California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Post Reply
Another

Bronze
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Post by Another » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:41 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by a male human » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:42 pm

huckabees wrote:
a male human wrote:AM was def harder than PM for me. I actually had sufficient time to check over my answers.

And WTF at some of the questions. It's pure memorization. Like the one about ineffective assistance of counsel--I was stuck between reasonable and C&C (went with reasonable as my gut choice). Or maybe both were wrong. Then again that question about the promise to pay the $200 option fee seemed to be about reasoning, but I wasted so much time before picking D (enforceable because of promise to pay). And there were a shitload of Ds and As on my answer sheet, too, 5 in a row sometimes.

This administration has been awful. All my law-related standardized tests have been, including the 2010 June LSAT (see avatar for dinos; yes, I will continue to whine about them). If anyone has given up already, perhaps you could intentionally drive the average lower for the rest of us ;)

Or we can all take solace in the possibility that the next administration won't be as hard.
Yeah, I am so tired I cannot even figure out the answer re: ineffective assistance of counsel by googling. It's "but for" but don't think that was a choice?
Well, the trial court said the lawyer didn't bring up objections that could have kept out certain evidence or something. Then the Q asked what else was needed. It was down to whether D could show [a reasonable probability / C&C evidence] that result would have been different but for the unprofessional errors.

Looking at my notes, I was right in choosing reasonable probability (unless one of the other choices A/D was right). That's one crim pro question I got. There was that one question where the driver and passenger was ordered out of the car, and the passenger got patted down. Wasn't sure about that at all, just put that there was no interrogation within the meaning of Miranda.

User avatar
El_Sol

New
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:00 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by El_Sol » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:43 pm

This thread makes me feel better. After the exam I thought it was me. MBE was so unfair.

huckabees

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:43 pm

a male human wrote:
huckabees wrote:
a male human wrote:AM was def harder than PM for me. I actually had sufficient time to check over my answers.

And WTF at some of the questions. It's pure memorization. Like the one about ineffective assistance of counsel--I was stuck between reasonable and C&C (went with reasonable as my gut choice). Or maybe both were wrong. Then again that question about the promise to pay the $200 option fee seemed to be about reasoning, but I wasted so much time before picking D (enforceable because of promise to pay). And there were a shitload of Ds and As on my answer sheet, too, 5 in a row sometimes.

This administration has been awful. All my law-related standardized tests have been, including the 2010 June LSAT (see avatar for dinos; yes, I will continue to whine about them). If anyone has given up already, perhaps you could intentionally drive the average lower for the rest of us ;)

Or we can all take solace in the possibility that the next administration won't be as hard.
Yeah, I am so tired I cannot even figure out the answer re: ineffective assistance of counsel by googling. It's "but for" but don't think that was a choice?
Well, the trial court said the lawyer didn't bring up objections that could have kept out certain evidence or something. Then the Q asked what else was needed. It was down to whether D could show [a reasonable probability / C&C evidence] that result would have been different but for the unprofessional errors.

Looking at my notes, I was right in choosing reasonable probability (unless one of the other choices A/D was right). That's one crim pro question I got. There was that one question where the driver and passenger was ordered out of the car, and the passenger got patted down. Wasn't sure about that at all, just put that there was no interrogation within the meaning of Miranda.
Oh I said that was a violation as the soft thing couldn't have been a weapon

Another question on crim pro was police potentially lying about warrant and then finding drugs in D's apt

I was dying by the end and think I even missed the Ks question about whether sending out letter was sufficient acceptance. Also, another Ks question on taking soil sample after they shook hands to certain terms of a deal? Some requirements/output Ks questions I was less ready for as well.
Last edited by huckabees on Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JDCA2012

New
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:44 pm

Is a promise to pay consideration for option in future = option K? I said no...but I had also never seen that scenario come up before. As per a lot of the test. Fuck.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
jmhendri

Silver
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:44 pm

a male human wrote:
huckabees wrote:
a male human wrote:AM was def harder than PM for me. I actually had sufficient time to check over my answers.

And WTF at some of the questions. It's pure memorization. Like the one about ineffective assistance of counsel--I was stuck between reasonable and C&C (went with reasonable as my gut choice). Or maybe both were wrong. Then again that question about the promise to pay the $200 option fee seemed to be about reasoning, but I wasted so much time before picking D (enforceable because of promise to pay). And there were a shitload of Ds and As on my answer sheet, too, 5 in a row sometimes.

This administration has been awful. All my law-related standardized tests have been, including the 2010 June LSAT (see avatar for dinos; yes, I will continue to whine about them). If anyone has given up already, perhaps you could intentionally drive the average lower for the rest of us ;)

Or we can all take solace in the possibility that the next administration won't be as hard.
Yeah, I am so tired I cannot even figure out the answer re: ineffective assistance of counsel by googling. It's "but for" but don't think that was a choice?
Well, the trial court said the lawyer didn't bring up objections that could have kept out certain evidence or something. Then the Q asked what else was needed. It was down to whether D could show [a reasonable probability / C&C evidence] that result would have been different but for the unprofessional errors.

Looking at my notes, I was right in choosing reasonable probability (unless one of the other choices A/D was right). That's one crim pro question I got. There was that one question where the driver and passenger was ordered out of the car, and the passenger got patted down. Wasn't sure about that at all, just put that there was no interrogation within the meaning of Miranda.

Shit. I put C&C because I remembered that was the harmless error standard in Wills when a will fails because of an interested witness. Bad guess.

User avatar
jmhendri

Silver
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:45 pm

JDCA2012 wrote:Is a promise to pay consideration for option in future = option K? I said no...but I had also never seen that scenario come up before. As per a lot of the test. Fuck.
A promise to perform a legal detriment is pretty much always valid consideration I think.

huckabees

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:49 pm

What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?

User avatar
Emma.

Gold
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by Emma. » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:50 pm

huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
No full faith and credit unless the court had proper jurisdiction over the case.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by a male human » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:51 pm

Emma. wrote:
huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
No full faith and credit unless the court had proper jurisdiction over the case.
When did we even learn this shit

Man, I def got at least one of the mortgage questions wrong because I thought "subject to" was "assumed" and let the poor buyer take the fall for the deficiency judgment

Another

Bronze
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Post by Another » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:51 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
TaipeiMort

Silver
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:52 pm

huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
Full faith and credit requires jurisdiction, which the state didn't have.

Another

Bronze
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Post by Another » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:52 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
Emma.

Gold
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by Emma. » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:53 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
Full faith and credit requires jurisdiction, which the state didn't have.
When the two UChicago kids in this thread give you the same answer, it MUST be right. :P

Gloriaha

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by Gloriaha » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:53 pm

So, I think I had a purely Civ Pro MBE question disguised as a tort. Thinking it was one of the ten experimentals, especially in light of the fact that Civ Pro will be the 7th MBE subject starting 2015.

The question involved a a suit for negligence occurring in state A, where P and D both resided, but the statute of limitations had run on P's cause of action in state A. So, P moved to a different state that had a longer SoL and filed there. D never filed an answer. P obtained a judgment, D never appealed. P takes judgment back to state A to enforce. One answer choice was lack of personal jx, two answer choices were about the SoLs, and fourth answer choice was about failure to appeal. So yeah, civ pro wtf?

JDCA2012

New
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:54 pm

jmhendri wrote:
JDCA2012 wrote:Is a promise to pay consideration for option in future = option K? I said no...but I had also never seen that scenario come up before. As per a lot of the test. Fuck.
A promise to perform a legal detriment is pretty much always valid consideration I think.
But it was to keep the offer open? I mean if he tendered the 200, no problem, but he didn't. SO i was like uh. he promised to pay to keep it open? but didnt? can you have a separate contract based on a promise to pay consideration for keeping an offer open for an option for a contract?

Gloriaha

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by Gloriaha » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:54 pm

Oh don't tell me that was con law!!

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


User avatar
Emma.

Gold
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by Emma. » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:54 pm

Gloriaha wrote:So, I think I had a purely Civ Pro MBE question disguised as a tort. Thinking it was one of the ten experimentals, especially in light of the fact that Civ Pro will be the 7th MBE subject starting 2015.

The question involved a a suit for negligence occurring in state A, where P and D both resided, but the statute of limitations had run on P's cause of action in state A. So, P moved to a different state that had a longer SoL and filed there. D never filed an answer. P obtained a judgment, D never appealed. P takes judgment back to state A to enforce. One answer choice was lack of personal jx, two answer choices were about the SoLs, and fourth answer choice was about failure to appeal. So yeah, civ pro wtf?
See directly above. It was a ConLaw FFC question.

huckabees

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:54 pm

hopkins23 wrote:
Emma. wrote:
huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
No full faith and credit unless the court had proper jurisdiction over the case.
I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT!

(because I chose that too).
Yeah, that sounds right. I over-thought it because for some reason, I was thinking that the court might have jurisdiction over the person but the facts were insufficient to tell or something. But that's the only answer that made sense. Hating self at moment

Person1111

Bronze
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by Person1111 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:55 pm

Shrug, I reached the opposite conclusion (defendant waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by defaulting so the judgment in State B is valid even if it shouldn't have been able to exercise jurisdiction and can be enforced in State A under the FFC). Oh well.

JDCA2012

New
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:55 pm

Gloriaha wrote:So, I think I had a purely Civ Pro MBE question disguised as a tort. Thinking it was one of the ten experimentals, especially in light of the fact that Civ Pro will be the 7th MBE subject starting 2015.

The question involved a a suit for negligence occurring in state A, where P and D both resided, but the statute of limitations had run on P's cause of action in state A. So, P moved to a different state that had a longer SoL and filed there. D never filed an answer. P obtained a judgment, D never appealed. P takes judgment back to state A to enforce. One answer choice was lack of personal jx, two answer choices were about the SoLs, and fourth answer choice was about failure to appeal. So yeah, civ pro wtf?
Yeah I couldn't decide if it was a civ pro experimental or a con law full faith and credit Q

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Another

Bronze
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Post by Another » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:55 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

vacations

Bronze
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by vacations » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:56 pm

so...how exactly am I supposed to find the energy to review tonight for tmr's race when I seriously can't stop thinking how I've alraedy failed this Bar exam...

so depressed...words of encouragement?

huckabees

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 pm

Question on best reason to object when W was shown P's complaint and "remembered"?
Last edited by huckabees on Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Old Gregg

Platinum
Posts: 5409
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Post by Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 pm

vacations wrote:so...how exactly am I supposed to find the energy to review tonight for tmr's race when I seriously can't stop thinking how I've alraedy failed this Bar exam...

so depressed...words of encouragement?
same here. jsut need energy.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”