California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:24 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I said

TRANSCRIPT OF PRIOR TESTIMONY

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rule blah blah

TRANSCRIPT OF VOICE MAIL

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rue

TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CALL

Evidence Rule Evidence Rule Kill me.


I pretty much did this too

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:26 pm

Uh oh, I thought they only wanted to talk about the transcript...Maybe the other two exhibits were incorporated somehow...Or they won't notice...
Last edited by a male human on Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:27 pm

I'm sure you got a lot of the pertinent stuff in under the transcript analysis…..

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:33 pm

he mostly was saying the same thing over and over in each transcript anyway. hence the copy-pasta

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Gloriaha » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:25 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I said

TRANSCRIPT OF PRIOR TESTIMONY

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rule blah blah

TRANSCRIPT OF VOICE MAIL

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rue

TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CALL

Evidence Rule Evidence Rule Kill me.


This is exactly what I did.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Gloriaha » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:27 pm

a male human wrote:...Or they won't notice...


Haha! I'm hoping my graders don't notice a lot of what's in my answers!

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Gloriaha » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:35 pm

So my boyfriend of a year has yet to ask me out for celebratory drinks or any other kind of post-bar date, other than to go to his house and chill while he studies for a calc. test.

Are your significant others taking you on dates this weekend?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:49 pm

Gloriaha wrote:So my boyfriend of a year has yet to ask me out for celebratory drinks or any other kind of post-bar date, other than to go to his house and chill while he studies for a calc. test.

Are your significant others taking you on dates this weekend?


uhh... wtf

My buddy took me out to a nice steak dinner and drinks. Your boyfriend won't even get off the couch?

1swift
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:49 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby 1swift » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:52 pm

Gloriaha wrote:
CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I said

TRANSCRIPT OF PRIOR TESTIMONY

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rule blah blah

TRANSCRIPT OF VOICE MAIL

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rue

TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CALL

Evidence Rule Evidence Rule Kill me.


This is exactly what I did.



I wrote more like

Hearsay Rule, these 3 things are Hearsay

Thing 1 (Former testimony)

Relevant exception/case

Thing 2 (Statement against interest)

Relevant exception/case

Thing 3 (catch all)

Relevant exception/case

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:55 pm

Damn, my format is unique so far (edit: except 1swift's). I hope I get some brownie points for writing clearly and shit
Last edited by a male human on Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1swift
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:49 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby 1swift » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:56 pm

Hoggle wrote:
a male human wrote:Played around with http://one-timers.com/calculate-your-fi ... exam-grade

I'm screwed if I didn't get at least 65 in both the PTs


I don't know how they are calculating that. I put my scored in from last time. It was 61 points lower than what I actually got.



Yea mine came about about 61 points lower too...So grain of salt here

elias
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:34 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby elias » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:58 pm

1swift wrote:
Hoggle wrote:
a male human wrote:Played around with http://one-timers.com/calculate-your-fi ... exam-grade

I'm screwed if I didn't get at least 65 in both the PTs


I don't know how they are calculating that. I put my scored in from last time. It was 61 points lower than what I actually got.



Yea mine came about about 61 points lower too...So grain of salt here


This is because the Feb scale is harsher. You need 1-2 points more on each essay to get the same total score. This is not an error.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby kershawfan » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:58 pm

Dammit I guess I need more work on PTs. On PT-B I ended up organizing by exceptions. Also, I know it was an objective memo, but the facts made me think I didn't need to cite from the cases so much as apply the facts to the rules from the cases and state general propositions about the facts. Ugh.

I, too, got saved by that MBE question on nonconforming use. Had no idea what it was until I read about it on wednesday night after obsessing about the tough MBE questions. Hope it saved me

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Hoggle » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:04 pm

1swift wrote:
Gloriaha wrote:
CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I said

TRANSCRIPT OF PRIOR TESTIMONY

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rule blah blah

TRANSCRIPT OF VOICE MAIL

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rue

TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CALL

Evidence Rule Evidence Rule Kill me.


This is exactly what I did.



I wrote more like

Hearsay Rule, these 3 things are Hearsay

Thing 1 (Former testimony)

Relevant exception/case

Thing 2 (Statement against interest)

Relevant exception/case

Thing 3 (catch all)

Relevant exception/case


AT the onset, I thought about both of these ways of organizing it.

I selected #2 because I realized that the the phone call and voice mail would not be admissible under the first two exceptions. So, it would require me to type a lot more if I did #1.

alaskaman
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:17 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby alaskaman » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:08 pm

I thought for PT-B we were only supposed to write a memo about the motion made by the defendants, which when you read it only covered the testimony generally and whether it was admissible under the exceptions in the library. Didn't think the memo asked to analyze the phone convos bc they weren't part of testimony, nor did we need to go line by line or item by item through the transcript. Am I wrong on this?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:11 pm

alaskaman wrote:I thought for PT-B we were only supposed to write a memo about the motion made by the defendants, which when you read it only covered the testimony generally and whether it was admissible under the exceptions in the library. Didn't think the memo asked to analyze the phone convos bc they weren't part of testimony, nor did we need to go line by line or item by item through the transcript. Am I wrong on this?


who knows?

the motion in limine said all testimony and transcripts pertaining to prior testimony. To me testimony and transcripts included the voice mail and phone call.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:15 pm

Hoggle wrote:
1swift wrote:
Gloriaha wrote:
CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I said

TRANSCRIPT OF PRIOR TESTIMONY

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rule blah blah

TRANSCRIPT OF VOICE MAIL

Evidence Rule

Evidence Rue

TRANSCRIPT OF PHONE CALL

Evidence Rule Evidence Rule Kill me.


This is exactly what I did.



I wrote more like

Hearsay Rule, these 3 things are Hearsay

Thing 1 (Former testimony)

Relevant exception/case

Thing 2 (Statement against interest)

Relevant exception/case

Thing 3 (catch all)

Relevant exception/case


AT the onset, I thought about both of these ways of organizing it.

I selected #2 because I realized that the the phone call and voice mail would not be admissible under the first two exceptions. So, it would require me to type a lot more if I did #1.


I almost did #2... but I was too afraid. I analyzed each one under each rule whether it applied or not because i was afraid of not covering enough bases. Hence all the copy-paste. So for each one it was like..

For Each Piece of Evidence
-Hearsay def & is it hearsay
- hearsay exception 1 (with unavailability definition and why he was unavailable)
- hearsay exception 2 (with unavailability definition and why he was unavailable)
- residual hearsay exception

It was super repetitive but my failure to do this repetition is why i failed the last evidence PT in july so i went with it.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:18 pm

I came home to a bottle of veuve and a gift certificate for a massage. Best. Husband. Ever.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Gloriaha » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:21 pm

fl0w wrote:
Gloriaha wrote:So my boyfriend of a year has yet to ask me out for celebratory drinks or any other kind of post-bar date, other than to go to his house and chill while he studies for a calc. test.

Are your significant others taking you on dates this weekend?


uhh... wtf

My buddy took me out to a nice steak dinner and drinks. Your boyfriend won't even get off the couch?


He does Muay Thai and says he's sore as fuck. Hard to balance compassion for his pain with my needing a post-bar exam date.

MAN a massage sounds like just the thing. In fact, gonna book one for myself now.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:24 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I came home to a bottle of veuve and a gift certificate for a massage. Best. Husband. Ever.


i came home to a dirty apartment and all of my peanut m&ms were gone

worst roommate ever.

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Lasers » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:28 pm

congrats everyone! must feel good to be done with the bar...

i just wanted to ask if you guys had any opinion on barbri v. kaplan now that you have been through it all? i would like the structure of a commercial prep course and i just want to make sure i can rely on the accuracy and (relative) helpfulness of the materials they give me. ideally, i would like to take kaplan because it's significantly cheaper, but price is secondary to me passing the first time.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:32 pm

Gloriaha wrote:
fl0w wrote:
Gloriaha wrote:So my boyfriend of a year has yet to ask me out for celebratory drinks or any other kind of post-bar date, other than to go to his house and chill while he studies for a calc. test.

Are your significant others taking you on dates this weekend?


uhh... wtf

My buddy took me out to a nice steak dinner and drinks. Your boyfriend won't even get off the couch?


He does Muay Thai and says he's sore as fuck. Hard to balance compassion for his pain with my needing a post-bar exam date.

MAN a massage sounds like just the thing. In fact, gonna book one for myself now.

I'd massage my hypothetical gf even if I were sore, especially if she just took the CA bar. I think most people don't understand the rigor of it, but then again we can apparently handle the pain. Do we judge our resistance to thoughtless SOs by a standard of a reasonable person or a typical law graduate with similar stamina and resilience to the bar?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:35 pm

Lasers wrote:congrats everyone! must feel good to be done with the bar...

i just wanted to ask if you guys had any opinion on barbri v. kaplan now that you have been through it all? i would like the structure of a commercial prep course and i just want to make sure i can rely on the accuracy and (relative) helpfulness of the materials they give me. ideally, i would like to take kaplan because it's significantly cheaper, but price is secondary to me passing the first time.

I used both for CA bar. Kaplan full course and Barbri books only.

Barbri if you're having trouble with essays and the law.
Kaplan if you want to supplement your MBE with thousands of "similar" questions (they are written by Kaplan profs/contractors). Kaplan guides you through PTs better, I think.
Emanuel MBE volumes 1 and 2 for real MBEs. They are outdated in format and difficulty, but it's a good way to make sure you understand the type of answers they look for.

Get books for all of them, and it would be cheaper than buying one course.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Busyvee » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:12 pm

alaskaman wrote:I thought for PT-B we were only supposed to write a memo about the motion made by the defendants, which when you read it only covered the testimony generally and whether it was admissible under the exceptions in the library. Didn't think the memo asked to analyze the phone convos bc they weren't part of testimony, nor did we need to go line by line or item by item through the transcript. Am I wrong on this?

I thought they were taking about the testimony transcripts
So I did not analysed the phone transcript just mentioned as corroborating
:?:

LegalReality
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:08 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby LegalReality » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:16 pm

I read the motion at least ten times and interpreted it to only refer to his testimony.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests