iRubric: Lease Case 2020 rubric

The summary clearly identifies key issues, authoritative guidance, and conclusions. The flow is logical.

Most key issues, authoritative guidance, and conclusions are identified. The flow is generally logical.

Several key issues, codification references, or conclusions are missing. The logic is hard to follow.

Most key issues, codification references, and conclusions are missing. The summary inadequate or illogical.

Summarizes the facts completely; key facts identified; distinguishes between facts and assumptions

Demonstrates an understanding of most facts and generally recognizes those facts that must be challenged

Generally understands the facts; does not distinguish between facts and assumptions; recognizes some items that should be challenged

Does not recognize the facts of the case and does not demonstrate an understanding of them; challenges nothing

Identifies all applicable literature; does not include extraneous material; demonstrates the relationship between the selected literature and the issues at hand; recognizes nuances and subtle relationships between literature and issues

Identifies most of the applicable literature; includes some extraneous material; generally connects the issues to the literature identified but misses the subtle points

Identifies some of the appropriate literature but includes much that is not on point; does not connect appropriate literature to all the identified issues

Appears to be reaching for anything no matter how remotely related; clips large sections of material and pastes it into the memo in hope that the reader may find some connection; references included are generally irrelevant

All positions/calculations/journal entries follow clearly from the analysis and are fully supported. There is no hedging.

Positions generally follow from the analysis but support is not fully integrated. Most calculations and journal entries (when part of the case) are accurate.

The applications follow from the analysis, but not clearly; positions are "hedged" with new issues or alternatives not previously discussed. The majority of calculations and journal entries (when part of the case) are accurate.

Positions are unsupported or do not follow logically from the analysis. The majority of calculations and journal entries (when part of the case) are inaccurate.