PEER REVIEW FEEDBACK FORM1

Writer 1: Prosecution Writer 2: Defense

Tips for Effective Feedback:

 Focus on higher-order concerns vs. lower-order concerns (legal analysis vs grammar,
punctuation). If you need to address lower-order concerns, do it last.
 Avoid trying to cover too much information. Select one or two main strengths or weaknesses (e.g.,
large scale organization, CREXAC).
 Avoid giving generalized feedback like, “good job.” Instead, explain why the writer did a good
job.
 Try giving feedback that addresses the process as opposed to the product. “Strong thesis
because…”
 Be professional and courteous to opposing counsel. You are peers; this is a critique, not a
criticism.

Part I: Review Your Argument. Before reading opposing counsel’s paper, take a few minutes to answer
questions 1 & 2: You will want to have this in front of you for Part III.
(1) Identify what aspect(s) of your paper you think you did well.

(2) Identify what aspect(s) of your paper you think you did not do well.

Part II: Read Opposing Counsel’s Argument. You should have already exchanged papers with
opposing counsel. Now take a few minutes to read the paper and then take a few minutes to complete
questions 3 & 4.
(3) Identify what aspects of the paper you think the writer did well.

(4) Identify what aspects of the paper you think the writer did not do well.
1
Adapted from Beryl Blaustone’s 6-Step Feedback Model and Sheila Rodriguez’s 4-Step Peer Conference Feedback Form
[1]
[2]
Part III: Live Conference. Schedule a time to have a 20-25 minute conversation. You will need your
notes from Parts I & II as well as your argument and opposing counsel’s. If you made any written
comments you may send it ahead of time but opposing counsel isn’t expected to read it ahead of time.
Note: Please do not meet in person! Ideally you can meet virtually with visual capability so you can
point out specific things on each other’s papers. However, this can also work with audio only as
long as both of you have everything in front of you.

First, have a 10 minute conversation on Writer 1’s (prosecutor) paper. The conversation should follow
these steps:
Step 1
Writer 1: Identify what aspect(s) of your paper that you think you did well.

Step 2
Writer 2: Identify what aspect(s) of the paper that you think Writer 1 did well.

Step 3
Writer 1: Identify what aspect(s) of your paper that you think you did not do well.

Step 4
Writer 2: Identify what aspects of the paper that you think Writer 1 did not do well.

Now repeat these four steps with Writer 2’s (defense) paper so that both of you have had a 10 minute
conference.
Step 1
Writer 2: Identify what aspect(s) of your paper that you think you did well.

Step 2
Writer 1: Identify what aspect(s) of the paper that you think Writer 1 did well.

Step 3
Writer 2: Identify what aspect(s) of your paper that you think you did not do well.

Step 4
Writer 1: Identify what aspects of the paper that you think Writer 1 did not do well.

[3]