The last sitting of the 2027 Examinations is Remedial Law and Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises, worth 25% of the weighted general average. The ethics half of that paper is where practical formats are most likely to appear, because ethics is the subject whose natural question is "what would you advise".
This article is the four formats, and the shape each one wants.
Why ethics lends itself to practical formats
A doctrinal ethics question asks what a duty is. A practical one asks what a lawyer should do: whether to accept a brief, how to handle a conflict, whether to notarise, what to tell a client whose instruction is lawful but unwise, whether to report a colleague.
The answer to those questions is not a definition. It is a decision, with reasons and consequences — which is precisely what the paper's practical exercises are testing.
Format 1: advise the client or the lawyer
"A lawyer discovers that a former client's confidential information is relevant to a new matter in which she represents the opposing party. What should she do?"
The shape:
- The duty, named, with its provision.
- The test the rule applies — here, whether the matters are related and whether the information is confidential.
- The application to the facts, including the consequence of each course.
- The advice: the specific act — withdraw, seek consent, screen, decline the brief — and the reason.
- The consequence of not doing it: discipline, disqualification, and in some cases the loss of the client's case.
The fifth element is what converts advice into a lawyer's advice, and it is the element most often missing.
Format 2: choose between courses
"Two remedies are open, or two clients present conflicting instructions — which do you take, and why?"
The shape: choose, then justify the rejection. The rejection is usually where the marks are, because it shows you know the boundary rather than the label.
For ethics specifically, the choice is often between the client's interest and the lawyer's duty to the court or the profession — and the answer must say which duty prevails, and on what basis, rather than balancing vaguely.
Format 3: draft something short
Ethics drafting questions are usually short documents with a duty embedded:
- A letter declining the engagement or withdrawing, with the reason and the return of the file.
- A letter to the client accounting for funds received.
- A motion to inhibit based on the judge's relationship or prior involvement.
- A notice or a report where the rules require one.
The shape: the parts, in order, with the duty reflected in the content — the withdrawal letter must return the papers and account for the fee; the motion to inhibit must name the ground the rules provide.
Draft the skeleton, not the prose. Twelve minutes does not allow a polished letter, and the examiner is marking the parts and the duty, not the register.
Format 4: evaluate conduct
"A judge accepted a gift from a litigant in a pending case. Evaluate."
The shape:
- The standard — the judicial code's provision on propriety and impartiality, including the appearance standard.
- The application — the conduct, the relationship, the pendency of the case.
- The classification — a violation, and of what duty specifically.
- The consequences — administrative liability, and the effect on the proceedings (whether inhibition was required, and whether the proceedings are vulnerable).
- The distinction between the disciplinary and the substantive consequence — which is the point most answers miss.
The four-move skeleton for any of them
Under time, whatever the format asks, the answer runs:
- The duty (with provision).
- The rule's content (one sentence).
- The application (named facts).
- The consequence — and where the format asks for advice, the specific act.
That is the same five-part structure described in legal ethics answers, compressed for practical questions.
Time allocation
Twelve minutes, whatever the format:
| Minutes | Work |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | Read; identify which format this is, and who the question is addressed to (client? court? the lawyer herself?) |
| 1–2 | Write the duty and the provision |
| 2–5 | State the rule's content and the test |
| 5–9 | Apply to the facts, including the alternative course and why it fails |
| 9–11 | The advice or the classification, and the consequence |
| 11–12 | Check: did I name the provision, the specific act, and both consequences? |
That last check is worth a mark on almost every ethics question in the paper.
Practising
Build a bank of ten practical ethics scenarios across the four formats — three advise, three choose, two draft, two evaluate. Write each in twelve minutes, twice through the year, and keep the answers. The second attempt is the measurement: the same scenario, six months later, should be materially better, and if it is not, the duty table is the thing to rebuild.
For the subject's map, see how to study legal ethics; for the notarial block, which is the most practical of all, notarial practice on the syllabus.