Assessment 1: Re-Designing Law Report

Assessment Overview

In Week 4 we analysed "legal artefacts"; simulations used to reiterate skills learnt early in your law school journey. We also spent time thinking about how Design Thinking and other lenses could assist with these scenarios. 

Choose one scenario from Week 4 and map out a solution for the client using legal and Design Thinking processes.

Focus on: what options are available to the client? Why the options chosen are beneficial to them? Remember to take a human-centric and holistic approach to the issue/s.

Learning Outcomes

The targeted Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) for this assessment are: CLO1, CLO3, and CLO4.

Assessment Requirements – Brief Summary

This assessment required students to apply legal knowledge and Design Thinking approaches to a practical client-based scenario provided in Week 4. The task involved selecting one of the “legal artefact” scenarios and mapping out a comprehensive solution for the client.

The key requirements included:

• Scenario selection: Choose one legal artefact from Week 4 for analysis.
• Legal and Design Thinking integration: Apply both legal processes and Design Thinking methodology to frame a practical solution.
• Options exploration: Identify and present multiple options available to the client.
• Client-centered reasoning: Justify why the chosen option(s) are beneficial, with a human-centric and holistic approach.
• Alignment with learning outcomes: Demonstrate skills mapped to CLO1 (knowledge of law and process), CLO3 (problem-solving), and CLO4 (communication and client-centered practice).

The expected output was a structured, well-reasoned solution showing both legal accuracy and empathy for client needs.

Step-by-Step Academic Mentor Approach

1.Understanding the Assessment Context

The mentor began by breaking down the requirements, clarifying that the task was not just about applying legal theory but also about showcasing creative, client-focused problem-solving. The student was guided to revisit Week 4 scenarios and select one that resonated most with their understanding and strengths.

2. Scenario Selection

Together, the student and mentor discussed the available legal artefact scenarios. The mentor encouraged the student to choose a scenario with clear client issues where Design Thinking could add value, ensuring alignment with assessment expectations.

3. Exploring Legal Frameworks

Once the scenario was chosen, the mentor helped the student identify the relevant laws, regulations, and procedures applicable. This ensured the solution had a strong legal foundation before integrating other perspectives.

4. Introducing Design Thinking

The mentor walked the student through Design Thinking principles empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test to encourage a broader, innovative approach. The student was guided to put themselves in the client’s shoes, map the pain points, and consider holistic solutions beyond strict legal interpretation.

5. Generating Options for the Client

The mentor prompted the student to brainstorm multiple pathways, weighing the pros and cons of each. This process encouraged critical analysis and highlighted the importance of flexibility in client advisory roles.

6. Evaluating and Justifying the Chosen Solution

The student was then guided to compare options and justify the recommended solution. The mentor emphasized clear reasoning—why this option best served the client, balancing legal compliance with practical and human needs.

7. Structuring the Response

The mentor assisted in creating a logical flow:

• Brief context of the client and issue.
• Identification of legal frameworks.
• Application of Design Thinking.
• Exploration of options.
• Justification of chosen option.
• Concluding reflection on client benefit.

8. Final Review & Refinement

The mentor ensured that the student’s work was cohesive, properly referenced, within the word limit, and aligned with CLOs. Special care was taken to maintain clarity and professional tone.

Outcome and Learning Achieved

Through this guided approach, the student successfully produced a structured and client-focused solution. The final response:

• Showed a balance of legal accuracy and human-centric thinking.
• Clearly explored client options, with well-justified recommendations.
• Applied Design Thinking to highlight innovative and practical solutions.
• Addressed CLO1 (legal knowledge), CLO3 (problem-solving), and CLO4 (effective communication).

Ultimately, the exercise reinforced critical skills of legal reasoning, empathy, structured problem-solving, and holistic client advisory practice key capabilities for real-world law practice.

Get Access to Reliable Study Support Today

Looking to strengthen your understanding of this assignment? You can download the sample solution provided here to see how concepts are applied in a structured academic response. This sample is a valuable reference tool to guide your research, improve your writing style, and gain clarity on key requirements.

Important Note: The sample solution is meant strictly for reference and learning purposes only. Submitting it as your own work may lead to plagiarism issues. Always use it as a study resource to build your original response.

If you want a fresh, plagiarism-free, custom-written solution tailored to your exact assignment requirements, our team of professional academic writers is here to help. With expertise across diverse subjects, they ensure:

• 100% original and plagiarism-free work
• Structured solutions aligned with your assessment guidelines
• On-time delivery to meet your deadlines
• Academic quality you can trust