California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:09 am

a male human wrote:About A13, is that true? Didn't talk about criminal conviction.

For SDP, I only talked about right to private education (is that even a fundamental right?). Shit! I did not expect A13-14 to come up nor did I study for them.


I made it up on the test. Then I looked it up later, and says: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
So I pulled it out of my ass and somehow was magically right. I said "so unless they want to make dropping out a crime (which would raise all kinds of other issues), they can't compel him into the involuntary servitude without him being a criminal"
I made it up. Maybe my bar grader will laugh. Because uhhh I had nothing. The only 13th Am. thing I actually covered in bar prep was that it applies to no racial discrimination in private transactions. Sadly, the scope of the question involved slavery. SLAVERY. Has slavery ever been tested on the CA essays before? Anyone know? I mean, I guess I'm sure it has, I wonder how often.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:11 am

Dude, people make up the law all the time and they pass. It's fine. You just Mckayla Maroney'd it, which is still doing pretty well.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:12 am

mrpickles wrote:
a male human wrote:About A13, is that true? Didn't talk about criminal conviction.

For SDP, I only talked about right to private education (is that even a fundamental right?). Shit! I did not expect A13-14 to come up nor did I study for them.


I made it up on the test. Then I looked it up later, and says: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
So I pulled it out of my ass and somehow was magically right. I said "so unless they want to make dropping out a crime (which would raise all kinds of other issues), they can't compel him into the involuntary servitude without him being a criminal"
I made it up. Maybe my bar grader will laugh. Because uhhh I had nothing. The only 13th Am. thing I actually covered in bar prep was that it applies to no racial discrimination in private transactions. Sadly, the scope of the question involved slavery. SLAVERY. Has slavery ever been tested on the CA essays before? Anyone know? I mean, I guess I'm sure it has, I wonder how often.


I mean, this is not the worst possible question. It could have been on treaty power or the alien tort statute.

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 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:12 am

mrpickles wrote:
a male human wrote:About A13, is that true? Didn't talk about criminal conviction.

For SDP, I only talked about right to private education (is that even a fundamental right?). Shit! I did not expect A13-14 to come up nor did I study for them.


I made it up on the test. Then I looked it up later, and says: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
So I pulled it out of my ass and somehow was magically right. I said "so unless they want to make dropping out a crime (which would raise all kinds of other issues), they can't compel him into the involuntary servitude without him being a criminal"
I made it up. Maybe my bar grader will laugh. Because uhhh I had nothing. The only 13th Am. thing I actually covered in bar prep was that it applies to no racial discrimination in private transactions. Sadly, the scope of the question involved slavery. SLAVERY. Has slavery ever been tested on the CA essays before? Anyone know? I mean, I guess I'm sure it has, I wonder how often.

The State Bar loves to include at least one WTF issue in every administration. Seems like 2013 is the unlucky number. Hey, '13 --> 13th Amendment! How much do they get paid to do this?

Tangerine Gleam wrote:Does anyone have a clue what the "average" (i.e., super rough ballpark approximation/range) answer length is for these CA essays?

I pulled up a random CP-PR hybrid from last year and its sample answers. Answer A was about 2400 words; B was about 2900. Much shorter than I thought.

Fresh Prince wrote:Dude, people make up the law all the time and they pass. It's fine. You just Mckayla Maroney'd it, which is still doing pretty well.

Hope you're not insulting my princess McKayla

(PS: kill all kavs)

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:21 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
I call BS. Everyone in the Bay Area has 3+ North Face zip-ups, most likely black full zips.
I'll wear my USAO jacket tomorrow. Just to top the douche level to a new level.

Also, I was unaware - are we not supposed to swear sweatshirts? I had no notice of this...I guess the 200 other people with them didn't either.


thanks for saying what i felt i couldn't. I think ill have to wear my NDCal polo and my firm north face to join the club.


All I brought with me is my Wachtell jockstrap, but how can I make sure people know I'm wearing it?


you could wear it over your pants or shorts. thatll surely top the list.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:22 am

Pretty sure I did not write over 2,100 words for CPT A.... I answered all questions in a completely horrible way. I hear what others are saying, but I would still be pumped about a 55 here.

madison12991
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby madison12991 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:52 am

I typically have a pretty strict rule against "post-mortems" on exams, but goddamn this thread is reassuring. That PT was awful; I barely wrote anything down because I spent most of the time rereading the library, trying to figure out what I missed that would bring it all together. And yeah, whatever I wrote for the 13th Amendment was a joke.

Can anyone confirm whether, in the CP essay, the judgment was actually against the husband and not the restaurant? I have a tendency to read too fast and miss key details, and I started to worry that the judgment was actually against the restaurant and we were supposed to talk about partnership and shit. Let me know if you remember!

I also thought the CP essay was weird because in Van Camp and Pereira it's usually the owner spouse who is also doing the work, while in this one it was the non-owner spouse. So the Pereira result was weird and I just made some shit up about how to actually split it.

Also, for what it's worth, here's my list of issues for the PR problem:

First attorney:

Competence (real estate attorney taking a PI claim)
Confidentiality (when he referred the case, did he share information?)
Referral fee, if he claims that's why he's keeping the contingency fee (ABA can't have any referral fee, CA can if lawyers)
Fee-splitting (has to be proportionate to work done)
Disclosure (whether it's a referral fee or fee-splitting or whatever, client should know about it)
Unconscionable fees (for 1st and 2nd attorney, client is paying for work that isn't done if both attorneys get a cut)

Second attorney re: reporter:

Advertising (must be disclosed as such)
Creating prejudice (weird because it will be public that he's the lawyer, but maybe trying to create favorable impression of case)
As above, issues around confidentiality, fee splitting, referrals, etc.

Second attorney re: witness

Can't pay non-expert for anything beyond reasonable costs of travel and lodging (or something like that)

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:03 am

madison12991 wrote:I typically have a pretty strict rule against "post-mortems" on exams, but goddamn this thread is reassuring. That PT was awful; I barely wrote anything down because I spent most of the time rereading the library, trying to figure out what I missed that would bring it all together. And yeah, whatever I wrote for the 13th Amendment was a joke.

Can anyone confirm whether, in the CP essay, the judgment was actually against the husband and not the restaurant? I have a tendency to read too fast and miss key details, and I started to worry that the judgment was actually against the restaurant and we were supposed to talk about partnership and shit. Let me know if you remember!

I also thought the CP essay was weird because in Van Camp and Pereira it's usually the owner spouse who is also doing the work, while in this one it was the non-owner spouse. So the Pereira result was weird and I just made some shit up about how to actually split it.

Also, for what it's worth, here's my list of issues for the PR problem:

First attorney:

Competence (real estate attorney taking a PI claim)
Confidentiality (when he referred the case, did he share information?)
Referral fee, if he claims that's why he's keeping the contingency fee (ABA can't have any referral fee, CA can if lawyers)
Fee-splitting (has to be proportionate to work done)
Disclosure (whether it's a referral fee or fee-splitting or whatever, client should know about it)
Unconscionable fees (for 1st and 2nd attorney, client is paying for work that isn't done if both attorneys get a cut)

Second attorney re: reporter:

Advertising (must be disclosed as such)
Creating prejudice (weird because it will be public that he's the lawyer, but maybe trying to create favorable impression of case)
As above, issues around confidentiality, fee splitting, referrals, etc.

Second attorney re: witness

Can't pay non-expert for anything beyond reasonable costs of travel and lodging (or something like that)


I am 99% sure it was against H and not the restaurant. I even mentioned, albeit briefly, respondeat superior discussing that had the judgment not been against H personally, W may have been L.
Last edited by spartjdawg on Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:05 am

This may seem moot now, but asking in preparation for PT B:

How the heck did you guys outline today's PT? Trying to avoid non-completion disaster but not really sure what "notes" I should've taken down reading all those statutes, and the first case which I couldn't make much sense of.

For that matter, any method (not just confined to outlining/taking notes) that you guys used effectively would be appreciated.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:09 am

huckabees wrote:This may seem moot now, but asking in preparation for PT B:

How the heck did you guys outline today's PT? Trying to avoid non-completion disaster but not really sure what "notes" I should've taken down reading all those statutes, and the first case which I couldn't make much sense of.

For that matter, any method (not just confined to outlining/taking notes) that you guys used effectively would be appreciated.


A. SIA Liablity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

B. Likelihood of Dissolution/Receivership

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:20 am

spartjdawg wrote:
huckabees wrote:This may seem moot now, but asking in preparation for PT B:

How the heck did you guys outline today's PT? Trying to avoid non-completion disaster but not really sure what "notes" I should've taken down reading all those statutes, and the first case which I couldn't make much sense of.

For that matter, any method (not just confined to outlining/taking notes) that you guys used effectively would be appreciated.


A. SIA Liablity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

B. Likelihood of Dissolution/Receivership


:lol:

Seriously, though, I am really not quite sure what notes I should have taken while reading (and in general would appreciate advice on how to manage this). Today, I read a bunch of stuff on Case 1 as Barbri recommends to do, and then forgot it all when I got to the statutes. When I went back to Case 1 to fill in the law, I realized I had nothing to take away from it and had to start all over reading it.

Ultimately, I should have read the transcript first in this particular case. But that's not necessarily applicable to PT B.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:25 am

huckabees wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
huckabees wrote:This may seem moot now, but asking in preparation for PT B:

How the heck did you guys outline today's PT? Trying to avoid non-completion disaster but not really sure what "notes" I should've taken down reading all those statutes, and the first case which I couldn't make much sense of.

For that matter, any method (not just confined to outlining/taking notes) that you guys used effectively would be appreciated.


A. SIA Liablity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

B. Likelihood of Dissolution/Receivership


:lol:

Seriously, though, I am really not quite sure what notes I should have taken while reading (and in general would appreciate advice on how to manage this). Today, I read a bunch of stuff on Case 1 bc that is what Barbri recommends to start with, and then forgot it all when I got to the statutes. When I went back to Case 1 to fill in the law, I realized I had nothing to take away from it and had to start all over reading it.

Ultimately, I should have read the transcript first in this particular case. But that's not necessarily applicable to PT B.


Honestly, I am not sure much could have been learned from today's experience. If I could do it over again, I would have started with the statutes so that I didn't have a predisposed mentality as to what the facts were. Honestly, I think the trick in today's test was that there were breaches of care and loyalty that could be imputed to the corporation. This is that slight differentiation of: Is the director L or is the corporation L for failing to oversee a director who is conducting crappy business. The only thing that tied in nicely was the corporation's failure of oversight Sidley oversight.

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:25 am

spartjdawg wrote:
madison12991 wrote:I also thought the CP essay was weird because in Van Camp and Pereira it's usually the owner spouse who is also doing the work, while in this one it was the non-owner spouse. So the Pereira result was weird and I just made some shit up about how to actually split it.

Also, for what it's worth, here's my list of issues for the PR problem:

First attorney:

Competence (real estate attorney taking a PI claim)
Confidentiality (when he referred the case, did he share information?)
Referral fee, if he claims that's why he's keeping the contingency fee (ABA can't have any referral fee, CA can if lawyers)
Fee-splitting (has to be proportionate to work done)
Disclosure (whether it's a referral fee or fee-splitting or whatever, client should know about it)
Unconscionable fees (for 1st and 2nd attorney, client is paying for work that isn't done if both attorneys get a cut)

Second attorney re: reporter:

Advertising (must be disclosed as such)
Creating prejudice (weird because it will be public that he's the lawyer, but maybe trying to create favorable impression of case)
As above, issues around confidentiality, fee splitting, referrals, etc.

Second attorney re: witness

Can't pay non-expert for anything beyond reasonable costs of travel and lodging (or something like that)


I am 99% sure it was against H and not the restaurant. I even mentioned, albeit briefly, respondeat superior discussing that had the judgment not been against H personally, W may have been L.


I am usually against these threads as well. But god damn, reading your thoughts on pereira and van camp made my day. I did the EXACT same thing...I was like wait...wtf..SP business..but the facts say the OTHER spouse is SOLELY responsible for the increase in value?? Is this even a thing that's covered??
So I basically did pereira, said it was weird result. talked about van camp, said don't have any salary.
Then I said this is a comingled business and should be CP and split 50-50. So I basically danced around and made it up. Fuck me, right? FUCK!
And yeah it was against H himself. But I fucked up and forgot to add the one sentence that it goes to his SP debt at divorce...even though I even talked about attacking CP first then SP since for benefit (arguable, in scope of his job while making living for CP community). Fuck oh well, whatever.
And reading your PR, I hit those same issues. Although, I couldn't find good CA distinctions (that I knew) that seemed material. I brought up CA ads need to disclose they don't guarantee a win/cash? And that under CA there is higher confidentiality, so can't say anything about client, so saying who is client was to reporter was even super bad (in so many legal terms) under CA. Didn't say prejudice, but said...some shit about breach of duty of candor and duty to the public. or something made up about him trying to bribe for publicity. I think I threw in 1 sentence I somehow remembered about 1st amend and laywer ads from a model answer 2 days ago. Just some shit. Fuck.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:27 am

Well, at least we are pretty much done with CA topics. Last one is going to be [__]/Remedies, but I'm not sure what the blank is.

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:28 am

spartjdawg wrote:
huckabees wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
huckabees wrote:This may seem moot now, but asking in preparation for PT B:

How the heck did you guys outline today's PT? Trying to avoid non-completion disaster but not really sure what "notes" I should've taken down reading all those statutes, and the first case which I couldn't make much sense of.

For that matter, any method (not just confined to outlining/taking notes) that you guys used effectively would be appreciated.


A. SIA Liablity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

B. Likelihood of Dissolution/Receivership


:lol:

Seriously, though, I am really not quite sure what notes I should have taken while reading (and in general would appreciate advice on how to manage this). Today, I read a bunch of stuff on Case 1 bc that is what Barbri recommends to start with, and then forgot it all when I got to the statutes. When I went back to Case 1 to fill in the law, I realized I had nothing to take away from it and had to start all over reading it.

Ultimately, I should have read the transcript first in this particular case. But that's not necessarily applicable to PT B.


Honestly, I am not sure much could have been learned from today's experience. If I could do it over again, I would have started with the statutes so that I didn't have a predisposed mentality as to what the facts were. Honestly, I think the trick in today's test was that there were breaches of care and loyalty that could be imputed to the corporation. This is that slight differentiation of: Is the director L or is the corporation L for failing to oversee a director who is conducting crappy business. The only thing that tied in nicely was the corporation's failure of oversight Sidley oversight.


Agreed re: not much you could do. I read the statutes and cases..thinking ok, someone will be soliciting funds saying they are "From" the charity but they aren't, there will be a nondisclosure of % or something maybe, there could be some kind of faux charity created...none of this happened. Dude was doing side soliciting through refund letters, and people were self dealing the fuck out of the corporation, and using corp funds for themselves. This could have been a fucking corps essay and written for 10 years. But none of the facts did much to directly help the AG doing so much directly, but as people have said, imputed bad oversight. I loosely said that. Or something. I screwed up the PT. I'd kill for a 55 on it.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:31 am

JDCA2012 wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
madison12991 wrote:I also thought the CP essay was weird because in Van Camp and Pereira it's usually the owner spouse who is also doing the work, while in this one it was the non-owner spouse. So the Pereira result was weird and I just made some shit up about how to actually split it.

Also, for what it's worth, here's my list of issues for the PR problem:

First attorney:

Competence (real estate attorney taking a PI claim)
Confidentiality (when he referred the case, did he share information?)
Referral fee, if he claims that's why he's keeping the contingency fee (ABA can't have any referral fee, CA can if lawyers)
Fee-splitting (has to be proportionate to work done)
Disclosure (whether it's a referral fee or fee-splitting or whatever, client should know about it)
Unconscionable fees (for 1st and 2nd attorney, client is paying for work that isn't done if both attorneys get a cut)

Second attorney re: reporter:

Advertising (must be disclosed as such)
Creating prejudice (weird because it will be public that he's the lawyer, but maybe trying to create favorable impression of case)
As above, issues around confidentiality, fee splitting, referrals, etc.

Second attorney re: witness

Can't pay non-expert for anything beyond reasonable costs of travel and lodging (or something like that)


I am 99% sure it was against H and not the restaurant. I even mentioned, albeit briefly, respondeat superior discussing that had the judgment not been against H personally, W may have been L.


I am usually against these threads as well. But god damn, reading your thoughts on pereira and van camp made my day. I did the EXACT same thing...I was like wait...wtf..SP business..but the facts say the OTHER spouse is SOLELY responsible for the increase in value?? Is this even a thing that's covered??
So I basically did pereira, said it was weird result. talked about van camp, said don't have any salary.
Then I said this is a comingled business and should be CP and split 50-50. So I basically danced around and made it up. Fuck me, right? FUCK!
And yeah it was against H himself. But I fucked up and forgot to add the one sentence that it goes to his SP debt at divorce...even though I even talked about attacking CP first then SP since for benefit (arguable, in scope of his job while making living for CP community). Fuck oh well, whatever.
And reading your PR, I hit those same issues. Although, I couldn't find good CA distinctions (that I knew) that seemed material. I brought up CA ads need to disclose they don't guarantee a win/cash? And that under CA there is higher confidentiality, so can't say anything about client, so saying who is client was to reporter was even super bad (in so many legal terms) under CA. Didn't say prejudice, but said...some shit about breach of duty of candor and duty to the public. or something made up about him trying to bribe for publicity. I think I threw in 1 sentence I somehow remembered about 1st amend and laywer ads from a model answer 2 days ago. Just some shit. Fuck.


Re: Perera and Van Camp. If labor (a community property asset) contributes into the increase in value in a separate property business, regardless of whether it is the sepratizer or the non-sepratizer spouse, the value should go to the community because labor is the CP asset. Increase in value of 200k goes to the community.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:34 am

JDCA2012 wrote:
Agreed re: not much you could do. I read the statutes and cases..thinking ok, someone will be soliciting funds saying they are "From" the charity but they aren't, there will be a nondisclosure of % or something maybe, there could be some kind of faux charity created...none of this happened. Dude was doing side soliciting through refund letters, and people were self dealing the fuck out of the corporation, and using corp funds for themselves. This could have been a fucking corps essay and written for 10 years. But none of the facts did much to directly help the AG doing so much directly, but as people have said, imputed bad oversight. I loosely said that. Or something. I screwed up the PT. I'd kill for a 55 on it.


Interesting aside, I actually read the Sidley case in Nonprofit Law.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:35 am

spartjdawg wrote:
huckabees wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
huckabees wrote:This may seem moot now, but asking in preparation for PT B:

How the heck did you guys outline today's PT? Trying to avoid non-completion disaster but not really sure what "notes" I should've taken down reading all those statutes, and the first case which I couldn't make much sense of.

For that matter, any method (not just confined to outlining/taking notes) that you guys used effectively would be appreciated.


A. SIA Liablity

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

B. Likelihood of Dissolution/Receivership


:lol:

Seriously, though, I am really not quite sure what notes I should have taken while reading (and in general would appreciate advice on how to manage this). Today, I read a bunch of stuff on Case 1 bc that is what Barbri recommends to start with, and then forgot it all when I got to the statutes. When I went back to Case 1 to fill in the law, I realized I had nothing to take away from it and had to start all over reading it.

Ultimately, I should have read the transcript first in this particular case. But that's not necessarily applicable to PT B.


Honestly, I am not sure much could have been learned from today's experience. If I could do it over again, I would have started with the statutes so that I didn't have a predisposed mentality as to what the facts were. Honestly, I think the trick in today's test was that there were breaches of care and loyalty that could be imputed to the corporation. This is that slight differentiation of: Is the director L or is the corporation L for failing to oversee a director who is conducting crappy business. The only thing that tied in nicely was the corporation's failure of oversight Sidley oversight.


See, I'm likely wrong, but I don't think it was that the duties of care and loyalty could be imputed (reason is I looked for that language forever), but that Orange reflected factual examples of behavior violating the Corporation's Duty to the Trust (or whatever the cause of action was called in the first statute). The question is if the other situations were analogous to the facts provided, the potential remedies would have been the same.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:40 am

TaipeiMort wrote:
See, I'm likely wrong, but I don't think it was that the duties of care and loyalty could be imputed (reason is I looked for that language forever), but that Orange reflected factual examples of behavior violating the Corporation's Duty to the Trust (or whatever the cause of action was called in the first statute). The question is if the other situations were analogous to the facts provided, the potential remedies would have been the same.


I don't know if you are right, but I do not think that I am right. :)

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:57 am

spartjdawg wrote:
JDCA2012 wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
madison12991 wrote:I also thought the CP essay was weird because in Van Camp and Pereira it's usually the owner spouse who is also doing the work, while in this one it was the non-owner spouse. So the Pereira result was weird and I just made some shit up about how to actually split it.

Also, for what it's worth, here's my list of issues for the PR problem:

First attorney:

Competence (real estate attorney taking a PI claim)
Confidentiality (when he referred the case, did he share information?)
Referral fee, if he claims that's why he's keeping the contingency fee (ABA can't have any referral fee, CA can if lawyers)
Fee-splitting (has to be proportionate to work done)
Disclosure (whether it's a referral fee or fee-splitting or whatever, client should know about it)
Unconscionable fees (for 1st and 2nd attorney, client is paying for work that isn't done if both attorneys get a cut)

Second attorney re: reporter:

Advertising (must be disclosed as such)
Creating prejudice (weird because it will be public that he's the lawyer, but maybe trying to create favorable impression of case)
As above, issues around confidentiality, fee splitting, referrals, etc.

Second attorney re: witness

Can't pay non-expert for anything beyond reasonable costs of travel and lodging (or something like that)


I am 99% sure it was against H and not the restaurant. I even mentioned, albeit briefly, respondeat superior discussing that had the judgment not been against H personally, W may have been L.


I am usually against these threads as well. But god damn, reading your thoughts on pereira and van camp made my day. I did the EXACT same thing...I was like wait...wtf..SP business..but the facts say the OTHER spouse is SOLELY responsible for the increase in value?? Is this even a thing that's covered??
So I basically did pereira, said it was weird result. talked about van camp, said don't have any salary.
Then I said this is a comingled business and should be CP and split 50-50. So I basically danced around and made it up. Fuck me, right? FUCK!
And yeah it was against H himself. But I fucked up and forgot to add the one sentence that it goes to his SP debt at divorce...even though I even talked about attacking CP first then SP since for benefit (arguable, in scope of his job while making living for CP community). Fuck oh well, whatever.
And reading your PR, I hit those same issues. Although, I couldn't find good CA distinctions (that I knew) that seemed material. I brought up CA ads need to disclose they don't guarantee a win/cash? And that under CA there is higher confidentiality, so can't say anything about client, so saying who is client was to reporter was even super bad (in so many legal terms) under CA. Didn't say prejudice, but said...some shit about breach of duty of candor and duty to the public. or something made up about him trying to bribe for publicity. I think I threw in 1 sentence I somehow remembered about 1st amend and laywer ads from a model answer 2 days ago. Just some shit. Fuck.


Re: Perera and Van Camp. If labor (a community property asset) contributes into the increase in value in a separate property business, regardless of whether it is the sepratizer or the non-sepratizer spouse, the value should go to the community because labor is the CP asset. Increase in value of 200k goes to the community.


Makes complete sense, especially when I go back to the outline. I guess I just got thrown off severely since all the exampled I had seen (which I guess was fairly limited in total) had the SP business spouse working there or whatever. Oh well. I still put them both down. Better than not.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:10 am

JDCA2012 wrote:Makes complete sense, especially when I go back to the outline. I guess I just got thrown off severely since all the exampled I had seen (which I guess was fairly limited in total) had the SP business spouse working there or whatever. Oh well. I still put them both down. Better than not.


I am pretty sure this is the only thing I got close to correct all day.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lorraina42 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:25 am

First of all, I'm so glad I found this thread. I wanted to throw up after the PT. I'm glad I wasn't the only one.

I did see a couple questions about whether the Exam is "curved." From what I understand, the written portion of the exam is "scaled" to ensure that the difficulty of passing the exam doesn't change from year to year. Because of this "scaling," the difficult of the PT will affect our converted written scores. I am not positive that I'm right about this, but it's what the link below seems to suggest.

http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... 201207.pdf
Scaling information:
The Committee of Bar Examiners (Committee) utilizes a grading procedure designed to ensure the
difficulty of passing the examination remains unchanged from one administration of the examination to
another. The statistical technique, called scaling, converts scores on the written portion (essay
questions and PT’s) to the same scale of measurement as the MBE. MBE raw scores are converted to
scale scores to adjust the results for possible differences in average question difficulty across different
administrations of the examination. As a result of this step, a given MBE scale score indicates the
same level of proficiency regardless of the administration of the examination on which it was earned.
Converting the total written raw scores to the same scale of measurement as the MBE adjusts for
possible differences in average question difficulty and Grader performance across different
administrations of the examination.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Shaggier1 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:31 am

Thanks Lorraina!! That is exactly what I wanted to wake up to this morning!!

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Kretzy » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:36 am

Shaggier1 wrote:Thanks Lorraina!! That is exactly what I wanted to wake up to this morning!!


+1. You're amazing. Thanks for that, Lorraina!

And two awesome lesbians at the Castro Philz just bought my coffee for me. Today can't be as bad a day as yesterday.

User avatar
Mroberts3
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:10 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Mroberts3 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:44 am

lorraina42 wrote:First of all, I'm so glad I found this thread. I wanted to throw up after the PT. I'm glad I wasn't the only one.

I did see a couple questions about whether the Exam is "curved." From what I understand, the written portion of the exam is "scaled" to ensure that the difficulty of passing the exam doesn't change from year to year. Because of this "scaling," the difficult of the PT will affect our converted written scores. I am not positive that I'm right about this, but it's what the link below seems to suggest.

http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... 201207.pdf
Scaling information:
The Committee of Bar Examiners (Committee) utilizes a grading procedure designed to ensure the
difficulty of passing the examination remains unchanged from one administration of the examination to
another. The statistical technique, called scaling, converts scores on the written portion (essay
questions and PT’s) to the same scale of measurement as the MBE. MBE raw scores are converted to
scale scores to adjust the results for possible differences in average question difficulty across different
administrations of the examination. As a result of this step, a given MBE scale score indicates the
same level of proficiency regardless of the administration of the examination on which it was earned.
Converting the total written raw scores to the same scale of measurement as the MBE adjusts for
possible differences in average question difficulty and Grader performance across different
administrations of the examination.


I forget where I heard this, but my understanding is that they scale the MBE first. Then they scale the written scores such that they are of equal percentiles. Basically, they are assuming that the average MBE taker will get an average essay. This is why the average passing essay score fluctuates between 60 and 63 or so.

For example: average MBE is 125. That gets scaled to the 1440 minimum passing. (These are just example numbers, I don't know what percentile MBE gets scaled to the minimum passing).

Then they grade all the essays and put them on a curve. Whatever the average score is becomes a 1440 for the written portion. Since exams will vary in difficulty, what counts as average will fluctuate, but the scaling won't change.

This is easy to get for the MBE because it is like the LSAT in that they simply scale it to make it comparable to past exams. The essay portion is more confusing because there are different essays graded by different graders, but I think the concept is the same.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests