2015 February California Bar Exam

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:35 am

pineapple99 wrote:I thought this exam, overall, was much harder than July. Just curve balls. I was banking on ethics and con law today. They have a weird obsession with remedies.


ohhhh remedies, me ruv yoou wroooong time... and by that I mean I was probably wrong on everything. Who knows though? I missed July by 20 and the essay I thought I fucked the most was a 75. I think overall they just want to assert dominance and let you know that you know nothing... Jon Snow

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:44 am

[/quote]


Hmm, ok, I missed that connection. I relied more on the Davis case to rebut the public records hearsay exception (911 operators act as agents of law enforcement, etc.).



On a side note, if anyone wants to start a band called The Cocaine Affidavits .... I'm in.[/quote]

hmmmm....the affiYAYOs?

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:55 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?


Yea, I went to GW Law and met a bunch of NY folks. They are either awesome or totally sanctimonious douchebags. I am sorry you met the latter.

pineapple99
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:16 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby pineapple99 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:02 am

elijah54594 wrote:
pineapple99 wrote:I thought this exam, overall, was much harder than July. Just curve balls. I was banking on ethics and con law today. They have a weird obsession with remedies.


ohhhh remedies, me ruv yoou wroooong time... and by that I mean I was probably wrong on everything. Who knows though? I missed July by 20 and the essay I thought I fucked the most was a 75. I think overall they just want to assert dominance and let you know that you know nothing... Jon Snow



I was so surprised by that essay that I didn't even know what subject it was. "Is this property? Is this contracts? Wait...it can't be..this is basically a pure remedies question...for the 4th year in a row...well okay I guess we got ethics and con law in questions 5 and 6..."

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:03 am

Ok, last reply, but seriously, did no one else bring in the inherent riparian rights of the property in the essay to argue for specific performance? It definitely added to the "unique and irreplaceable" quality of the land IMO

pineapple99
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:16 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby pineapple99 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:09 am

elijah54594 wrote:Ok, last reply, but seriously, did no one else bring in the inherent riparian rights of the property in the essay to argue for specific performance? It definitely added to the "unique and irreplaceable" quality of the land IMO


are you talking about water? :shock:

pineapple99
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:16 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby pineapple99 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:43 am

And no I didn't only because I was short on time and I figured that it's a land sales contract and even unimproved land is uniqe. I did mention her obsession with the trees as having something to do with inadequate of legal remedy.

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 9:46 am

I definitely brought up the riparian issue. It definitely, I thought, added more reason to allowing her to recover in equity over a pecuniary recovery.

User avatar
Elms
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Elms » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:19 am

Oh and to the person worried about their PT-B because of NY attorney, I will say this:

A lot of attorneys get cocky about the exam, especially the PTs, because they "know how to practice law." As an Illinois attorney, I can guarantee you that the way NY atty (2nd circuit) formats his memo is different than the way IL (7th Circuit) formats its memos and is different than the way CA (9th circuit) formats its memos. And even within a federal circuit, the judges can have their own bench memos saying, yo, guys, I want memos for ME formatted THIS way.

My point is, if there are no SPECIFIC instructions in a PT such as here is how the memo has to look, then you just make a judgment call on what you think it should look like. Here, the partner basically said don't write a Statement of Facts and use appropriate headings. I think as long as you made an effort to put reasonably related headings in there, you're probably fine.

There was no "subject" to study for the bar on "correct format for memos." So absent specific directions a reasonable format I'm betting is fine.

EZ as AsDf
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:54 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby EZ as AsDf » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:23 am

I had a dream that Essay 5 said something like "given that P has proven his claim, discuss." Meaning that it wasn't necessary to talk about the defamation claim just the other parties' liability.

User avatar
bb8900
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby bb8900 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:16 pm

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?


This is a great question. The directions basically said to ignore the statement of facts and to have appropriate headings, but they totally did not do the usual thing about how their firm wants headings.

What do you guys think the graders do in this situation? How much are effed up headings worth?

Also, at the very beginning of the motion to suppress, did you guys write Motion to Suppress, followed by the To, From, Date, Re, or was that not supposed to be in a motion to suppress?

Biotech
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:08 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Biotech » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:44 pm

My thought and hope is that substance counts for at least 80% and I think should up to 90% and style very little. Also, would you give style points to a paper that doesn't make any sense to read? I guess if you aren't really reading it.

The worst part is not knowing.

User avatar
bb8900
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby bb8900 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:49 pm

Biotech wrote:My thought and hope is that substance counts for at least 80% and I think should up to 90% and style very little. Also, would you give style points to a paper that doesn't make any sense to read? I guess if you aren't really reading it.

The worst part is not knowing.


Yeah, its also BS since 95% of the room has never written a Motion to Suppress to a court and has no clue what any motion for anything should actually look like.

flpngino
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:42 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby flpngino » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:54 pm

EZ as AsDf wrote:I had a dream that Essay 5 said something like "given that P has proven his claim, discuss." Meaning that it wasn't necessary to talk about the defamation claim just the other parties' liability.


Don't eff with me. :x

Also, E3, No Physician-Patient privilege in Fed Court, no?

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

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:12 pm

PT B was really really bad. Like I liken it to crapping, wiping it on a piece of paper, and handing said paper in to be graded.

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby zabagabe » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:17 pm

flpngino wrote:
EZ as AsDf wrote:I had a dream that Essay 5 said something like "given that P has proven his claim, discuss." Meaning that it wasn't necessary to talk about the defamation claim just the other parties' liability.


Don't eff with me. :x

Also, E3, No Physician-Patient privilege in Fed Court, no?


I felt like there wasn't much law to this question, so I went full-on Erie/Hanna, and talked about how privileges are substantive not procedural if not in the FRCP, and thus depends on state law, but almost all states have created one. Probably wasted words, but I felt like otherwise the question was really short...

flpngino
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:42 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby flpngino » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:28 pm

zabagabe wrote:
flpngino wrote:
EZ as AsDf wrote:I had a dream that Essay 5 said something like "given that P has proven his claim, discuss." Meaning that it wasn't necessary to talk about the defamation claim just the other parties' liability.


Don't eff with me. :x

Also, E3, No Physician-Patient privilege in Fed Court, no?


I felt like there wasn't much law to this question, so I went full-on Erie/Hanna, and talked about how privileges are substantive not procedural if not in the FRCP, and thus depends on state law, but almost all states have created one. Probably wasted words, but I felt like otherwise the question was really short...


Ach. Forgot FRE 501. You're right. In civil cases, state law decides privilege.

flpngino
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:42 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby flpngino » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:39 pm

foreversport wrote:Did anyone concede any issues on pt b? I conceded that the 911 was hearsay, but I think that was probably Completely wrong....


I sort of conceded the first part of the 911 transcript as being non-testimonial for the purpose of aiding an emergency, but said it became testimonial as per...Davis(?)...so the second half should be suppressed.

I also sort of conceded that if the 911 transcript fell under the public records exception that Peter's statements were hearsay within hearsay and should be suppressed. But that was only if the court found that the 911 operator was not acting as an agent of law enforcement.

arizzle
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby arizzle » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:45 pm

Do you in fact get partial credit when you get part of a rule statement correct?

For example, say the rule for filing a motion is it has to be within 30 days after the complaint is filed, but in your essay answer you say the rule is within 30 days of the answer being filed.

Do you get credit for getting the 30 days part correct? Or do the graders look at it as one rule statement stated incorrectly, so no points?

foreversport
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby foreversport » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:51 pm

:P
flpngino wrote:
foreversport wrote:Did anyone concede any issues on pt b? I conceded that the 911 was hearsay, but I think that was probably Completely wrong....


I sort of conceded the first part of the 911 transcript as being non-testimonial for the purpose of aiding an emergency, but said it became testimonial as per...Davis(?)...so the second half should be suppressed.

I also sort of conceded that if the 911 transcript fell under the public records exception that Peter's statements were hearsay within hearsay and should be suppressed. But that was only if the court found that the 911 operator was not acting as an agent of law enforcement.


Yeah I basically conceded that it was an excited utterance, but then focused on the Davis argument you mentioned. I don't know, this was not fun. Almost made me miss pt a

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby zabagabe » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:55 pm

foreversport wrote::P
flpngino wrote:
foreversport wrote:Did anyone concede any issues on pt b? I conceded that the 911 was hearsay, but I think that was probably Completely wrong....


I sort of conceded the first part of the 911 transcript as being non-testimonial for the purpose of aiding an emergency, but said it became testimonial as per...Davis(?)...so the second half should be suppressed.

I also sort of conceded that if the 911 transcript fell under the public records exception that Peter's statements were hearsay within hearsay and should be suppressed. But that was only if the court found that the 911 operator was not acting as an agent of law enforcement.


Yeah I basically conceded that it was an excited utterance, but then focused on the Davis argument you mentioned. I don't know, this was not fun. Almost made me miss pt a


I did the same. Said it became testimonial once it was clear the son had left and the emergency was over. I said by the time he was asking about the car make, model, and color it was clearly testimonial.

s1m4
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby s1m4 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:59 pm

FMLFMLFML Wrote a great answer to part A of the remedies question, then an hour was up and I planned to return later to finish up damages, but never had time to return... 55?

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 2:02 pm

arizzle wrote:Do you in fact get partial credit when you get part of a rule statement correct?

For example, say the rule for filing a motion is it has to be within 30 days after the complaint is filed, but in your essay answer you say the rule is within 30 days of the answer being filed.

Do you get credit for getting the 30 days part correct? Or do the graders look at it as one rule statement stated incorrectly, so no points?


I think it depends on whether you got the gist of the question right. I don't even think that you get "no" points for having a wrong rule because people made up rules and we're okay. Obviously if we were supposed to talk about equal protection and you referred to it as the 10th Amendment instead of the 14th amendment, I don't think you would get points for that.

injun
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:28 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby injun » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:09 pm

wow...just realized that I completely messed up PT B. I think I ended up with the exact opposite argument we needed.
I stated that both statements qualified as excited utterance, that they were testimonial and that it violated the confrontation clause. I listed factors supporting that it was excitted utterance. Can someone confirm that this is wrong? Thanks

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby zabagabe » Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:15 pm

injun wrote:wow...just realized that I completely messed up PT B. I think I ended up with the exact opposite argument we needed.
I stated that both statements qualified as excited utterance, that they were testimonial and that it violated the confrontation clause. I listed factors supporting that it was excitted utterance. Can someone confirm that this is wrong? Thanks


No that sounds more or less like what I did. We'd likely have to concede and lose on hearsay, win on confrontation clause.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], blueapple, Rap Genius and 7 guests