2015 February California Bar Exam

Hope2015
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Hope2015 » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:45 pm

I wonder if I'll get marked down cuz of my handwriting!!!? I was writing so fast not sure if they will be able read it.. Ugh!

PennJD83
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:20 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby PennJD83 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:13 am

I'm just hoping we weren't supposed to talk about servitudes for Question 2. I could have sworn the prompt only asked for damages :cry:

lawladylaw
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby lawladylaw » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:35 am

Ok, here are all my thoughts:

I can't believe it's over. I'm wondering what I used to do before I started studying.

MBE - Seemed super hard to me, even after doing lots of Kaplan / PMBR practice questions. Also seemed much harder than I remember from taking it in another jurisdiction 9 years ago. I walked away from that feeling like I could have gotten 100 right, or 150 right. I had no idea.

Essays - Bummed about PR. They didn't ask about any of my strongest topics. I think I may have done passable, but still bummed. However, my organization was stellar. :roll: Trying not to think in depth about what I wrote because it's too late, but already calculating things I missed.

PTs - Felt rushed for time and felt like I didn't write enough.

ExamSoft - No problems at all even though I cut and paste large chunks of text. SO grateful because I can't even imagine if I had to handwrite. I saw one dude who had a computer issue and had to handwrite about halfway through the PT today. I would have freaked out.

In general, I thought I'd feel better about it since I actually studied pretty hard. But with the pass rates so low and with the essay topics picked, I'm pretty meh. Talked to one dude who didn't study at all and had barely anything to write for a few essays. I hate wishing for others to fail, but I'm hoping a lot more people than I would have imagined fit his profile.

I don't think I have it in me to take this again, especially since I haven't practiced for a while, and don't have much immediate desire to go back to it.

Good luck to all of you! Try to think of other things for the next few months! This forum has been great to read, especially since I don't know anyone else who took it at the same time. So, thank you!

CA-Hoosier
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CA-Hoosier » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:39 am

For anyone concerned about writing your actual name on the bar exam, it's no big deal. I did the same thing on Tuesday, freaked out, and called the LA office on Wed. One of the committee members called me back about it and said it was nothing to worry about. Obviously it happens all the time. For what it's worth, the gentleman who left me a message told me to go ahead and send in a letter to the LA office so that they'd know in advance to redact my name.

Director for Operations and Management
Office of Admissions
The State Bar of California
845 South Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515

Said to include your File Number (it's on your ticket) and your Application Number (the four digit one).

Don't worry. It won't cost you a single point.

The bar is hard enough as it is without a bunch of vultures with no personal knowledge at all trying to make people feel worse. Just thought I'd chime in.


Good luck everyone!

AguasAguas!
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:22 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby AguasAguas! » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:48 am

Speaking of ExamSoft.. or SoftTest or whatever it's called now... that totally messed me up. Randomly it would not let me italicize so I had some cases underlined and some italicized. It would also randomly switch font styles and sizes and I was cutting and pasting. Took a lot of unnecessary time to fix all that.

I felt PT B was A LOT easier than PT A, personally. But maybe that's just because I had more preexisting knowledge of the subject.

For the essays, I felt way better about all them than in July, and I just felt really rushed for time ALL DAY today. Seemed like every essay was a race horse. I feel like I missed some remedies. I was blanking out. I didn't talk about ejectment... I through in injunction at the last moment because ... isn't it a tort remedy and that was a contract case? It just seemed to be relevant. And I did a full specific performance analysis.

That defamation (anyone else talk about the con law standards besides me?) + corps + partnership + agency essay was just a ton of crossover law to wade through. And Wills ... I couldn't figure out how to best organize that essay and kinda just word vomited the rules.

Can't believe we need to wait until MAY.

TitoSantana
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:51 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby TitoSantana » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:54 am

I heard some people have three weeks to complete so please for the love of baby Jesus, do not talk about the subjects covered. Just kidding. Congrats to all in finishing this damn exam

JDMBALLMMS
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:25 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby JDMBALLMMS » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:59 am

arizzle wrote:Can someone explain to me the relevance of the Melendez-Diaz case in PT-B? That was the cocaine affidavits one.

It seemed the only relevant affidavit was the one from the doctor.


I basically just said it reiterated the holding in Crawford about the confrontation clause, etc, but otherwise I struggled in finding a way to use it.


It had the confrontation clause/6th amendment and also in line with CRE 803(8) on public records as hearsay exception

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby esq » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:24 am

Anyone else pissed that it takes only about 2 weeks to be taught more black letter law, and more clearly, than during 3 entire years of law school...and that it takes about 3-4 hours for each area of the law to be summed up by a BARX Prep lecturer? :evil:

Truth is that we're a bunch of cash cows being taken for a ride, though I did enjoy the softball and the free kegs.

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:00 am

JDMBALLMMS wrote:
arizzle wrote:Can someone explain to me the relevance of the Melendez-Diaz case in PT-B? That was the cocaine affidavits one.

It seemed the only relevant affidavit was the one from the doctor.


I basically just said it reiterated the holding in Crawford about the confrontation clause, etc, but otherwise I struggled in finding a way to use it.


It had the confrontation clause/6th amendment and also in line with CRE 803(8) on public records as hearsay exception



The Melendez case was useful to show that business/public records prepared in anticipation of litigation were testimonial and subject to confrontation.

AMCD
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby AMCD » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:12 am

I feel as though I am in a complete minority here. I think I totally bombed PT B. Didn't help that the "I am a NY attorney" next to me told me I totally screwed up on my format for the PT. I kid you not -- I sat there for five minutes reading the instructions over and over, and because there were no, "in our office, when we write a memo of pts. and authorities we do blah, blah, blah," I literally wrote it like a freaking persuasive memo. I had main headings (although not great sub-headings, just something about hearsay and something about the 6th Amendment) and then wrote about the pros. will argue this, we will argue that, they will win, we will win on this etc. I got so rattled about 2/3 of the way through when it was only an hour to go and I was literally still dicking around with part one and the dead mother. My lovely neighbor told me about how it should have been laid out, etc. etc. He then literally walked with me all the way to my car and kept telling me what had to be done. I feel as though I wrote shit, didn't use all the file well, or frankly anything. I failed in July by 3 points, and I totally panicked on PT B then, and got a 55, but a 75 on the other PT. I know what it takes to get a 55 and I think I did it again. I feel that the essays this time were so tricky and hugely demanding and the MBE just insane, that I am probably totally screwed again. I was doing well on the MBE going in, and scored well in July, but this was a totally different beast.

Dude on the other side of me had to hand write all the essays this morning b/c of Softest. And English is not his first language.

OK, just a sob fest, I know. But seriously, I kept looking for layout directions etc. and didn't know what to do. Am I doomed?

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:17 am

Joie wrote:
esq wrote:On the other hand, the partnership tried to shield themselves from liability for their central business purpose by passing him off as an independent contractor...Andy's got some chutzpah for creating that twist

Do general partnerships have to comply with a central business purpose? A GP does file with the Secretary of State, naming a central business purpose that's going to get them in trouble for some "ultra vires" act. Also, buying a computer and writing a sports article were both within the realm of transactions of a sports magazine.



My understanding is that General Partnerships can be formed absent formalities.

The issue regarding purchasing the computer related to apparent authority. By the terms of the partnership, M had exclusive authority to purchase computers. A purchased the computers. Thus, was 3P on notice of M's exclusive authority or did A have apparent authority?

I didn't say anything regarding ultra vires. But then again, who knows what these examiners want... :roll:

The pattern of February surprises continued. No conlaw/No crim/Barely any PR (other than the loyalty tidbit in PT-A).

The thing that threw me off was Essay #3. I probably only wrote three pages. I couldn't remember the physician privilege, first I said there isn't one, then I changed it, then I changed it back. I reviewed my CMR book and the bar prep book prepared by a professor at my school and it seems that there is no privilege but there sort of is a privilege.

I have to say that Barbri needs to some serious quality control because there are some internal inconsistencies even within the CMR. Not to mention there were some mistakes in studysmart. Not dissing Barbri completely though; I thought AMP was very helpful especially to review. I'm the type of person who falls asleep reading outlines. I vote for an AMP type software covering all California topics...


Anyhoots..Someone else was commenting about the need to mention equitable servitude in #2... That would have been great had time not been an issue, i.e., if you were the baressays.com model answer writer you'd probably cover it. I just discussed real covenants because the issues of horizontal and vertical privity were there and the touch and concern prong was screaming ANALYZE ME YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!

Shout out to the sick asshole coughing a lung up a few seats away from me. The whole f'ing exam. All 3 days. Have you heard of rescue inhalers!!?? That said, time to put this exam in the rearview.

See y'all in July!

Joie
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:47 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Joie » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:30 am

tearsforbeers wrote:
Joie wrote:
esq wrote:On the other hand, the partnership tried to shield themselves from liability for their central business purpose by passing him off as an independent contractor...Andy's got some chutzpah for creating that twist

Do general partnerships have to comply with a central business purpose? A GP does file with the Secretary of State, naming a central business purpose that's going to get them in trouble for some "ultra vires" act. Also, buying a computer and writing a sports article were both within the realm of transactions of a sports magazine.



My understanding is that General Partnerships can be formed absent formalities.

The issue regarding purchasing the computer related to apparent authority. By the terms of the partnership, M had exclusive authority to purchase computers. A purchased the computers. Thus, was 3P on notice of M's exclusive authority or did A have apparent authority?

I didn't say anything regarding ultra vires. But then again, who knows what these examiners want... :roll:

The pattern of February surprises continued. No conlaw/No crim/Barely any PR (other than the loyalty tidbit in PT-A).

The thing that threw me off was Essay #3. I probably only wrote three pages. I couldn't remember the physician privilege, first I said there isn't one, then I changed it, then I changed it back. I reviewed my CMR book and the bar prep book prepared by a professor at my school and it seems that there is no privilege but there sort of is a privilege.

I have to say that Barbri needs to some serious quality control because there are some internal inconsistencies even within the CMR. Not to mention there were some mistakes in studysmart. Not dissing Barbri completely though; I thought AMP was very helpful especially to review. I'm the type of person who falls asleep reading outlines. I vote for an AMP type software covering all California topics...


Anyhoots..Someone else was commenting about the need to mention equitable servitude in #2... That would have been great had time not been an issue, i.e., if you were the baressays.com model answer writer you'd probably cover it. I just discussed real covenants because the issues of horizontal and vertical privity were there and the touch and concern prong was screaming ANALYZE ME YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!

Shout out to the sick asshole coughing a lung up a few seats away from me. The whole f'ing exam. All 3 days. Have you heard of rescue inhalers!!?? That said, time to put this exam in the rearview.

See y'all in July!


Ha typo: doesn't file with the sec of state... my initial question was a rhetorical response to the person I was initially responding to who said that the GP was trying to hide from their "business purpose" through using the corp or some other nonsense... See a couple pages back where the convo started for context. My typo didn't help that comment at all. Ha oops thank god this isn't the bar.

Astronaut Teemo
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Astronaut Teemo » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:36 am

tearsforbeers wrote:
Shout out to the sick asshole coughing a lung up a few seats away from me. The whole f'ing exam. All 3 days. Have you heard of rescue inhalers!!?? That said, time to put this exam in the rearview.

See y'all in July!


Ha.. I think i know where you sit... Second column, second section in?

The fat guy that was coughing all 3 days? Fuck that guy.

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby esq » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:47 am

Damn that sucks for you guys, where'd you test?

Also, reading comp isn't your strong suit is it Joie?

Astronaut Teemo
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Astronaut Teemo » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:51 am

tearsforbeers wrote:
Joie wrote:
esq wrote:On the other hand, the partnership tried to shield themselves from liability for their central business purpose by passing him off as an independent contractor...Andy's got some chutzpah for creating that twist

Do general partnerships have to comply with a central business purpose? A GP does file with the Secretary of State, naming a central business purpose that's going to get them in trouble for some "ultra vires" act. Also, buying a computer and writing a sports article were both within the realm of transactions of a sports magazine.



My understanding is that General Partnerships can be formed absent formalities.

The issue regarding purchasing the computer related to apparent authority. By the terms of the partnership, M had exclusive authority to purchase computers. A purchased the computers. Thus, was 3P on notice of M's exclusive authority or did A have apparent authority?

I didn't say anything regarding ultra vires. But then again, who knows what these examiners want... :roll:

The pattern of February surprises continued. No conlaw/No crim/Barely any PR (other than the loyalty tidbit in PT-A).

The thing that threw me off was Essay #3. I probably only wrote three pages. I couldn't remember the physician privilege, first I said there isn't one, then I changed it, then I changed it back. I reviewed my CMR book and the bar prep book prepared by a professor at my school and it seems that there is no privilege but there sort of is a privilege.

I have to say that Barbri needs to some serious quality control because there are some internal inconsistencies even within the CMR. Not to mention there were some mistakes in studysmart. Not dissing Barbri completely though; I thought AMP was very helpful especially to review. I'm the type of person who falls asleep reading outlines. I vote for an AMP type software covering all California topics...


Anyhoots..Someone else was commenting about the need to mention equitable servitude in #2... That would have been great had time not been an issue, i.e., if you were the baressays.com model answer writer you'd probably cover it. I just discussed real covenants because the issues of horizontal and vertical privity were there and the touch and concern prong was screaming ANALYZE ME YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!

Shout out to the sick asshole coughing a lung up a few seats away from me. The whole f'ing exam. All 3 days. Have you heard of rescue inhalers!!?? That said, time to put this exam in the rearview.

See y'all in July!


From what I thought GPs were the default business association. You didn't need to file anything. Hell, that lemonade stand you started with your cousin when you were 6 was a GP.

I also didn't say anything about UV activities because even though a corporation was mentioned, I don't think it was implicated. Then again I didn't even talk too much about As corporation so I probably fucked up too. The dude was clearly a partner and not really an IC. The first sentence said he, R and M started a business.. Agreed to split the profits.

All I said was that R and M I think could claim possibly that they were an LLP to shield themselves from liability but I ultimately ended up saying that wouldn't work because they were all managing partners and nothing was intended that they be limited liability.

But I think I wrote R... Was her name Rachel or Beth?

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:52 am

tearsforbeers wrote:
Shout out to the sick asshole coughing a lung up a few seats away from me. The whole f'ing exam. All 3 days. Have you heard of rescue inhalers!!?? That said, time to put this exam in the rearview.

See y'all in July!


Wait, Oakland. Asian guy?

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:55 am

AMCD wrote:I feel as though I am in a complete minority here. I think I totally bombed PT B. Didn't help that the "I am a NY attorney" next to me told me I totally screwed up on my format for the PT. I kid you not -- I sat there for five minutes reading the instructions over and over, and because there were no, "in our office, when we write a memo of pts. and authorities we do blah, blah, blah," I literally wrote it like a freaking persuasive memo. I had main headings (although not great sub-headings, just something about hearsay and something about the 6th Amendment) and then wrote about the pros. will argue this, we will argue that, they will win, we will win on this etc. I got so rattled about 2/3 of the way through when it was only an hour to go and I was literally still dicking around with part one and the dead mother. My lovely neighbor told me about how it should have been laid out, etc. etc. He then literally walked with me all the way to my car and kept telling me what had to be done. I feel as though I wrote shit, didn't use all the file well, or frankly anything. I failed in July by 3 points, and I totally panicked on PT B then, and got a 55, but a 75 on the other PT. I know what it takes to get a 55 and I think I did it again. I feel that the essays this time were so tricky and hugely demanding and the MBE just insane, that I am probably totally screwed again. I was doing well on the MBE going in, and scored well in July, but this was a totally different beast.

Dude on the other side of me had to hand write all the essays this morning b/c of Softest. And English is not his first language.

OK, just a sob fest, I know. But seriously, I kept looking for layout directions etc. and didn't know what to do. Am I doomed?


If you were within a few points, you're probably fine. Don't sweat NY atty guy. My format was more or less:

THE COURT SHOULD SUPPRESS DOUCHEBAG NYC ATTORNEY'S ADVICE BECAUSE HE VIOLATES SOCIAL NORMS

Inapplicable law with fancy bluebook style citation, the Supreme Court said anyone giving unsolicited advice about how to format persuasive memos should focus on his own inadequacies instead of making other testakers feel nervous.

Here, NYC attorney asshole made testtaker feel nervous about his pursuasive memo. NYC attorney is clearly an asshole because he violates social norms by following poor testtaker's car. The court should also note that this behavior is creepy/ mild stalker with overt alpha overtones. Thus, the court should find that not only XYZ but also NYC's advice should be suppressed.

Something like that. I probably did it wrong

I also learned today to spell suppress. I was writing it with one p my whole life. But then again, I've probably only written suppress a few times.

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby esq » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:58 am

^^Bummer. San Diego...apparently some guy threw up, at some point, somewhere in the place, but my only problem was that the place was a refrigerator.

NYC guy sounds like an insecure dick btw.
Last edited by esq on Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:59 am

redblueyellow wrote:
tearsforbeers wrote:
Shout out to the sick asshole coughing a lung up a few seats away from me. The whole f'ing exam. All 3 days. Have you heard of rescue inhalers!!?? That said, time to put this exam in the rearview.

See y'all in July!


Wait, Oakland. Asian guy?



Not Oakland. I don't think the guy was Asian. Maybe he and the Asian guy were plants from the state bar putting on the same act to suppress passage rates (just used "suppress" for the eleventh time in my life).

wentmat
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby wentmat » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:03 am

tearsforbeers wrote:
Joie wrote:
esq wrote:On the other hand, the partnership tried to shield themselves from liability for their central business purpose by passing him off as an independent contractor...Andy's got some chutzpah for creating that twist

Do general partnerships have to comply with a central business purpose? A GP does file with the Secretary of State, naming a central business purpose that's going to get them in trouble for some "ultra vires" act. Also, buying a computer and writing a sports article were both within the realm of transactions of a sports magazine.



My understanding is that General Partnerships can be formed absent formalities.

The issue regarding purchasing the computer related to apparent authority. By the terms of the partnership, M had exclusive authority to purchase computers. A purchased the computers. Thus, was 3P on notice of M's exclusive authority or did A have apparent authority?

I didn't say anything regarding ultra vires. But then again, who knows what these examiners want... :roll:

The pattern of February surprises continued. No conlaw/No crim/Barely any PR (other than the loyalty tidbit in PT-A).

The thing that threw me off was Essay #3. I probably only wrote three pages. I couldn't remember the physician privilege, first I said there isn't one, then I changed it, then I changed it back. I reviewed my CMR book and the bar prep book prepared by a professor at my school and it seems that there is no privilege but there sort of is a privilege.

I have to say that Barbri needs to some serious quality control because there are some internal inconsistencies even within the CMR. Not to mention there were some mistakes in studysmart. Not dissing Barbri completely though; I thought AMP was very helpful especially to review. I'm the type of person who falls asleep reading outlines. I vote for an AMP type software covering all California topics...


Anyhoots..Someone else was commenting about the need to mention equitable servitude in #2... That would have been great had time not been an issue, i.e., if you were the baressays.com model answer writer you'd probably cover it. I just discussed real covenants because the issues of horizontal and vertical privity were there and the touch and concern prong was screaming ANALYZE ME YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!

Shout out to the sick asshole coughing a lung up a few seats away from me. The whole f'ing exam. All 3 days. Have you heard of rescue inhalers!!?? That said, time to put this exam in the rearview.

See y'all in July!


On number 2, I recall thinking that the question was a claim for damages, so equitable servitude wasn't relevant? Could be wrong though.

Joie
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:47 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Joie » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:04 am

Also, reading comp isn't your strong suit is it Joie?[/quote]



...I think you're confused.

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:07 am

Astronaut Teemo wrote:
tearsforbeers wrote:
Joie wrote:
esq wrote:On the other hand, the partnership tried to shield themselves from liability for their central business purpose by passing him off as an independent contractor...Andy's got some chutzpah for creating that twist

Do general partnerships have to comply with a central business purpose? A GP does file with the Secretary of State, naming a central business purpose that's going to get them in trouble for some "ultra vires" act. Also, buying a computer and writing a sports article were both within the realm of transactions of a sports magazine.



My understanding is that General Partnerships can be formed absent formalities.

The issue regarding purchasing the computer related to apparent authority. By the terms of the partnership, M had exclusive authority to purchase computers. A purchased the computers. Thus, was 3P on notice of M's exclusive authority or did A have apparent authority?

I didn't say anything regarding ultra vires. But then again, who knows what these examiners want... :roll:

The pattern of February surprises continued. No conlaw/No crim/Barely any PR (other than the loyalty tidbit in PT-A).

The thing that threw me off was Essay #3. I probably only wrote three pages. I couldn't remember the physician privilege, first I said there isn't one, then I changed it, then I changed it back. I reviewed my CMR book and the bar prep book prepared by a professor at my school and it seems that there is no privilege but there sort of is a privilege.

I have to say that Barbri needs to some serious quality control because there are some internal inconsistencies even within the CMR. Not to mention there were some mistakes in studysmart. Not dissing Barbri completely though; I thought AMP was very helpful especially to review. I'm the type of person who falls asleep reading outlines. I vote for an AMP type software covering all California topics...


Anyhoots..Someone else was commenting about the need to mention equitable servitude in #2... That would have been great had time not been an issue, i.e., if you were the baressays.com model answer writer you'd probably cover it. I just discussed real covenants because the issues of horizontal and vertical privity were there and the touch and concern prong was screaming ANALYZE ME YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!

Shout out to the sick asshole coughing a lung up a few seats away from me. The whole f'ing exam. All 3 days. Have you heard of rescue inhalers!!?? That said, time to put this exam in the rearview.

See y'all in July!


From what I thought GPs were the default business association. You didn't need to file anything. Hell, that lemonade stand you started with your cousin when you were 6 was a GP.

I also didn't say anything about UV activities because even though a corporation was mentioned, I don't think it was implicated. Then again I didn't even talk too much about As corporation so I probably fucked up too. The dude was clearly a partner and not really an IC. The first sentence said he, R and M started a business.. Agreed to split the profits.

All I said was that R and M I think could claim possibly that they were an LLP to shield themselves from liability but I ultimately ended up saying that wouldn't work because they were all managing partners and nothing was intended that they be limited liability.

But I think I wrote R... Was her name Rachel or Beth?


Sounds like you're on point. Except LLP's require formalities.

The only mention I made of the Inc. was a very short veil piercing analysis predicated on A's alterego - all his business activities were done through the Inc and he was a sole owner. It goes to the liability of each of the GP's. The Inc. because it is an Inc. should have limited liability, but because it was A's alterego, the limited liability is vitiated and A is personally liable.

I couldn't remember whether the GP rule also required that in addition to profits, the partners split losses. I said that it was implicit in the agreement to share NET profits that losses were also split.

I thought that essay was fairly straightforward. Essay 3 was weird and Essay 6 was messed up because I only gave myself 40 minutes to finish it. FML.

Astronaut Teemo
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Astronaut Teemo » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:10 am

AguasAguas! wrote:Speaking of ExamSoft.. or SoftTest or whatever it's called now... that totally messed me up. Randomly it would not let me italicize so I had some cases underlined and some italicized. It would also randomly switch font styles and sizes and I was cutting and pasting. Took a lot of unnecessary time to fix all that.

I felt PT B was A LOT easier than PT A, personally. But maybe that's just because I had more preexisting knowledge of the subject.

For the essays, I felt way better about all them than in July, and I just felt really rushed for time ALL DAY today. Seemed like every essay was a race horse. I feel like I missed some remedies. I was blanking out. I didn't talk about ejectment... I through in injunction at the last moment because ... isn't it a tort remedy and that was a contract case? It just seemed to be relevant. And I did a full specific performance analysis.

That defamation (anyone else talk about the con law standards besides me?) + corps + partnership + agency essay was just a ton of crossover law to wade through. And Wills ... I couldn't figure out how to best organize that essay and kinda just word vomited the rules.

Can't believe we need to wait until MAY.


You're right an injunction is generally a tort remedy. But I remembered some practice essay I did involving the sale of a Phaeton Phantom car (of which there are only 3 in the world) which was also a sales contract but he repudiated because he wanted to ship the car to a buyer in Italy and one of those issues was an injunction/TRO.

In this case it was kind of the same thing with the 100 year old oak trees I thought. In the damages bit I think I wrote some crap about voluntary waste too so I dunno. I was grasping for straws.

I also covered constitutional defamation. Concluded that the plaintiff was a public figure but I dunno. Wasn't sure if it was right.

Wills was fucked up. Got to it late-ish just jumped right in and said both the subsequent Wills were invalid. She had no capacity for either of them. She didn't even know one was her will. But then again, who knows what they were looking for on there.

If I did moderately good on an essay, it was Q3 but again, not too sure. His objection was that a Dr wasn't a party and couldn't be deposed.Witnesses can be deposed.. They're called subpoenas. And even if there was a privilege, P in alleging negligence, put his physical state at issue and thus it didn't apply.

The jury trial was a bit weird. Didn't know the rule outright but something that tipped me off was the guy asked for a jury trial a few weeks before trial. I thought about how long it takes to empanel a jury and was like.. Nah that's not allowed. No way that ish is timely.

User avatar
tearsforbeers
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby tearsforbeers » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:11 am

[/quote]

On number 2, I recall thinking that the question was a claim for damages, so equitable servitude wasn't relevant? Could be wrong though.[/quote]

Equitable servitudes are not applicable where money damages are being sought. Only where equitable remedies are being sought. If you want legal damages, real covenants are the answer.

Nath
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:05 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Nath » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:12 am

Losses follow profit




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a male human and 9 guests