LexGrade Standard v1.0
An open scoring instrument for New York State Supreme Court motion practice: eight principles and 45 graded criteria, each independently citable.
Status of this document
- This version
- v1.0 (current published edition)
- Machine-readable
- /api/v1/standard.json · /llms-full.txt
- Source repository
- github.com/LexGrade/standard
- Calibrated to
- CPLR & the Uniform Civil Rules (22 NYCRR Part 202)
- Citations verified
- February 2026 (confirm provisions remain current)
- License
- CC-BY-SA-4.0 (content)
- Cite as
- “LexGrade Standard v1.0, LexGrade (lexgrade.org), CC-BY-SA-4.0.”
This is the published LexGrade Standard, openly maintained under CC-BY-SA-4.0. It is not promulgated by any court, bar, or government body. The Standard's markdown text is the source of truth and is what /llms-full.txt serves verbatim; this page and the machine-readable /api/v1/standard.json catalog render from its structured derivative, and a build-blocking test holds every criterion ID, title, and weight in the derivative equal to the text, so the representations cannot drift apart silently. Every legal citation, whether in the Standard itself or in any motion drafted or assessed with it, must be independently verified before filing.
Abstract
The LexGrade Standard (LGS) is an open instrument for scoring the quality of legal drafting. It defines eight principles and 45 graded criteria, calibrated against New York State Supreme Court motion practice. Each criterion is independently citable. The conformance grade is a weighted composite, and an ethics gate forces a deficient grade on any hallucinated citation.
1. Procedural Integrity P1 Precondition
Precondition the filer must satisfy independently against the filing court's rules. LGS does not score it. Scored criterion IDs begin at LGS 2.1.
Procedural Integrity is a precondition the filer satisfies against the court's rules. LGS does not score it; graded criteria begin at LGS 2.1.
2. Problem Diagnosis P2 Weighted · 10%
2.1 Question Characterization LGS 2.1
The motion correctly characterizes the dispute as a question of law, fact, or mixed — and explains why.
Source: §II-A, A+ descriptor
2.2 Vehicle Selection LGS 2.2
The selected procedural vehicle is the one that secures the relief sought on the available record; the motion states the vehicle's elements and shows the facts meet each.
Source: §II-A, A+ descriptor
2.3 Alternative Vehicle Analysis LGS 2.3
The motion explains why alternative procedural vehicles were considered and rejected.
Source: §II-A, A+ descriptor
2.4 Diagnosis-to-Strategy Linkage LGS 2.4
The motion shows how the problem characterization drives downstream analytical and strategic choices.
Source: §II-A, A+ descriptor
3. Legal Authority P3 Weighted · 20%
3.1 Statutory Text LGS 3.1
For each legal argument, the governing statute is cited with operative language quoted.
Source: §II-B, Authority Hierarchy (a)
3.2 Binding Authority LGS 3.2
At least one binding decision on analogous facts is cited for each argument.
Source: §II-B, Authority Hierarchy (b)
3.3 Persuasive Authority LGS 3.3
Persuasive authority (other departments, federal courts, treatises) supplements binding authority where appropriate.
Source: §II-B, Authority Hierarchy (c)
3.4 Administrative and Practice Sources LGS 3.4
Applicable administrative orders, Uniform Rules, OCA forms, or practice guides are identified.
Source: §II-B, Authority Hierarchy (d)
3.5 Adverse Authority LGS 3.5
The strongest contrary authority is disclosed and distinguished with specificity.
Source: §II-B, Authority Hierarchy (e); NY RPC 3.3(a)(2)
3.6 Burden of Proof LGS 3.6
The burden of proof is correctly identified, including which party bears it at each stage.
Source: §II-B, Specific Evaluation Criteria
3.7 Statutory-Interpretation Methodology LGS 3.7
Interpretation proceeds from text to legislative history to policy purpose, not bare assertion.
Source: §II-B, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Gluck
3.8 Analogical Reasoning LGS 3.8
Analogical reasoning is deployed as an affirmative skill, distinct from distinguishing adverse cases.
Source: §II-B, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Sherwin
3.9 Policy Rationale LGS 3.9
The motion engages the policy purpose of the governing statute, not only its text.
Source: §II-B, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Gluck
4. Factual Foundation P4 Weighted · 18%
4.1 Personal Knowledge LGS 4.1
Affirmations rest on personal knowledge (the standard the CPLR sets for attorney affirmations and party affidavits).
Source: §III, Specific Evaluation Criteria
4.2 Evidentiary Foundation LGS 4.2
Where business records or other documentary evidence are relied upon, the foundation the rules of evidence require is laid.
Source: §III, Specific Evaluation Criteria
4.3 Pinpoint Exhibit Citation LGS 4.3
Every material assertion is tied to a specific exhibit, identified by exhibit letter/number and page or paragraph.
Source: §III, Specific Evaluation Criteria
4.4 Exhibit List Completeness LGS 4.4
Every exhibit referenced in the affirmation appears on the exhibit list, and every item on the list is referenced in the affirmation.
Source: §III, Specific Evaluation Criteria
4.5 Evidentiary Honesty LGS 4.5
The motion acknowledges what the record does and does not show, without conceding the legal position.
Source: §III, A+ descriptor; Sherwin
5. Writing and Organization P5 Weighted · 12%
5.1 Argumentative Point Headings LGS 5.1
Point headings are argumentative and substantive, not descriptive.
Source: §IV, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Commercial Division Rule 17
5.2 Tone LGS 5.2
Forceful through evidence rather than rhetoric; respectful toward the court and opposing counsel.
Source: §IV, Specific Evaluation Criteria
5.3 Economy LGS 5.3
Every paragraph advances the argument; unnecessary recitation is omitted.
Source: §IV, Specific Evaluation Criteria
5.4 Citation Structure LGS 5.4
Authority is presented statute-before-case-law, binding-before- persuasive, application-before-rebuttal.
Source: §IV, Specific Evaluation Criteria
5.5 Audience Calibration LGS 5.5
The motion is calibrated to the assigned justice's known preferences, the court's local practice, and the procedural posture.
Source: §IV, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Wizner
6. Strategic Sophistication P6 Weighted · 10%
6.1 Proposed Order Quality LGS 6.1
The proposed order recites the supporting papers (per CPLR 2219); each ORDERED paragraph tracks one relief item; a service provision and compliance deadline are included; it is ready for signature without modification.
Source: §V, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Clermont
6.2 Appellate Posture LGS 6.2
The motion creates a clean appellate record, preserves arguments, and avoids unnecessary concessions.
Source: §V, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Clermont
6.3 Multi-Motion Strategy LGS 6.3
Where the motion is part of a sequence, the timing, sequencing, and interaction with other pending motions is evident.
Source: §V, Specific Evaluation Criteria
6.4 Interdisciplinary Command LGS 6.4
Relevant non-legal domain knowledge (financial analysis, medical records, technology) is demonstrated where applicable.
Source: §V, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Rakoff
6.5 Access-to-Justice Calibration LGS 6.5
The motion considers the impact on unrepresented or under-resourced parties where relevant.
Source: §V, Specific Evaluation Criteria; Wizner
7. Ethics and Candor P7 Gate
Pass/fail gate with graduated deductions. Deductions subtract from the composite. Any hallucinated citation forces Deficient regardless of composite score.
7.1 No Fabricated Citations LGS 7.1
No citation refers to a case that does not exist.
Deduction: -20 points per instance (-20 per instance; also forces Deficient conformance level)
Source: NY RPC 3.3; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Mata v. Avianca
7.2 No Fabricated Holdings LGS 7.2
No case holding is misquoted or fabricated.
Deduction: -15 points per instance
Source: NY RPC 3.3(a)(1)
7.3 Adverse Authority Disclosed LGS 7.3
All directly adverse controlling authority is disclosed.
Deduction: -15 points per instance
Source: NY RPC 3.3(a)(2)
7.4 No False Statements of Fact LGS 7.4
No material statement of fact is false.
Deduction: -15 points per instance
Source: NY RPC 3.3(a)(1); 22 NYCRR 130-1.1
7.5 Correct Procedural Vehicle LGS 7.5
The chosen vehicle matches the relief sought.
Deduction: -10 points per instance
Source: Rakoff; CPLR 3211 vs. 3212
7.6 Controlling Authority Cited LGS 7.6
The motion cites the controlling authority for each legal argument.
Deduction: -10 points per instance
Source: ABA Standards; NY RPC 1.1
7.7 No Ad Hominem LGS 7.7
No ad hominem attack on opposing counsel or a party.
Deduction: -10 points per instance
Source: 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)
7.8 No Trial Decision as Binding LGS 7.8
No trial-level decision is cited as binding authority.
Deduction: -5 points per instance
Source: NY court hierarchy
7.9 Interpretive Methodology Used LGS 7.9
Statutory arguments deploy interpretive methodology, not bare assertion.
Deduction: -5 points per instance
Source: Gluck
7.10 Procedural Length Compliance LGS 7.10
The filing observes the length limits the filing court's rules impose.
Deduction: -5 points per instance
Source: 22 NYCRR 202.8-b (compliance defined by the court)
7.11 Certification Filed LGS 7.11
Any certification of citations the court's rules require is filed.
Deduction: -5 points per instance
Source: 22 NYCRR 130-1.1-a (requirement defined by the court)
7.12 String Citations Explained LGS 7.12
Any string citation includes a parenthetical explaining each case's relevance.
Deduction: -3 points per instance
Source: Clermont; professional standards
8. Self-Assessment P8 Weighted · 10%
8.1 Strongest Ground for Denial LGS 8.1
The motion identifies the single strongest ground on which the court could deny it and addresses that ground.
Source: §VII, Prompt 1
8.2 Counter-Argument Preemption LGS 8.2
The motion identifies opposing counsel's best counter-argument and shows where it is preempted.
Source: §VII, Prompt 2
8.3 Filing Judgment LGS 8.3
The motion articulates why filing is appropriate and what alternatives were considered and rejected.
Source: §VII, Prompt 3; Kronman
8.4 Vulnerable-Party Impact LGS 8.4
The motion considers the impact on unrepresented or under-resourced parties.
Source: §VII, Prompt 4; Wizner
8.5 Appellate Resilience LGS 8.5
The motion identifies which arguments are preserved for appeal and what, if anything, has been conceded.
Source: §VII, Prompt 5; Clermont
Conformance levels
A motion conforms at Expert, Competent, or Deficient. A claim is version-specific and does not transfer to revisions — each must be re-graded.
Expert
The highest bar — comprehensive, disciplined drafting
All five authority categories deployed; adverse authority distinguished; proposed order ready for signature; self-assessment identifies real weaknesses; zero hallucinated citations.
Competent
The practical floor for professional work
Correct standard and vehicle; at least three authority categories; gaps in adverse authority or proposed order; limited self-assessment.
Deficient
Professional-responsibility risk
Wrong vehicle, missing authority categories, no adverse authority, boilerplate proposed order, no self-assessment, or hallucinated citations.
Conformance claims
A conformance claim is version-specific and is made for one motion as graded; it does not transfer to revisions, which must be re-graded.
A well-formed LexGrade conformance claim states all of:
- Level claimed (Expert, Competent, or Deficient)
- Version (LexGrade Standard v1.0) — claims are version-specific
- Composite score and the date graded
- Jurisdiction profile (base NY calibration, or a named profile)
- Grader (self-assessment, named human grader(s), or model + settings)
A claim asserts: That, at the stated version and date, the motion's composite fell in the claimed level's band AND the level's gate and precondition conditions held.
A claim does not assert: That the filing is procedurally proper (filer's P1 responsibility), that every citation was verified (the claimant's act, not the Standard's guarantee), or that the motion will be granted.
| Condition | Result |
|---|---|
| Any hallucinated citation | Deficient (regardless of composite score) |
| Wrong procedural vehicle | Cannot exceed Competent |
| Missing Memorandum of Law | Cannot exceed Competent |
| No adverse authority addressed | Cannot exceed Competent |
Composite scoring
subtotal = sum over P2,P3,P4,P5,P6,P8 of (grade/100 * weight) -> /80 scaled = subtotal / 0.80 -> /100 adjusted = scaled + net modifier - P7 deductions Composite = min(98, max(0, adjusted))
- Grade each scored principle 0–100 using the §4 per-principle bands.
- Weighted points: sum of (grade/100 * weight) over P2,P3,P4,P5,P6,P8 → /80.
- Scale: subtotal / 0.80 → 100-point basis.
- Apply net modifier and P7 deductions on the 100-point basis.
- Floor at 0, cap at 98.
| Principle | Weight |
|---|---|
| P2 | 10% |
| P3 | 20% |
| P4 | 18% |
| P5 | 12% |
| P6 | 10% |
| P8 | 10% |
| Letter | Range | Conformance |
|---|---|---|
| A+ | 98 | expert |
| A | 95-97 | expert |
| A- | 90-94 | expert |
| B+ | 86-89 | competent |
| B | 83-85 | competent |
| B- | 80-82 | competent |
| C+ and below | 79 and below | deficient |