How law essays are marked in the UK: grade bands, IRAC, and what loses easy marks

Most law students have read a marking rubric once—at the start of the module—and then proceed to guess what "excellent critical analysis" means in practice. Examiners do not grade on mystery: they are applying band descriptors that reward specific, observable moves in your writing. Understanding those bands before you write is one of the fastest legal study shortcuts available.

The structure of UK LLB marking is broadly consistent across institutions. Once you know what each band requires, you stop writing to an imagined standard and start writing to a named one—and you can measure your drafts against it before results day.

How UK law essays are typically graded

First class (70+)

Scripts in this band demonstrate precise issue identification, accurate and selective rule statements, and—most importantly—Application that explicitly tests the law against the facts rather than describing it. Conclusions are earned and specific. There is visible conditional reasoning where the outcome is genuinely uncertain. This band does not require perfect answers; it requires consistent legal method throughout. See the first-class essay guide for the specific habits that move marks here.

Upper second (60–69)

Strong knowledge and mostly structured arguments. The gap from 2:1 to First is almost always in Application—either narrating facts instead of running the test, or covering depth shallowly across many issues rather than engaging fully with the contested ones. Rule is usually sound; Issue identification is sometimes over-broad.

Lower second (50–59)

Answers in this band demonstrate knowledge but inconsistent application. Structure may be present but partial: Rule paragraphs that do not connect to Application, or conclusions that introduce reasoning not shown above them. Issue identification is often surface-level, missing the more nuanced legal questions the facts invite.

Third and below (40–49)

Material reproduced without application to the specific facts; limited structure; conclusions that cannot be followed from the analysis given. Often characterised by missing IRAC legs rather than weak ones—Issue may be assumed, Conclusion may be absent.

The structural mistakes that keep capable students below their ceiling

• Narrating the facts instead of applying the law. The Application section should test the legal standard against the facts; not retell the story.
• Over-investing in Rule at the expense of Application. Examiners know the law. They are assessing whether you can use it on unfamiliar facts.
• Issue drift. Raising a legal head without resolving it, or raising heads the facts do not actually trigger, signals poor issue triage.
• Mechanical Conclusion. "Therefore there is a breach" after two sentences of Application is not a conclusion the First band recognises.

These are all IRAC problems, which is why structured, leg-by-leg feedback is more useful than a single global comment. The IRAC structure guide and Application deep-dive target the two most common culprits directly.

How to use marking criteria actively in revision

• Read your module's band descriptors before each practice attempt—not after.
• After drafting, score yourself per IRAC leg against the First-class descriptor.
• Identify the single weakest leg and rewrite only that section before repeating.
• Use timed conditions—marks in the exam reflect performance under pressure, not polished coursework. See the time-pressure tactics guide.

Why you need external feedback to close the gap

The challenge with self-scoring against descriptors is that you fill in the gaps your reader cannot see. You know what you meant; the examiner only reads the words. Getting a structured read of your draft—one that maps observations back to IRAC legs—surfaces the difference between what you intended and what is actually on the page. That is the mechanism behind PQ practice with feedback being more effective than passive revision, and it is why frequent, specific feedback beats occasional global marks.