MPT is 20% of the UBE total score, which is reported on a 400-point scale (MBE 50%, MEE 30%, MPT 20%) [S11].

ELI-10: Explain It Like I'm 10

[HYPOTHETICAL — NOT A REAL CASE] Your cousin is president of the student council, and the principal has asked her to "give the closing speech at Friday's assembly" about the proposed new field trip. But the principal's written note says something more specific: "Don't worry about speaking from the stage — we'll print your speech in the school newsletter instead. So write it out fully, on paper. Start by greeting the readers, then cover the three arguments from the meeting minutes for why the trip is a good idea, and end by asking the school board to approve it." Your cousin almost starts writing a generic "thank you for coming today" speech — the kind people always give — but she reads the note first, and realizes the note decides everything: the speech is for print, not for the stage, and its three-part structure comes straight from the note, not from any universal speech template. She digs through the meeting-minutes folder for what actually happened, skips the page of rumors that someone left in there, and writes the speech exactly as the note directs. The next month, the same principal asks her to "write the closing speech" for the science fair — and this time the note asks for a report with a recommendation instead. She's not rattled: the note tells her what to make, and the folder tells her what to say.

Translating back to the real rule: the principal's note is the MPT's task memorandum — the first document in the File — and it defines the deliverable and the format, even forbidding what you'd expect (writing the speech for the stage is the "Do not draft the terms of service agreement" of the story) [S1][S4]. The folder is the File and the rulebook pages are the Library [S1]. "A closing argument" is just one of the many formats the task memo might demand — NCBE's list names it alongside memos, letters, briefs, contracts, and wills [S2]. And because the format can change from one assignment to the next, the tested skill is reading the note first, working only with the folder, and producing whatever the note asks for within the time limit [S1][S2][S3].

Real Case Reference (if applicable)

No published judicial decision addresses the closing argument (or any other task format) 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], the released MPTs and drafters' point sheets NCBE publishes for free [S4], and NCBE's published MPT Summaries for recent administrations [S5][S6][S7][S8][S9]. Real-world cases do appear inside MPT Libraries as exam materials (for example, the February 2023 summaries show the Happy Frocks Library containing an excerpt of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc.), but those are the raw materials of a task, not authority about the MPT itself [S6].

Key Takeaways

• NCBE's illustrative lawyering-task list names "a closing argument" alongside memoranda, client letters, persuasive briefs, statements of facts, contract provisions, wills, counseling plans, settlement proposals, discovery plans, and witness examination plans — and the list is expressly non-exhaustive [S2].
• The task memo that opens the File defines the deliverable and its format: the July 2020 packet paired a persuasive USCIS cover letter ("our only opportunity to argue that the facts and the law support our client's eligibility") with a prescribed-format memo that expressly forbade drafting the terms-of-service agreement the packet was named after [S4].
• Formats rotate across administrations: the February 2022–February 2026 MPT Summaries (eighteen items across nine administrations) show objective memoranda, persuasive briefs and court arguments (severance, profits, motion in limine, summary judgment, expert admissibility), a client advice letter, and privilege memos — and no closing argument, which is exactly why candidates must be ready for any format [S5][S6][S7][S8][S9].
• Read the task memo first, and budget roughly half of the 90 minutes to reading, digesting, and organizing the File and Library before writing [S1][S3].
• Every MPT response, whatever its format, is graded on responsiveness to the task memo's instructions plus the content, thoroughness, and organization of the work product; released drafters' point sheets describe the points the drafters intended the task to raise [S3][S4].
• 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 [S10][S11].

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, "July 2020 MPTs and Drafters' Point Sheets" (PDF), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/July%202020%20MPTs%20and%20Point%20Sheets.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S5] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "MPT Summaries 2022" (PDF), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/MPT_Summaries_2022.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S6] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "MPT Summaries: February and July 2023" (PDF), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/February%20and%20July%202023%20MPT%20Summaries.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S7] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "MPT Summaries: February and July 2024" (PDF), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/2024%20Febuary%20and%20July%20MPT%20Summaries.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S8] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "MPT Summaries 2025" (PDF), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2025-10/MPT%20Summaries-2025.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S9] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "February 2026 MPT Summaries" (PDF), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/February%202026%20MPT%20Summaries.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S10] New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners, "Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) Information," https://www.njbarexams.org/ube (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S11] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "UBE Bar Exam Scores," https://www.ncbex.org/exams/ube/ube-scores (verified 2026-08-20).

Not Legal Advice