MPT Template: How to Format an
Objective Memorandum

What You’ll Learn:

• Format & Structure of an Objective Memorandum… with MPT Template
• Tips for Drafting an Objective Memorandum
• Sample Sections of an Objective Memorandum MPT Assignment

On the MPT, an Objective Memorandum typically has the following structure:

1. Memo Caption – For the top formatting, use a Memo Caption format (e.g. Title, To, From, Date, and Subject).
2. Introduction – A short explanation of the assigned problem and the issues to be discussed.
3. Statement of Facts (only include when instructed) – A short statement of the relevant facts.
4. Discussion (with headings) – The legal analysis, with headings for each issue and sub-issue.
5. Conclusion – A short conclusion that resolves (or gives advice) on the legal issues for the problem assigned.

NOTE:  Remember to ALWAYS follow the Task Memorandum & Drafting Instructions and carefully check what sections to include or omit.  The bar examiners could change a typical MPT format at their discretion, so be careful not to make any assumptions.

[For the top formatting, use a Memo Caption format (e.g. Title, To, From, Date, and Subject).]

To:  Alexandra Carlton
From: Examinee
Date:  July 30, 2019
Re:  American Electric v. Wuhan Precision Parts Ltd.

Introduction EXAMPLE:
[A short explanation of the assigned problem and the issues to be discussed.]

This memorandum explores whether our client Wuhan Precision Parts Ltd. (“WPP”) will be held liable for a default judgment entered against it by the United States District Court for the District of Franklin in favor of American Electric Distribution Inc. (“AE”) pursuant to an arbitration award.  First, this memorandum looks at whether the default judgment may be vacated due to insufficient service of process.  Second, this memorandum analyzes whether there are any grounds to challenge the attorneys’ fee award issued by the District Court.

Discussion EXAMPLE:
[The legal analysis, with headings for each issue and sub-issue.]

1. Will WPP succeed in vacating the default judgment due to improper service under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention?

   As you know, this is an issue of first impression in Franklin. However, courts in both Olympia and Columbia have found that formal Hague Procedures do not need to be followed to enforce all arbitration agreements. However, they disagree on the standard that should be used. Below is a summary of the Olympia and Columbia tests, as well as an analysis of how each test would impact our client.

   1. Olympia Court Test: Fairness Standard
       
      In Auto Dealers Ass’n v. Peason, the court held that…

    

   2. Columbia Court Test: Deemed Waiver

      Columbia was next to decide this issue. When making its determination on similar facts to Penn Coal, the court …

1. Are there any grounds to challenge the attorney’s fee award?

   Although the first issue was split, both Olympia and Columbia agreed on how to handle additional attorney’s fee awards in cases where the court is asked to issue a civil judgment for a previous arbitration award. Here, …

Conclusion EXAMPLE:
[A short conclusion that resolves (or gives advice) on the legal issues for the problem assigned.]

Ultimately, it is unclear which test Franklin will adopt, as all authority discussed above is advisory (coming from Olympia and Columbia courts), and is not binding upon a Franklin court. However, under either the Fairness or Waiver tests, it is unlikely that WPP will be able to vacate the judgment. Under either approach, however, it is likely that the additional attorney’s fees award will be vacated.