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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby shepdawg » Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:45 am

A little late but relevant and funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6P3RFEAHeQ

masterbrowski
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:17 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby masterbrowski » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:37 pm

Not sure about PT B now that I think back on it. The more I think about it, the more i think i may have really screwed it up. My essay was structured as:

1) section explaining the law: is the expert's testimony relevant, does it help the jury, is it prejudicial? I spent a lot of time on this, because the case law was initially pretty confusing to me.

2) section analyzing if a BWS expert's testimony was relevant IN GENERAL. I felt like the standard the courts were using for relevance was to look at the facts and say "Is this a case of domestic violence/cycle of abuse?" If yes, BWS testimony is relevant. This worries me, bc it sounds like ppl went through each of the 8 pieces of testimony, and asked if each individual one would be relevant.

3) section analyzing each of the things the expert would testify on and whether it was helpful to the jury, given the facts. spent 70% of the time here talking about the fact that bws victims change their stories and an expert will help. I did go into individual detail here, because I felt like the facts gave me a lot to work with

4) section analyzing prejudice. I really regret not doing much more with this. I analyzed the prejudice WRT profiling and patterns in depth, since the first case discussed that alot. Then, I pretty much paid lipservice to the others, as in not much time spent at all on the other stuff. I noted that the rest of the topics were all probative, and that it would be hard to analyze the individual prejudice involved bc it was in the judge's discretion, and there isn't precedent available. Again, i think I fucked up here, since it sounds like most of you balanced each individual piece of testimony with more detail.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:51 pm

Man, I don't even remember details from the PTs.

User avatar
Regionality
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Regionality » Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:46 am

masterbrowski wrote:Not sure about PT B now that I think back on it. The more I think about it, the more i think i may have really screwed it up. My essay was structured as:

1) section explaining the law: is the expert's testimony relevant, does it help the jury, is it prejudicial? I spent a lot of time on this, because the case law was initially pretty confusing to me.

2) section analyzing if a BWS expert's testimony was relevant IN GENERAL. I felt like the standard the courts were using for relevance was to look at the facts and say "Is this a case of domestic violence/cycle of abuse?" If yes, BWS testimony is relevant. This worries me, bc it sounds like ppl went through each of the 8 pieces of testimony, and asked if each individual one would be relevant.

3) section analyzing each of the things the expert would testify on and whether it was helpful to the jury, given the facts. spent 70% of the time here talking about the fact that bws victims change their stories and an expert will help. I did go into individual detail here, because I felt like the facts gave me a lot to work with

4) section analyzing prejudice. I really regret not doing much more with this. I analyzed the prejudice WRT profiling and patterns in depth, since the first case discussed that alot. Then, I pretty much paid lipservice to the others, as in not much time spent at all on the other stuff. I noted that the rest of the topics were all probative, and that it would be hard to analyze the individual prejudice involved bc it was in the judge's discretion, and there isn't precedent available. Again, i think I fucked up here, since it sounds like most of you balanced each individual piece of testimony with more detail.


I broke my essay up into 1 major section on her qualifications as an expert (ie. laying her foundation), then 1 major section going through each of the 8 pieces of evidence, and then 1 conclusion.

For each of the 8 pieces of evidence I applied the 2-prong Slater test. I didn't think BWS itself was relevant to the current case except in so much as the subject matters were similar between the cases from the library and our file. Instead, I just applied the same analysis that the judges did in the library cases to the current facts using the Slater analysis. I think I predicted that the judge would let in 6 of the pieces of evidence, and would not let in 2 of them.

In my conclusion I summed up what I had done, and reiterated that this evidence was not coming in to prove the occurrence of any battery, but simply to help a jury in making an impeachment determination for the abused woman's trial testimony.

I was pretty delirious from exhaustion at the end, but this is what I recall having done.

cravenmorhead
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:22 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cravenmorhead » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:28 pm

I think the waiver of the "no changes unless in writing" was the right way to go on the contracts issue.

On the 2nd PT I walked through Slater to start with, breezed by the expert's qualifications (since the defense stipulated she was qualified) and then dug into the first prong of Slater with respect to all of the issues. Then analyzed the second prong with respect to each category of testimony, including the quasi-403 analysis where applicable (profiling and the sexual control). Concluded that a number of things would only be admissible if the victim actually took the stand and recanted. Also threw in a short section suggesting that the expert may want to talk about mutual combat as well, since it looked like it might be an issue in the case.

lawschooltoo
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawschooltoo » Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:50 pm

I know (i.e., hope) that nothing is "automatic" in grading, but failing to complete BOTH CPTs!!?!?! WTF?

.....IS THIS AN AUTOMATIC/HIGHER LIKELIHOOD of FAILING?


Other than that, I think I pretty much killed the essays .... (i'm on the services K train - no UCC, no impracticability/impossibility bc the shortage was temporary, unenforceable 25K due to no consideration, conditions precedent ok based on parol evidence to expound/explain, failure to use brother's products an immaterial breach nominally recoverable...blah blah blah)

...but really tho, am I in trouble for not completing BOTH CPTs?

cravenmorhead
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:22 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cravenmorhead » Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:05 pm

lawschooltoo wrote:
...but really tho, am I in trouble for not completing BOTH CPTs?


Sounds obvious, but the short answer is "it doesn't help." It'll all depend on how much you failed to complete. Failed to flesh out a discussion on a subtopic? Not a big deal. Failed to discuss 4 of the 8 categories of evidence in the second PT? Not good. Especially if you had a heading sitting out there like "Profiling Evidence" without anything following it.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:07 pm

lawschooltoo wrote:I know (i.e., hope) that nothing is "automatic" in grading, but failing to complete BOTH CPTs!!?!?! WTF?

.....IS THIS AN AUTOMATIC/HIGHER LIKELIHOOD of FAILING?


Other than that, I think I pretty much killed the essays .... (i'm on the services K train - no UCC, no impracticability/impossibility bc the shortage was temporary, unenforceable 25K due to no consideration, conditions precedent ok based on parol evidence to expound/explain, failure to use brother's products an immaterial breach nominally recoverable...blah blah blah)

...but really tho, am I in trouble for not completing BOTH CPTs?

I don't think so. Each essay and PT is graded separately. They just add up your scores. If you did OK in other sections you'll be fine.

User avatar
Regionality
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Regionality » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:43 am

lawschooltoo wrote:I know (i.e., hope) that nothing is "automatic" in grading, but failing to complete BOTH CPTs!!?!?! WTF?

.....IS THIS AN AUTOMATIC/HIGHER LIKELIHOOD of FAILING?


Other than that, I think I pretty much killed the essays .... (i'm on the services K train - no UCC, no impracticability/impossibility bc the shortage was temporary, unenforceable 25K due to no consideration, conditions precedent ok based on parol evidence to expound/explain, failure to use brother's products an immaterial breach nominally recoverable...blah blah blah)

...but really tho, am I in trouble for not completing BOTH CPTs?


Nothing is automatic. As I'm sure your bar prep company walked you through, each test is graded individually and given a certain weight.

Bombing both PTs would just mean you'd have to do awesome in the rest to make up for the difference.


This might help: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/BarPr ... .23.08.pdf

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:07 am

Regionality wrote:
masterbrowski wrote:Not sure about PT B now that I think back on it. The more I think about it, the more i think i may have really screwed it up. My essay was structured as:

1) section explaining the law: is the expert's testimony relevant, does it help the jury, is it prejudicial? I spent a lot of time on this, because the case law was initially pretty confusing to me.

2) section analyzing if a BWS expert's testimony was relevant IN GENERAL. I felt like the standard the courts were using for relevance was to look at the facts and say "Is this a case of domestic violence/cycle of abuse?" If yes, BWS testimony is relevant. This worries me, bc it sounds like ppl went through each of the 8 pieces of testimony, and asked if each individual one would be relevant.

3) section analyzing each of the things the expert would testify on and whether it was helpful to the jury, given the facts. spent 70% of the time here talking about the fact that bws victims change their stories and an expert will help. I did go into individual detail here, because I felt like the facts gave me a lot to work with

4) section analyzing prejudice. I really regret not doing much more with this. I analyzed the prejudice WRT profiling and patterns in depth, since the first case discussed that alot. Then, I pretty much paid lipservice to the others, as in not much time spent at all on the other stuff. I noted that the rest of the topics were all probative, and that it would be hard to analyze the individual prejudice involved bc it was in the judge's discretion, and there isn't precedent available. Again, i think I fucked up here, since it sounds like most of you balanced each individual piece of testimony with more detail.


I broke my essay up into 1 major section on her qualifications as an expert (ie. laying her foundation), then 1 major section going through each of the 8 pieces of evidence, and then 1 conclusion.

For each of the 8 pieces of evidence I applied the 2-prong Slater test. I didn't think BWS itself was relevant to the current case except in so much as the subject matters were similar between the cases from the library and our file. Instead, I just applied the same analysis that the judges did in the library cases to the current facts using the Slater analysis. I think I predicted that the judge would let in 6 of the pieces of evidence, and would not let in 2 of them.

In my conclusion I summed up what I had done, and reiterated that this evidence was not coming in to prove the occurrence of any battery, but simply to help a jury in making an impeachment determination for the abused woman's trial testimony.

I was pretty delirious from exhaustion at the end, but this is what I recall having done.


Mine was broken into two parts. The first part was proving that there was enough evidence of BWS in general to move on to the second prong. I used the three different rules provided in each of the three cases (I think one case said "there should have been past instances," one said the instances should have been violent or charged acts," and one said that prior instances were okay if only verbal abuse or coercive force, even that of criticizing someone's domestic work, if part of the cycle of violence) these doctrines didn't seem to conflict too much, so I reconciled them into one doctrine. Another way you could have done it is discuss how the facts of each case were similar or disimilar to the current case, and try to show that the more lenient standard should apply.

Thereafter, I took each of the 8 or whatever categories of evidence and proved two things: that the evidence was probative, and that it was disputed by both parties. I proved evidence being probative in a variety of ways. Sometimes a court would say directly: "this is probative." Sometimes, it would state that it is probative in certain circumstances, and you'd have to analogize those circumstances to the circumstances present. Sometimes, it would say that the element is related to something they've already declared probative. Next, I would identify which facts were actually at issue. I didn't have a problem justifying most of them at issue, but there was one which required that she leave the relationship (the one after the window). I wasn't sure if this was contested, because neither party was claiming that she actually left the relationship for a period of time.

User avatar
Shaggier1
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Shaggier1 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:42 am

Well, this thread has convinced me that I failed the California Bar Exam.

User avatar
Mick Haller
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Mick Haller » Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:01 pm

Shaggier1 wrote:Well, this thread has convinced me that I failed the California Bar Exam.


Doubt it. Almost all above median people at decent schools pass.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:49 pm

Shaggier1 wrote:Well, this thread has convinced me that I failed the California Bar Exam.


The people in this thread are analyzing their essay answers several order of magnitudes more than your typical bar grader will. I'd just stop reading this thread for the sake of your sanity, and for the sake of escaping any liquids that inevitably result from the good ol' circlejerk.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:47 pm


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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lorraina42 » Thu Aug 08, 2013 3:19 am

Shaggier1 wrote:Well, this thread has convinced me that I failed the California Bar Exam.


I completely understand this feeling; some of the comments on this thread have made me think I had completely missed the point of the essays/PT/MBE. However, I think this is akin to how a lot of us felt during after our first set of law school exams (when we were 1Ls). After my first 1L exam, I remember hearing my friends talk about all of the issues they spotted, and I was convinced that I had failed because I missed a bunch of those issues. Because the Bar exam is a new experience (like the first semester of law school), we don't really know what to expect. That anxiety makes us focus on the details and mistakes instead of seeing the bigger picture.

That being said, I am sure that a lot of people fail undeservingly. After having to suffer through this monster of a test, I have gained a lot of respect for anyone who has taken it in the past--whether he/she failed or passed.

lawschooltoo
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawschooltoo » Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:41 pm

The essay specifically said "Intentional Torts" ..... so ..... did anyone else go into super long soliloquy about Negligence? haha, I did.

sccjnthn
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:58 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby sccjnthn » Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:19 pm

lawschooltoo wrote:The essay specifically said "Intentional Torts" ..... so ..... did anyone else go into super long soliloquy about Negligence? haha, I did.



I didn't go into negligence but did cover proximate cause-intentional torts are definitely my weakness. :cry:

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:39 pm

Welp. I think I forgot to talk about proximate cause. But I guess it doesn't matter since it's not really an issue (I think?).

User avatar
Regionality
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Regionality » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:38 pm

a male human wrote:Welp. I think I forgot to talk about proximate cause. But I guess it doesn't matter since it's not really an issue (I think?).


All torts require factual and proximate causation linking the wrongful act to the damages, unless damages are presumed like with certain defamation torts. Or intentional torts I suppose you can get nominal damages without any causation.

desertlaw
Posts: 679
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby desertlaw » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:42 pm

a male human wrote:Welp. I think I forgot to talk about proximate cause. But I guess it doesn't matter since it's not really an issue (I think?).


Chill. can't control it now. Hit the gym, do drink, find some sex buddies. Just stop thinking about this test. It's over.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:13 pm

Yeah sex buddies! I'm a sex object. Every time I ask girls for sex, they object.

I'm also prepping for an interview. My hopes and dreams are riding on an employer who actually paid me attention, hopefully not by mistake.

(btw sorry for mentioning law again, but i looked into intentional torts. it doesn't seem like proximate cause is required because you "intend" for acts that occur after. even in negligence, culpable acts are superseding)

sccjnthn
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:58 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby sccjnthn » Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:24 am

a male human wrote:Welp. I think I forgot to talk about proximate cause. But I guess it doesn't matter since it's not really an issue (I think?).


Wasn't meant to be a brag. Thought I had spent paragraphs writing about a non-issue.

yadayadayada
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:52 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby yadayadayada » Mon Aug 12, 2013 7:31 pm

de-lurking to ask... is anyone still thinking about the test?

i feel like an idiot for still checking this thread. but i am.

and this is my third bar (passed ny and ma last year... not so confident about this one. :()

spartjdawg
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:28 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:21 pm

Had nightmares about it all last night. No joke. I estimate a 60%-65% chance of passing

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:08 pm

spartjdawg wrote:Had nightmares about it all last night. No joke. I estimate a 60%-65% chance of passing

Same. I had a delirious dream where (among other interesting things like having to run and traveling ~30 years into the future--any dream analysts here?) I had to retake the essay portions of the bar while I was sick (like I've been in real life, probably the stress leaving me). I was stuck in the nightmare for the first set of 3 essays. When we got to the other set, I was stumped and couldn't even identify the subject for one of them. Then I woke up and realized that a retake is not a certainty yet.

Crazy shit. I also put myself at 65%, which is good if I look at the overall pass rate but not that of accredited schools. Those multiple-guess questions really messed me up.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], LawHammer, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests