Here’s the fear that keeps many candidates awake the night before a litigation interview: “What if they give me a problem and I don’t know the law?” The good news is that, in most interviews, they aren’t testing whether you know the exact answer. They’re testing how you approach a question when you don’t. Can you identify the legal issue? Can you reason through it logically? Can you explain your thinking clearly and recognise what information you would need next? Once you understand that, a problem question stops feeling like a trap and becomes an opportunity to demonstrate how you think. Here’s a simple framework you can use.
Quick answer
To handle a case study or problem question, don’t rush to a conclusion. Clarify the facts, identify the legal issues, reason through them out loud in a structured way, flag your assumptions, and arrive at a reasoned view, noting what you’d check to confirm. Your visible reasoning is what’s being marked, far more than the final answer.
What they’re really testing
Think about what a junior lawyer actually does: they’re handed messy facts and a question, and they have to spot the issues, reason through them, and figure out what to research. That’s exactly what the problem question simulates. The interviewer wants to see: Can you stay calm with an unfamiliar problem? Can you spot the real issues? Can you reason logically and communicate it clearly? A candidate who reasons well toward an imperfect answer beats one who blurts a confident, unexplained guess.
The Four-Step Framework: Clarify, Identify the Issues, Reason, Reach a View
- Clarify. Don’t dive in. Ask sensible clarifying questions and restate the problem in your own words. This buys thinking time and shows you scope a question before answering, a real lawyerly habit.
- Spot the issues. Identify the legal (and sometimes commercial) issues in play. Even naming them clearly earns credit.
- Reason aloud. Work through each issue step by step, out loud. “On the one hand… on the other… which matters here because…” Let them hear your thinking.
- State a reasoned view. Come to a position, but appropriately hedged: “Based on this, I’d lean towards X, though I’d want to check Y to be sure.” Confidence with honesty.
YLCC ACTION STEP: Practise with past problem questions or moot propositions. Set a timer and talk through your answer aloud using this framework: clarify, identify the issues, reason through them, and reach a view. The skill isn’t knowing more law. It’s learning to think clearly and explain your reasoning under pressure. It’s structuring your thinking under mild pressure. Practise the structure, not the content.
What to do when you don’t know the law
This is the moment you’re dreading, so here’s exactly what to do: say what you do know, reason from first principles, and be honest about the gap. “I’m not certain of the specific provision here, but the issue seems to be X, and I’d approach it by considering Y and checking Z.” That answer is genuinely strong; it shows you can function when you don’t have everything memorised, which is most of real legal work. Compare that to a confident wrong answer, which quietly worries an interviewer far more.
PLEASE DON’T DO THIS: Please don’t blurt a one-line conclusion with no reasoning — even if it’s right, they can’t see how you got there, and that’s the whole point. And please don’t bluff specific law you’re unsure of. “Here’s how I’d reason and what I’d verify” is both more honest and more impressive than a fabricated citation.
For written or take-home versions
Some firms give a written problem or a take-home exercise instead. The same thinking applies, plus: structure your answer clearly (issues, analysis, conclusion), state assumptions, keep it well-organised, and proofread. A clear, well-reasoned written answer that’s honest about its limits beats a padded one that overclaims.
FAQs
What if there’s a written exercise? Same reasoning, but structure it clearly (issues, analysis, conclusion), state assumptions, and proofread.
What if I don’t know the relevant law? Reason from what you do know, name the issues, and say what you’d verify. Structured reasoning is what’s marked.
Is it okay to ask clarifying questions? Yes, it’s expected and shows you scope a problem before answering. Just don’t stall endlessly.
Should I reach a definite conclusion? Reach a reasoned view, appropriately hedged. “I’d lean X, subject to checking Y” is ideal.
How do I practise this? Talk through past problem questions or moot problems aloud, timed, using a fixed structure. Practise the method, not memorised content.
Thank you for reading!
If you found this article helpful, explore more resources from YLCC and continue your legal learning journey.
