California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

kershawfan
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:35 pm

haha ouch. spent waayy too much time reading and organizing the PT. Got a strong statement of facts and argument headings. Biffed the rest. Inserted some rules from the cases and did no fact analysis. Pretty much a barebones unfinished outline. Any chance of a 55? Ugh

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:36 pm

fl0w wrote:Courtney's mnemonic helped me out a bit, though: courts feel differently


I helped?!?!

kershawfan
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:37 pm

couldn't remember term "ex parte" for the call to the judge. Think I used extra judicial communication?? wtf

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:40 pm

kershawfan wrote:couldn't remember term "ex parte" for the call to the judge. Think I used extra judicial communication?? wtf


Eh, I'm sure the grader will just take note that you spotted the issue.

I talked about PJ and SMJ because I thought that in order to transfer to fed ct the case could have had to have originally been brought in fed ct and ughhh nevermind hahah

kershawfan
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:46 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:
kershawfan wrote:couldn't remember term "ex parte" for the call to the judge. Think I used extra judicial communication?? wtf


Eh, I'm sure the grader will just take note that you spotted the issue.

I talked about PJ and SMJ because I thought that in order to transfer to fed ct the case could have had to have originally been brought in fed ct and ughhh nevermind hahah


yeah I also started with discussion of jurisdiction. don't even know why that's wrong but judging your reaction I'm guessing I was very wrong

Busyvee
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Busyvee » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:47 pm

OMG!
for the CP I wrote that Bill keeps the building because he was BFP!!!so stupid ahggggg :cry:

tessellating
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby tessellating » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:48 pm

I may be the only dissenter here, but today's PT somehow felt more clusterfuckish than the July one. Anyone? I don't think I've seen a PT with the evidence consisting only of transcripts. Suffice to say that I have never copied and pasted facts over and over as much as I did today.

User avatar
El Pollito
party fowl
Posts: 17894
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby El Pollito » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:57 pm

I don't wanna study.

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:58 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:CourtneyElizabeth wrote:
kershawfan wrote:
couldn't remember term "ex parte" for the call to the judge. Think I used extra judicial communication?? wtf


Eh, I'm sure the grader will just take note that you spotted the issue.

I talked about PJ and SMJ because I thought that in order to transfer to fed ct the case could have had to have originally been brought in fed ct and ughhh nevermind hahah


yeah I also started with discussion of jurisdiction. don't even know why that's wrong but judging your reaction I'm guessing I was very wrong


No no, I think its fine?? I just hate that I'm still thinking about it.
And I hate that it's not even 7pm yet and I'm so damn tired I want to go to sleep. El Pollito - I don't want to study either. I want to review MXC subjects….but…sleep...

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:00 pm

a male human wrote:
fl0w wrote:
Hoggle wrote:If anyone else had the Softest glitch that pevented them from finishing the second half of the PT, know that it happened to me and 10 or more people in Ontario. I showed it to a proctor. After it started, I was unable to finish my PT. Literally every word that was typed had like three spaces, and letters were shoved in between words. When I hit back space, huge swathes were erased. I was done after that first half because I had already put my outline together on the computer. There was no way I was going to be able to finish the test on paper at that point.

We have started a uniform complaint here in Ontario. It would be helpful if anyone else who was having the issue report it. My test center was so worried about it that they created a uniform case for CA bar to review.

Also, here is the threat I started to report this issue PM me as well if you had the issue:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=225291


please outline on paper next time. we tried to stress the importance of this earlier.

I thought about fl0w's suggestion and thought "oh well" and continued to outline on screen. I did remember your thing about not analogizing/distinguishing, though. I didn't do any of that, not like I needed to. All the cases were on point, as far as I know.

As for essays, everything was on things I skimmed or didn't practice: prosecutor duties (one line in my outline), removal, all of comm prop.

XD

Courtney's mnemonic helped me out a bit, though: courts feel differently


Dude, you took my advice and I also took yours. Or maybe it was Murphy's? I duno... point is when I saw an explicit reference to distinguishing authority in the instructions I was like AWWW FUUUK those dudes on TLS got me? lulz. But yeah, nothing seemed terribly "adverse" to me either.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:03 pm

El Pollito wrote:I don't wanna study.


I wouldn't for MBE at this point. I mean.. I'm not going to. I'm chillin tonight.

User avatar
Hoggle
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Hoggle » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:04 pm

kershawfan wrote:haha ouch. spent waayy too much time reading and organizing the PT. Got a strong statement of facts and argument headings. Biffed the rest. Inserted some rules from the cases and did no fact analysis. Pretty much a barebones unfinished outline. Any chance of a 55? Ugh


Hey man, you're fine. Some of the people who had the softest glitch weren't able to type more than 5 WPM for the last hour to hour and a half. My PT consists of a bunch of black letter law and headings with little to no facts. I don't even have a fact section because of the problem. Literally no ability to type information in except for like this: Th e sment of fcts is mst impooor tnat ptrt. (the statement of facts is the most important part.

User avatar
El Pollito
party fowl
Posts: 17894
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby El Pollito » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:05 pm

fl0w wrote:
El Pollito wrote:I don't wanna study.


I wouldn't for MBE at this point. I mean.. I'm not going to. I'm chillin tonight.

I might do some Bar Max questions if I can keep my eyes open. Blah.

User avatar
El Pollito
party fowl
Posts: 17894
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby El Pollito » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:05 pm

Hoggle wrote:
kershawfan wrote:haha ouch. spent waayy too much time reading and organizing the PT. Got a strong statement of facts and argument headings. Biffed the rest. Inserted some rules from the cases and did no fact analysis. Pretty much a barebones unfinished outline. Any chance of a 55? Ugh


Hey man, you're fine. Some of the people who had the softest glitch weren't able to type more than 5 WPM for the last hour to hour and a half. My PT consists of a bunch of black letter law and headings with little to no facts. I don't even have a fact section because of the problem. Literally no ability to type information in except for like this: Th e sment of fcts is mst impooor tnat ptrt. (the statement of facts is the most important part.

I would have knifed a proctor.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:06 pm

Hoggle wrote:
kershawfan wrote:haha ouch. spent waayy too much time reading and organizing the PT. Got a strong statement of facts and argument headings. Biffed the rest. Inserted some rules from the cases and did no fact analysis. Pretty much a barebones unfinished outline. Any chance of a 55? Ugh


Hey man, you're fine. Some of the people who had the softest glitch weren't able to type more than 5 WPM for the last hour to hour and a half. My PT consists of a bunch of black letter law and headings with little to no facts. I don't even have a fact section because of the problem. Literally no ability to type information in except for like this: Th e sment of fcts is mst impooor tnat ptrt. (the statement of facts is the most important part.


holy hell. I mean.. like what's the best case scenario for the people this happened to? PT gets tossed and then an estimated score filled in based on rest of exam?

I spoke to someone in Oakland and it happened to them too. Didn't happen for me. She had a PC. I wonder if it's a Mac PC thing?

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby a male human » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:11 pm

Busyvee wrote:OMG!
for the CP I wrote that Bill keeps the building because he was BFP!!!so stupid ahggggg :cry:

Oh man, here I was tired as shit, not even motivated to go out to get a Subway. And then your post and your reaction made me laugh.

Also Courtney, that removal thing...I know some people don't want to discuss it, and not that it matters anymore anyway, but... (copy paste to blow up the below part)

I think you're right that removal can only be brought by D where it could have originally been brought (same rule as proper venue?), which means SMJ (FQ and diversity) as well as PJ needed to be analyzed. I made PJ a short and quick discussion because I spent more time on the AIC being under 75k being questionable because the statute required actual earnings, and the facts didn't mention when P filed. Also, even assuming AIC was only 20k, I said the 200k was pled in good faith. The thing I forgot to consider was that removal is improper if D is already a citizen of forum state, and I think the hotel had its PPB/incorporation there...

Now about that second call...I literally put 3 lines saying something about how you can appeal from a final determination. Then referred back to call 1. Nothing about interlocutory orders because I have no idea what that is.

Then call 3 was analyzing whether perma injunction was proper?
Last edited by a male human on Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hoggle
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Hoggle » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:13 pm

fl0w wrote:
Hoggle wrote:
kershawfan wrote:haha ouch. spent waayy too much time reading and organizing the PT. Got a strong statement of facts and argument headings. Biffed the rest. Inserted some rules from the cases and did no fact analysis. Pretty much a barebones unfinished outline. Any chance of a 55? Ugh


Hey man, you're fine. Some of the people who had the softest glitch weren't able to type more than 5 WPM for the last hour to hour and a half. My PT consists of a bunch of black letter law and headings with little to no facts. I don't even have a fact section because of the problem. Literally no ability to type information in except for like this: Th e sment of fcts is mst impooor tnat ptrt. (the statement of facts is the most important part.


holy hell. I mean.. like what's the best case scenario for the people this happened to? PT gets tossed and then an estimated score filled in based on rest of exam?

I spoke to someone in Oakland and it happened to them too. Didn't happen for me. She had a PC. I wonder if it's a Mac PC thing?


A couple of the people in Ontario had Macs, so I'm not sure if that is the issue. However, if you run into anyone, send them to my thread or have them PM me. We are getting a lot of people that had the issue, and having them as part of the formal report only helps them and us.

kershawfan
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:14 pm

Hoggle wrote:
kershawfan wrote:haha ouch. spent waayy too much time reading and organizing the PT. Got a strong statement of facts and argument headings. Biffed the rest. Inserted some rules from the cases and did no fact analysis. Pretty much a barebones unfinished outline. Any chance of a 55? Ugh


Hey man, you're fine. Some of the people who had the softest glitch weren't able to type more than 5 WPM for the last hour to hour and a half. My PT consists of a bunch of black letter law and headings with little to no facts. I don't even have a fact section because of the problem. Literally no ability to type information in except for like this: Th e sment of fcts is mst impooor tnat ptrt. (the statement of facts is the most important part.

Holy crap. What's the precedent for something like that? Any remedy?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby vacations » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:16 pm

kershawfan wrote:
Hoggle wrote:
kershawfan wrote:haha ouch. spent waayy too much time reading and organizing the PT. Got a strong statement of facts and argument headings. Biffed the rest. Inserted some rules from the cases and did no fact analysis. Pretty much a barebones unfinished outline. Any chance of a 55? Ugh


Hey man, you're fine. Some of the people who had the softest glitch weren't able to type more than 5 WPM for the last hour to hour and a half. My PT consists of a bunch of black letter law and headings with little to no facts. I don't even have a fact section because of the problem. Literally no ability to type information in except for like this: Th e sment of fcts is mst impooor tnat ptrt. (the statement of facts is the most important part.

Holy crap. What's the precedent for something like that? Any remedy?




It's not a mac thing because I have a PC and experienced the same damn problem. I thought it was just my computer and was getting frustrated.

AntiHuman
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby AntiHuman » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:25 pm

Hoggle you are pretty much my twin.

1. Left no time for the civpro essay. quickly discussed smj/pj and then said fuck it. I don't know why people are scared to take a 55 and move on haha...that was my strategy going into this...we can't pass everything...and using one timers calculator, it doesn't seem to hurt THAT much. Is this calculator even correct? I feel like the curve wont help us that much compared to July. Should we aim for 128/average of 62.5 on written?

2. too much black letter law on PTs. I have a huge problem with this. Not enough factual analysis.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:30 pm

I'm kind of surprised nobody has said anything about the accounting firm in the CP problem.

kershawfan
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:31 pm

anyone else in San Diego? With about 40 minutes left this afternoon someone made a really loud groan. Noticed a bunch of proctors running over to the area of the noise. Then some guy was running down the aisle toward the exit and it sounded like he tripped and fell. I was too focused to look up but noticed lots of people turning to check out the scenes. Hope they're ok!

User avatar
Hoggle
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Hoggle » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:34 pm

AntiHuman wrote:Hoggle you are pretty much my twin.

1. Left no time for the civpro essay. quickly discussed smj/pj and then said fuck it. I don't know why people are scared to take a 55 and move on haha...that was my strategy going into this...we can't pass everything...and using one timers calculator, it doesn't seem to hurt THAT much. Is this calculator even correct? I feel like the curve wont help us that much compared to July. Should we aim for 128/average of 62.5 on written?

2. too much black letter law on PTs. I have a huge problem with this. Not enough factual analysis.


Yeah, part of it is my writing style-- I like to get the law out, but that is usually my strategy for PTs-- get all of the tests down and then read through the fact sections and apply the facts down the line. Works when crap doesn't happen like a widespread exam issue.

In terms of my essays, I was satisfied with the first two, thought "well, if I can get a 55 on Civ Pro and a 65 and 60 on the other two I'll be fine... I am good at PTs...

kershawfan
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:05 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:36 pm

fl0w wrote:I'm kind of surprised nobody has said anything about the accounting firm in the CP problem.


I BSd some crap about goodwill and then said increase goes to community if due to comm labor. Argued W's way, too. Then let Bill keep the building as a BFP as I realized I had 25 min left for the Civ Pro problem. :-/

AntiHuman
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby AntiHuman » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:38 pm

damn I discussed pereira and van camp with regards to the profits of the firm haha shit

how much will putting non issues kill us if we discuss the other issues pretty well?




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests