2015 February California Bar Exam Forum

[s1m4]

^ Found: Feb 2010

[redblueyellow]

Technically, under con law: 2010 feb Q5, 2006 feb q3, 2002 feb q5

[honey19]

I am freaking out. I do not know what to do in the next days. I do not know enough law.

[CourtneyElizabeth]

I am freaking out. I do not know what to do in the next days. I do not know enough law.

First things first - relax. Freaking out will literally get you NOWHERE. You've come to the right place though. We're all a little panicked, but we're also a little support group to help ease anyone else's panic! Strange how that works.
Start by reading an outline for a subject. Or the conviser outline for a subject. Don't have a little outline? make one. It'll be a good way to read the law again and summarize it in a way that makes sense to you. Then maybe read some essays and answers on the same topic (don't bother issue spotting and outlining if you don't think you know anything, it'll just freak you out more if you miss things. As you're reading the essays you'll probably think to yourself "Oh yeah, here I'd talk about this and that..Here I'd mention this…" You will realize you know more than you think you do.

[auds1008]

Question: How do I know when to write about standing in Con law when the call of the question does not specifically call for an analysis for standing?

I find myself doing standing analysis when the model answer does not do standing analysis, and the opposite when the model answer does do standing analysis. Should I just do it at all times just in case?

[underthirty]

.

[morescotchplease]

Question: How do I know when to write about standing in Con law when the call of the question does not specifically call for an analysis for standing?

I find myself doing standing analysis when the model answer does not do standing analysis, and the opposite when the model answer does do standing analysis. Should I just do it at all times just in case?

I do it, unless specifically stated that s/he has standing. But if it's pretty clear that standing is not a major issue, I briefly do it. If it's a major issue, I spend more time on it, splitting up each element. The model answers are good to know what are all the possible issues, but the real answers that score well will show you how they allocated their time on what issues.

[CourtneyElizabeth]

I pretty much always mention standing. Even if it's obvious the person has standing, I figure it might be worth a little in my favor just to address standing. I do the same with Crim Pro questions, as well.

Samesies.

[flpngino]

Anyone else using The Bar Code Cheat Sheets by Whitney Roberts? Pretty much spending the last week memorizing the entire book.

[flpngino]

I also got bored one night and did a matrix of what subjects were tested for each bar exam back to July 2001. Which is pretty much useless since I still need to learn everything anyway, regardless of trusts only being tested 9 out of 27 times.

[2807]

Hi folks,

I have been reading and watching, and thought I would share what I did prior to the exam:

In one word: FILTER

Organize your material by subject (I had a folder for each)

Then try this:
1. Read through your outline and condense it.
-- Make quick small notations for the things you know cold
-- Write out what you do not know, or are weak with
-- Refine and filter. Make it concise.

2. Do that for every subject.

3. Then:
-- You now should have a 3 -5 page outline of the big fundamentals
-- with your weak spots evident, and your strong parts edited.

4. Go back through all of these "new" shorter outlines
-- This time, REALLY REFINE
-- THINK "FILTER"
-- This time: Drop the strongest parts (or limit them to one word)
--- And really create a ONE PAGE attack sheet that ONLY HAS YOUR WEAK SPOTS

5. You now have a study page for each topic that you have gone through twice and committed to what you "know" and identified what you are weak on.
-- Use this to study and review and memorize WHAT YOU ARE WEAK ON.


By doing this, you will have to commit to "knowing" some things and moving on.
There is no more time to waste on reviewing what you know.
It is scary to "edit out" information, but you will need to have the confidence that you "know" something enough to let it go.

Focus on your weaknesses.
Know thy enemy.

Doing it this way will FORCE you to commit to weak spots and drill, drill, drill them

I was doing this over and over even in the hotel room during the test days.
Constantly "filtering"

You should now enter into "FILTER" phase.

Eventually, I had it down to about 2 pages handwritten of ALL the issues of ALL the topics that continually tripped me up.
--It was a "Master List" that basically told me "when you see this--write this"
-- that was how I could mange the fear.

Hope it helps.

Remember: The plan of attack now is: FILTER

Good Luck !

[redblueyellow]

Anyone else using The Bar Code Cheat Sheets by Whitney Roberts? Pretty much spending the last week memorizing the entire book.

I wish I knew about these. Gives excellent flow to an essay; unfortunately it's not available digitally and shipping is going to take a while, I'm sure, so probably not worth spending the money at this point.

[barexamcollector]

Fuck this guy. I've passed two other states easily and the patent bar… California is just a bit more "unpredictable"

Hi folks,

I have been reading and watching, and thought I would share what I did prior to the exam:

In one word: FILTER

Then try this:
1. Read through your outline and condense

[flpngino]

Anyone else using The Bar Code Cheat Sheets by Whitney Roberts? Pretty much spending the last week memorizing the entire book.

I wish I knew about these. Gives excellent flow to an essay; unfortunately it's not available digitally and shipping is going to take a while, I'm sure, so probably not worth spending the money at this point.

Yep. When I moved to CA I spoke to some people who said they pretty much just copied the book word for word on the bar exam. Luckily I live driving distance from McGeorge and it's available in their bookstore.

[Elms]

Fuck this guy. I've passed two other states easily and the patent bar… California is just a bit more "unpredictable"

Hi folks,

I have been reading and watching, and thought I would share what I did prior to the exam:

In one word: FILTER

Then try this:
1. Read through your outline and condense

Well that escalated quickly.

[Elms]

Hi folks,

I have been reading and watching, and thought I would share what I did prior to the exam:

In one word: FILTER

Organize your material by subject (I had a folder for each)

Then try this:
1. Read through your outline and condense it.
-- Make quick small notations for the things you know cold
-- Write out what you do not know, or are weak with
-- Refine and filter. Make it concise.

2. Do that for every subject.

3. Then:
-- You now should have a 3 -5 page outline of the big fundamentals
-- with your weak spots evident, and your strong parts edited.

4. Go back through all of these "new" shorter outlines
-- This time, REALLY REFINE
-- THINK "FILTER"
-- This time: Drop the strongest parts (or limit them to one word)
--- And really create a ONE PAGE attack sheet that ONLY HAS YOUR WEAK SPOTS

5. You now have a study page for each topic that you have gone through twice and committed to what you "know" and identified what you are weak on.
-- Use this to study and review and memorize WHAT YOU ARE WEAK ON.


By doing this, you will have to commit to "knowing" some things and moving on.
There is no more time to waste on reviewing what you know.
It is scary to "edit out" information, but you will need to have the confidence that you "know" something enough to let it go.

Focus on your weaknesses.
Know thy enemy.

Doing it this way will FORCE you to commit to weak spots and drill, drill, drill them

I was doing this over and over even in the hotel room during the test days.
Constantly "filtering"

You should now enter into "FILTER" phase.

Eventually, I had it down to about 2 pages handwritten of ALL the issues of ALL the topics that continually tripped me up.
--It was a "Master List" that basically told me "when you see this--write this"
-- that was how I could mange the fear.

Hope it helps.

Remember: The plan of attack now is: FILTER

Good Luck !

Thanks for the advice and good luck wishes!

[flpngino]

Best way a performance test was explained to me was this:

It's a puzzle. You have the pieces. It's your job to solve the puzzle using all the pieces.

Last time I took the bar I got a 60 and 65 on my PT's. My tutor said this meant I "solved the puzzle," which is usually the hardest part. Now it was just a matter or taking the analysis a step further.

[TheLegalOne]

Hi folks,

I have been reading and watching, and thought I would share what I did prior to the exam:

In one word: FILTER

Organize your material by subject (I had a folder for each)

Then try this:
1. Read through your outline and condense it.
-- Make quick small notations for the things you know cold
-- Write out what you do not know, or are weak with
-- Refine and filter. Make it concise.

2. Do that for every subject.

3. Then:
-- You now should have a 3 -5 page outline of the big fundamentals
-- with your weak spots evident, and your strong parts edited.

4. Go back through all of these "new" shorter outlines
-- This time, REALLY REFINE
-- THINK "FILTER"
-- This time: Drop the strongest parts (or limit them to one word)
--- And really create a ONE PAGE attack sheet that ONLY HAS YOUR WEAK SPOTS

5. You now have a study page for each topic that you have gone through twice and committed to what you "know" and identified what you are weak on.
-- Use this to study and review and memorize WHAT YOU ARE WEAK ON.


By doing this, you will have to commit to "knowing" some things and moving on.
There is no more time to waste on reviewing what you know.
It is scary to "edit out" information, but you will need to have the confidence that you "know" something enough to let it go.

Focus on your weaknesses.
Know thy enemy.

Doing it this way will FORCE you to commit to weak spots and drill, drill, drill them

I was doing this over and over even in the hotel room during the test days.
Constantly "filtering"

You should now enter into "FILTER" phase.

Eventually, I had it down to about 2 pages handwritten of ALL the issues of ALL the topics that continually tripped me up.
--It was a "Master List" that basically told me "when you see this--write this"
-- that was how I could mange the fear.

Hope it helps.

Remember: The plan of attack now is: FILTER

Good Luck !

Thanks for the tip. I spent time yesterday looking through previous posts between you, MURPH and A Human Male. Great stuff!!

[morescotchplease]

Running out of steam, yet so much to learn...

[cndounda1985]

Question: 5th Amendment right to remain silent, must be unambiguous and officers must scrupulously honor the request...but can they reinitiate? and if they do it has to be about another unrelated crime? or can it be about the same crime?

Thanks

[CourtneyElizabeth]

I'm pretty sure they can't reinitiate without counsel there.
But afterwards they can ask about an unrelated crime...

[redblueyellow]

Question: 5th Amendment right to remain silent, must be unambiguous and officers must scrupulously honor the request...but can they reinitiate? and if they do it has to be about another unrelated crime? or can it be about the same crime?

Thanks

Oh, I just did Crim Pro so I actually remember it!

Yes, officers can reinitiate dialogue after a reasonable amount of time has passed and can be for the same issue. There's a balancing test that the court considers if a reasonable amount of time has passed--additionally, it's in law enforcement's benefit to send a different officer, or perhaps wait a day, or re-initiate dialogue in a different location than the first location. The officers must also re-Mirandize the suspect at this point and the suspect should invoke the right to silence again.

For the right to counsel (5thAm), once an unambiguous request has been made, police are not to question the suspect on any issue (unless it's basic stuff like "do you want a glass of water") without the presence of the attorney (not issue-specific like the 6thAm).

[sportwarrior]

Alright, question time. I'm reviewing PR and am having a logic breakdown.

The CRPC itself is silent as to all writing requirements for fees. The ABA requires fee agreements (both contingent and non-contingent) to be in writing. I have in my notes a distinction for CA, that non-contingency agreements must be in writing unless they're for <$1000, for corporate clients, routine services for existing clients, or in cases of emergencies.... I can't find those distinctions anywhere in the actual rules, which is bizarre since I'm pretty sure I lifted these notes out of BarBri.

Anyway, my question is, where the CRPC is silent I just go ahead and assume the ABA rule controls, right? I'm slightly confused, because my BarBri book specifically notes that the CRPC is silent as to contingency fees in criminal and domestic relations cases, yet mentions nothing about the silence regarding written agreements for fees.

What am I missing? Is my brain just too burned out to process this?

[cndounda1985]

Great thank you!!! I just was double checking...

[cndounda1985]

Question: 5th Amendment right to remain silent, must be unambiguous and officers must scrupulously honor the request...but can they reinitiate? and if they do it has to be about another unrelated crime? or can it be about the same crime?

Thanks

Oh, I just did Crim Pro so I actually remember it!

Yes, officers can reinitiate dialogue after a reasonable amount of time has passed and can be for the same issue. There's a balancing test that the court considers if a reasonable amount of time has passed--additionally, it's in law enforcement's benefit to send a different officer, or perhaps wait a day, or re-initiate dialogue in a different location than the first location. The officers must also re-Mirandize the suspect at this point and the suspect should invoke the right to silence again.

For the right to counsel (5thAm), once an unambiguous request has been made, police are not to question the suspect on any issue (unless it's basic stuff like "do you want a glass of water") without the presence of the attorney (not issue-specific like the 6thAm).

Thank you!