July 2015 California Bar Exam

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:09 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:Can someone explain the bare bones of what I need to know about anti-SLAPP / First Amendment issues?


Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public matter; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.
Last edited by robinhoodOO on Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:09 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I'm sure everyone knows this, but:

ABA Model Rules -- Duty of loyalty provides that a lawyer cannot have sex with a client unless the sexual relationship preexisted the attorney-client relationship.

CA Prof Resp -- Duty of loyalty does not prohibit a lawyer from having sex with a client unless he uses his position as her attorney to pressure the client into having sex, the sexual relationship interferes with his professional judgment, blah blah. Note that CA rules also contain the exception for preexisting sexual relationships.


You forgot to mention the elder law exception. If you practice any kind of elder law, you can't have sex with your clients (period).


Because it's gross, or because it's prohibited?

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:10 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I'm sure everyone knows this, but:

ABA Model Rules -- Duty of loyalty provides that a lawyer cannot have sex with a client unless the sexual relationship preexisted the attorney-client relationship.

CA Prof Resp -- Duty of loyalty does not prohibit a lawyer from having sex with a client unless he uses his position as her attorney to pressure the client into having sex, the sexual relationship interferes with his professional judgment, blah blah. Note that CA rules also contain the exception for preexisting sexual relationships.


You forgot to mention the elder law exception. If you practice any kind of elder law, you can't have sex with your clients (period).


Because it's gross, or because it's prohibited?


It's part of the Lawyer's Bro-Code

gaagoots
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:01 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:12 pm

.
Last edited by gaagoots on Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:12 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:Can someone explain the bare bones of what I need to know about anti-SLAPP / First Amendment issues?


Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public manner; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.


I did my Law Review Note on Anti-SLAPP. I focused on how Jihadists attempt to intimidate bloggers from writing negative things about Extreme Islam and the problems it raises under the guise of defamation, but pushing clearly meritless suits that would still nonetheless cost the bloggers a lot of time and money. Point would be to chill speech. Anti-SLAPP lets you bitch slap them.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:14 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:Can someone explain the bare bones of what I need to know about anti-SLAPP / First Amendment issues?


Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public manner; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.


I did my Law Review Note on Anti-SLAPP. I focused on how Jihadists attempt to intimidate bloggers from writing negative things about Extreme Islam and the problems it raises under the guise of defamation, but pushing clearly meritless suits that would still nonetheless cost the bloggers a lot of time and money. Point would be to chill speech. Anti-SLAPP lets you bitch slap them.


I encourage everyone to use that example on test day!!! Haha; that's great and, ya, basically the point...Don't file meritless BS related to someone else's speech.

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:35 pm

Underoath wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:
Underoath wrote:Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

I am. What do you wanna know?


Hi...hahaha just askin...I'm staying at the Double Tree.

No doubt...good luck; I'm in the Holiday Inn. Just a warning, since I'm a failure at life and also took it in Ontario in Feb: the temperature in the convention center was ridiculously cold for two days, and insanely warm for the third.

gaagoots
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:01 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:38 pm

.
Last edited by gaagoots on Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
smokeylarue
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby smokeylarue » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:41 pm

Is the MBE all on one scantron? Or do they give you 1 scantron in the morning, and a new scantron in the afternoon?

gaagoots
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:01 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:43 pm

.
Last edited by gaagoots on Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
smokeylarue
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby smokeylarue » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:46 pm

gaagoots wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Is the MBE all on one scantron? Or do they give you 1 scantron in the morning, and a new scantron in the afternoon?


One new one each session.


Thanks. That sounds annoyoing so we gotta rebubble whatever introductory information I'm assuming.

Anyone in Ontario who is retaking remember how much time they legitimately had for lunch after all the papers were collected and stuff?

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:52 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:Can someone explain the bare bones of what I need to know about anti-SLAPP / First Amendment issues?


Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public matter; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.


So let's say that P sues D for defamation and IIED or something else.

D responds and says that the cause of action is basically for his protected speech in a public forum or is related to a public matter.

Then what happens? P has to prevail on the defamation cause to defeat the anti-slapp measures? Does he have to prevail on the IIED as well? Or at all?

In other words, how would you do the analysis after the you get to the "So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over" portion?

Unless that's our cue to show that the D has protected speech under the 1st Amendment? And if the D can prove his speech was protected, how do you address the rest of the anti-slapp motion?

gaagoots
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:01 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:53 pm

.
Last edited by gaagoots on Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Underoath
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Underoath » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:56 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:
Underoath wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:
Underoath wrote:Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

I am. What do you wanna know?


Hi...hahaha just askin...I'm staying at the Double Tree.

No doubt...good luck; I'm in the Holiday Inn. Just a warning, since I'm a failure at life and also took it in Ontario in Feb: the temperature in the convention center was ridiculously cold for two days, and insanely warm for the third.


you are not a failure at life. That was a hard exam. I wouldn't have passed either had I sat for that!! Thanks for the heads up.

Underoath
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Underoath » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:58 pm

I fly out of LAX on Thursday right after the bar exam. Flight is at 9:20, I really don't want to take my laptop or leave it in my car. is it possible to drop it off at home in Riverside and still make it to LAX on time? How long does it take on the last day to get out of exam? Roughly...

gaagoots
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:01 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:04 am

.
Last edited by gaagoots on Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Underoath
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Underoath » Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:20 am

gaagoots wrote:
Underoath wrote:I fly out of LAX on Thursday right after the bar exam. Flight is at 9:20, I really don't want to take my laptop or leave it in my car. is it possible to drop it off at home in Riverside and still make it to LAX on time? How long does it take on the last day to get out of exam? Roughly...


Well I think Thursday we ran late, it was after 5:00. Then you deal with the sea of people getting out. I can only imagine it's twice the size in July. I don't envy you having to go to Riverside and to LAX after the bar. I'm meeting friends after to drink lol I didn't plan on driving anywhere my brain was shot.


ugh...I''ll just leave my laptop in my car then. Thanks

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:39 am

Underoath wrote:
gaagoots wrote:
Underoath wrote:I fly out of LAX on Thursday right after the bar exam. Flight is at 9:20, I really don't want to take my laptop or leave it in my car. is it possible to drop it off at home in Riverside and still make it to LAX on time? How long does it take on the last day to get out of exam? Roughly...


Well I think Thursday we ran late, it was after 5:00. Then you deal with the sea of people getting out. I can only imagine it's twice the size in July. I don't envy you having to go to Riverside and to LAX after the bar. I'm meeting friends after to drink lol I didn't plan on driving anywhere my brain was shot.


ugh...I''ll just leave my laptop in my car then. Thanks


Nice, nice. Soooo what kind of car do you drive? Color? And by any chance do you know where you plan to park it?

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:21 am

redblueyellow wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:Can someone explain the bare bones of what I need to know about anti-SLAPP / First Amendment issues?


Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public matter; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.


So let's say that P sues D for defamation and IIED or something else.

D responds and says that the cause of action is basically for his protected speech in a public forum or is related to a public matter.

Then what happens? P has to prevail on the defamation cause to defeat the anti-slapp measures? Does he have to prevail on the IIED as well? Or at all?

In other words, how would you do the analysis after the you get to the "So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over" portion?

Unless that's our cue to show that the D has protected speech under the 1st Amendment? And if the D can prove his speech was protected, how do you address the rest of the anti-slapp motion?


That's what I'm saying, I think it forces you into a First Amendment analysis. For example, you're being sued for hate speech. Can the gov grant a judgment in favor of party seeking damages for injurious hate speech?

You start with the procedure and discuss the basis to strike the Complaint: Anti-SLAPP.

Then, discuss First Amendment application for the substantive Q.

Then, SLAPP-back--which requires moving party to prove the original action was meritless/malicious.

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:32 am

CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:34 am

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?


If it's within the arrestee's wingspan, it can be seized. Whether or not related to the crime. Reason? Policy. Police are searching for anything and everything that could put them in danger during the course of the arrest (I find that knowing the policy helps me remember the rule).

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:35 am

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?


The majority test is "Wingspan." May search whatever is in D's wingspan or reach at time of arrest.

Alternatively, if arrested in a home, may perform a cursory search of the entire home IF reasonable suspicion of other criminals.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:37 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?


The majority test is "Wingspan." May search whatever is in D's wingspan or reach at time of arrest.

Alternatively, if arrested in a home, may perform a cursory search of the entire home IF reasonable suspicion of other criminals.


Interesting. During the cursory search of the home, are they limited to "plain view" evidence, or can they go digging?

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:40 am

brotherdarkness wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?


The majority test is "Wingspan." May search whatever is in D's wingspan or reach at time of arrest.

Alternatively, if arrested in a home, may perform a cursory search of the entire home IF reasonable suspicion of other criminals.


Interesting. During the cursory search of the home, are they limited to "plain view" evidence, or can they go digging?


Very cursory. Like maybe open a large closet at most (Where someone would likely/reasonably be in hiding). Anything other than that would likely be unlawful and violate 4th

Same deal, though: If they are performing a lawful cursory search and see something in plain view, it can provide PC for more searching. So, you'd start at the top and work your way down through any exceptions

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:47 am

brotherdarkness wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?


The majority test is "Wingspan." May search whatever is in D's wingspan or reach at time of arrest.

Alternatively, if arrested in a home, may perform a cursory search of the entire home IF reasonable suspicion of other criminals.


Interesting. During the cursory search of the home, are they limited to "plain view" evidence, or can they go digging?


I found the case just in case you thought I was making shit up. I had this come up in when taking CrimPro in LS: Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990): "This "sweep" is not to be a full-blown, "top-to-bottom" search, but only "a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found.""

It'd be a great MBE too




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: merde_happens and 10 guests