California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:38 pm

rorystewart wrote:Codicil should not have been valid because it was holographic and not all material terms were in his writing. I.e. he only said change "my wife" to Bertha. He didn't write "give my CP interest to B."

Also, am I the only one who discussed an omitted spouse taking for B?

Omitted spouse wold work if there was a valid will in the first place, right?

I cannot remember if I discussed whether there were material terms. Either I just left it out completely for some reason or I thought the wife swap was not a material provision. Ended up doing a full intestate analysis.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:41 pm

Reinhardt wrote:Length helps. I think a lot of the low graded essays on BarEssays are weak on analysis, but it's not something you notice when you're freaking out about your lack knowledge of the law.


So true. Like my intention torts essay. Ugh.

User avatar
shepdawg
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby shepdawg » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:47 pm

cavalierattitude wrote:
shepdawg wrote:
Maybe he's misnaming the Clawback provisiocn for the family of T's predeceased spouse. Anyone else spot that issue?


No? What is that?

If T's spouse predeceased him and gave substantially all of her estate to him (15yrs real prop, 5 yrs pp), upon T's death the gift goes back to the spouse's family, unless T had a new spouse.

chass
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:14 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby chass » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:54 pm

rorystewart wrote:Codicil should not have been valid because it was holographic and not all material terms were in his writing. I.e. he only said change "my wife" to Bertha. He didn't write "give my CP interest to B."

Also, am I the only one who discussed an omitted spouse taking for B?


The material term was the change of name? Incorporation by reference to refer to the will?

abudaba
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby abudaba » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:56 pm

rorystewart wrote:Codicil should not have been valid because it was holographic and not all material terms were in his writing. I.e. he only said change "my wife" to Bertha. He didn't write "give my CP interest to B."

Also, am I the only one who discussed an omitted spouse taking for B?


This was exactly my analysis. Codicil failed because all material terms (the gift/devise) was not in T's handwriting, good arguments could be made the other way and it was a close call. It seemed like the issue really could go either way and I figured if the codicil were invalid, it would open up more issues/analysis and potentially more points.

I did talk about Bertha taking an intestacy share as an omitted spouse. I also talked about how because the codicil failed, DRR should apply to prevent the revocation of the original will (only about a sentence or two).

Otherwise, I thought lapse/anti-lapse was without a doubt an issue. Just like in a RP question, any time someone sits on the land for a little while, you should mention adverse possession; any time someone predeceases in a WT question, you should mention lapse/anti-lapse. I could be wrong for sure though, but oh well. From what I hear they don't take away points, so, just a waste of time worst case.

User avatar
rorystewart
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby rorystewart » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:04 pm

Will you all share what scores BarBri gave you on your essays? Am I the only one with 60s and 65's?

lawdawg09
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:10 pm

Barbri Essays:

Torts - 65
K - 65
Civ Pro - 75
PT - 75 (but I cheated by taking more than 3 hours on it)
Crimes - 60
Corps - 60

I think its bullshit.

User avatar
bailey123456789
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 8:58 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby bailey123456789 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:15 pm

rorystewart wrote:Will you all share what scores BarBri gave you on your essays? Am I the only one with 60s and 65's?


I had two 65s...my general impression was that they tend to underscore. For one of my essays I hit all the major issues and missed one minor one, but talked about a different minor one that was also relevant. The analysis video then said that the minor issue I missed wasn't a big deal not to mention. The depth of my analysis was pretty much what the model answer had, and boom, 65. So I sort of took their grades with a grain of salt, especially compared to the essays that were actually given 65s on baressays

chocolateicecream
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby chocolateicecream » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:18 pm

Torts - 75
PT - 65
Contracts - 60
Property - 65
Civ Pro - 65
Wills & Trusts - 70

Another
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Postby Another » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:26 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chocolateicecream
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby chocolateicecream » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:33 pm

hopkins23 wrote:All 65s, except I got a 60 on PT and a 70 on Corps.

You two above me were crazy, especially you guys that got 75s. Crazy.


The torts was kind of a joke, because we had discussed the same question in my lecture the day before we had to write it.

Another
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Postby Another » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:41 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:11 pm

hopkins23 wrote:
chocolateicecream wrote:
hopkins23 wrote:All 65s, except I got a 60 on PT and a 70 on Corps.

You two above me were crazy, especially you guys that got 75s. Crazy.


The torts was kind of a joke, because we had discussed the same question in my lecture the day before we had to write it.


Hell, I attended the same lectures are you did and didn't get a 75. Props. Hope that translated to Bar exam success on the actual day.

Btw, can anyone talk about how they approached the second PT? I'm probably neurotic, but I want to see how I compare. (I'm still wondering why they gave us two objective PTs--they were both supposed to be objective in tone, right??)

I can't believe I have to wait till November for the results. I am not the celebrating type till I know the results, unfortunately.

I actually did separate analyses for each of the 8 topics. Forgot to talk about how admissibility requires relevance generally. But I used the rules I pulled out from case law that seemed helpful to analogize most of the topics.

I. Relevant law (put in a couple of statutes from CEC)
II. Admissibility of each of the 8 portions
III. Conclusion

Anyone else just depressed and in a mood to cry, though?

User avatar
autarkh
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby autarkh » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:31 pm

After an initial wave of relief yesterday, I've been freaking out that I might fall just short of passing.

Essays:
1. Ks -- Thought I hit all the major issues: Applicable law, Parole Evidence Rule/Integration, Oral modification, Pre-existing Duty Rule, Substantial Performance/Material Breach (with extensive discussion of Reading Pipe case), 3rd Party Beneficiary, Expectation Damages, Restitution, Election of Remedies.
2. Intentional Torts -- Also felt pretty good. Discussed: Consent (scope and possible ineffectiveness due to fraudulent misrepresentation), Causation ("but for" and foreseeability), Intent, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels, Conversion, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Compensatory Damages under each tort, Punitive Damages.
3. Wills -- Ugh. Ran short on time and didn't finish. Concluded that the will was valid, but that the holographic codicil was invalid. Mentioned several other issues -- Widow's Election, DRR, the problem with the interested attesting witnesses, the ambiguity inherent in "my wife" and the construction might depend on the date of execution (i.e., if the codicil republished), and possible claim by stepson because the guy hadn't been married to the earlier wife for 15 years when she died. Left a bunch of skeletal headings for specific transactions that I couldn't get to. Overall, the answer wasn't very long.

PT2: Didn't finish. Had a good first section laying out the basic rules for conditional relevance pulled from the cases, short section on discretionary exclusion, and a discussion of how Defendant had stipulated to the expert's qualification and that his only objections were to the admissibility of BWS testimony where: (1) there had been no prior reported incident of violence and (2) where he claimed not to fit the profile of the typical batterer. I intended to go on to analyze the 8 areas of testimony one by one, but I ran out of time. There were a bunch of factual notes and cites at the end of memo that would have been used in various sections if I had time to incorporate them.

I don't have access to Bar Exam Essays, so I don't know what the various scores (e.g., a "60" on a PT) look like in practice.

I estimate that my average on Tuesdays essays was about 60-65. PT1 was comparable to PT2 (didn't finish but the stuff that was there is decent).

Felt pretty solid about the MBE in the morning, slightly less so but still OK on the pm. Before the bar, I had been scoring in the 80-90% range on the BarBri practice Qs for Ks and Property, and in the 75-85% range overall.

I'm wondering how people that don't finish the PTs/essays tend to score.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:39 pm

autarkh wrote:After an initial wave of relief yesterday, I've been freaking out that I might fall just short of passing.

Essays:
1. Ks -- Thought I hit all the major issues: Applicable law, Parole Evidence Rule/Integration, Oral modification, Pre-existing Duty Rule, Substantial Performance/Material Breach (with extensive discussion of Reading Pipe case), 3rd Party Beneficiary, Expectation Damages, Restitution, Election of Remedies.
2. Intentional Torts -- Also felt pretty good. Discussed: Consent (scope and possible ineffectiveness due to fraudulent misrepresentation), Causation ("but for" and foreseeability), Intent, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels, Conversion, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Compensatory Damages under each tort, Punitive Damages.
3. Wills -- Ugh. Ran short on time and didn't finish. Concluded that the will was valid, but that the holographic codicil was invalid. Mentioned several other issues -- Widow's Election, DRR, the problem with the interested attesting witnesses, the ambiguity inherent in "my wife" and the construction might depend on the date of execution (i.e., if the codicil republished), and possible claim by stepson because the guy hadn't been married to the earlier wife for 15 years when she died. Left a bunch of skeletal headings for specific transactions that I couldn't get to. Overall, the answer wasn't very long.

PT2: Didn't finish. Had a good first section laying out the basic rules for conditional relevance pulled from the cases, short section on discretionary exclusion, and a discussion of how Defendant had stipulated to the expert's qualification and that his only objections were to the admissibility of BWS testimony where: (1) there had been no prior reported incident of violence and (2) where he claimed not to fit the profile of the typical batterer. I intended to go on to analyze the 8 areas of testimony one by one, but I ran out of time. There were a bunch of factual notes and cites at the end of memo that would have been used in various sections if I had time to incorporate them.
.


I did same thing re: torts, except I forgot punitive damages. But I had the same torts, plus the possible consent procured by fraud and a separate fraudulent misrepresentation analysis.
On PT 2 I blanketed all of it into one general relevance analysis
I. Relevance
A. adequate foundation
B. assist trier of fact
C. probative on issue in dispute (or whatever case phrase was).
II. Unfair Prejudice
A - G (or whatever 8, analyzed each separate for prejudice)

EDIT: I also kept struggling with tone. I read it like 3 times over...help me prepare to write my brief...tell me what is in and what's out...so it was like an objective that left slight room for argument based on whatever case law/a little opinion. I don't know. I kept it objective.

cavalierattitude
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cavalierattitude » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:47 pm

rorystewart wrote:Codicil should not have been valid because it was holographic and not all material terms were in his writing. I.e. he only said change "my wife" to Bertha. He didn't write "give my CP interest to B."

Also, am I the only one who discussed an omitted spouse taking for B?


oh interesting, didn't even think about the will being valid but the codicil being invalid, because i didn't know about the harmless error statute and thought the will was clearly invalid for failing to conform to the formalities. oh well.

User avatar
autarkh
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby autarkh » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:49 pm

Mine
mrpickles wrote:I also kept struggling with tone. I read it like 3 times over...help me prepare to write my brief...tell me what is in and what's out...so it was like an objective that left slight room for argument based on whatever case law/a little opinion. I don't know. I kept it objective.


I assumed that since it was going into brief to be filed with the Court, it should be persuasive. But when I write persuasively, I try to bit understated and let the choice and emphasis of facts do most of the talking. I'm in awe of anyone who manages to actually complete these PTs. I can arrive at a good synthesis of the material, but it's extremely hard for me to word vomit.

lorraina42
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lorraina42 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:56 pm

rorystewart wrote:Will you all share what scores BarBri gave you on your essays? Am I the only one with 60s and 65's?


I got all 65's, except for a 70 on the PT, but yet the first PT on the actual exam was the worst thing I have ever written (I will be lucky if I get a 50).

I talked to an attorney earlier this summer who has a close friend who grades BarBri essays. He told me that BarBri purposefully scores essays low. Their strategy is to scare you into studying too hard for the exam. If you study hard, you'll be more likely to pass, which raises BarBri's pass rate/ reputation. I definitely think that there is some truth to this, but I also think the Bar tries to score most essays/PTs with a 60 or 65 (a 70 is possible but not likely, a 75 is less common, and anything above a 75 is very unlikely).

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:57 pm

I interpreted it as an objective memo for the person who will file a persuasive brief based on the memo.

Also, where was there a 3P beneficiary issue in the K question? There were only two parties, right? C and D.

User avatar
autarkh
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby autarkh » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:01 pm

a male human wrote:I interpreted it as an objective memo for the person who will file a persuasive brief based on the memo.

Also, where was there a 3P beneficiary issue in the K question? There were only two parties, right? C and D.


Two parties, but there was the solar panel company owned by the buyer's brother. There was parole evidence that the buyer had told the contractor of that, and that it was the reason he had insisted in using that particular brand of panel. Since the solar panel co was specifically mentioned in the K, I threw in a line or two about it.

lorraina42
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lorraina42 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:06 pm

autarkh wrote:Mine
mrpickles wrote:I also kept struggling with tone. I read it like 3 times over...help me prepare to write my brief...tell me what is in and what's out...so it was like an objective that left slight room for argument based on whatever case law/a little opinion. I don't know. I kept it objective.


I assumed that since it was going into brief to be filed with the Court, it should be persuasive. But when I write persuasively, I try to bit understated and let the choice and emphasis of facts do most of the talking. I'm in awe of anyone who manages to actually complete these PTs. I can arrive at a good synthesis of the material, but it's extremely hard for me to word vomit.


I also struggled with the tone. What I did was similar to ^ this. I used an objective tone, but I also explained what persuasive arguments the DA needed to make for each piece of evidence since it was going into a brief to be filed with the Court. I guess my memorandum was a hybrid between objective and persuasive.
Last edited by lorraina42 on Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:06 pm

autarkh wrote:
a male human wrote:I interpreted it as an objective memo for the person who will file a persuasive brief based on the memo.

Also, where was there a 3P beneficiary issue in the K question? There were only two parties, right? C and D.


Two parties, but there was the solar panel company owned by the buyer's brother. There was parole evidence that the buyer had told the contractor of that, and that it was the reason he had insisted in using that particular brand of panel. Since the solar panel co was specifically mentioned in the K, I threw in a line or two about it.


Yeah, I threw it in saying if so and so argued 3PB, but no. Raised and dismissed shortly

User avatar
autarkh
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby autarkh » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:08 pm

mrpickles wrote:Yeah, I threw it in saying if so and so argued 3PB, but no. Raised and dismissed shortly


This.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:08 pm

but yet the first PT on the actual exam was the worst thing I have ever written (I will be lucky if I get a 50).


God dammit I get so pissed when I read this. EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS HARD. That's the beauty of a curve. jesus. The only way in which you should worry is if CA comes out and says they've decided to lower the pass rate from 70% to 50% or something like that.

User avatar
autarkh
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby autarkh » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:11 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
but yet the first PT on the actual exam was the worst thing I have ever written (I will be lucky if I get a 50).


God dammit I get so pissed when I read this. EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS HARD. That's the beauty of a curve. jesus. The only way in which you should worry is if CA comes out and says they've decided to lower the pass rate from 70% to 50% or something like that.


If that happens, there'll be a lot of people needing sensory integration.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: burritoface and 10 guests