Oral Argument
Style Criteria:
Coherent structure with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion.
An introduction that provides a concise roadmap of forthcoming points.
Effective transitions and signposting that guide the audience through key points.
Detailed signposts and summaries that break down complex arguments into digestible segments.
Precise language free of unnecessary jargon or complexity.
Appropriate use of technical legal terms with clarifications for comprehension when needed.
Clear distillation of a complex issue into a simple, understandable framework.
A formal, respectful tone appropriate for a judicial setting.
Tone and content tailored to the intended judicial audience.
An overall sense of competence and reliability that leaves a memorable impact.
Purposeful rhetorical strategies (e.g., analogies, repetition, rhetorical questions) to underline key arguments.
A compelling, multi-layered narrative highlighting the evolution of the legal arguments.
A balanced use of emotional appeal and logical reasoning to strengthen persuasiveness.
Substance Criteria:
Immediate clarity about the specific “ask” to the court.
A single, compelling theory of the case that organizes the entire argument.
Exploration beyond rote law to include broader implications, policy, or ethical dimensions.
Correct citation of relevant cases, statutes, and secondary sources.
Sophisticated legal analysis weaving authorities into a cohesive argument.
Clear articulation of how each authority interacts with the facts of the case.
Instances of creative legal reasoning or novel yet plausible interpretations of precedent.
Clear identification of the specific fact or document supporting each referenced point.
Cited references that substantively support the argument, with relevance explained.
Integration of facts and evidence that deepens the argument rather than serving as perfunctory citations.
Proactive acknowledgment of potential weaknesses or opposing viewpoints with well-supported refutations.
If Supporting Documents are Present:
Accurate support for key legal and factual assertions drawn from supporting documents.
Strategic focus on the most persuasive written arguments while navigating or omitting weaker points.
Effective preemption or neutralization of the opposing side’s primary arguments.
SBAR
Criteria:
1. Are details consistent across the report (e.g., diagnosis, code status, allergies, age)?
2. Does the nurse prioritize clinically relevant information for the oncoming shift (e.g., current instability, pending results, high-risk issues)?
3. Does the information follow SBAR structure (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) in a way that’s easy to follow?
4. Does the nurse use specific, measurable information instead of vague descriptors?
5. Does the nurse include only what is necessary for safe continuity of care, skipping irrelevant details?
6. Are the most urgent issues mentioned early and clearly emphasized?
7. Does the nurse describe the patient’s current status in terms of stability, level of care, and immediate concerns?
8. Can you easily tell what the patient’s main problem or reason for admission is within the first few sentences?
9. Are key background safety items (allergies, code status, isolation) clearly identified?
10. Does the nurse communicate vital signs (with trends), relevant labs, physical assessment findings, pain status, mental status, lines/airways/drains?
11. Does the nurse provide a brief clinical interpretation of the data rather than simply listing values?
12. Does the recommendation include any outstanding patient/family education or support needs that the next nurse should address?
13. Are all major safety precautions that are currently in place (or that need to be in place) clearly communicated?
14. Is the tone professional, objective, and focused on patient care rather than personal opinions?