The Foundation: Justice Leonen's 5-Point Rubric
During the 2020-2021 Bar Examinations, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen introduced[a] a straightforward qualitative rubric to guide examiners. This system provided a clear, tiered framework for assessing answers based on the correctness of legal conclusions and the quality of their supporting arguments and presentation. It established the core principles of what constitutes an excellent versus a poor answer.
5.0
Correct Conclusion, Correct Basis, Polished Delivery
4.0
Correct Conclusion & Basis, Flawed Delivery
3.0
Correct Conclusion, Incorrect Basis
2.0
Incorrect Conclusion, Some Reasoning Skill
1.0
Incorrect Conclusion, Poor Reasoning
0.0
No Answer or Gibberish
The Need for Nuance[3]
While the 5-point system is an excellent guide, final Bar Exam scores are famously precise, often calculated to multiple decimal places (e.g., 74.999%[FAIL]). This indicates that examiners use a more granular scale to differentiate between thousands of answers. A simple integer system cannot produce such results. This infographic proposes a refined rubric using 0.25-point increments to bridge this gap.
2023 Bar Topnotcher's Score
89.2625%[2]
This level of precision is impossible with a simple 5-point integer scale, highlighting the need for fractional grading to differentiate elite performance.
Only 36.77% (3,812) of the 10,387 examinees completed all the tests during the three days of the exams passed the 2023 Bar Examinations.[2]
The Granular Grading Rubric[4]
This expanded 20-tier system allows examiners to more accurately capture the quality of an answer. It breaks down each of Justice Leonen's original tiers into four sub-levels, providing the granularity needed for precise overall scoring while maintaining the original framework's integrity.
Tier 5: Exemplary (Correct Conclusion & Basis, Excellent Delivery)
For answers that are fundamentally perfect but vary in their level of polish and depth.
5.00: Perfect
Flawless. Presents the correct legal conclusion, supported by precise legal bases, and delivered in a complete, succinct, and masterfully polished manner.
4.75: Excellent
Near-perfect. Conclusion and bases are correct, with highly coherent and clear delivery, perhaps with a very minor grammatical flaw.
4.50: Very Good
Strongly persuasive. Correct conclusion and bases, presented clearly but could be more succinct or elegant.
4.25: Good
Correct conclusion and bases. Delivery is effective but may have noticeable (yet minor) flaws in communication or structure.
Tier 4: Proficient (Correct Conclusion & Basis, Flawed Delivery)
For answers that are substantively correct but demonstrate notable issues in communication.
4.00: Proficient
The benchmark for this tier. Correct conclusion and bases, but delivery is attended by clear flaws in communication that do not obscure the meaning.
3.75: Mostly Correct
Conclusion and primary basis are correct, but may omit a secondary point or contain more significant communication flaws.
3.50: Sufficient
The core legal argument is correct, but the answer is poorly structured, difficult to follow, or contains grammatical errors that require effort to understand.
3.25: Barely Sufficient
While the correct answer is present, it is buried in a confusing or poorly written response.
Tier 3: Incomplete (Correct Conclusion, Flawed Basis)
For answers that arrive at the right destination through the wrong path.
3.00: Incomplete
Correct conclusion but supported by an incorrect legal basis, or a mix of correct and incorrect bases.
2.75: Partially Supported
Correct conclusion, with an attempt at a legal basis that is mostly incorrect but contains a kernel of a relevant idea.
2.50: Weak Support
Correct conclusion based on a lucky guess, with legal bases that are entirely incorrect or irrelevant.
2.25: Very Weak Support
Correct conclusion, but the "reasoning" is nonsensical or completely detached from the question.
Tier 2: Developing (Incorrect Conclusion, Some Skill)
For incorrect answers that still demonstrate a foundational capacity for legal reasoning.
2.00: Developing
Incorrect conclusion, but the examinee shows a capacity for effective legal reasoning and communication in their discussion.
1.75: Some Logic
Incorrect conclusion, but the faulty reasoning is coherent and demonstrates some understanding of legal principles, albeit misapplied.
1.50: Basic Structure
Incorrect conclusion, reasoning is flawed, but the answer follows a basic legal answer format (e.g., identifies issue, cites a rule).
1.25: Attempted Reasoning
Incorrect conclusion with a very weak attempt at reasoning; the logic is difficult to follow.
Tier 1: Deficient (Incorrect Conclusion, Poor Skill)
For answers that are incorrect and demonstrate a fundamental lack of skill.
1.00: Deficient
Incorrect conclusion and demonstrates an inability to reason and communicate effectively, but still a bona fide attempt.
0.75: Very Poor
Incorrect conclusion, with reasoning that is mostly irrelevant statements or regurgitation of unrelated law.
0.50: Minimal Attempt
Barely an answer. A few words or a single sentence that is incorrect and irrelevant.
0.25: Last Resort
Something is written, but it shows no understanding of the question or the law.
The Compounding Effect of Granularity
Small differences matter. This simulation shows how marginal gains from a granular scoring system across eight bar subjects can significantly separate two examinees. Examinee A consistently scores just 0.25 to 0.50 points higher per subject than Examinee B, leading to a meaningful difference in their final weighted average.
The Grading Process Flow
From a single essay answer to a final weighted grade, the scoring process is a multi-step journey. This flowchart illustrates how an individual answer is evaluated using the granular rubric, aggregated into a subject grade, and finally combined with other subjects to determine an examinee's overall performance.