Deliverable templates

Purpose

The weekly time sheet is the smallest and most disciplined document in the practicum, and the one that most reliably separates a business-minded lawyer from a merely competent one. It is the primary record of your labor: the source from which every client billing statement is built, the evidence of whether the firm's work was realistically balanced between partners, and — for hourly and retainer matters — the arithmetic on which the fee itself depends. Professor Sonsteng's course requires a time sheet every week of the term. You keep one, contemporaneously, for each matter you touch. The habit is the lesson: time not recorded when the work is done is time lost, and a narrative written a week late is a narrative no client should be asked to pay for.

Time is recorded in tenth-of-an-hour (0.1) increments — six-minute units — the universal convention of legal billing. A quick client call is 0.2; a morning drafting a memo is 3.0. Round honestly to the nearest tenth; do not pad, and do not "bill in bulk" by lumping a week into one line.

The template

Each entry carries six fields, matching the firm's business record exactly:

A worked week for a single matter looks like this:

The narrative discipline

The narrative is the craft of the time sheet. A good entry states what you did and, where it is not obvious, why it advanced the matter. It is specific enough that the client understands the charge and general enough that it discloses no work product to an adverse reader.

• Write in the active voice, past tense: "Drafted," "Reviewed," "Telephoned," "Analyzed."
• Name the task and its object: not "worked on case," but "drafted interrogatories to defendant on the icy-conditions defense."
• Avoid block-billing: if you did three distinct things, write three entries (or itemize within one) rather than one four-hour "attention to file."
• Never disclose privileged strategy in a line a client statement will reproduce.

How it's graded

The time sheet is scored on completeness, increment discipline, and narrative quality, and it is a gating input to the business layer of every matter. The rubric checks that entries exist for the work actually done, that hours are recorded in true 0.1 increments, and that each narrative is specific, active, and client-appropriate. Critically, the numbers must reconcile: on hourly and retainer matters, the sum of (hours × rate) across your time sheets must tie to the client billing statement to the penny, and a retainer's entries must draw against a real trust deposit without ever pushing the ledger negative. Late or reconstructed sheets lose points under the same timeliness rule that governs every deliverable. The time sheet is worth little on its own, but it is load-bearing: a matter whose money does not reconcile fails its integrity check no matter how good the memos are.

Purpose

The engagement letter is the document that makes a prospective client a client. It defines the relationship: who is represented, for what, on what terms, and at what cost. In the practicum every matter begins with one, matched to the matter's frozen fee type, and it is a graded deliverable precisely because the survey that grounds the whole Method found the business of law — fee arrangements, billing, client development — almost entirely absent from legal education. A lawyer who cannot write a clean engagement letter has skipped the first act of running a practice. This checklist is the preparation instrument: run it before you draft and again before the client signs.

An engagement letter is also an ethical document. It is where scope is fixed (and therefore where scope creep is prevented), where the fee is disclosed in a form the client actually understands, and where — for matters holding client funds — the trust arrangement is established. The letter should read like a real letter to a real person: businesslike, plain, and free of boilerplate the client cannot parse.

The checklist

Parties and scope

• [ ] The client is identified precisely (and, for an entity or a minor, the authorized representative or parent).
• [ ] The matter is described specifically — what the firm is engaged to do.
• [ ] The scope is bounded — what the engagement does not include (appeals, related matters, tax advice) is stated, to prevent later misunderstanding.
• [ ] Any conflicts have been screened and cleared before the letter issues.

The fee arrangement

• [ ] The fee type matches the matter's frozen basis and is explained in plain terms:
• Hourly — the timekeeper rates from the firm rate card, how time is recorded (0.1-hr increments), and how often the client is billed.
• Contingency — the percentage, what it applies to (recovery), how costs are handled, and the arithmetic of a sample outcome.
• Flat — the fixed fee, exactly what it covers, and what falls outside it.
• Retainer — the amount deposited to trust, that it is the client's money until earned, and how it will be drawn against.
• [ ] Costs and expenses (filing fees, expert fees, service) are addressed and distinguished from fees.
• [ ] The arithmetic is internally consistent and ties to the firm's rate card and the client's ledger.

Trust and client funds

• [ ] For retainer and any funds-holding matter, the trust deposit is stated and a matching trust-ledger entry exists; the ledger never runs negative.
• [ ] The client is told that trust funds remain theirs until earned or disbursed with authority.

Responsibilities and communication

• [ ] The firm's responsibilities and the client's responsibilities (cooperation, timely information, decisions the client alone makes) are set out.
• [ ] The client is told how and how often they will be kept informed.
• [ ] Decision authority is clear: the lawyer advises; the client decides the objectives.

Termination and signatures

• [ ] How either party may end the engagement, and what happens to the file and any unearned fees.
• [ ] A signature block for the client's countersignature and date, with a returned copy for the file.
• [ ] A cover letter accompanies the agreement, explaining it in a few plain sentences.

Dates and file

• [ ] All dates fall within the matter's timeline and on or before the as-of date.
• [ ] The signed letter is calendared and filed as the file's opening document.

How it's graded

The engagement-letter deliverable is scored on clarity of scope, correctness and plain-language explanation of the fee, ethical completeness, and reconciliation with the firm's books. Graders check that the fee type matches the frozen basis, that the money is explained in terms a non-lawyer could act on, that trust arrangements exist where the fee type requires them, and that the letter's numbers tie to the rate card and the client's ledger without contradiction. Scope that is left open-ended, a fee stated in jargon, or arithmetic that does not reconcile all cost points — and a matter whose money fails to reconcile fails its integrity check regardless of the letter's prose. As with every written deliverable, a letter below the competence threshold may be revised against this rubric within the week.

Purpose

The Client Interview Plan is the preparation sheet a lawyer completes before meeting a new client. The interview is the origin of every matter — the moment the facts, the goals, and the relationship all begin — and it is far too important to conduct unplanned. This template encodes the practicum's interview pedagogy: the T-funnel structure of Binder and Price, the five-phase arc of a well-run interview, and the discipline of surfacing a client's non-legal concerns alongside the legal ones. It is a plan, not a script; the point of preparing this thoroughly is to be free, in the room, to listen.

The plan is built to be used with the practicum's persona engine, where each client can be interviewed as many times as it takes to get it right — but it is written to prepare you for a real human across a real table. A guarded client will not yield facts to pressure; a distressed one cannot be rushed. Your plan should anticipate the disposition you expect and prepare you to earn what only rapport unlocks.

The template

1. Matter and client

The matter, the client's name and role, your side, and one line on what you already know from intake. Note the client's likely disposition — cooperative, guarded, an over-talker, or distressed — and what that implies for pace and tone.

2. Objectives for this interview

Three to five concrete goals: the facts you must gather, the decisions you must confirm, and the relationship you must begin to build. Distinguish what you need from this meeting from what can wait.

3. The five phases

Plan the interview as an arc, not a checklist:

1. Opening and rapport — greeting, confidentiality, scope, and fees; put the client at ease and set the roadmap for the conversation.
2. Problem overview — the funnel top: one broad, open-ended invitation ("Tell me what brings you in") and then listen, with minimal interruption, while the client narrates.
3. Probing — the funnel stem: targeted questions that fill gaps, build the timeline, and test the account, each topic opened broad before it is narrowed.
4. Goals and concerns — surface what the client wants and fears, legal and non-legal: money, time, privacy, a relationship, peace of mind.
5. Closing and next steps — summarize, confirm understanding, and tell the client exactly what happens next.

4. The T-funnel topic map

For each major topic you must cover, write one open-ended question to open it and the closed follow-ups to fill the gaps. The discipline is broad-before-narrow: never lead with the closed question.

5. Rapport-sensitive areas

Note the subjects a client may not volunteer easily — money trouble, a prior record, a family strain, a mistake they are ashamed of. Plan how you will create the conditions (patience, an open wellbeing question, no interruption) under which such facts emerge. Never plan to pressure them out; pressure and flattery do not earn trust, and in this course they do not unlock it.

6. Anticipated difficulties

What might go wrong — an over-talker who buries the facts, a distressed client who cannot focus, a represented party you must not contact under Rule 4.2 — and your plan for each.

How it's graded

The Client Interview Plan is assessed on the soundness of its T-funnel structure and its attention to both fact-gathering and relationship — the two axes on which the interview itself is later scored. Graders look for genuine open-ended openers (not closed questions in disguise), a topic map that moves broad-to-narrow, explicit planning for the client's goals and non-legal concerns, and a mature, non-coercive approach to sensitive facts. Because the plan feeds a graded interview whose debrief scores fact coverage and the client's felt experience in character, a plan that treats the client as a witness to be mined rather than a person to be understood tends to produce a poor result. The strongest plans prepare the lawyer to listen, not to interrogate.

Purpose

The Strategic Settlement & Negotiation Plan — the SSNP — is the document a lawyer writes before a negotiation, never during it. It is the difference between bargaining and improvising. In Professor Sonsteng's course it is required for every matter that settles, negotiates, or deals: the real-estate purchase, the DWI plea, the non-compete settlement conference, the dissolution property split. Its purpose is to convert a client's goals and a matter's facts into a disciplined plan — one that fixes what you want, what you will accept, what you can trade, and, above all, what you will do if the negotiation fails. A lawyer who has done this work walks into the room able to listen, because the thinking is already done.

The SSNP is built on the vocabulary of principled negotiation — interests beneath positions, BATNA as the true measure of any offer — and on the practicum's own convention that some of its contents are confidential to your side. In the two-sided negotiation matters, each side prepares its own SSNP and holds its concession plan close; the plan is a working instrument, not a disclosure.

The template

1. Matter and posture

State the matter, the client, your side, the forum or setting of the negotiation, and the as-of date. One sentence on how the matter arrived at negotiation.

2. Client interests (not positions)

List what the client actually needs, ranked. Separate the legal interests (money, an injunction defeated, a charge reduced) from the non-legal ones (speed, privacy, an ongoing relationship, peace of mind). The T-funnel interview is your source; if you cannot fill this section, you have not yet listened enough.

3. The other side's interests (your best estimate)

The mirror of section 2, inferred from the file and the interview. Note what you do not yet know — a gap here is a question for the room.

4. BATNA — Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

State your client's BATNA plainly: what happens if no deal is reached? Trial? A contested hearing? Walking away? Estimate its value and its cost honestly. Then estimate the other side's BATNA. The party with the stronger alternative holds the leverage; naming both keeps you from settling out of fear or holding out from pride.

5. Targets and reservation point

The ZOPA — the zone between your reservation point and theirs — is where any agreement lives. If you believe there is none, say so and plan for impasse.

6. Concession plan (confidential to your side)

Sequence what you are prepared to give, in what order, and in exchange for what. Distinguish concessions that cost the client little from those that cost much. Plan trades, not giveaways: each concession should ask for something back. In practicum matters that distribute confidential facts by side, this section is yours alone.

7. Creative options

List value-creating moves that expand the deal beyond the obvious dollar or term — a payment schedule, a non-monetary term, a carve-out, a future relationship. The real-estate and non-compete matters reward creativity; the settlement conference is where it pays.

8. Authority and next steps

Confirm the client's settlement authority in writing, and note what you will report back and confirm before any agreement binds. The client owns the decision.

How it's graded

The SSNP is scored on the honesty of its BATNA, the coherence of its targets, and the discipline of its concession plan — the same criteria the live negotiation rubric applies to your conduct in the room. A plan whose reservation point is not actually anchored to its BATNA loses points, as does one that lists concessions without sequencing them or without asking anything in return. Graders look for interests genuinely distinguished from positions, for a candid estimate of the other side, and for at least one real value-creating option. Because the SSNP feeds the graded negotiation itself, a weak plan tends to produce a weak performance; the strongest students treat the plan as the work and the room as its execution. Under the re-write rule, an SSNP below the competence threshold may be revised against this rubric within the week.

Purpose

The Learning Portfolio is the reflective spine of the practicum — the document in which a student turns doing into learning. Professor Sonsteng's design rests on a conviction borrowed from experiential-learning theory and stated plainly in the course: doing is not enough. A student who tries a case and never reflects on it has had an experience, not an education. The Portfolio, kept across all three modules and due in the term's later weeks, is where the experience is examined, conceptualized, and turned into a plan for the next matter. It is individual work — never firm work — written in the first person, and it is read by the Director for insight rather than scored for polish.

The Portfolio is structured on Kolb's experiential-learning cycle, the four-stage loop that the course adopts as its model of how skill actually forms:

1. Concrete Experience — you do the thing.
2. Reflective Observation — you look back at what happened and how it felt.
3. Abstract Conceptualization — you draw a principle from it.
4. Active Experimentation — you plan to do it differently next time.

A complete reflection travels the whole cycle. Stopping at observation ("the cross-examination went badly") is a diary entry; reaching conceptualization and experimentation ("leading questions fail when I telegraph the point — next time I will build to it") is learning.

The template

The Portfolio is a running document (target 3–5 pages) built from dated entries, one per significant experience — an interview, a memo, a negotiation, an oral event. Each entry moves through the four stages.

Entry heading

Matter and task (by name or TSK reference), the date, and one line naming the experience: "First client interview — Osgard arbitration (TSK-022)."

1. Experience — what happened

A brief, factual account. What did you do? What was the setting and the stakes? Keep this short; it is the runway, not the flight.

2. Reflective observation — what you noticed

The heart of the honest entry. What went as planned and what did not? How did the client, the witness, or the tribunal respond? How did you respond — what did you feel, and where did your attention go? Note the surprises; surprises are where learning hides.

3. Abstract conceptualization — what it means

Draw the principle. Connect the moment to something larger: a technique from the briefings, a pattern across matters, a rule of practice you now understand differently. This is where a single experience becomes transferable knowledge.

4. Active experimentation — what you will do next

State the concrete change. Not "I will be more prepared," but "I will draft my cross in leading, one-fact questions and rehearse the first ten against the persona engine before the hearing." A good experiment is specific enough to test.

Closing synthesis

At the term's end, a short synthesis across entries: the two or three throughlines in your development, the skills that moved most, and the ones you will carry forward as deliberate practice.

How it's graded

The Learning Portfolio is assessed on the depth and honesty of reflection and the completeness of the Kolb cycle, not on the outcomes it describes. A student who candidly examines a matter that went poorly, reaches a real principle, and plans a testable change scores higher than one who reports only successes. Graders look for entries that travel all four stages — the most common shortfall is stopping at observation without conceptualizing or experimenting — and for evidence of genuine self-awareness rather than performance. The Portfolio is not weighted the way a memo is; in the Method it functions more as a required, formative record than a points-heavy deliverable, and improvement across the term is noted. Its true audience is the student: the Portfolio is the instrument by which you become your own teacher once the course is over.

Purpose

The Reflective Report is the practicum's closing document — the essay a student writes at the end of the term, after the last trial and the final billing, looking back across the whole experience. Where the Learning Portfolio is a running record of many small reflections gathered matter by matter, the Reflective Report is a single, considered synthesis of the semester as a whole. Professor Sonsteng's course places it last, deliberately: it is the moment when a student steps out of the working firm and asks what the year of doing has made of them. It is individual work, written in the first person, three to five pages, and read for insight into the student's growth.

The Report completes the experiential loop at the level of the term rather than the task. It is the capstone of the same conviction that grounds the Portfolio — that reflection is the ingredient that turns simulated practice into durable competence — and it asks the student to conceptualize the entire arc from the first tentative intake call to the composure of a final oral event.

The template

A strong Reflective Report is an essay, not a checklist, but it should address each of the following. Use them as prompts, not as headings to fill mechanically.

1. The arc of the term

Trace your development across the three modules. Where did you begin — as an interviewer, a writer, an advocate, a manager of your own time — and where did you end? Name the turning points: the matter, the feedback, or the failure that changed how you work.

2. The skills that moved most

Identify two or three competencies that developed most, and be specific about how you know. What can you now do that you could not in the first weeks? Ground the claim in a concrete moment — a memo that finally held together, a cross that controlled the witness, a negotiation you planned rather than improvised.

3. The habits still forming

Candor about what is not yet strong. Which skills remain effortful? What patterns recur in your feedback? A serious Report treats its weaknesses as a plan, not a confession.

4. Working in a two-lawyer firm

Reflect on the collaboration itself. How did you and your partner divide and balance the work? What did serving as opposing counsel, filing to the court, and managing a shared docket teach you that solo work could not? The Method makes the firm the classroom; the Report is where you assess it.

5. The lawyer you are becoming

The affective heart of the Report. How has the term shaped your sense of professional identity, judgment, and responsibility — to clients, to the tribunal, to the profession? What kind of lawyer do you now intend to be, and what will you keep practicing to get there?

6. Reflection on the method

A brief, honest appraisal of the experiential method itself: what learning-by-doing and immediate feedback gave you that a lecture would not, and where the reflective discipline felt genuine rather than assigned.

How it's graded

The Reflective Report is assessed on the honesty, depth, and integration of its reflection — the degree to which it synthesizes the whole term rather than cataloguing its parts. Graders reward specificity over generality (a named moment beats an abstract claim of growth), candor about weakness, and evidence that the student has drawn transferable principles from experience rather than merely narrated it. As with the Portfolio, the Report functions in the Method as a formative capstone rather than a points-heavy deliverable, and the mark of a strong one is not the quality of the term it describes but the quality of the thinking it demonstrates. It is the last thing a student writes for the course and, ideally, the first thing they write for a career of deliberate, reflective practice.