July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[Pleasye]

I whipped up this table for the ABA/CA rules:

https://[link redacted]/SeftiD

Keep in mind this is NOT an exhaustive list of rules you should know for the exam but rather a highlight of the rules I know of that diverge and may be worth discussing if the call prompts for a discussion under both ABA Model Rules and CA law. But TBH they didn't seem to give a shit when I guessed and said "Under ABA and CA rules..." when I was unsure if there were rules to be distinguished.

Let me know if this helps and if there's anything I should change.

Thanks for this!

Also, lol, I've been saying for a few weeks now that if I don't know the CA rules on an essay I'll just start my sentence with "in california" and then write the federal rule. Some of them have to be right like that right?

[brotherdarkness]

I whipped up this table for the ABA/CA rules:

https://[link redacted]/SeftiD

Keep in mind this is NOT an exhaustive list of rules you should know for the exam but rather a highlight of the rules I know of that diverge and may be worth discussing if the call prompts for a discussion under both ABA Model Rules and CA law. But TBH they didn't seem to give a shit when I guessed and said "Under ABA and CA rules..." when I was unsure if there were rules to be distinguished.

Let me know if this helps and if there's anything I should change.

This is very helpful. Thanks.

[mushybrain]

I whipped up this table for the ABA/CA rules:

https://[link redacted]/SeftiD

Keep in mind this is NOT an exhaustive list of rules you should know for the exam but rather a highlight of the rules I know of that diverge and may be worth discussing if the call prompts for a discussion under both ABA Model Rules and CA law. But TBH they didn't seem to give a shit when I guessed and said "Under ABA and CA rules..." when I was unsure if there were rules to be distinguished.

Let me know if this helps and if there's anything I should change.

Thank you so much for this.

[a male human]

I'm glad you guys are finding it helpful! And feel free to suggest any changes to it if you see anything that's not accurate or comprehensive, though I did my best to squeeze it into two pages.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Is anyone familiar with when you can use reputation/opinion/specific acts as character evidence under the FRE vs the CEC? I'd been under the impression that, on the FRE, you can use reputation and opinion on direct exam and you can use all three on cross-exam. Under the CEC, I thought it was rep and opinion only on both direct and cross.

However, I just read a model essay answer that says that, under the CEC, a defendant introducing evidence of a victim's bad character can use rep, opinion, or specific acts. Now I wanna go play in traffic

[a male human]

Is anyone familiar with when you can use reputation/opinion/specific acts as character evidence under the FRE vs the CEC? I'd been under the impression that, on the FRE, you can use reputation and opinion on direct exam and you can use all three on cross-exam. Under the CEC, I thought it was rep and opinion only on both direct and cross.

However, I just read a model essay answer that says that, under the CEC, a defendant introducing evidence of a victim's bad character can use rep, opinion, or specific acts. Now I wanna go play in traffic

It's good to critique model answers, especially if it's a student answer because there may be wrong law. Seems like the model is correct based on Section 1103 (at least in a criminal case): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =1100-1109

1103. (a) In a criminal action, evidence of the character or a
trait of character (in the form of an opinion, evidence of
reputation, or evidence of specific instances of conduct) of the
victim of the crime for which the defendant is being prosecuted is
not made inadmissible by Section 1101 if the evidence is:
(1) Offered by the defendant to prove conduct of the victim in
conformity with the character or trait of character.

So it would appear that "under the CEC, a defendant introducing evidence of a victim's bad character can use rep, opinion, or specific acts." Did I read that correctly?

Also note that fed and CA evidence laws are very similar (FRE was based on the CEC), so if you have to guess on a minor distinction like this on the real thing, guess.

[Neatrends]

Emmanuels MBE strategies says most criminal procedure questions parallel cases very closely but I didn't take crim pro. Anyone run into a good, condensed collection of case summaries?

[Poopface]

I've been struggling staying within the time limits for the PT...anyone else? any recommendations? I read really slowly and that 30ish pages of material is killing me, it takes me like an hour and half just to read through the file and library, then i have to collect and organize my thoughts and feel like i usually don't start writing until there is less than an hour left (and i'm not even doing any kind of formal/detailed outline before writing bc i already don't have enough time). How thoroughly do you guys read the file and library? I've been reading every word bc I'm super paranoid that I'm going to miss a crucial point of fact or law. Thinking that might be just unrealistic given how i've been struggling to finish within the 3 hours. I've been fine timing wise on MBE and on the essays- mostly bc the essays have shorter fact patterns, not as much to read, which is awesome. The amount of material on the PTs is killing me. sheesh.

[a male human]

I've been struggling staying within the time limits for the PT...anyone else? any recommendations? I read really slowly and that 30ish pages of material is killing me, it takes me like an hour and half just to read through the file and library, then i have to collect and organize my thoughts and feel like i usually don't start writing until there is less than an hour left (and i'm not even doing any kind of formal/detailed outline before writing bc i already don't have enough time). How thoroughly do you guys read the file and library? I've been reading every word bc I'm super paranoid that I'm going to miss a crucial point of fact or law. Thinking that might be just unrealistic given how i've been struggling to finish within the 3 hours. I've been fine timing wise on MBE and on the essays- mostly bc the essays have shorter fact patterns, not as much to read, which is awesome. The amount of material on the PTs is killing me. sheesh.

Here are my thoughts on how to save time.

Look at the library first. Or whichever is smaller but consider reading the library even if the library is bigger. Depending on how terrible the PT is, the law should be pretty easy to pull out, at least if you've been doing that throughout law school already. Some are obvious because there will be an X-part test. Others are a bit more tricky but still fairly easy to spot because it won't be procedural history, it won't be facts, but it will be a general statement (later applied in the case).

Mark these general statements and type them into your laptop AS YOU READ, or just mark them if you're handwriting.

These rules will be your context. As you read the file, you'll see statements, facts, etc. that fit into one or more of the rules, in that the facts support or antagonize the one or more rules. Note these. You could use a blue pen for statements that support your position, red for statements that don't, etc. I think you can bring in colored pens.

BTW there are MANY facts for you to use, so you don't need to feel like you need to find everything. Read reasonably fast, but not every word. Even if you miss a few facts, there will be too many for you to use in your answer.

As you note the facts, try slotting some important ones under the rules you pulled out:
RULE STATEMENT 1 (you should literally just copy and quote the case language--no paraphrasing or cute interpretations)
- important-looking fact a
- important-looking fact b
- important-looking fact c

RULE STATEMENT 2
- etc.

RULE STATEMENT 3


Take a break. Then, fill it in for legibility and logic. Oh, and actually answering the task. That should save you some time.

Also, refer to this TLS post for additional info that I wrote while completely sober.

If you're doing the insane ones like 2013 July ones, though, I can't help you because I bombed those.

[Poopface]

I've been struggling staying within the time limits for the PT...anyone else? any recommendations? I read really slowly and that 30ish pages of material is killing me, it takes me like an hour and half just to read through the file and library, then i have to collect and organize my thoughts and feel like i usually don't start writing until there is less than an hour left (and i'm not even doing any kind of formal/detailed outline before writing bc i already don't have enough time). How thoroughly do you guys read the file and library? I've been reading every word bc I'm super paranoid that I'm going to miss a crucial point of fact or law. Thinking that might be just unrealistic given how i've been struggling to finish within the 3 hours. I've been fine timing wise on MBE and on the essays- mostly bc the essays have shorter fact patterns, not as much to read, which is awesome. The amount of material on the PTs is killing me. sheesh.

Here are my thoughts on how to save time.

Look at the library first. Or whichever is smaller but consider reading the library even if the library is bigger. Depending on how terrible the PT is, the law should be pretty easy to pull out, at least if you've been doing that throughout law school already. Some are obvious because there will be an X-part test. Others are a bit more tricky but still fairly easy to spot because it won't be procedural history, it won't be facts, but it will be a general statement (later applied in the case).

Mark these general statements and type them into your laptop AS YOU READ, or just mark them if you're handwriting.

These rules will be your context. As you read the file, you'll see statements, facts, etc. that fit into one or more of the rules, in that the facts support or antagonize the one or more rules. Note these. You could use a blue pen for statements that support your position, red for statements that don't, etc. I think you can bring in colored pens.

BTW there are MANY facts for you to use, so you don't need to feel like you need to find everything. Read reasonably fast, but not every word. Even if you miss a few facts, there will be too many for you to use in your answer.

As you note the facts, try slotting some important ones under the rules you pulled out:
RULE STATEMENT 1 (you should literally just copy and quote the case language--no paraphrasing or cute interpretations)
- important-looking fact a
- important-looking fact b
- important-looking fact c

RULE STATEMENT 2
- etc.

RULE STATEMENT 3


Take a break. Then, fill it in for legibility and logic. Oh, and actually answering the task. That should save you some time.

Also, refer to this TLS post for additional info that I wrote while completely sober.

If you're doing the insane ones like 2013 July ones, though, I can't help you because I bombed those.

Thanks man. very helpful. I appreciate the input

[Pleasye]

I've been struggling staying within the time limits for the PT...anyone else? any recommendations? I read really slowly and that 30ish pages of material is killing me, it takes me like an hour and half just to read through the file and library, then i have to collect and organize my thoughts and feel like i usually don't start writing until there is less than an hour left (and i'm not even doing any kind of formal/detailed outline before writing bc i already don't have enough time). How thoroughly do you guys read the file and library? I've been reading every word bc I'm super paranoid that I'm going to miss a crucial point of fact or law. Thinking that might be just unrealistic given how i've been struggling to finish within the 3 hours. I've been fine timing wise on MBE and on the essays- mostly bc the essays have shorter fact patterns, not as much to read, which is awesome. The amount of material on the PTs is killing me. sheesh.

Here are my thoughts on how to save time.

Look at the library first. Or whichever is smaller but consider reading the library even if the library is bigger. Depending on how terrible the PT is, the law should be pretty easy to pull out, at least if you've been doing that throughout law school already. Some are obvious because there will be an X-part test. Others are a bit more tricky but still fairly easy to spot because it won't be procedural history, it won't be facts, but it will be a general statement (later applied in the case).

Mark these general statements and type them into your laptop AS YOU READ, or just mark them if you're handwriting.

These rules will be your context. As you read the file, you'll see statements, facts, etc. that fit into one or more of the rules, in that the facts support or antagonize the one or more rules. Note these. You could use a blue pen for statements that support your position, red for statements that don't, etc. I think you can bring in colored pens.

BTW there are MANY facts for you to use, so you don't need to feel like you need to find everything. Read reasonably fast, but not every word. Even if you miss a few facts, there will be too many for you to use in your answer.

As you note the facts, try slotting some important ones under the rules you pulled out:
RULE STATEMENT 1 (you should literally just copy and quote the case language--no paraphrasing or cute interpretations)
- important-looking fact a
- important-looking fact b
- important-looking fact c

RULE STATEMENT 2
- etc.

RULE STATEMENT 3


Take a break. Then, fill it in for legibility and logic. Oh, and actually answering the task. That should save you some time.

Also, refer to this TLS post for additional info that I wrote while completely sober.

If you're doing the insane ones like 2013 July ones, though, I can't help you because I bombed those.

Thanks for all your help in here. Doesn't it get messy to have your rule statement and fact outline in examsoft on test day? Or did you just move things around as you go?

[gaagoots]

Emmanuels MBE strategies says most criminal procedure questions parallel cases very closely but I didn't take crim pro. Anyone run into a good, condensed collection of case summaries?

https://www.fletc.gov/legal-division-reference-book-pdf

I relied on FLETC when I took crim pro, the podcasts are good too.

https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmap

[a male human]

Thanks for all your help in here. Doesn't it get messy to have your rule statement and fact outline in examsoft on test day? Or did you just move things around as you go?

You're welcome. The facts outlined on your computer should probably be limited to any critical ones you find. Or maybe page numbers. Otherwise, you can just mark them up in your file and go through them as you craft your actual answer. And yes, typing your notes makes it easier to move around. BUT beware moving large chunks of text because that almost fucked me over when the SofTest fiasco happened (after copying/cutting and pasting maybe 500+ words, I wasn't able to insert spaces without doing some keyboard gymnastics).

Looking back at my practice PTs, typed outlines were mostly rules and policy statements.

[ilovetheatre]

The model answers on BarEssays.com are lengthier than Kaplan's. I'm not sure which is more accurate and am concerned. I'm think about buying The Bar Code Cheat Sheets, but will that too much with the resources I already have? Should I just study the BarEssay.com and Kaplan model answers?

[robinhoodOO]

The model answers on BarEssays.com are lengthier than Kaplan's. I'm not sure which is more accurate and am concerned. Should I buy The Bar Code Cheat Sheets or will that too much with the resources I already have?

Fuck Kaplan's "model answers." Some of them straight up miss big issues and they're spotty at best...I specifically recall a CivPro question that completely missed a collateral estoppel issue.

Look at the the actual Bar's models:

http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Examina ... Exams.aspx

http://calweasel.com/node/153

[BuenAbogado]

Can Mark Cuban sue Deandre Jordan under a promissory estoppel theory since he lost Tyson Chandler?

Is SOF applicable if the contract was an oral contract to sign a multi year contract next week?

[Tiago Splitter]

Can Mark Cuban sue Deandre Jordan under a promissory estoppel theory since he lost Tyson Chandler?

Is SOF applicable if the contract was an oral contract to sign a multi year contract next week?

Definitely fails statute of frauds, but I'm sure on an essay you could move forward to talk about possible detrimental reliance.

If you ignore the NBA rules aspect of it it's a great bar exam hypo.

[paulshortys10]

With prof resp, can someone please explain the difference between potential and actual conflicts? Is this the same thing as directly adverse and material limitation?

[robinhoodOO]

With prof resp, can someone please explain the difference between potential and actual conflicts? Is this the same thing as directly adverse and material limitation?

A potential conflict arises when you represent to parties with similar interests concurrently.

For instance, Attorney represents Bene A and Bene B at time of Testator's death. At the time of representation, no conflict exists and both will receive under the Will. However, because their interests may conflict in the future, there is a potential conflict. To illustrate, down the road Bene A could claim that the portion under the will which gifts to Bene B is improper (i.e. undue influence), which would result in Bene A getting more if Bene A made such an argument. At that point, the potential conflict becomes an actual conflict.

Basically, any time you concurrently represent 2 clients who may have conflicting interests (Benes under a will, multiple victims of a tort, joint ventures, etc., etc.), there is a potential conflict, which requires (1) Informed written consent of both parties, and also advising them of their right to seek independent counsel and (2) Attorney must have a reasonable belief that he can represent both competently.

[needaday]

[paulshortys10]

With prof resp, can someone please explain the difference between potential and actual conflicts? Is this the same thing as directly adverse and material limitation?

A potential conflict arises when you represent to parties with similar interests concurrently.

For instance, Attorney represents Bene A and Bene B at time of Testator's death. At the time of representation, no conflict exists and both will receive under the Will. However, because their interests may conflict in the future, there is a potential conflict. To illustrate, down the road Bene A could claim that the portion under the will which gifts to Bene B is improper (i.e. undue influence), which would result in Bene A getting more if Bene A made such an argument. At that point, the potential conflict becomes an actual conflict.

Basically, any time you concurrently represent 2 clients who may have conflicting interests (Benes under a will, multiple victims of a tort, joint ventures, etc., etc.), there is a potential conflict, which requires (1) Informed written consent of both parties, and also advising them of their right to seek independent counsel and (2) Attorney must have a reasonable belief that he can represent both competently.

I always thought of what you described as the material limitation in MR 1.7. Directly adverse of 1.7 is when you actually have two clients in directly adverse positions, duh. Just to make it clear, would material limitation then be potential conflict, and directly adverse, actual conflict?

[robinhoodOO]

With prof resp, can someone please explain the difference between potential and actual conflicts? Is this the same thing as directly adverse and material limitation?

A potential conflict arises when you represent to parties with similar interests concurrently.

For instance, Attorney represents Bene A and Bene B at time of Testator's death. At the time of representation, no conflict exists and both will receive under the Will. However, because their interests may conflict in the future, there is a potential conflict. To illustrate, down the road Bene A could claim that the portion under the will which gifts to Bene B is improper (i.e. undue influence), which would result in Bene A getting more if Bene A made such an argument. At that point, the potential conflict becomes an actual conflict.

Basically, any time you concurrently represent 2 clients who may have conflicting interests (Benes under a will, multiple victims of a tort, joint ventures, etc., etc.), there is a potential conflict, which requires (1) Informed written consent of both parties, and also advising them of their right to seek independent counsel and (2) Attorney must have a reasonable belief that he can represent both competently.

I always thought of what you described as the material limitation in MR 1.7. Directly adverse of 1.7 is when you actually have two clients in directly adverse positions, duh. Just to make it clear, would material limitation then be potential conflict, and directly adverse, actual conflict?

It might be better to just direct you to the ABA's "comments" on conflicts arising from concurrent representations, but I wouldn't always confuse material limitation for potential conflict (although, yes, it could be). Material limitation seems to be more of a catch all for any issues that could arise during concurrent representation, but you certainly could be materially limited if a potential conflict exists. So, yes, potential conflicts could be, but are not always, an aspect of material limitations. Regardless, I would just know that 1.7 requires the same thing for both actual and potential conflicts arising from concurrent clients and the rule is the same for both. I think CA Rules of Professional Responsibility just calls them potential conflicts which may become actual (as I described them).

Here's the ABA's explanations (hope this helps): http://www.americanbar.org/groups/profe ... e_1_7.html

CA: http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/portals/10/d ... onduct.pdf

[calbartaker2015]

How do you remember all of this? I flat out cannot state every element for every essay question and don't know how I will be able to in two weeks time.

[a male human]

How do you remember all of this? I flat out cannot state every element for every essay question and don't know how I will be able to in two weeks time.

Some ideas:
- Keep writing them out (i.e., test your recall rather than familiarity)
- Prioritize memorizing ones that show up more by doing and reviewing a lot of essays or outlines thereof
- Understand and paraphrase the concept rather than rote memorize
- Consider 2016 February (but would you rather kill yourself now so you don't have to wait 10 more months to find out if you passed?)

See also http://barexamtoolbox.com/memorization-simple-1-2-3/

[robinhoodOO]

How do you remember all of this? I flat out cannot state every element for every essay question and don't know how I will be able to in two weeks time.

Some ideas:
- Keep writing them out (i.e., test your recall rather than familiarity)
- Prioritize memorizing ones that show up more by doing and reviewing a lot of essays or outlines thereof
- Understand and paraphrase the concept rather than rote memorize

See also http://barexamtoolbox.com/memorization-simple-1-2-3/

I go to sleep and I start to automatically repeat elements in my head...Am I dying? Pretty sure this is what death feels like...