Writing a P2 answer

3.3 Writing an FD1 Answer

This section discusses what examiners expect from an exam answer, and how to write an answer that achieves this.

3.3.1 What is being examined

• The examiners assume that if you are taking FD1 then you know the law. FD1 is designed to assess how well you can apply that law in practice. After all, if you pass the finals then in principle you could set up shop as an independent practitioner the next day.* • Consequently, what the exam and the examiners are looking for is a safe pair of hands; someone who is capable of assessing a client’s potentially complex real-world problems, and then applying the law to these sensibly. • Therefore: i. To answer a question, you must properly recognise what situation(s) have arisen and what laws are applicable to them to protect or further your client’s interests; and ii. To get good marks, your answer must actually show how the law applies to the situation in the question and the consequences of this for your client. This requires a very methodical approach to your answers. • The answer to a question can be looked at from both a micro perspective (individual marks) and a macro perspective (the overall structure). Each is dealt with in turn below.

3.3.2 The three-thirds model

• From the micro perspective, one can think of a typical single response to an issue in the exam as having three components. Depending on the question, these may give rise to anywhere between one and three marks: 1/3 The (correct) identification of a relevant legal issue, 2/3 application of the facts of the question to that legal issue, and 3/3 a reasoned conclusion for the consequent outcome. – Clearly in practice these three parts may end up being widely distributed over your answer, but still need to be included. • By way of a concrete example, suppose a question involves a junior worker, Mr. X, who invented something in his own time and is upset with his employer for then patenting it. • A poor answer (from a person who nevertheless seems to know the law) is to say:

Mr. X is entitled to the invention.

• Whilst correct, this bald assertion does not demonstrate an application of the law to the facts of the case, and does not demonstrate a reasoned conclusion – two-thirds of the answer is missing and full marks are unlikely. • So – let’s pull in the law:

* Don’t.

An employee can keep his invention unless it was made in the course of normal duties of the employee, or it was made in the course his duties and these impose a special obligation to further the interests of the employer. Therefore Mr X is entitled to the invention.

• This answer uses key words from s39(1)(2) UKPA (i.e. ‘normal duties’ and ‘special obligation’) that embody the legal tests inherent in that section. This signals to the examiner that you have identified the relevant tests. The use of key words from the act in this way is strongly recommended. Use of the word ‘therefore’ or an equivalent appears to signal that you have used that test to reach a conclusion. So on the face of it, this might feel like a good answer. – However, where are the facts of the question? Have they been applied to the law? Is reasoning really shown here? The same answer could be written by reciting the statute and then tossing a coin. • So – let’s combine the law with the facts:

The invention was not made as part of Mr X’s normal duties and he does not appear to have a special obligation to the firm. Therefore, he is entitled to the invention by default. • The key words are there, and so is Mr X. All the statements made are correct. However, that is all they are – bare statements. They apply the facts to the law, but do not give reasons why each statement is true. This answer therefore only shows implicit reasoning. • So – including the law, the facts and reasoning:

Mr X is entitled to the invention by default because it was made in his own time and therefore not as part of his normal duties, and because he is a junior employee and so does not appear to have a special obligation to the firm. • This is a good answer. It clearly applies the facts of the question to the relevant law, and justifies the stated conclusions. It’s also worth noting that it’s actually shorter than the rotelearnt response in the second version. • These four answer styles can be characterised as follows: i. Bare assertion; ii. Recall and coin toss; iii. Implicit reasoning; and iv. Explicit reasoning.

You should be aiming for type iv, in whatever form the actual answer takes. • There is of course a balancing act between showing explicit reasoning and re-writing the whole question in your answer. Avoid superfluous elements of a question in your answer, and if you tend to ramble then consider answering using bullet points for discipline:

– Mr X is entitled to the invention by default, since conclusion, based on

– it was made in his own time, fact input, justifying

– so not part of his normal duties; and – he is a junior employee, – so has no special obligation to the firm.

test’s output, and fact input, justifying test’s output • Keeping your answers brief keeps them clear for the examiner and also minimises the time penalty incurred when a point you make doesn’t earn a mark. It’s worth bearing in mind that the exam uses a positive marking schedule, meaning that only points listed on the

schedule gain marks. As a result it is possible to recite valid points that are not awarded marks in one year / question despite being awarded in another. Therefore try to keep individual points concise.

Third Conclusion

If you write relevant statements establishing facts, applying legal tests, and demonstrating reasoning, they will probably earn you marks. Try to ensure that at least one ‘therefore’, ‘because’, or other indication of explicit reasoning with respect to the facts in the question is clearly present when making such statements. To keep your answers manageable it is also a very good exam technique to use key words from the statute to signal your selection of the relevant legal tests in an unambiguous but economic fashion.

3.3.3 Gaining marks – Legalistic vs. Practical answers

• Given the above discussion of what constitutes a well-reasoned response, and preferably with reference to a good structural analysis of the question that indicates what responses are needed, you will have a rough idea of how many of the core marks you have addressed in your answer. • However, often the immediate problem in the question clearly does not generate enough marks on its own. An example of this can be seen in the following toy question:

“A new client, Mr Goldfish, phones you up in a panic because he’s got back from holiday to find that he did not request a search of his patent application by the due date, which expired last week. What would you do?

(3 Marks)”

• An answer that successfully demonstrates an application of the law to the reported situation and indicates the outcome, thereby earning yourself one mark, is

– “To remedy the situation, within two months of the expired due date request an extension as of right and pay the extension fee, request the search and pay the search fee and any excess claim fees”.

– But where are the other two marks?

• The other two marks highlight the fact that FD1 is a practice paper, not a legal paper per se. • Leaving aside one’s own registration as a representative, one may decide that the other marks are in your knowledge of the law, and try the following:

i. To remedy the situation, within two months of the expired due date request an extension as of right under R108(2), pay the extension fee, request the search and pay the search fee any excess claim fees. ii. If necessary, a discretionary further extension is also possible under R108(3) if applied

for within the two months. iii. Finally, if the above two options are unavailable, then because Mr Goldfish’s forgetting of the request appears unintentional, it should be possible to reinstate the application under s20A. – This may even feel like a good answer, since Mr Goldfish’s forgetfulness and panic seems to tie into the use of s20A. • The problem is that these two additional points are of no practical value to the client whatsoever in the given situation – if you do step i., then as the answer itself says you have remedied the situation and hence the other two points are moot. Consequently, you would still only get one mark, and worse, waste your time (particularly if you don’t keep your answers brief) and make the examiner wary of your approach to future questions. • So in this case we are compelled to look for other marks. Recall the examiner’s expectation that you must recognise what situations have arisen and what laws are applicable to them to protect or further your client’s interests. • Hence a practical approach is to recognise that the situation might be broader than what your forgetful client has reported. The question suggests that the client didn’t do anything at 12 months. Therefore, a good chain of reasoning would check through what other actions should be completed by this 12-month deadline. • A practical answer that properly safeguards Mr Goldfish’s interests would be:

i. To remedy the immediate situation, within two months of the expired due date request an extension as of right, pay the extension fee, request the search and pay the search fee and any excess claim fees. ii. As Mr Goldfish seems forgetful, also determine whether he has overlooked either of the following, also due by the same 12-month deadline: a. filing claims and an abstract; and b. paying the application fee.

If necessary, each can be remedied with a respective request of an extension as of right and fee, and completion of the respective act(s) within two months of the missed deadline. • This answer clearly demonstrates recognition of a potentially broader situation, addresses the legal issues that arise from it, and notes the outcomes. It would get the 3 marks for addressing the three possible omissions. • Note that you could go overboard and start discussing late convention filings, but whilst in principle this is also a 12-month issue note that there is no hint in the question of whether it is relevant, and more significantly no information is made available to whittle down such an open-ended issue (filing where – US? JP? EP? PCT?). In general avoid constructing hypothetical problems such as this that go beyond the remit of the question, as it will simply waste time (it’s a fair criticism that this example does so itself to a certain extent, albeit in order to allow examples of both legalistic and practical answers from a short question, but in this case the search is also justified by the available 3 marks). • Understanding what the remit of the question is, of course, requires some practice and an ability to properly analyse the question, as discussed in section 3.2 above. In the present case, if in addition Mr Goldfish was phoning from Taiwan and said he wanted worldwide

protection and the question was for 6 marks then a discussion of convention filings may be appropriate, but not in the toy question above. • Another point worth making is that you would not get any marks for saying ‘I would not have overlooked the search request in the first place’. This is just another hypothetical position, albeit one that simplifies rather than complicates the problem. In general, accept the situation as it is presented; if the question is actually about dubious facts, this will be clear within the framework of the particular question.

Fourth Conclusion

If a part of your answer appears to protect or further the interests of your client (including any necessary evaluation, analysis or clarification of a situation in order to provide subsequent practical advice), then it is likely to be worth marks. However, if it simply devolves into law for law’s sake, then this is much less likely.

3.3.4 The Bigger Picture

• The discussions above relate to how to deal with single issues; a single question of employer / employee ownership, and a single missed deadline. They illustrate that the law can provide a good structure for an answer (e.g. in the case of employee ownership) or that common chains of reasoning can guide an answer (in the particular case of a missed deadline above). • A typical part ‘A’ question will deal with one such issue more fully, or two related issues (such as in the missed renewal fee example recited in section 3.2.1 of this book). There will be facts to gather or derive, and these facts are applied to aspects of the law to determine the current state of affairs, and what the outcome of any remedy might be. You then provide clear advice on what to do, and note any consequences. • As noted previously, the sentences in Part A questions are generally all relevant to one of these steps, either flagging up what issues are relevant, what aspect of the law (or particular branch of a section) may be involved, or providing facts relevant to one of the current situation, the remedy and/or the consequences. Analyse a question with this in mind. • For part ‘B’ questions, the law hasn’t changed, just the breadth or depth of the issues. Hence we now move from the ‘micro’ perspective to the ‘macro’ perspective: • A question’s depth may be obtained in several ways. Many parts of the law have conditional outcomes, and so exploring these for different conditions can result in a compact but deep question. Examples of this include inventions made during different employment statuses in an ownership question, or applying the circumstances of different infringers to the questions in s60(1-3) and (5). This tactic can also be seen in questions having multiple claims, or items for sale, or prior art to compare in an infringement / validity question. Depth can also be increased by adding consequences, such as third parties infringing at different times during restoration of a patent, licensees or co-owners affected by an entitlement issue, and so-on. Depth for any of these may in turn be increased using the complexity of a timeline. Depth is often increased by including ambiguity for at least one step in a legal

process, inviting discussion. Meanwhile, some issues naturally lend themselves to in-depth questions, such as the various tests in s70A-F (threats). • Individually, these issues are no more difficult to tackle than the single issues in a part ‘A’ question – but they need be identified in your analysis, and you need to have developed an appreciation of the common threads in law and reasoning that these deep questions follow. • ‘Breadth’ can be obtained by linking separate issues together. For example, you may need to address a priority problem or a restoration problem before it is then possible to move on to an infringement issue. • Stretching the analogy somewhat, the Examiners need to construct questions whose combined ‘depth’ and ‘breadth’ have a total ‘area’ of 25 marks. Hence you might end up seeing, say, three issues in a question, but one will be ‘deep’ and account for 15 marks whilst two will each broaden the question out by 5 marks. Trust your analysis of the question, and don’t assume that there are equal marks for different issues. • To start this analysis from the top-down, it is useful to step back from a question after reading it, and ask: ‘What is the big picture in this question?’ Characterise the question using a couple of bullet points, as in ‘variations on employment, plus licensees and disclosure’, or ‘threats; ambiguity about whether recipient was the importer’, or ‘variations on infringement by product, no threat, one case may be just experimental ‘. Identify the main issues and the main talking points for these issues, as these will be where the core marks are. Then perhaps even briefly sketch out the branches and threads of these issues as per method 3 above. It’s not unreasonable to spend 5-10 minutes preparing to answer the question in this way. • As was discussed in section 3.2, it is possible to anticipate the structure of an answer once you know the big picture. However, in general the key stages will be to: – Firstly, establish the facts of the current situation (using any time lines, legal tests and justified assumptions necessary); – Secondly, identify and use whatever legal steps are appropriate to solve the problem(s) posed by the current situation and/or to identify the consequences of the current situation (or your solution); and – Thirdly, provide sensible advice on what needs to be done either to apply the solution or identify/mitigate any risks.

By breaking the answer down into such a structure or template, it becomes tractable and more like a logical sequence of Part A questions, hopefully with an attendant collection of marks.

3.3.5 Example Answers for FD1 2007 Q7

Consider attempting FD1 2007 Q7 yourself before reading this section (though this is not essential). If necessary, attempt it open-book and without time constraints. Don’t worry about leaving this exam paper ‘intact’ for later revision as it will be useful to learn about your own answer style early on – if and when you do the 2007 paper again properly, you will find you only half-remember the question anyway. I would also recommend prioritising more recent papers for practice purposes.

• The following example answers are intended to be equivalent, in the sense that they are based on the same analysis of the question and so pick up on the same issues. • Three versions of an answer to FD1 2007 Q7 (as analysed in section 3.2 above) are presented. • The first version is a reasonable and realistic answer. Notably, in addition to answering the question, the answer also indicates to the examiner what parts of the answer are being dealt with at any time and also any assumptions that the answer is based upon. This enables the examiner to clearly determine both where you are in your answer structure and where you are coming from with your approach. Such a clear answer structure (together with a clear question analysis) also gives you a good idea of your progress against the clock. • By contrast, the second version caricatures a failure to demonstrate reasoning and a tendency to reach conclusions or advise actions without substantiation. In principle the hypothetical author of this answer knew the same amount of law as the author of version 1 and was using a similar analysis. Thus whilst it is clear to the reader that the author of the second version knows a similar amount of law, it will be very difficult to award them a comparable number of marks. In addition as a side effect of this brusque approach, some discussion points raised in version 1 that were worth marks are not explicitly discussed at all, further penalising the author. • The third version replicates the reasonable answer of version 1. In theory the person writing this answer is capable of earning as many marks as the author of the first version, but in practice almost certainly won’t because otherwise valid marks are buried in a morass of waffle and extraneous analysis, and fail to use key words and phrases from the statute to signal to the examiner what is being thought. This is then compounded by poor presentation and poor organisation of the answer itself. Read it and then do yourself and the poor examiner a favour by avoiding this writing style.

FD1 2007 Q7, Version 1

Q7

Radio 1

Analysis:

Client’s employment status in own business and the relevance of Radio 1 to that business are unclear. – Need to be resolved to determine if consequently he had a special obligation (since would be very senior) that confers ownership of invention to his business.* – In any event, note that the client either owns the invention directly or via his business.

Improve Situation:

Request details of business and duties of employment (if any), then if necessary sort out any assignment to the desired party.

File an application for Radio 1 – provided June meeting was confidential (else Radio 1 disclosed) – Conclude was likely confidential since Radio 2 was filed

Advise filing before Radio 2 app is published: ~ 7/06+18m = 1/08, to avoid this being citable for inventive step against Radio 1 – Note to client that Radio 2 will be citable for novelty – significance is a question of facts. – Nonetheless in meantime should improve client’s bargaining position with MMR.

Radio 2

Analysis:

Request minutes/breakdown of the June ’06 meeting to determine who contributed to Radio 2, and to confirm confidentiality. – Note client writes ‘we … overcame’ - therefore I will assume some relevant input from MMR – So conclude Radio 2 jointly invented by client and MMR.

Consequently client is rightfully a joint applicant with MMR – Can work invention independently once this is sorted out – But can only license / assign with permission of MMR – As an individual this would be the realistic option.

Whilst a job offer is not a payment, check with client if any agreement was signed – Assume not for purposes of question.

Actions re financial reward:

Request that client is added as inventor under s13(1). Form 7/77 not due until 7/06+16m=11/07 – So ask MRR to include client as co-applicant now as simple to do. – Preferable to keep MMR cordial. – Either request agreement permitting client freedom to license / assign, or simply offer to assign share back to MMR for a reasonable sum.

If MRR won’t add client, use entitlement proceedings to become joint applicant – Use s8 for UK app – Use s12 for US app.

If facts actually indicate client is sole owner of Radio 2 then request a transfer from MMR or if uncooperative start entitlement proceedings as above.

Radio 3

Analysis:

Client now in a ‘senior position’ at MRR, and so likely to have a special obligation to them for any relevant inventions. Also, as a researcher, inventing is likely to be part of his normal duties. Request employment contract to confirm.

Thus it appears highly likely that Radio 3 is owned by MRR since relevant to firm and invented by client at work.

Actions re financial reward:

Seek employee compensation in case where employer is owner – s40(1) – Requires: – Patent or invention to be of outstanding benefit – This is unclear from question – investigate. – Must consider size of MRR and how much of benefits obtained are down to MRR’s own contributions (e.g. marketing) – Can be difficult to quantify, esp. if ex-employee – Also note Radio 3 currently an application, not patent – must wait until grant: consider filing caveat to be informed – Note that historically this requirement is hard to satisfy and a payment is unlikely.

Mobile Phone

Analysis:

I assume ‘the technology’ refers to the improvements of Radio 3, as transferred to mobiles.

Client invented in spare time. – So client owns invention, – Possibly, unless has special obligations due to seniority.*

Consider both possibilities:

Actions re financial reward: i. If MRR owns invention due to special obligation, client can use s40(1) as per Radio 3, with similar requirements. – This time, we know the patent is worth £10m – Therefore it’s easier to quantify the benefit of the client’s contribution with respect to other factors outlined previously. Success will depend on facts. – Again must wait for grant – Consider filing a caveat.

ii. If the client owns invention, then confirm that they validly assigned to MRR for £1 (note £1 is enough for a valid assignment). – If not valid for any reason, then still own; consider entitlement under s8. – If win under s8, MMR’s licence with Colour Mobile lapses – licence with client on similar terms (s11(3)).

Assuming valid assignment, then seek compensation in case that employee is owner and assigned to employer – s40(2) – has lesser requirement that compensation (£1) is ‘inadequate’ re benefit to MRR. – Strong argument that £1 is inadequate re £10m benefit of patent, and so this seems a promising option. – Again requires granted patent, so file a caveat.

Note that in this latter case, a strong position may also improve bargaining re Radio 3 and Radio 2.

* It is worth noting that in principle if a client makes an invention in their spare time then it is not part of their normal duties, including where those normal duties confer a special obligation to further the interests of the employer. However, this is not so clear cut in case law, and in FD1, in particular for senior employees where the bounds of normal or special duties may be blurred, it is best to explore both ownership possibilities in order to mine for marks.

Missed marks:

• I missed the following points (each worth a mark) when attempting the question: i. In addition to assignments, check for any contractual obligations on the client following the June meeting (e.g. ongoing confidentiality); ii. Co-owners can license independently in the US; iii. Look at the Radio 2 application when published to gauge client’s contribution; iv. Request to file a replacement application for subject-matter of Radio 2 owned by the client. • Of the remaining marks, roughly 18-19 are identifiable in the answer. In 2007, the average score for Q7 was 11. Typically, a score of 18-19 should be achievable for most part B questions if you have enough knowledge to pass part A, perform a careful analysis of the question, and understand how the examiners build up the marks.

FD1 2007 Q7, Version 2

Q7

The client probably owns the radio 1 invention as he invented it in his spare time, and he should file an application for it ASAP to beat any future disclosures. If his business does own it, then of course he owns the business anyway.

Check any minutes to confirm the client and MRR invented radio 2 together at the meeting, and so should be joint applicants as per s36. I will register the client or failing that use entitlement proceedings (s8 for UK, s12 for US). The client can only make money

from licensing/assigning his share with MMR’s permission, so probably easiest to offer back to MMR.

MRR own radio 3 since the client was a senior employee when he invented it. You can get employee compensation for an employer’s patent under s40, but it’s difficult to prove you are entitled to it.

It’s not clear if the client or MRR owns the Mobile Phone invention. If MRR owns the invention, then the client can use employee compensation under s40(1) as above, and this time he can argue for compensation based on the patent being worth £10m. But if he owned the invention, then argue that £1 is not enough compensation for a £10m patent, using s40(2).

Marks:

• It is actually quite difficult to predict how many marks Version 2 would get. Part of the reason is that whilst some facts are correct, e.g. you can get compensation for a patent (but not an application) under s40, due to the lack of explicit reasoning it is unclear if this is deliberate or accidental on the part of the candidate. It would be very surprising if this made it near 10 marks.

FD1 2007 Q7, Version 3

Q7. My client developed his digital radio in his spare time, and so does not seem to have developed it when working for his business, though it isn’t clear if he worked for his business (though if he did he’d probably count as a senior employee) or just owned it or indeed if the business was involved with radios in the first place, so it’s not clear if he or his business own the invention. If he owns it, then we need to check that the meeting with MRR was confidential and so he didn’t end up disclosing the idea to the public – of course this also true if his company owned it – but if it was not disclosed then either he can file an application for radio 1 in his own name or sort out filing it in his business’ name (or transfer it to himself) if his business owned it. It would be best to file it before anything to do with radio 2 is published, so we should watch for publication of the radio 2 application in around January, though of course this publication is based on an earlier filing and so can be used for novelty against radio 1 in any case. On balance the client should still file an application anyway as it might put some pressure on MRR. – The meeting in June 06 probably was confidential since radio 2 got filed, so filing should be OK. At the meeting, it seems as though the client and mega radio both found there were problems with radio 1 that needed solving, and came up with radio 2. It would be helpful if the client could provide any confirmation about who contributed to radio 2, but it seems as though it was probably both of them so I think that the client should be named as an inventor on the radio 2 application. He

may want to also become a joint applicant on the patent applications, and so he should talk to MRR about being added in, preferably before the statement of inventorship is due in November this year. As a co-owner he can trade in the application with MRRs permission. I should check that he didn’t sign any agreements about ownership at the time or when he got the job at MRR, but if not then he can also make the radio himself though he may not have the ability to do so. Maybe he should consider selling his share to MMR instead. If MRR don’t want to cooperate then he can use entitlement proceedings, remembering that the US application requires separate entitlement proceedings. If the minutes of the June meeting show that the client was the sole inventor of radio 2 after all, he should either request a transfer from MMR or if they won’t cooperate then again entitlement proceedings. After the client became a senior researcher he invented the method of improving sound at low signal levels for radio 3 but he would probably be expected to invent such things and also may be required to let the company have it anyway; I can check his contract to confirm. He should check for when the patent is granted as he will be unemployed by then and so should consider seeking compensation from MRR since he will not really be in a position to benefit from the invention’s success. However this can be very difficult to do especially if as in this case it is unclear how much of the radio’s success is down to marketing and suchlike or in fact whether the development of the radio has even lead to anything valuable yet, so he should not hold his breath. Then at some point when at home the client realised that these improvements could also work in mobile phones, but he is a bit unsure about the details of how come MRR ended up owning the invention. It’s possible that MRR owned it because he was a very senior inventor at the time in which case he can again consider seeking compensation from MRR at grant, but this time he can point to the license being definitely worth ten million pounds, which would seem to rule out most of MRR’s involvement in terms of marketing, etc though of course it may be that if the client as an individual had had the patent then Colour Mobile would not have been interested in talking to just him or have much confidence in the invention so it is still hard to quantify how much of that money is down to MRR and its licensing team, so again he might run into difficulties with this. He’ll need to wait until the patent is granted anyway to find out. Of course it is possible that despite being senior he still owns the invention, and I will ask the client to be more clear about what papers he signed about this and whether he really received the commemorative coin. I think that you probably don’t dream up stuff like that so he probably assigned it to MRR, so once the patent is granted he can argue that the one pound is not very much when compared to the large amount that Colour Mobile are willing to pay for a licence under the employee-owner compensation law, but if he didn’t then he could sue for ownership and then licence to Colour Mobile himself. I think that the client could probably use this issue to apply some pressure to any discussions regarding radio 3 or 2 that come up and so these should all be orchestrated carefully. I think that this will help the client to secure some reward for his inventions in the UK (and the US) by improving his position on the radios and mobile phone.

Marks:

• The likelihood that all the marks available from Version 1 will be awarded to Version 3 are low.

In particular the incoherence of Version 3 often obscures the intent of a point and, coupled with the poor use of language from the statute, may cause a point to be discounted as unclear or just be overlooked. Of course, in practice this unstructured approach is also likely to cause the author of Version 3 to forget to include parts of their answer (unlike in this example) as they follow a stream of consciousness through the issues of the question. They are also more likely to run out of time. • Consider reading the three sample scripts from the PEB website to see three further versions of this answer, each of which passed to a greater or lesser degree. Among other things, it is useful to note that there are several ways to structure the answer, as well as the differences in writing style.

3.3.6 Summary – Writing an Answer

• Use the ‘big picture’ and your question analysis / answer template as a guide and as a checklist. • Tell the examiner where you are in your answer and what you are thinking. • Where appropriate use the three-thirds model to structure individual elements of your answer. • Focus on practical analysis and advice for your client… … based on the client’s goals and the directions at the end of the question. • Keep each point concise and separate. • For your notional client: – assume they are an intelligent but lay person, – explain the current situation where needed, – explain what needs to be done and why, based on the situation as given/derived, – explain the outcomes, – explain the risks, and – enable them to make a reasoned decision based on your advice.