Law students are examined through open-text answers: case solutions, essays and memos that apply the law to a set of facts.
This paper systematizes how open-text legal answers can be evaluated.
We derive eight desiderata from educational measurement and from the law that governs exams, among them validity, reliability, reasons, credit for defensible alternative solutions, robustness to gaming and human oversight.
We then compare eight evaluation paradigms against them, from unstructured human grading to LLM judges with instance-specific rubrics and pairwise comparison.
Three findings stand out.
A rubric written for the task is the strongest lever for agreement between an LLM judge and human graders, but the reported figures answer different questions and rarely come with the human agreement they must be read against.
The central validation gap lies where examination law is most demanding: defensible alternative solutions, follow-on errors, and the examiner's correction of model judgments.
And rubric-centred grading is the most auditable family, because it makes the standard, its application and the final decision checkable.
From this we derive the trustworthy rubric judge: an instance rubric that credits arguments and alternative paths, evidence checked in code, probes, repeated runs, calibration against independent human grades, logging, and an examiner who reads every script.
We state what each safeguard rests on, what remains to be tested, and the uses the evidence supports today.