Investigation Evaluation Exercises

Scope

This file explains how investigation and evaluation is tested on the NextGen UBE — the exam NCBE will administer nationally from July 2026 onward, which New Jersey will adopt with a first administration in July 2028 [S1][S3][S6] — covering NCBE's placement of investigation and evaluation among its seven foundational lawyering skills, the Group A tasks that measure it in the Content Scope Outlines [S1][S2], how fact-investigation and fact-evaluation appear in the released question formats [S3][S4][S5], and New Jersey's adoption timeline [S6]. It does not cover legal research or legal writing and drafting as separate skills (the module's sibling topics cover those), the doctrine of any substantive law area that an investigation might concern, or real-world investigation technique such as interviewing witnesses or conducting discovery as taught in practice; it covers only what NCBE's official materials say about how investigation and evaluation is assessed [S2].

Legal Explanation

Investigation and evaluation as a published foundational skill (NCBE/national). NCBE lists "investigation and evaluation" among the NextGen UBE's seven foundational lawyering skills on its About the NextGen UBE page, alongside issue spotting and analysis, client counseling and advising, negotiation and dispute resolution, client relationship and management, legal research, and legal writing and drafting [S1]. The Content Scope Outlines (dated August 1, 2025, covering the July 2026–February 2027 content) repeat that list and organize the seven skills into four groups, placing investigation and evaluation together with issue spotting and analysis in Group A [S2]. The stated purpose of Group A "is to assess the extent to which an examinee can apply fundamental legal principles and legal reasoning to analyze given fact patterns" [S2]. As with the other skills, the Content Scope gives investigation and evaluation no standalone definition paragraph: the skill is defined through the shared Group A purpose and through the numbered task list that measures all the skills (pages 3–5 of the Outlines) [S2]. NCBE states that the skills "are assessed in the context of one or more of the Foundational Concepts and Principles or other areas of doctrinal law" [S2]; the eight Foundational Concepts and Principles are business associations and relationships, civil procedure, constitutional law, contracts, criminal law and constitutional protections of accused persons, evidence, real property, and torts [S2]. The Content Scope adds that other areas of legal knowledge may appear "to provide context for testing Foundational Skills," and that for those questions "relevant legal resources (e.g., statutes, regulations, and case law) will be provided" [S2]. These are NCBE/national exam-design points; the Content Scope makes no reference to New Jersey or any state-specific doctrine [S2].

The investigation-and-evaluation tasks (NCBE/national). The Content Scope measures each skill through a numbered list of tasks, and the tasks carrying the Group A icon are tasks 1 through 7 (pages 3–5 of the Outlines) [S2]. In NCBE's language, they ask the examinee to: (1) identify which legal concepts and principles are likely to affect the outcome of a matter based on the information provided; (2) identify which facts are likely to be relevant to or dispositive of a legal issue in a matter; (3) identify the applicable standards of review and/or burdens of proof that will apply to legal issues in a matter; (4) identify the strengths and weaknesses of a client's position or an opposing party's position based on the relevant legal rules and standards; (5) in a matter that requires additional factual development, identify which facts need to be investigated, or the best strategy for investigating or eliciting those facts, in order to be able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a client's position or an opposing party's position based on the relevant legal rules and standards; (6) assess the probable outcome of a claim, motion, discovery matter, defense, or objection based on the relevant legal rules and standards; and (7) identify the applicable or dispositive language, standards, elements, or factors of a provided resource (such as a statute, contract, or judicial opinion) [S2]. Task 5 is the only task that names investigation outright — deciding what facts still need to be gathered and how — while tasks 2, 4, and 6 are the evaluation tasks proper (relevance, relative strength, and probable outcome) [S2]. Two features of the design matter for candidates. First, NCBE states that "while any task may assess skills from any group, the icon accompanying each task indicates the skills group most closely aligned with that task's primary focus," so the Group A tasks are the skill's center of gravity, not an exclusive zone [S2]. Second, the fact sets are given, not gathered: the skill is assessed against "the information provided" and "the facts now known," so the tested ability is disciplined evaluation of a closed fact record, not field investigation [S2]. Task 9 sits nearby in the list and covers fact-quality review of provided materials — "such as police reports, interview excerpts, or discovery" — asking the examinee to "identify gaps in information obtained, suggestions for improvement, and/or grounds for objection (if applicable)" [S2].

How the skill appears in the question formats (NCBE/national). NCBE's Blueprint (prepared June 2, 2025, covering the July 2026 and February 2027 administrations) describes three categories of question types — standalone multiple-choice questions (49% of the total score), integrated question sets (21%), and performance tasks (30%) — administered as three three-hour sections over one and a half days, with official NextGen UBE scores reported as a single number on a scale from 500 to 750 and each jurisdiction setting its own passing score within that range [S3][S1]. Standalone multiple-choice questions, per the Blueprint, "test eight Foundational Concepts and Principles" — the doctrinal concepts, not skill labels — while integrated question sets and performance tasks are where the skills are demonstrated: IQS "require examinees to demonstrate their ability to use Foundational Skills in realistic situations, completing tasks that a beginning lawyer should be able to accomplish," and "may include legal resources (e.g., excerpts of statutes or judicial opinions) and/or supplemental documents (e.g., a police report or excerpt from a deposition)" [S3]. The supplemental-documents design is precisely where fact-evaluation content arrives: NCBE's sample-questions page describes IQS as "based on a common fact scenario" that may include such documents, with "multiple-choice, medium-length, and/or short-answer questions" [S4]. Performance tasks, which make up 30% of the total score, are closed-universe items: "legal resources, in the form of a case file and library, are provided within each task," one per section, approximately one hour each [S3].

The released samples that show the skill (NCBE/national, checked 2026-08-20). NCBE's sample integrated question sets page (checked 2026-08-20) presents two sets, and Group A evaluation content appears in the first [S4]. In "Integrated Question Set 1 – Flooded Apartment," a pro bono landlord-tenant matter, Component 1 asks: "Given the facts now known, which of the following is an accurate application of §6-20-5 of the landlord-tenant statute to the client's situation?" — a select-one multiple-choice item NCBE designates "Content Scope: Skill A.6" (assess the probable outcome of a claim), paired with Real Property subject matter [S4][S2]. The published answer explanation models the evaluation move: "It is unknown which party is responsible for the water damage because it is unknown whether the landlord failed to provide effective waterproofing for the premises or whether § 6-20-5(d) relieves the landlord from the duty" — the correct answer turns on what the known facts do and do not establish [S4]. Components 2 and 4 of the same set (both designated Skill B.10, identifying factors favoring a position) ask which specific facts support the client's statutory claim — "List two specific facts now known that support the position that the landlord violated the duty to maintain the premises…" and "Which of the following facts provide the most support to a cause of action under § 6-20-5(f)?" [S4]. The set's transitional language frames continued fact-gathering in the lawyer's voice: "You continue to investigate the client's potential claims against the landlord" [S4]. In "Integrated Question Set 2," the landscaping-company matter, the supervisor's instruction is to "make sure that all the language in the draft is factually and legally supported" — the examinee compares a draft complaint's allegations against a client-interview transcript and provided authorities, with the published issues flagging allegations that misstate the timeline or lack legal support; NCBE designates that item Skill D.24 (drafting) [S4]. NCBE's released standard performance task, "In re Johnston," a will contest, asks for an objective memorandum analyzing whether a court "would likely find" an "insane delusion" and whether there is "sufficient evidence to submit to a jury" on undue influence, applying the provided (fictional) case law to a client-interview transcript and a witness affidavit — evaluation of facts against legal standards inside a closed universe [S5]. Two honest caveats. First, among the samples actually opened for this topic (IQS 1 and IQS 2 on the sample IQS page and the In re Johnston sample PT), no released component is designated Skill A.5 — the task that asks which facts need to be investigated — and NCBE's sample pages label no released set an "investigation" exercise; the skill appears as Group A and fact-evaluation components and framing within sets rather than as a standalone labeled exercise [S4][S5]. Second, the full component sets sit behind interactive previews on ncbex.org, so a complete inventory of every released component was not possible from page text [S4].

New Jersey context (NJ-specific). New Jersey adopted the NextGen UBE by Supreme Court notice dated November 17, 2025, with the first New Jersey administration in July 2028; New Jersey will continue to administer the legacy UBE in its current form through the February 2028 administration [S6]. The notice announces no NJ-specific design for investigation questions; the investigation and evaluation skill and its assessment within integrated question sets and performance tasks are part of the national NextGen UBE design that New Jersey adopted [S6]. Everything above about how the skill is defined and tested is NCBE/national and applies to New Jersey candidates sitting for the NextGen UBE [S6].

How to prepare (editorial; beyond NCBE's published guidance). Four practical points follow from the official materials, none of which NCBE states in so many words. First, practice the closed-universe mindset: the facts are provided (in the scenario, supplemental documents, or the PT case file), so the tested skill is disciplined evaluation of the given record rather than real-world investigation technique [S2][S3]. Second, drill the Group A task verbs — facts relevant or dispositive to an issue, strengths and weaknesses of each side's position, probable outcomes, and what still needs to be investigated — since the released IQS components map one-to-one onto those tasks [S2][S4]. Third, when a response depends on a fact the record does not contain, say so: the released IQS 1 explanation treats an unknown fact as outcome-determinative rather than guessing at it [S4]. Fourth, work NCBE's free samples — IQS 1's fact-evaluation components and the In re Johnston performance task — to internalize the rhythm of evaluating facts against provided legal resources [S4][S5].

Currency note. NextGen exam details are still evolving. Every claim in this file was checked against the cited NCBE and New Jersey Courts pages on August 20, 2026, and reflects those pages as of that date [S1][S2][S3][S4][S5][S6].

ELI-10: Explain It Like I'm 10

[HYPOTHETICAL — NOT A REAL CASE] Sam's bike is missing from the school rack. His first thought is to blame the kid who showed up with a shiny new bike the same day — but Sam's older sister, a student council detective, stops him: "Don't accuse anyone yet. Figure out what you actually know first." So Sam makes a list. Known facts: the bike was there at morning recess; it was gone after lunch; the rack gate is unlocked; the bike lock was cut — the cut end is still hanging on the rack. Still unknown: who was near the rack at lunch, and whether the janitor moved bikes for the book fair. Now Sam sorts the facts. The cut lock matters a lot — someone used bolt cutters, which is not what a kid who "borrowed" it would do. The color of the new kid's bike does not matter at all — it tells him nothing. The gate being unlocked matters a little. Sam also asks what each fact would mean for each possible suspect: the cut lock points toward someone with tools; the "borrowed it" story would need the lock left intact. Then he makes his best guess about what probably happened — stolen by someone with bolt cutters — while writing down what he still needs to find out before he is sure (did the janitor see anything? are there witnesses from the lunch crew?).

Translating back to the real rule: Sam's list of what he still needs to find out is Content Scope task 5 — "identify which facts need to be investigated, or the best strategy for investigating or eliciting those facts" in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each position [S2]. His sorting of the known facts is task 2 — identifying which facts are likely to be relevant to or dispositive of the issue [S2]. Weighing what the cut lock means for each side is task 4 — identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each position based on the relevant rules and standards [S2]. And his best guess about what probably happened is task 6 — assessing the probable outcome [S2]. The whole exercise — take the facts given, work out what else you need, weigh each fact for each side, predict the likely result — is the purpose of Group A, which NCBE defines as applying fundamental legal principles and legal reasoning to analyze given fact patterns [S2]. On the NextGen UBE, Sam's bike mystery is the shape of the investigation-and-evaluation content inside an integrated question set like NCBE's released "Flooded Apartment" sample, whose correct answer turned on a fact the record did not contain [S4], or inside a closed-universe performance task like "In re Johnston" [S5]; New Jersey's first candidates sit for it in July 2028 [S6].

Real Case Reference (if applicable)

No published judicial decision addresses how the NextGen UBE tests investigation and evaluation — the skill and its question formats are defined by exam specifications, not by litigated doctrine. The governing authority is NCBE's official exam materials: the Content Scope Outlines, which define Group A, the investigation-and-evaluation tasks, and the closed-fact-record design [S2]; the NextGen UBE Blueprint, which defines the question-type mix and the integrated-question-set and performance-task formats in which the skill is demonstrated [S3]; NCBE's sample integrated question sets page, which publishes the Skill A.6 fact-evaluation component of the "Flooded Apartment" set and the factual-support review of the landscaping set [S4]; NCBE's sample performance task page, which publishes the "In re Johnston" will-contest memorandum with its provided case file [S5]; and NCBE's About the NextGen UBE page [S1]. For New Jersey, the governing action is the New Jersey Supreme Court's November 17, 2025 notice adopting the NextGen UBE with a first administration in July 2028 [S6]. The judicial opinions inside NCBE's sample sets are fictional and must not be mistaken for real cases: "Integrated Question Set 2" presents Wexler Properties LLC v. Raymond Construction (Franklin Supreme Court, 2022), and the "In re Johnston" performance task presents Thomas v. Anderson (Franklin Court of Appeal, 2007) and Ramirez v. Ramirez (Franklin Court of Appeal, 2020) — all are made-up "Franklin" jurisdiction decisions created for the samples [S4][S5]. No real-case citation is therefore offered for this topic because none exists; the governing rules are NCBE's exam specifications themselves [S2][S3][S4].

Key Takeaways

• Investigation and evaluation is one of the seven foundational lawyering skills NCBE publishes for the NextGen UBE, grouped with issue spotting and analysis as Content Scope Group A — defined by NCBE as assessing "the extent to which an examinee can apply fundamental legal principles and legal reasoning to analyze given fact patterns," with no standalone definition paragraph beyond that purpose and the task list (NCBE/national) [S1][S2].
• The Group A tasks ask examinees to identify which concepts affect the outcome, which facts are relevant to or dispositive of an issue, applicable standards of review and burdens of proof, the strengths and weaknesses of each side's position, the probable outcome of a claim or motion, and the dispositive language of a provided resource; task 5 alone asks which facts need to be investigated or the best strategy for investigating or eliciting them (NCBE/national) [S2].
• The skill is assessed on a provided, closed fact record: IQS may include supplemental documents such as police reports or deposition excerpts and "require examinees to demonstrate their ability to use Foundational Skills in realistic situations," and performance tasks come with a provided case file and library; standalone multiple-choice questions test the eight Foundational Concepts and Principles rather than skill labels (NCBE/national) [S3].
• In the released samples, Group A content appears as IQS 1 Component 1, designated Skill A.6 (assess the probable outcome of a claim), whose published explanation reasons from facts the record does not establish, alongside fact-support components (Skill B.10) and a complaint factual-support review (Skill D.24); as of 2026-08-20 no released component opened for this topic is designated Skill A.5, the pure investigation task (NCBE/national) [S4][S2].
• The released standard performance task "In re Johnston" tests fact-evaluation within a closed universe — applying provided (fictional) case law to a client-interview transcript and witness affidavit to assess likely outcomes — but is not labeled or designed as an investigation exercise (NCBE/national) [S5].
• New Jersey-specific: first NextGen UBE administration in July 2028 by Supreme Court notice dated November 17, 2025, with the legacy UBE continuing through the February 2028 administration; the notice announces no NJ-specific design for investigation questions [S6].

Sources

• [S1] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "About the NextGen UBE," https://www.ncbex.org/exams/nextgen/about-nextgen (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S2] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "NextGen UBE Content Scope Outlines, July 2026–February 2027" (PDF, Aug. 1, 2025), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2025-07/NCBE%20NextGen%20UBE%20Content%20Scope-Aug%202025.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S3] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "NextGen UBE Blueprint, July 2026–February 2027" (PDF, prepared June 2, 2025), https://www.ncbex.org/sites/default/files/2025-07/NCBE-NextGen-UBE-Blueprint_5.pdf (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S4] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "Sample Integrated Question Sets (NextGen UBE sample questions)," https://www.ncbex.org/exams/nextgen/sample-questions/integrated-question-sets (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S5] National Conference of Bar Examiners, "Sample NextGen UBE Standard Performance Task (In re Johnston)," https://www.ncbex.org/exams/nextgen/sample-questions/performance-task/sample-pt (verified 2026-08-20).
• [S6] New Jersey Courts, "Notice — Supreme Court Adopts the 'NextGen' Uniform Bar Examination — First Administration in July 2028" (Nov. 17, 2025), https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/notice-supreme-court-adopts-nextgen-uniform-bar-examination-first-administration-july-2028 (verified 2026-08-20).

Not Legal Advice