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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:25 pm

a male human wrote:I'm worried about con law because I'm no good at the federalism and congressional powers stuff. Like I just did 2008 July Q2, and I had no idea what a president could do in terms of giving executive orders. On a real question, I would have been toast.

It seems like the past few administrations have all been A1 individual rights, though. Hopefully it's that this time around because it's just SS or RBR.


I wonder if we just did the same question. I'm feeling its gonna be SS/RBR combined with 1st amendment, or interstate commerce.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:31 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
a male human wrote:I'm worried about con law because I'm no good at the federalism and congressional powers stuff. Like I just did 2008 July Q2, and I had no idea what a president could do in terms of giving executive orders. On a real question, I would have been toast.

It seems like the past few administrations have all been A1 individual rights, though. Hopefully it's that this time around because it's just SS or RBR.


I wonder if we just did the same question. I'm feeling its gonna be SS/RBR combined with 1st amendment, or interstate commerce.

Yup, same question. Well, I hope it's religion or free speech. 4th-6th amendments are technically con law, too.

I wonder if people ever groan collectively in the testing room if they see a WTF question for the first one.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:55 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:They way I've coped with CP and Trusts is that the amount of testable material on both is not huge, in that you will need to walk through similar material each time. It is just hard to visualize them pulling something crazy out of left field.

I thought I had con law down, and then I had a question about 1) executive orders preempting state law, and 2) if the law violates the 4th amendment. I didn't think they'd combine crim pro with conlaw.


That question on BarEssays
57.5 and below: 11 essays
60 to 62.5: 2 essays
65 and above: 2 essays

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:05 pm

is it just me, or does every one of these subjects have different definitions for the duty of loyalty and duty of care?

User avatar
Shaggier1
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Shaggier1 » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:23 pm

I thought I had con law down, and then I had a question about 1) executive orders preempting state law, and 2) if the law violates the 4th amendment. I didn't think they'd combine crim pro with conlaw.


Which administration is this from?

Thanks!

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:24 pm

Foosters Galore wrote:is it just me, or does every one of these subjects have different definitions for the duty of loyalty and duty of care?


I don't understand why it matters. It's not hard to BS a definition for either (or to memorize one set of defs and use it for every essay). A bar essay grader isn't going to be looking for a precise definition IMO (and lot's of times people just put down law that's patently incorrect and still get points).

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:25 pm

Can anyone explain to me the Allocation of income vs principal in Trusts? The lecture is opposite the CMR. Neither really make much sense to me.

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:26 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
Foosters Galore wrote:is it just me, or does every one of these subjects have different definitions for the duty of loyalty and duty of care?


I don't understand why it matters. It's not hard to BS a definition for either (or to memorize one set of defs and use it for every essay). A bar essay grader isn't going to be looking for a precise definition IMO (and lot's of times people just put down law that's patently incorrect and still get points).


Oh I know. I just find it curious. I've got my generic definition for each and I'm sticking with them.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:29 pm

Foosters Galore wrote:Can anyone explain to me the Allocation of income vs principal in Trusts? The lecture is opposite the CMR. Neither really make much sense to me.


*someone correct me if I'm wrong*

The duty of loyalty stipulates that a trustee cannot change the allocation between principal and income. However, if it is necessary to achieve the goals of the trust and the intent of the settlor, there can be reallocation (this power is granted by the Uniform Prudent Investors Act (or whatever its called, I can't remember).

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:30 pm

Foosters Galore wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
Foosters Galore wrote:is it just me, or does every one of these subjects have different definitions for the duty of loyalty and duty of care?


I don't understand why it matters. It's not hard to BS a definition for either (or to memorize one set of defs and use it for every essay). A bar essay grader isn't going to be looking for a precise definition IMO (and lot's of times people just put down law that's patently incorrect and still get points).


Oh I know. I just find it curious. I've got my generic definition for each and I'm sticking with them.


Good. IMO what'll win you these essays is solid organization and good sign-posting. Precise rule regurgitation won't get you as far. Both will get you that unicorn 80+ score.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:31 pm

If you mean what actually is charged against the income and what against the principal, it seems to follow tax/accounting concepts. Almost certainly won't be on the exam in any level of detail though.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:34 pm

Retarded question alert: What's the precise time schedule for the exam (i.e., how many hours do we have in the AM and in the PM session?). Just want to make sure I have my time markers set right.

Torts Illustrated
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:23 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Torts Illustrated » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:04 am

California evidence question:

In a criminal case in California, a defendant can introduce evidence of the victim's bad character using opinion, reputation, AND specific instances of conduct. (So, if I'm charged with homicide and claiming self-defense, I can introduce evidence showing that the victim kicked puppies in order to show that he was a violent guy.)

After this happens, the prosecution can introduce negative character evidence about the defendant. Can the prosecution's evidence be in the form of specific instances of conduct? Or only opinion and reputation?

In the same vein, if a defendant wants to introduce evidence of his own character as inconsistent with the crime charged, can that be in the form of specific instances of conduct? Or just opinion/reputation?

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:33 am

Torts Illustrated wrote:California evidence question:

In a criminal case in California, a defendant can introduce evidence of the victim's bad character using opinion, reputation, AND specific instances of conduct. (So, if I'm charged with homicide and claiming self-defense, I can introduce evidence showing that the victim kicked puppies in order to show that he was a violent guy.)

After this happens, the prosecution can introduce negative character evidence about the defendant. Can the prosecution's evidence be in the form of specific instances of conduct? Or only opinion and reputation?

In the same vein, if a defendant wants to introduce evidence of his own character as inconsistent with the crime charged, can that be in the form of specific instances of conduct? Or just opinion/reputation?

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong since this is tomorrow's subject for me.

AFAIK, in CA only, you can only bring in whatever (including specific acts) only if it relates to that of moral turpitude. So lying, theft, any misconduct. I guess this would mean D cannot introduce good pertinent character because it would probably not be one of moral turpitude. BUT then I guess P could then rebut with specific acts of moral turpitude? OR does P have to match the type of evidence, e.g., opinion for opinion?

For your 3rd Q, whatever D/P introduces must be pertinent to the crime, so I don't think you can introduce that kind of evidence at all.

Shaggier1 wrote:
I thought I had con law down, and then I had a question about 1) executive orders preempting state law, and 2) if the law violates the 4th amendment. I didn't think they'd combine crim pro with conlaw.


Which administration is this from?

Thanks!

a male human wrote:I'm worried about con law because I'm no good at the federalism and congressional powers stuff. Like I just did 2008 July Q2, and I had no idea what a president could do in terms of giving executive orders. On a real question, I would have been toast.

It seems like the past few administrations have all been A1 individual rights, though. Hopefully it's that this time around because it's just SS or RBR.


Alternatively, google "site:calbar.ca.gov past exams executive order fourth amendment" or the like to find the relevant test file and sample answers.
Last edited by a male human on Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:35 am

Reinhardt wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:They way I've coped with CP and Trusts is that the amount of testable material on both is not huge, in that you will need to walk through similar material each time. It is just hard to visualize them pulling something crazy out of left field.

I thought I had con law down, and then I had a question about 1) executive orders preempting state law, and 2) if the law violates the 4th amendment. I didn't think they'd combine crim pro with conlaw.


That question on BarEssays
57.5 and below: 11 essays
60 to 62.5: 2 essays
65 and above: 2 essays

Is that disproportional even for essays deposited in BarEssays? Fucked up if true

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:37 am

i just blew a couple exhalations out of my nose in amusement at "torts illustrated"

took me a while

(sorry for the triple post)

DwightSchruteFarms
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:19 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby DwightSchruteFarms » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:24 am

deadlinguo wrote:I remember reading somewhere that the middle 75% of essay scores fall between 55 and 65. Does that sound right?


This cannot be true. At least I hope not. There are wayyyyy too many 70+ answers on baressays if only 12.5% of all takers received a 70+. And that is just only those who failed. I'd imagine people that pass hit a few 70s

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1678
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:44 am

imagine getting 70s and still failing

i might have an anal evacuation during the test, which raises an issue of whether it's an act of moral turpitude

fuc* the calbar and its $500 moral character buyout and $600+ testing fees

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:48 am

DwightSchruteFarms wrote:There are wayyyyy too many 70+ answers on baressays if only 12.5% of all takers received a 70+. And that is just only those who failed. I'd imagine people that pass hit a few 70s


I've been wondering this. So are ALL of the essays on BarEssays.com from people who failed the bar (because that's the only way you figure out your individual essay scores)? If so, that's kind of disturbing, because I've read some really good essays on there. Odd to think that the authors of those essays failed the bar.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby worldtraveler » Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:49 am

Tangerine Gleam wrote:
DwightSchruteFarms wrote:There are wayyyyy too many 70+ answers on baressays if only 12.5% of all takers received a 70+. And that is just only those who failed. I'd imagine people that pass hit a few 70s


I've been wondering this. So are ALL of the essays on BarEssays.com from people who failed the bar (because that's the only way you figure out your individual essay scores)? If so, that's kind of disturbing, because I've read some really good essays on there. Odd to think that the authors of those essays failed the bar.


I've been thinking the same thing. Did these people just tank the MBE? Did they get an 85 on one essay and a 50 on the rest? I do not understand it.

huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:51 am

Anyone know whether Barbri's suggestion for writing in an "integrated" style is an acceptable (i.e., no points deducted) method of answering questions?

From the essays I've seen that have been scored, the high scoring ones rarely write without IRAC, meaning they state the rule rather than just application/conclusion, which is what integration seems to mean for Barbri.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:00 am

Torts Illustrated wrote:California evidence question:

In a criminal case in California, a defendant can introduce evidence of the victim's bad character using opinion, reputation, AND specific instances of conduct. (So, if I'm charged with homicide and claiming self-defense, I can introduce evidence showing that the victim kicked puppies in order to show that he was a violent guy.)

After this happens, the prosecution can introduce negative character evidence about the defendant. Can the prosecution's evidence be in the form of specific instances of conduct? Or only opinion and reputation?

In the same vein, if a defendant wants to introduce evidence of his own character as inconsistent with the crime charged, can that be in the form of specific instances of conduct? Or just opinion/reputation?


My understanding is that specific instances of conduct are NEVER admissible to prove that the defendant acted in conformance with that conduct, whether that evidence is offered by the defendant or by the prosecutor.

In CA If D presents evidence of victim's character for VIOLENCE ONLY (as opposed to any pertinent trait under the FRE), then this opens the door for Prosecutor to present evidence that D also has a character violence, but I don't think this can be in the form of specific instances.

However, prosecutor COULD admit specific instance evidence of VICTIM's conduct to rebut D's evidence against victim, either on direct or on cross.

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:04 am

I have it that for Ds character, only reputation is allowed, while all 3 are allowed for victims character.

User avatar
Shaggier1
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Shaggier1 » Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:05 am

I've been wondering this. So are ALL of the essays on BarEssays.com from people who failed the bar (because that's the only way you figure out your individual essay scores)? If so, that's kind of disturbing, because I've read some really good essays on there. Odd to think that the authors of those essays failed the bar.


Yes, they are all from people who failed. But remember, you are only looking at one of their essays. My guess is that they are people who under-prepared in most subjects. I think about where I was probably 3-4 weeks ago. There were a few subjects for which I felt like I could write strong essays. But for the most part, I wasn't ready yet. That is probably where these people were at test time.

That or they tanked MBE and/or PT. But, in general, one strong essay doesn't do that much for you. The difference between a 65 and a 70, for example, is roughly the same as getting 3-4 additional MBE's right out of 190.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:19 am

Foosters Galore wrote:I have it that for Ds character, only reputation is allowed, while all 3 are allowed for victims character.


Barbri outline says reputation or opinion, just not specific instances.

And sneakily, apparently in CA prosecutors can ask a defense witness whether they've heard of any instances of D's conduct that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony. They just can't actually bring up what the specific instances are.

So they can say "have your heard of D doing anything that might contradict your opinion?" but when witness testifies that D is honest, they can't say "have you heard he lied on his tax returns?"




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests