July 2015 California Bar Exam

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby injun » Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:14 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
PT A - Very hard, although if you wrote it in a responsive fashion, i.e. show that you clearly are addressing only the points that they brought up, you will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the pack. Many people I spoke with had no clue how to structure it, and/or did a freestyle.

PT B - Not sure how I did. I think I messed up by addressing remedies under each of the two issues, rather than make one entire section for remedies. Also I should have probably had a section for Applicable Law AND Facts rather than have them as two separate headings.

If I fail this exam, it will be because of the PTs.


July 2013 supposedly had a generous curve because either one or both PTs were super difficult. I thought these were tough, but I'm not sure if they were as difficult as July 2013

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:29 pm

injun wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
PT A - Very hard, although if you wrote it in a responsive fashion, i.e. show that you clearly are addressing only the points that they brought up, you will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the pack. Many people I spoke with had no clue how to structure it, and/or did a freestyle.

PT B - Not sure how I did. I think I messed up by addressing remedies under each of the two issues, rather than make one entire section for remedies. Also I should have probably had a section for Applicable Law AND Facts rather than have them as two separate headings.

If I fail this exam, it will be because of the PTs.


July 2013 supposedly had a generous curve because either one or both PTs were super difficult. I thought these were tough, but I'm not sure if they were as difficult as July 2013


There will be a high curve this time because of the Takings and Corporations questions.

Last time they had an obscure topic (Presidential Powers), it had one of the highest passing rates ever.

mike.alexander23
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:24 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby mike.alexander23 » Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:45 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
injun wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
PT A - Very hard, although if you wrote it in a responsive fashion, i.e. show that you clearly are addressing only the points that they brought up, you will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the pack. Many people I spoke with had no clue how to structure it, and/or did a freestyle.

PT B - Not sure how I did. I think I messed up by addressing remedies under each of the two issues, rather than make one entire section for remedies. Also I should have probably had a section for Applicable Law AND Facts rather than have them as two separate headings.

If I fail this exam, it will be because of the PTs.


July 2013 supposedly had a generous curve because either one or both PTs were super difficult. I thought these were tough, but I'm not sure if they were as difficult as July 2013


There will be a high curve this time because of the Takings and Corporations questions.

Last time they had an obscure topic (Presidential Powers), it had one of the highest passing rates ever.


I hope you are right, good sir.

TheRedMamba
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:33 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby TheRedMamba » Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:54 pm

tmanix wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
injun wrote:I had my C&F application approved before the July 2014 CBX. I got something similar about a month ago... it requested that I submit any updates to my C&F profile, if i had any. Based on the form, I didn't have anything to add. I ended up getting a confirmation letter from the bar a few weeks later. I don't think the C&F stuff has anything to do with the exam, so I would not stress out about it.

I was wondering what you guys thought about the PTs. Did anyone think the both PTA and PTB were more difficult than previous years?


PT A - Very hard, although if you wrote it in a responsive fashion, i.e. show that you clearly are addressing only the points that they brought up, you will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the pack. Many people I spoke with had no clue how to structure it, and/or did a freestyle.

PT B - Not sure how I did. I think I messed up by addressing remedies under each of the two issues, rather than make one entire section for remedies. Also I should have probably had a section for Applicable Law AND Facts rather than have them as two separate headings.

If I fail this exam, it will be because of the PTs.

My sentiments exactly.

For PT A, I inverted the headings from Plaintiff's opposition and used those to organize my answer. Hopefully the graders don't see through my BS.

I don't even remember what my answer to PT B look like 'cos I just kept writing until proctor called time. Also the fact that the PT B memo was addressed to a lay audience just made me super slow. I definitely skimped over the remedies analysis in PTB. Here's to hoping for the best.


I did the same for PTA. I wouldn't call that BS, I seem to remember that the Plaintiff's response was basically an inversion of the prior headings. That was my reasoning for organizing it that way.

For PTB, I remember feeling like I couldn't have really changed much for a lay person audience. I definitely used legal vocabulary, but I explained the concepts in plain English. Anyone else feel that way?

User avatar
kjartan
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:49 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby kjartan » Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:18 pm

Yeah, honestly, idk how good a job I did writing to a lay audience.

User avatar
petsoundspop
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby petsoundspop » Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:43 pm

injun wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
PT A - Very hard, although if you wrote it in a responsive fashion, i.e. show that you clearly are addressing only the points that they brought up, you will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the pack. Many people I spoke with had no clue how to structure it, and/or did a freestyle.

PT B - Not sure how I did. I think I messed up by addressing remedies under each of the two issues, rather than make one entire section for remedies. Also I should have probably had a section for Applicable Law AND Facts rather than have them as two separate headings.

If I fail this exam, it will be because of the PTs.


July 2013 supposedly had a generous curve because either one or both PTs were super difficult. I thought these were tough, but I'm not sure if they were as difficult as July 2013


I seriously believe that both PT-A and the corporations essay were insanely difficult. I definitely reviewed a lot of PTs before the exam and didn't really see much that matched that first PT in terms of difficulty. Maybe I'm alone in that. Also, the fact that I found myself not writing very much threw me off my game because I was used to filling up the entire three hours on the practice PTs. As for the corporations essay, that was the biggest middle finger they could have given to us. Both left me very frazzled and destroyed my confidence about passing. However, I'm hoping there is a generous curve on this one because the thought of taking this thing again doesn't even compute at this point.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:32 pm

petsoundspop wrote:
injun wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
PT A - Very hard, although if you wrote it in a responsive fashion, i.e. show that you clearly are addressing only the points that they brought up, you will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the pack. Many people I spoke with had no clue how to structure it, and/or did a freestyle.

PT B - Not sure how I did. I think I messed up by addressing remedies under each of the two issues, rather than make one entire section for remedies. Also I should have probably had a section for Applicable Law AND Facts rather than have them as two separate headings.

If I fail this exam, it will be because of the PTs.


July 2013 supposedly had a generous curve because either one or both PTs were super difficult. I thought these were tough, but I'm not sure if they were as difficult as July 2013


I seriously believe that both PT-A and the corporations essay were insanely difficult. I definitely reviewed a lot of PTs before the exam and didn't really see much that matched that first PT in terms of difficulty. Maybe I'm alone in that. Also, the fact that I found myself not writing very much threw me off my game because I was used to filling up the entire three hours on the practice PTs. As for the corporations essay, that was the biggest middle finger they could have given to us. Both left me very frazzled and destroyed my confidence about passing. However, I'm hoping there is a generous curve on this one because the thought of taking this thing again doesn't even compute at this point.


What about the corp essay did you find hard?

mike.alexander23
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:24 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby mike.alexander23 » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:35 pm

What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby injun » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:43 pm

mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2

User avatar
petsoundspop
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby petsoundspop » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:54 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
petsoundspop wrote:
injun wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
PT A - Very hard, although if you wrote it in a responsive fashion, i.e. show that you clearly are addressing only the points that they brought up, you will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the pack. Many people I spoke with had no clue how to structure it, and/or did a freestyle.

PT B - Not sure how I did. I think I messed up by addressing remedies under each of the two issues, rather than make one entire section for remedies. Also I should have probably had a section for Applicable Law AND Facts rather than have them as two separate headings.

If I fail this exam, it will be because of the PTs.


July 2013 supposedly had a generous curve because either one or both PTs were super difficult. I thought these were tough, but I'm not sure if they were as difficult as July 2013


I seriously believe that both PT-A and the corporations essay were insanely difficult. I definitely reviewed a lot of PTs before the exam and didn't really see much that matched that first PT in terms of difficulty. Maybe I'm alone in that. Also, the fact that I found myself not writing very much threw me off my game because I was used to filling up the entire three hours on the practice PTs. As for the corporations essay, that was the biggest middle finger they could have given to us. Both left me very frazzled and destroyed my confidence about passing. However, I'm hoping there is a generous curve on this one because the thought of taking this thing again doesn't even compute at this point.


What about the corp essay did you find hard?


I think just the sheer number of issues to address. There was so much going on in the fact pattern that I had trouble keeping it all together and keeping my time reasonable. By the time I got to the PR part of the question I was really low on time. I felt that there was way too much going on in that essay to really address in an hour.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:14 pm

injun wrote:
mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2


Wouldn't it just be 25% SP and 75% CP split, based on the fact that they were, in part, for past performance? So, using those percentages, H gets $30K and W gets $50K (her 25% SP ($20K) for the last year, plus her 1/2 CP--which is half of $60K, which is $30K).

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, but I could be wrong on all counts.
Last edited by robinhoodOO on Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mike.alexander23
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:24 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby mike.alexander23 » Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:15 pm

injun wrote:
mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2


I didn't mention the formula by name but I think I ultimately concluded they were CP because it was for her "great performance" over the course of the marriage, or something like that. But yeah, I concluded Stock options were CP, as well

mike.alexander23
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:24 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby mike.alexander23 » Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:16 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
injun wrote:
mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2


Wouldn't it just be 25% SP and 75% CP split, based on the fact that they were, in part, for past performance? So, using those percentages, H gets $30K and W gets $50K (her 25% SP for the last year, plus her 1/2 CP--which is half of $60K; $20K + $30K).

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, but I could be wrong on all counts.


Disregard my last post. This is similar to what I concluded. I'm a mess.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby injun » Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:18 pm

mike.alexander23 wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
injun wrote:
mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2


Wouldn't it just be 25% SP and 75% CP split, based on the fact that they were, in part, for past performance? So, using those percentages, H gets $30K and W gets $50K (her 25% SP for the last year, plus her 1/2 CP--which is half of $60K; $20K + $30K).

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, but I could be wrong on all counts.


Disregard my last post. This is similar to what I concluded. I'm a mess.


Guess I messed that up, whoops

User avatar
tmanix
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:42 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby tmanix » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:22 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
injun wrote:
mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2


Wouldn't it just be 25% SP and 75% CP split, based on the fact that they were, in part, for past performance? So, using those percentages, H gets $30K and W gets $50K (her 25% SP ($20K) for the last year, plus her 1/2 CP--which is half of $60K, which is $30K).

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, but I could be wrong on all counts.


I'm no expert but I used the Nelson formula.

The Nelson formula is used where the options were primarily intended as compensation for future performance and as an incentive to stay with the company. The formula used in Nelson is:

DOG – DOS
----------------- x Number of shares exercisable = Community Property Shares
DOG - DOE

(DOG = Date of Grant; DOS = Date of Separation; DOE = Date of Exercisability).

Using the above formula:

2012 - 2013
-------------- x $80, 000.00
2012-2014

1
---- x $80, 000.00 = $40, 000.00 (community property).
2
2012-2014

Therefore, wife keeps 40k as separate property and takes 20k as her share of CP. Wife's total is $60k. Husband takes 20k as his share of CP.

I didn't use the Hugg formula 'cos Hugg is used in cases where the options were primarily intended to attract the employee to the job and reward past services. The Hypo of course wasn't very clear on this issue because first it said: "In 2010, Wendy accepted a job at Company. At that time, she was told that if she performed well, she would receive stock options in the near future." Then it later said "In 2012, Wendy was granted stock options by Company, which would become exercisable in 2014, in part because she had been a very effective employee." It is therefore an arguable question as to which formula applies.

But maybe we were expected to do a detailed analysis here, i.e. Husband would want Hugg to be used cos he gets $30k and wife gets 50k. Wife would want Nelson 'cos she gets 60k while husband gets only 20k. Who had time for that with the Q5 and Q6 staring one in the face?

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:28 pm

tmanix wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
injun wrote:
mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2


Wouldn't it just be 25% SP and 75% CP split, based on the fact that they were, in part, for past performance? So, using those percentages, H gets $30K and W gets $50K (her 25% SP ($20K) for the last year, plus her 1/2 CP--which is half of $60K, which is $30K).

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, but I could be wrong on all counts.


I'm no expert but I used the Nelson formula.

The Nelson formula is used where the options were primarily intended as compensation for future performance and as an incentive to stay with the company. The formula used in Nelson is:

DOG – DOS
----------------- x Number of shares exercisable = Community Property Shares
DOG - DOE

(DOG = Date of Grant; DOS = Date of Separation; DOE = Date of Exercisability).

Using the above formula:

2012 - 2013
-------------- x $80, 000.00
2012-2014

1
---- x $80, 000.00 = $40, 000.00 (community property).
2
2012-2014

Therefore, wife keeps 40k as separate property and takes 20k as her share of CP. Wife's total is $60k. Husband takes 20k as his share of CP.

I didn't use the Hugg formula 'cos Hugg is used in cases where the options were primarily intended to attract the employee to the job and reward past services. The Hypo of course wasn't very clear on this issue because first it said: "In 2010, Wendy accepted a job at Company. At that time, she was told that if she performed well, she would receive stock options in the near future." Then it later said "In 2012, Wendy was granted stock options by Company, which would become exercisable in 2014, in part because she had been a very effective employee." It is therefore an arguable question as to which formula applies.

But maybe we were expected to do a detailed analysis here, i.e. Husband would want Hugg to be used cos he gets $30k and wife gets 50k. Wife would want Nelson 'cos she gets 60k while husband gets only 20k. Who had time for that with the Q5 and Q6 staring one in the face?


There is no "she" in marriage. She is merely an arm of the community. So the fact that "she" had been an effective employee actually translates to "the community had been an effective employee". Thus, the community earned this. Thus, Hugg. Although a quick analysis of Nelson always helps, but as you alluded to, aint nobody got time fo' dat.

User avatar
Raiden
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Raiden » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:39 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
tmanix wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
injun wrote:
mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2


Wouldn't it just be 25% SP and 75% CP split, based on the fact that they were, in part, for past performance? So, using those percentages, H gets $30K and W gets $50K (her 25% SP ($20K) for the last year, plus her 1/2 CP--which is half of $60K, which is $30K).

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, but I could be wrong on all counts.


I'm no expert but I used the Nelson formula.

The Nelson formula is used where the options were primarily intended as compensation for future performance and as an incentive to stay with the company. The formula used in Nelson is:

DOG – DOS
----------------- x Number of shares exercisable = Community Property Shares
DOG - DOE

(DOG = Date of Grant; DOS = Date of Separation; DOE = Date of Exercisability).

Using the above formula:

2012 - 2013
-------------- x $80, 000.00
2012-2014

1
---- x $80, 000.00 = $40, 000.00 (community property).
2
2012-2014

Therefore, wife keeps 40k as separate property and takes 20k as her share of CP. Wife's total is $60k. Husband takes 20k as his share of CP.

I didn't use the Hugg formula 'cos Hugg is used in cases where the options were primarily intended to attract the employee to the job and reward past services. The Hypo of course wasn't very clear on this issue because first it said: "In 2010, Wendy accepted a job at Company. At that time, she was told that if she performed well, she would receive stock options in the near future." Then it later said "In 2012, Wendy was granted stock options by Company, which would become exercisable in 2014, in part because she had been a very effective employee." It is therefore an arguable question as to which formula applies.

But maybe we were expected to do a detailed analysis here, i.e. Husband would want Hugg to be used cos he gets $30k and wife gets 50k. Wife would want Nelson 'cos she gets 60k while husband gets only 20k. Who had time for that with the Q5 and Q6 staring one in the face?


There is no "she" in marriage. She is merely an arm of the community. So the fact that "she" had been an effective employee actually translates to "the community had been an effective employee". Thus, the community earned this. Thus, Hugg. Although a quick analysis of Nelson always helps, but as you alluded to, aint nobody got time fo' dat.


How in the world do you guys remember what you wrote on these essays.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:41 pm

tmanix wrote:I didn't use the Hugg formula 'cos Hugg is used in cases where the options were primarily intended to attract the employee to the job and reward past services. The Hypo of course wasn't very clear on this issue because first it said: "In 2010, Wendy accepted a job at Company. At that time, she was told that if she performed well, she would receive stock options in the near future." Then it later said "In 2012, Wendy was granted stock options by Company, which would become exercisable in 2014, in part because she had been a very effective employee." It is therefore an arguable question as to which formula applies.

But maybe we were expected to do a detailed analysis here, i.e. Husband would want Hugg to be used cos he gets $30k and wife gets 50k. Wife would want Nelson 'cos she gets 60k while husband gets only 20k. Who had time for that with the Q5 and Q6 staring one in the face?


I'm very confident that whichever path you took, you'd get full credit for that issue. Probably a bonus point for stating both, but nothing to worry about if not (I certainly didn't).

As for Q's 5 and 6, haha, well I finished Q4 in 40 minutes, went to the restroom and then read Q5. Q5 took me roughly 1 hour and 20 minutes. Of every Essay I read and answered in preparation, it was by far the hardest I've seen HANDS DOWN. Could not be finished in an hour (period). Hell, I still didn't "finish" it in 80 minutes. That left me with around 50-55 minutes for Q6, which just left a bad taste in my mouth.

k5220
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby k5220 » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:50 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
tmanix wrote:I didn't use the Hugg formula 'cos Hugg is used in cases where the options were primarily intended to attract the employee to the job and reward past services. The Hypo of course wasn't very clear on this issue because first it said: "In 2010, Wendy accepted a job at Company. At that time, she was told that if she performed well, she would receive stock options in the near future." Then it later said "In 2012, Wendy was granted stock options by Company, which would become exercisable in 2014, in part because she had been a very effective employee." It is therefore an arguable question as to which formula applies.

But maybe we were expected to do a detailed analysis here, i.e. Husband would want Hugg to be used cos he gets $30k and wife gets 50k. Wife would want Nelson 'cos she gets 60k while husband gets only 20k. Who had time for that with the Q5 and Q6 staring one in the face?


I'm very confident that whichever path you took, you'd get full credit for that issue. Probably a bonus point for stating both, but nothing to worry about if not (I certainly didn't).

As for Q's 5 and 6, haha, well I finished Q4 in 40 minutes, went to the restroom and then read Q5. Q5 took me roughly 1 hour and 20 minutes. Of every Essay I read and answered in preparation, it was by far the hardest I've seen HANDS DOWN. Could not be finished in an hour (period). Hell, I still didn't "finish" it in 80 minutes. That left me with around 50-55 minutes for Q6, which just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Yeah, I looked ahead and knew that I did not have the goods on Q6 at all, so I spent like an hour 40 on Q5 and still don't feel like I finished. Ridiculous

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:54 pm

k5220 wrote:Yeah, I looked ahead and knew that I did not have the goods on Q6 at all, so I spent like an hour 40 on Q5 and still don't feel like I finished. Ridiculous


The guy who runs the bar prep company that did a "debriefing" on the essays said Q5 was very hard and went so far as to apologize for how difficult it must have been during the exam. That's saying something, in addition to everyone I've spoken with saying they it took them more than an hour. Here's hoping that helps whatever curve is present! haha

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:58 pm

Raiden wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
tmanix wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
injun wrote:
mike.alexander23 wrote:What the best/most assuring one time calculator score combo you guys came up with?

I Just pulled this one out that made me smile

Essay 1 (civ pro): 65
Essay 2 (Real Prop): 65
Essay 3 (crim pro): 60
Essay 4 (Comm prop.): 65
Essay 5 (bullshit cross of Corp./Ethics): 55
Essay 6: (bullshit takings?/conlaw?): 60
PT A: 60
PT B: 65
Raw MBE: 126

FINAL SCORE-->1440 = PASS

This is a very conservative estimate of scores. I feel really good about real property and CP, so not getting a 70+ on at least one would be a surprise.


Was thinking about that CP essay the other day....anyone mention Hugg and Nelson? I put them down, but as I was analyzing it, the math didn't make sense. I think I ended up concluding that it was CP with each getting 1/2


Wouldn't it just be 25% SP and 75% CP split, based on the fact that they were, in part, for past performance? So, using those percentages, H gets $30K and W gets $50K (her 25% SP ($20K) for the last year, plus her 1/2 CP--which is half of $60K, which is $30K).

I'm pretty sure that's what I did, but I could be wrong on all counts.


I'm no expert but I used the Nelson formula.

The Nelson formula is used where the options were primarily intended as compensation for future performance and as an incentive to stay with the company. The formula used in Nelson is:

DOG – DOS
----------------- x Number of shares exercisable = Community Property Shares
DOG - DOE

(DOG = Date of Grant; DOS = Date of Separation; DOE = Date of Exercisability).

Using the above formula:

2012 - 2013
-------------- x $80, 000.00
2012-2014

1
---- x $80, 000.00 = $40, 000.00 (community property).
2
2012-2014

Therefore, wife keeps 40k as separate property and takes 20k as her share of CP. Wife's total is $60k. Husband takes 20k as his share of CP.

I didn't use the Hugg formula 'cos Hugg is used in cases where the options were primarily intended to attract the employee to the job and reward past services. The Hypo of course wasn't very clear on this issue because first it said: "In 2010, Wendy accepted a job at Company. At that time, she was told that if she performed well, she would receive stock options in the near future." Then it later said "In 2012, Wendy was granted stock options by Company, which would become exercisable in 2014, in part because she had been a very effective employee." It is therefore an arguable question as to which formula applies.

But maybe we were expected to do a detailed analysis here, i.e. Husband would want Hugg to be used cos he gets $30k and wife gets 50k. Wife would want Nelson 'cos she gets 60k while husband gets only 20k. Who had time for that with the Q5 and Q6 staring one in the face?


There is no "she" in marriage. She is merely an arm of the community. So the fact that "she" had been an effective employee actually translates to "the community had been an effective employee". Thus, the community earned this. Thus, Hugg. Although a quick analysis of Nelson always helps, but as you alluded to, aint nobody got time fo' dat.


How in the world do you guys remember what you wrote on these essays.


By memorizing what we wrote on them

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:59 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:By memorizing what we wrote on them


Geez! Could you remember to delete quotes as they become unrelated

;)

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:00 pm

petsoundspop wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
petsoundspop wrote:
injun wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
PT A - Very hard, although if you wrote it in a responsive fashion, i.e. show that you clearly are addressing only the points that they brought up, you will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY ahead of the pack. Many people I spoke with had no clue how to structure it, and/or did a freestyle.

PT B - Not sure how I did. I think I messed up by addressing remedies under each of the two issues, rather than make one entire section for remedies. Also I should have probably had a section for Applicable Law AND Facts rather than have them as two separate headings.

If I fail this exam, it will be because of the PTs.


July 2013 supposedly had a generous curve because either one or both PTs were super difficult. I thought these were tough, but I'm not sure if they were as difficult as July 2013


I seriously believe that both PT-A and the corporations essay were insanely difficult. I definitely reviewed a lot of PTs before the exam and didn't really see much that matched that first PT in terms of difficulty. Maybe I'm alone in that. Also, the fact that I found myself not writing very much threw me off my game because I was used to filling up the entire three hours on the practice PTs. As for the corporations essay, that was the biggest middle finger they could have given to us. Both left me very frazzled and destroyed my confidence about passing. However, I'm hoping there is a generous curve on this one because the thought of taking this thing again doesn't even compute at this point.


What about the corp essay did you find hard?


I think just the sheer number of issues to address. There was so much going on in the fact pattern that I had trouble keeping it all together and keeping my time reasonable. By the time I got to the PR part of the question I was really low on time. I felt that there was way too much going on in that essay to really address in an hour.



Me too! Q#5 was my achilles heel, it felt like a corporations final exam where the professor crammed in as many issues as possible to set the curve. I left out remedies and CA distinctions, so I throw it out as my token 55. I was heavy on the director duties since it seemed fact friendly but it slowed me down. I am sweating about the CP because like a couple others, I got too family law specialist exam crazy on codes, especially the 3-year SOL on child support reimbursements under FC §920(c)(1) and I am scared shitless to have a BK lawyer grading that one especially after he had a reaming from a trustee earlier that day.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:08 pm

gaagoots wrote: and I am scared shitless to have a BK lawyer grading that one especially after he had a reaming from a trustee earlier that day.


How do you know who's grading that Q? And, what did he/she do to piss off a bk trustee (they usually piss me off)?

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:14 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
gaagoots wrote: and I am scared shitless to have a BK lawyer grading that one especially after he had a reaming from a trustee earlier that day.


How do you know who's grading that Q? And, what did he/she do to piss off a bk trustee (they usually piss me off)?


I don't know about your district but the Central District, they are pure evil. I don't know if a BK or UD or Fam Law lawyer or DUI or lemon law lawyer is grading it. I saw some youtube on PTs with this older woman named Vivian something thinking oh shit--she was a grader once.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donalddrumpf and 6 guests