California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:38 pm

courtneylove wrote:thank you guys for the heads up on the anticipated conlaw essay. i definitely would have bombed this morning if i hadn't cracked down on that shit this weekend.

hard to prep for tomorrow with all this CPT emotional upheaval. i feel like there was a miscommunication between the person who put together the library and whoever wrote the prompt. because, what.

also, love the accuracy of this statue outside the sacramento exam center: http://i43.tinypic.com/b6q5iq.jpg


I reviewed dozens of PTs and there has not been a single one where so many library materials went unused. Or at least many people I know did not use them...????

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Shaggier1 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:39 pm

Multiple people have been implying that this test is curved. I know the MBE is scaled but are the PT's and essays curved? That is, in the event that the large majority of people bomb a PT (as seems very likely today), will that section actually be curved?

How does it work?

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 Jul 30, 2013 10:40 pm

cavalierattitude wrote:Did the lawyer violate an ethics rule when he bribed the journalist to mention his name in any future coverage? Or was he just being a dillweed but not necessarily unethical? Trying to construe that as "attorney advertising" just seemed retarded.


Maybe false/misleading to omit the fact that the attorney paid for the reference when the journalist publishes the article.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:40 pm

Unrelatedly, kind of a dumb question, but what time markers are you guys using for the MBE questions? I hate the 1.8 minute thing.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:40 pm

cavalierattitude wrote:Did the lawyer violate an ethics rule when he bribed the journalist to mention his name in any future coverage? Or was he just being a dillweed but not necessarily unethical? Trying to construe that as "attorney advertising" just seemed retarded.



I said something about adverse txs and not labeling an ad as an ad. Also ruled out publication rights.

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 Jul 30, 2013 10:41 pm

Shaggier1 wrote:
Tangerine Gleam wrote:
Is it just wishful thinking to hope that W&T is less likely after we've had a Community Property question today? (And after that fucked up sorta trusts-related PT?)


I think so. W&T wasn't on the last exam, and it's basically on almost every exam, so something makes me think it has to be tested.


The bolded is just plain false. Between 2007 and February 2013, there were six different administrations that had neither a wills nor a trusts question.


How many in a row 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 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:41 pm

huckabees wrote:Unrelatedly, kind of a dumb question, but what time markers are you guys using for the MBE questions? I hate the 1.8 minute thing.


You will finish the MBE with about an hour to spare on both sections, do don't even worry about it.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:42 pm

cavalierattitude wrote:Did the lawyer violate an ethics rule when he bribed the journalist to mention his name in any future coverage? Or was he just being a dillweed but not necessarily unethical? Trying to construe that as "attorney advertising" just seemed retarded.

I argued that it was a misleading advertisement without labeling.

Wasn't sure about the homeless guy, though. I argued some duty of candor shit, which doesn't make sense because he's not even in front of a judge yet.

MBE: I try to do at least 33 questions per hour.

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 Jul 30, 2013 10:42 pm

Shaggier1 wrote:Multiple people have been implying that this test is curved. I know the MBE is scaled but are the PT's and essays curved? That is, in the event that the large majority of people bomb a PT (as seems very likely today), will that section actually be curved?

How does it work?


Well, certain percentage of people have to pass, and if everyone bombed the PT, there will have to be some adjustments, right?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:43 pm

Duty of Confidentiality. You ain't supposed to say who your clients are.

User avatar
dlac
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby dlac » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:46 pm

cavalierattitude wrote:Did the lawyer violate an ethics rule when he bribed the journalist to mention his name in any future coverage? Or was he just being a dillweed but not necessarily unethical?


I wrote that it was an attempt to improperly influence an active case, something something fairness, publication rights, advertising, etc. I realized after it was maybe DoL bc he's trying to get publicity on the back of some client's case.

And to quote everyone above, F*** dat PT.

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 Jul 30, 2013 10:48 pm

I wrote that it was an attempt to improperly influence an active case


This too.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:53 pm

a male human wrote:
Wasn't sure about the homeless guy, though. I argued some duty of candor shit, which doesn't make sense because he's not even in front of a judge yet


you're only allowed to pay a non-expert pay basic expenses. So I said something about it depending on how long till this guy was "back on his feet"

Then again... duty to serve public interest?

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 Jul 30, 2013 10:54 pm

jmhendri wrote:
a male human wrote:
Wasn't sure about the homeless guy, though. I argued some duty of candor shit, which doesn't make sense because he's not even in front of a judge yet


you're only allowed to pay a non-expert pay basic expenses. So I said something about it depending on how long till this guy was "back on his feet"

Then again... duty to serve public interest?


Fee-splitting with a non-lawyer?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:55 pm

jmhendri wrote:
a male human wrote:
Wasn't sure about the homeless guy, though. I argued some duty of candor shit, which doesn't make sense because he's not even in front of a judge yet


you're only allowed to pay a non-expert pay basic expenses. So I said something about it depending on how long till this guy was "back on his feet"

Then again... duty to serve public interest?


I went with fees for witnesses and argued the rules for loans to clients, and then stated didn't apply as there was no attorney client relationship.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7669
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby worldtraveler » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:02 pm

huckabees wrote:
courtneylove wrote:thank you guys for the heads up on the anticipated conlaw essay. i definitely would have bombed this morning if i hadn't cracked down on that shit this weekend.

hard to prep for tomorrow with all this CPT emotional upheaval. i feel like there was a miscommunication between the person who put together the library and whoever wrote the prompt. because, what.

also, love the accuracy of this statue outside the sacramento exam center: http://i43.tinypic.com/b6q5iq.jpg


I reviewed dozens of PTs and there has not been a single one where so many library materials went unused. Or at least many people I know did not use them...????


I used all mine but who knows if I even interpreted them correctly...

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:07 pm

Foosters Galore wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
a male human wrote:
Wasn't sure about the homeless guy, though. I argued some duty of candor shit, which doesn't make sense because he's not even in front of a judge yet


you're only allowed to pay a non-expert pay basic expenses. So I said something about it depending on how long till this guy was "back on his feet"

Then again... duty to serve public interest?


I went with fees for witnesses and argued the rules for loans to clients, and then stated didn't apply as there was no attorney client relationship.


I did both as well. Said could argue fronting fees for client, but not A/C relationship. Then also said can only pay non-expert wit basic fees.
Also re: bribe, said the usualy duty of candor and public shit. Also said confidentiality, especially under CA. Also said if it's meant as advertisement, doesn't have the disclaimer of CA with no guarantee of winning/cash, etc blah blah.
I'm not even worried about PR.
The PT screwed me so hard. SO HARD. I found myself bring up the civil penalties and found that they'd have to reimburse the Corp. Which has nothing to fucking do with the AG going after the corp, but might use in cumulative in his dissolution argument? I don't know. Give me a 45 on it.

Entellus
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Entellus » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:11 pm

Did anybody else in Santa Clara notice our proctor sounded just like Eugene Levy?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:13 pm

Entellus wrote:Did anybody else in Santa Clara notice our proctor sounded just like Eugene Levy?


Indeed.
Also, did he not realize he was murmuring on the mic during the beginning of the PT?

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

.

Postby Another » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:24 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:24 pm

huckabees wrote:Unrelatedly, kind of a dumb question, but what time markers are you guys using for the MBE questions? I hate the 1.8 minute thing.



For my timing, I try to go for 20 questions in 35 minutes. Every 20 questions (1 column on the barbri scantron), I mark :35; 1:10, 1:45 etc. which leaves me with 5 minutes at the end for guessing/checking my bubbles.

But, like this guy said
You will finish the MBE with about an hour to spare on both sections, do don't even worry about it.
I generally finish with an hour to spare. Still, the timing makes me feel more at ease.
Last edited by randomdandom on Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

.

Postby Another » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:27 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby rorystewart » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:29 pm

WTF was up with today's PT!???

Instructions say DO NOT DISCUSS liability of directors owed to corp, DO NOT DISCUSS liability of directors to suits by the AG, but then every issue save the last dissolution issue could only be analyzed as the directors owing a duty to the corp and being liable to it. I AM SO CONFUSED. What am I missing?

And how was I supposed to use the Orange County case??? Was so confused.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:30 pm

hopkins23 wrote:Anyone want to go over the con law and comm prop essay in more detail?

Let me know what I missed:

Con Law: talked about 13th amendment, said it was indentured servitude. Said there was no justification to put him there, state can't randomly round up boys and make them do gardening work for the state as basically a nonpaid state employee. Said there was no compelling reason to do this.

Also mentioned standing briefly, along with ripeness.

14th amendment due process: substantive due process and procedural due process. SDP: said there was a fundamental right to raise your kid how you see fit, no fundamental right to an education, fundamental right to travel (he can't travel if he's drafted). PDP: weighed the three factors (government interest in efficiency, interest in the entitlement, and value of the added procedures), said it was sorely lacking procedural due process because there was no opportunity to be heard or any notice mentioned. Was thinking of putting freedom of association, but thought it was a stretch.

EP: gender discrimination, age discrimination, status discrimination (drop outs). Intermediate and rational basis scrutinies applied.

---

Community Property.

chex stock: said it was SP. Inherited. Using it as collateral doesn't change its nature (or does it...?).

restaurant: said it was SP, but community can be reimbursed for work H put in. Also said it might be considered a CP gift to W's SP (split authority). Used Periera and Van Camp analysis also.

Rental property: said it was presumptively CP. Lender primarily relied on CP-type labor. Said that H's vacant lot was SP, though, and the rental structure was built on H's SP. So maybe CP improvement to SP? Maybe CP and SP used to buy one property altogether? Maybe SP gift to CP? Should SP be reimbursed for contribution to CP?

C's ability to collected from H's SP, W's SP and CP. Said H was probably acting on behalf of the community. If so, then collect from CP first, then H's SP. If acting for W's SP, then collect W's SP first, then CP? Kind of weird result, so also mentioned may get from H's SP and then CP.

That's the jist of what I wrote.


Basically same, except didn't get to as many points in Con law bc ran out of time.

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:32 pm

rorystewart wrote:WTF was up with today's PT!???

Instructions say DO NOT DISCUSS liability of directors owed to corp, DO NOT DISCUSS liability of directors to suits by the AG, but then every issue save the last dissolution issue could only be analyzed as the directors owing a duty to the corp and being liable to it. I AM SO CONFUSED. What am I missing?

And how was I supposed to use the Orange County case??? Was so confused.


Lol. I think either way you are fine. I read lots of old PT answers where the writers applied rules that were not applicable according to the instructions. I think that so many people end up doing what they shouldnt they end up having to take it as a valid answer. I think if you didn't do the director liability stuff as the instructions directed, I think you'll be fine too. Just my 2 cents.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, shineoncrazydiamond, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests