100+ Free CTAS Practice Questions

Pass your NBTA Civil Trial Advocacy Specialist exam on the first try — instant access, no signup required.

✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately

~55-65% Pass Rate

100+ Questions

100% Free

1 / 10

Question 1

Score: 0/0

Under FRCP Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain:

A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

Every fact supporting the claim

Only legal conclusions

Notice pleading with unlimited detail

to track

2026 Statistics

Key Facts: CTAS Exam

100

Exam Questions

NBTA

Pass/Fail

Board Review

NBTA

5 hours

Exam Duration

NBTA

$2,000-$3,500

Exam Fee

NBTA (app + exam)

5+ years

Experience Required

NBTA eligibility

5 years

Certification Validity

Recertification required

The NBTA CTAS exam is a 5-hour written examination with approximately 100 essay and multiple-choice questions. Pass/fail determined by NBTA Board based on total performance and peer review. Candidates must have a JD, active bar membership, substantial civil trial practice (typically 25%+ of practice for 5+ years), documented lead trial experience (minimum jury trials per NBTA standards), CLE in trial advocacy, and peer references from judges and attorneys. Certification is valid 5 years; recertification via peer review and CLE. Fee: $2,000-$3,500.

Sample CTAS Practice Questions

Try these sample questions to test your CTAS exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.

1Under FRCP Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain:

A.A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

B.Every fact supporting the claim

C.Only legal conclusions

D.Notice pleading with unlimited detail

Explanation: FRCP 8(a)(2) requires 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' Following Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), allegations must be plausible — not merely conceivable. The court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but disregards legal conclusions couched as fact. A plausible claim requires factual content allowing reasonable inference of liability.

2A motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) tests:

A.Whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, accepting well-pleaded facts as true and viewing in light most favorable to plaintiff

B.Whether plaintiff will win at trial

C.The merits of the evidence

D.Personal jurisdiction

Explanation: Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Court accepts factual allegations as true, disregards legal conclusions, and determines whether the complaint states a plausible claim under Twombly/Iqbal. Personal jurisdiction is 12(b)(2); venue is 12(b)(3); subject matter jurisdiction is 12(b)(1). Converting to summary judgment requires proper notice when matters outside the pleadings are considered (12(d)).

3Under FRCP 26(a)(1), initial disclosures must include:

A.Names and contact information of witnesses likely to have discoverable information, documents/ESI the disclosing party may use, damages computation, and insurance agreements

B.All potentially relevant documents

C.Only witness names

D.Only damages computation

Explanation: Rule 26(a)(1) mandatory initial disclosures (without waiting for a request) include: (A) witnesses likely to have discoverable information to be used (not opposing witnesses you know of); (B) documents/ESI/tangible things in party's custody to be used; (C) damages computation with supporting documents; (D) insurance agreements. Exempted proceedings include administrative appeals, habeas, forfeitures. Supplementation required under 26(e).

4The standard for summary judgment under FRCP 56 after Celotex v. Catrett and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby is:

A.No genuine dispute of material fact and movant entitled to judgment as matter of law; moving party can show absence of essential element for which non-movant bears burden

B.Any factual dispute precludes

C.Only if plaintiff cannot prove case beyond reasonable doubt

D.Moving party must disprove claim

Explanation: Rule 56: summary judgment when no genuine dispute of material fact and movant entitled to judgment as matter of law. Celotex (1986) — moving party without burden can point to absence of evidence. Anderson (1986) — mere scintilla insufficient; evidence must allow reasonable jury to find for non-movant. Matsushita — implausibility factor. Non-movant must cite specific evidence (depositions, affidavits) — Rule 56(c). 'Genuine' = reasonable jury could find for non-movant; 'material' = affects outcome.

5The scope of discovery under FRCP 26(b)(1) is:

A.Any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case

B.Everything remotely related

C.Only admissible evidence

D.Only matters on witness list

Explanation: Rule 26(b)(1) (amended 2015) requires both relevance AND proportionality. Proportionality factors: importance of issues at stake, amount in controversy, parties' relative access to information, parties' resources, importance of discovery to issues, whether burden outweighs likely benefit. 'Reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence' language was REMOVED in 2015 — this is a significant change. Privileged matter (attorney-client, work product) excluded.

6Hickman v. Taylor and FRCP 26(b)(3) protect:

A.Work product (documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation), with heightened protection for opinion work product (mental impressions, conclusions, legal theories)

B.All attorney communications

C.Client communications only

D.Only privileged materials

Explanation: Work product doctrine (Hickman v. Taylor 1947, codified in Rule 26(b)(3)) protects documents prepared in anticipation of litigation from discovery — requires showing of substantial need AND undue hardship to obtain equivalent. Opinion work product (lawyer's mental impressions, theories, conclusions) has near-absolute protection. Distinguished from attorney-client privilege: work product protects the process, privilege protects confidential client communications. Waiver standards differ.

7Under FRCP 37, sanctions for discovery violations may include:

A.Orders deeming facts established, prohibiting evidence, striking pleadings, default judgment, adverse inference instructions, and attorney fees

B.Only attorney fees

C.Only dismissal

D.Only warnings

Explanation: Rule 37 sanctions range widely: deeming facts established, prohibiting party from introducing evidence, striking pleadings, default judgment, dismissal, contempt, adverse inference instruction (spoliation), monetary sanctions, attorney fees. Rule 37(e) governs spoliation of ESI — requires intent to deprive and prejudice for harsh sanctions; otherwise only measures necessary to cure prejudice. Zubulake and Pension Committee cases shaped modern ESI sanctions doctrine.

8FRE 401 defines relevance as:

A.Evidence having any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than without the evidence

B.Evidence directly proving the case

C.Only admissible evidence

D.Only material evidence

Explanation: FRE 401: evidence is relevant if (a) it has 'any tendency to make a fact more or less probable' than without the evidence, AND (b) the fact is 'of consequence in determining the action.' Extremely low threshold ('any tendency'). Contrast with FRE 403 which excludes relevant evidence when probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or misleading jury.

9FRE 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when:

A.Probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence

B.Any prejudice

C.Low probative value alone

D.Any objection by opposing counsel

Explanation: FRE 403 requires balancing — probative value vs. dangers. 'Substantially outweighed' tilts in favor of admission (balance tied = admit). 'Unfair prejudice' means emotional prejudice beyond evidence's legitimate probative force (e.g., gruesome photos). Old Chief v. US (1997) addressed 403 and stipulations. 403 is the most frequently raised objection and gives trial judges wide discretion — reviewed for abuse of discretion.

10Hearsay is defined in FRE 801 as:

A.A statement made by a declarant (not while testifying at the current trial) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted

B.Any out-of-court statement

C.Any statement by a witness

D.Only unsworn statements

Explanation: FRE 801(c): hearsay is (1) a statement (oral, written, or non-verbal conduct intended as assertion); (2) other than one made by declarant while testifying at the current trial or hearing; (3) offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Statements offered for non-hearsay purposes (effect on listener, notice, verbal act, prior inconsistent statement for impeachment) are not hearsay. Analysis always starts with purpose of offering.

About the CTAS Exam

The NBTA Civil Trial Advocacy Specialist credential is an ABA-accredited board certification for attorneys with substantial civil trial experience. The 5-hour written examination tests mastery of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, jury selection, direct and cross-examination, exhibits, objections, closing argument, jury instructions, damages, and trial ethics under the ABA Model Rules.

Questions

100 scored questions

Time Limit

5 hours (written exam)

Passing Score

Pass per board review

Exam Fee

$2,000-$3,500 (National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA))

CTAS Exam Content Outline

25%

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Pleadings (Rule 8), motions (12(b)(6), 56), discovery (Rules 26-37), pre-trial conference (Rule 16), trial procedure, Rule 50 JMOL, Rule 59 new trial, Rule 60 relief from judgment

25%

Federal Rules of Evidence

Relevance (401-403), character (404), hearsay (801-807) with exceptions, authentication (901-903), best evidence (1001-1008), opinion evidence (701-702 Daubert), privileges

15%

Jury Selection & Voir Dire

Voir dire strategy, for-cause vs. peremptory challenges, Batson (race) and J.E.B. (gender) challenges, juror profiling, supplemental questionnaires

15%

Direct & Cross-Examination

Non-leading direct, adverse/hostile witness, foundations, authentication of exhibits, impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, bias, contradiction, 608(b)/609, scope of cross

10%

Opening Statements, Exhibits & Closing

Themes, primacy, no argument in opening, marking/foundation/offering exhibits, motion in limine, proper vs. improper closing (Golden Rule prohibition)

10%

Jury Instructions, Damages & Ethics

Pattern vs. special instructions, burden of proof, damages (economic, non-economic, punitive), ABA Model Rules 3.3 (candor), 3.4 (fairness), 3.6 (trial publicity)

How to Pass the CTAS Exam

What You Need to Know

Passing score: Pass per board review
Exam length: 100 questions
Time limit: 5 hours (written exam)
Exam fee: $2,000-$3,500

Keys to Passing

Complete 500+ practice questions
Score 80%+ consistently before scheduling
Focus on highest-weighted sections
Use our AI tutor for tough concepts

CTAS Study Tips from Top Performers

1Master the Federal Rules of Evidence hearsay exceptions — 803 and 804 are heavily tested

2Know the Daubert factors for expert testimony (testing, peer review, error rate, acceptance) and their application

3Understand Batson v. Kentucky three-step framework for peremptory challenges: prima facie case, race-neutral reason, pretext analysis

4Study SSR-style practice (FRCP drafting) — pleadings under Twombly/Iqbal, summary judgment under Celotex and Anderson

5Memorize the elements for each major evidentiary privilege (attorney-client, work product, spousal, clergy, physician-patient)

6Know ABA Model Rule 3.3 (candor to tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing), 3.6 (trial publicity), 3.7 (lawyer as witness)

7Practice the Golden Rule prohibition and other improper argument categories in closing

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the NBTA CTAS exam?

The Civil Trial Advocacy Specialist is a board certification administered by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, an ABA-accredited body. The 5-hour written examination tests mastery of federal and evidence rules, trial advocacy skills, and ethics specific to civil trial practice.

What are the eligibility requirements?

Candidates must hold a JD, be active bar members in good standing, demonstrate substantial civil trial experience (typically 25%+ of practice for 5+ years), document a minimum number of jury trials as lead counsel, complete CLE in trial advocacy, and provide peer references from judges and trial attorneys.

How many questions are on the CTAS exam?

The CTAS exam contains approximately 100 essay and multiple-choice questions over a 5-hour session. Pass/fail determined by NBTA Board based on total performance.

How much does the CTAS certification cost?

Application and examination fees typically total $2,000-$3,500. Recertification fees apply every 5 years.

How long is the certification valid?

NBTA certification is valid for 5 years. Recertification requires continued substantial civil trial practice, CLE, peer references, and board review — no re-examination required if standards are met.

How should I prepare?

Plan for 80-150 hours of study over 3-4 months. Review FRCP and FRE thoroughly, study leading evidence cases (Daubert, Crawford), practice drafting motions in limine and jury instructions, review trial transcripts, and complete 100+ practice questions.