Top Law Schools

robinhoodOO wrote:Every time I review the "selected answers" by the Bar, I'm just stunned at some of the shit others have written...Pure evidence question dealing nearly exclusively with hearsay in a civil action and a person starts the Essay by discussing Proposition 8. Why? Who the fuck would mention this? (1) It's Civil; (2) The essay makes no reference to discussing Fed and CA rules of evidence; and (3) Prop 8 has fuck all to do with hearsay anyway.

If I'm a grader and that's your lead-in to this type of question, I'm immediately questioning the minimum competency of this person; yet they receive a selected answer...Just stunned.

I think because it's a boilerplate paragraph in the beginning. I would do the same thing, although I would write that Prop 8 does applies only to crim cases (and if it was a FRE only question, I wouldn't mention it at all).

Also, it sounds you're smart as fuck, so fuck you, you don't know me.







(I still like you though)

robinhoodOO wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:

BuenAbogado wrote:Yo I still wanna know how to pronounce Seisen by the way. This is really bugging me. Bonus points if you tell me how to pronounce scienter.

I responded to that earlier up.

All my professors pronounced scienter as "psy-enter"

Waiting for that moment when you realize you guys are talking about two completely different things...

Not sure how we are talking about two different things my man. I asked for pronunciation, primary colors offered same.

And yeah, but the response offered the two possible pronunciations that I was pondering between. Not that you would have known, since I didn't make that clear. Thanks for Scienter.

BuenAbogado wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:

BuenAbogado wrote:Yo I still wanna know how to pronounce Seisen by the way. This is really bugging me. Bonus points if you tell me how to pronounce scienter.

I responded to that earlier up.

All my professors pronounced scienter as "psy-enter"

Waiting for that moment when you realize you guys are talking about two completely different things...

Not sure how we are talking about two different things my man. I asked for pronunciation, primary colors offered same.

And yeah, but the response offered the two possible pronunciations that I was pondering between. Not that you would have known, since I didn't make that clear. Thanks for Scienter.

I was joking about his latter pronunciation on scienter in reply to your comment about seisen.

redblueyellow wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:Every time I review the "selected answers" by the Bar, I'm just stunned at some of the shit others have written...Pure evidence question dealing nearly exclusively with hearsay in a civil action and a person starts the Essay by discussing Proposition 8. Why? Who the fuck would mention this? (1) It's Civil; (2) The essay makes no reference to discussing Fed and CA rules of evidence; and (3) Prop 8 has fuck all to do with hearsay anyway.

If I'm a grader and that's your lead-in to this type of question, I'm immediately questioning the minimum competency of this person; yet they receive a selected answer...Just stunned.

I think because it's a boilerplate paragraph in the beginning. I would do the same thing, although I would write that Prop 8 does applies only to crim cases (and if it was a FRE only question, I wouldn't mention it at all).

Also, it sounds you're smart as fuck, so fuck you, you don't know me.







(I still like you though)

I know that your username reminds me of Purple yellow red and blue, so now I'm gonna listen to that song before I go back to reviewing evidence

redblueyellow wrote:

2807 wrote: Done this many times..
Start here on page 3... read a bit..and see if this helps clarify
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=220409

Thanks, this did help!
I read the posts you mentioned in the other thread, what do you think about this? The large gaps between the text is just a page break on imgur. Had some trouble with the "therefore...because" conclusion statements for some of the IRACs.

The question was (Q1 July 2010):

Homeowner kept a handgun on his bedside table in order to protect himself against
intruders. A statute provides that “all firearms must be stored in a secure container that
is fully enclosed and locked.” Burglar broke into Homeowner’s house while Homeowner
was out and stole the handgun.

Burglar subsequently used the handgun in an attack on Patron in a parking lot
belonging to Cinema. Patron had just exited Cinema around midnight after viewing a
late movie. During the attack, Burglar approached Patron and demanded that she hand
over her purse. Patron refused. Burglar drew the handgun, pointed it at Patron, and
stated, “You made me mad, so now I’m going to shoot you.”

Patron fainted out of shock and suffered a concussion. Burglar took her purse and fled,
but was later apprehended by the police. Cinema had been aware of several previous
attacks on its customers in the parking lot at night during the past several years, but
provided no lighting or security guard.

Under what theory or theories, if any, might Patron bring an action for damages against
Homeowner, Burglar, or Cinema? Discuss.

There is NO civil cause of action for Robbery.

BuenAbogado wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:

BuenAbogado wrote:Yo I still wanna know how to pronounce Seisen by the way. This is really bugging me. Bonus points if you tell me how to pronounce scienter.

I responded to that earlier up.

All my professors pronounced scienter as "psy-enter"

Waiting for that moment when you realize you guys are talking about two completely different things...

Not sure how we are talking about two different things my man. I asked for pronunciation, primary colors offered same.

And yeah, but the response offered the two possible pronunciations that I was pondering between. Not that you would have known, since I didn't make that clear. Thanks for Scienter.

Alright, I just pulled up one of my professor's lecture she recorded for us to study for her final. She definitely pronounces it "sci-enter" (like scion) and "sci-zen" (scion)!

Calicakes wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:
Under what theory or theories, if any, might Patron bring an action for damages against
Homeowner, Burglar, or Cinema? Discuss.

There is NO civil cause of action for Robbery.

Ah, you're right; prompt asked for "action for damages." That's where you picked up that it was purely a civil case, right?

redblueyellow wrote:

2807 wrote: But I do see conclusory statements that concern me. "D pointed a gun at V, therefore it was extreme and outrageous conduct."
Careful with that....
Although it is common sense, you need to show that grader you know there is an analysis involved. I do not know what it is, but I assume at least one sentence could convey it.

Also, remember, your PRECISE legal issue statement is generally one sentence, and the RULE that follows is likely one sentence.. that uses many of the same words. It should feel redundant. (There are many variables, but for a start, just keep that simple form in mind.)

Good luck to you.

ONWARD !

Thanks, dude!

Question though if you don't mind: "But I do see conclusory statements that concern me. 'D pointed a gun at V, therefore it was extreme and outrageous conduct.'"

I know you said that you don't know what the analysis is there, but how else could one literally conclude an element of a tort/crime/whatever? In this case, the element was extreme and outrageous conduct and my rationale is that pointing a gun at someone would satisfy that element.

I think what I'm trying to ask is how would you go about not making that a conclusory statement based on the "Therefore...because..." technique?

My tutor graded my previous essays ( from the Feb 2015) and said that I had too many conclusory statements too.

I've been really trying to work on that. D pointed a gun at v, pointing a gun at someone is not something reasonable people do, nor is it something that considered normal behavior. Therefore, D pointing a gun at V is considered extreme and outrageous conduct.

redblueyellow wrote:

Calicakes wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:
Under what theory or theories, if any, might Patron bring an action for damages against
Homeowner, Burglar, or Cinema? Discuss.

There is NO civil cause of action for Robbery.

Ah, you're right; prompt asked for "action for damages." That's where you picked up that it was purely a civil case, right?

I actually just did this essay yesterday for practice( issue spotting). I saw the negligence per se statute so I knew it was Torts.

I did totally miss conversion and trespass to chattels though. Never even entered my mind.

Calicakes wrote: I actually just did this essay yesterday for practice( issue spotting). I saw the negligence per se statute so I knew it was Torts.

I did totally miss conversion and trespass to chattels though. Never even entered my mind.

Hang on, just because there's a negligence per se statute, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a cross with crimes, right? Or is that some cheat code that tells you not to worry about crimes at all?

Calicakes wrote:My tutor graded my previous essays ( from the Feb 2015) and said that I had too many conclusory statements too.

I've been really trying to work on that. D pointed a gun at v, pointing a gun at someone is not something reasonable people do, nor is it something that considered normal behavior. Therefore, D pointing a gun at V is considered extreme and outrageous conduct.

Ah, I see what you're doing. You're not relating back to the outrageous and extreme conduct in your initial sentence post-rule, but rather using that solely in your conclusion. Hmm, this definitely works, as long as I remember to change my form.

redblueyellow wrote:

Calicakes wrote: I actually just did this essay yesterday for practice( issue spotting). I saw the negligence per se statute so I knew it was Torts.

I did totally miss conversion and trespass to chattels though. Never even entered my mind.

Hang on, just because there's a negligence per se statute, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a cross with crimes, right? Or is that some cheat code that tells you not to worry about crimes at all?

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I've never seen a Torts/Crim crossover. I *knew* in my brain that there was no COA for Roberry in a civil case. (for the bar exam, maybe in real life?).

Did you not know right away that this was a Torts question?

redblueyellow wrote:

Calicakes wrote:My tutor graded my previous essays ( from the Feb 2015) and said that I had too many conclusory statements too.

I've been really trying to work on that. D pointed a gun at v, pointing a gun at someone is not something reasonable people do, nor is it something that considered normal behavior. Therefore, D pointing a gun at V is considered extreme and outrageous conduct.

Ah, I see what you're doing. You're not relating back to the outrageous and extreme conduct in your initial sentence post-rule, but rather using that solely in your conclusion. Hmm, this definitely works, as long as I remember to change my form.

Don't take me at my word, I could be wrong. From what I understood from my tutor, you need to provide a "why" is it ___________? Why is D's conduct what it is you're trying to prove. Anyone else care to weigh in?

redblueyellow wrote:

Calicakes wrote: I actually just did this essay yesterday for practice( issue spotting). I saw the negligence per se statute so I knew it was Torts.

I did totally miss conversion and trespass to chattels though. Never even entered my mind.

Hang on, just because there's a negligence per se statute, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a cross with crimes, right? Or is that some cheat code that tells you not to worry about crimes at all?

It was asking what actions for damages the victim could bring. So that told you it was a civil case. The government is the only one who can charge a person with a crime.

And I also screwed up the intentional torts part of that essay. Just talked about battery. Lesson: Go through every possibility.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:

Calicakes wrote: I actually just did this essay yesterday for practice( issue spotting). I saw the negligence per se statute so I knew it was Torts.

I did totally miss conversion and trespass to chattels though. Never even entered my mind.

Hang on, just because there's a negligence per se statute, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a cross with crimes, right? Or is that some cheat code that tells you not to worry about crimes at all?

It was asking what actions for damages the victim could bring. So that told you it was a civil case. The government is the only one who can charge a person with a crime.

And I also screwed up the intentional torts part of that essay. Just talked about battery. Lesson: Go through every possibility.

I knew it was a torts question, but I saw the prompt and thought I should mention everything.

And Tiago, I think the only other thing I mentioned was assault, so it's not much either, lol.

Looking for some guidance with limited time remaining. I may get flamed for this post, but I've had trouble dealing with anxiety regarding this test and I was wondering if anyone could reason with me.

So, I haven't had a chance to write a bunch of essays out fully. I've written probably 1-2 for each subject, so probably around 20 total. I've tried to outline an additional 2 essays per subject. Based on the data I've seen that most essay issues repeat from previous exams my essay study has been mostly: skimming outlines, setting general essay structure guides for each subject, and memorizing every rule that appears in the Barbri essays. So, for example, Barbri gives 8 old essays per subject and I made notecards for each rule that appeared and memorized those (there is a lot of repeat stuff and some essays have few rules).

I'm a pretty good writer. I graduated from a top school in the top 5% of my class. I feel like I have a pretty good idea of how to write a law school exam, but I'm growing a little concerned that my style is too verbose for the bar. Since I've memorized a good chunk of rules I tend to hit the major issues and I don't usually run out of time (though I do go right up to the limit in most cases). My essays average about 1900-2200 words depending on the source material and the subject. I tend to go pretty heavy on analysis, though I've practiced somewhat cutting this down on clear issues and instead hitting more issues.

I might be overreacting or unnecessarily freaking out here, but I know that people who graduate at the top of their class fail all the time, especially in CA. By the time studying is over I will have completed probably 85% of my Barbri PSP, but I've also done some extra stuff (completed most of the Qs in Emanuels, did the full day and half day MBEs that are not covered in the PSP). I'm not that worried about the MBE. However, when I started the prep, I was thinking that my MBE and PTs would carry me, but now I'm not sold on that in CA. My MBEs are above average, but I'm definitely not expecting to walk in there and hit an 80+% or some absurd number, especially given the relative uncertainty surrounding Civ Pro. I've written out probably 4 full PTs, but I am by no means confident I'll pull a 65 on both for sure come test day.

On the one hand I feel really dumb for the anxiety because I'm not sure how much more I could have prepared. The biggest factor right now is I have just not been able to get a read for how the CA essays will be graded. Despite what I thought was pretty good writing ability, my Barbri feedback was largely unhelpful (I got 2 65s, 1 60, but all of these were submitted well before I started to focus in on the essays the last 2-3 weeks, and none had helpful substantive feedback -- a Ks essay I turned in was 2200 words, hit every issue except 1 minor quasi-K issue, and got a 65). I split a Baressays account with a friend and I honestly for the life of me can't figure it out. Sometimes I will read answers that miss several major issues, are disorganized, but the right rules are somewhere in there and they'll hit 65s. Then I'll go over 55s for the same essay and the quality is not that different at all. And yet other times I'll see answers that I think are solid -- adequate but not mind blowing -- and they somehow hit 75-80.

Could really use a pep talk if anyone has helpful words to offer. Don't mean to come off as whiny or anything, just seriously having anxiety about all this.

atticus89 wrote:Looking for some guidance with limited time remaining. I may get flamed for this post, but I've had trouble dealing with anxiety regarding this test and I was wondering if anyone could reason with me.

So, I haven't had a chance to write a bunch of essays out fully. I've written probably 1-2 for each subject, so probably around 20 total. I've tried to outline an additional 2 essays per subject. Based on the data I've seen that most essay issues repeat from previous exams my essay study has been mostly: skimming outlines, setting general essay structure guides for each subject, and memorizing every rule that appears in the Barbri essays. So, for example, Barbri gives 8 old essays per subject and I made notecards for each rule that appeared and memorized those (there is a lot of repeat stuff and some essays have few rules).

I'm a pretty good writer. I graduated from a top school in the top 5% of my class. I feel like I have a pretty good idea of how to write a law school exam, but I'm growing a little concerned that my style is too verbose for the bar. Since I've memorized a good chunk of rules I tend to hit the major issues and I don't usually run out of time (though I do go right up to the limit in most cases). My essays average about 1900-2200 words depending on the source material and the subject. I tend to go pretty heavy on analysis, though I've practiced somewhat cutting this down on clear issues and instead hitting more issues.

I might be overreacting or unnecessarily freaking out here, but I know that people who graduate at the top of their class fail all the time, especially in CA. By the time studying is over I will have completed probably 85% of my Barbri PSP, but I've also done some extra stuff (completed most of the Qs in Emanuels, did the full day and half day MBEs that are not covered in the PSP). I'm not that worried about the MBE. However, when I started the prep, I was thinking that my MBE and PTs would carry me, but now I'm not sold on that in CA. My MBEs are above average, but I'm definitely not expecting to walk in there and hit an 80+% or some absurd number, especially given the relative uncertainty surrounding Civ Pro. I've written out probably 4 full PTs, but I am by no means confident I'll pull a 65 on both for sure come test day.

On the one hand I feel really dumb for the anxiety because I'm not sure how much more I could have prepared. The biggest factor right now is I have just not been able to get a read for how the CA essays will be graded. Despite what I thought was pretty good writing ability, my Barbri feedback was largely unhelpful (I got 2 65s, 1 60, but all of these were submitted well before I started to focus in on the essays the last 2-3 weeks, and none had helpful substantive feedback -- a Ks essay I turned in was 2200 words, hit every issue except 1 minor quasi-K issue, and got a 65). I split a Baressays account with a friend and I honestly for the life of me can't figure it out. Sometimes I will read answers that miss several major issues, are disorganized, but the right rules are somewhere in there and they'll hit 65s. Then I'll go over 55s for the same essay and the quality is not that different at all. And yet other times I'll see answers that I think are solid -- adequate but not mind blowing -- and they somehow hit 75-80.

Could really use a pep talk if anyone has helpful words to offer. Don't mean to come off as whiny or anything, just seriously having anxiety about all this.

What helps me is to put my anxiety in perspective. There are millions of people who walk outside of their homes in Syria and Iraq that worry about being decapitated due to their political and/or religious affiliation. My only worry is having to study for a quiz again and having to pay some extra cash and not get paid as much for 6 months.

1. Do you discuss attorney/client privilege on PR (or is that solely for evidence)? If so, how do you distinguish it from duty of confidentiality without wasting time and being repetitive?

2. Do you bring up Prop 8 under each item of evidence on a Cali Crim Evi, even if just to waive it off it is inapplicable due to an exception?

BuenAbogado wrote:1. Do you discuss attorney/client privilege on PR (or is that solely for evidence)? If so, how do you distinguish it from duty of confidentiality without wasting time and being repetitive?

2. Do you bring up Prop 8 under each item of evidence on a Cali Crim Evi, even if just to waive it off it is inapplicable due to an exception?

1. I believe Attorney Client privilege is only for evidence.

2. I'd bring up Prop 8 any time relevant evidence might be excluded. So something like

1) This evidence is relevant
2) But this is hearsay
3) No hearsay exception, so must exclude
4) Prop 8 requires all relevant evidence in criminal cases
5) Hearsay is exception to Prop 8 so evidence stays out

Whereas if the item could get in under a hearsay exception you wouldn't have to go to the Prop 8 analysis at all.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

BuenAbogado wrote:1. Do you discuss attorney/client privilege on PR (or is that solely for evidence)? If so, how do you distinguish it from duty of confidentiality without wasting time and being repetitive?

2. Do you bring up Prop 8 under each item of evidence on a Cali Crim Evi, even if just to waive it off it is inapplicable due to an exception?

1. I believe Attorney Client privilege is only for evidence.

2. I'd bring up Prop 8 any time relevant evidence might be excluded. So something like

1) This evidence is relevant
2) But this is hearsay
3) No hearsay exception, so must exclude
4) Prop 8 requires all relevant evidence in criminal cases
5) Hearsay is exception to Prop 8 so evidence stays out

Whereas if the item could get in under a hearsay exception you wouldn't have to go to the Prop 8 analysis at all.

Obrigado.

BuenAbogado wrote:1. Do you discuss attorney/client privilege on PR (or is that solely for evidence)? If so, how do you distinguish it from duty of confidentiality without wasting time and being repetitive?

2. Do you bring up Prop 8 under each item of evidence on a Cali Crim Evi, even if just to waive it off it is inapplicable due to an exception?

1) They are completely different. I would rarely mention privilege unless it comes up in the actual context of a question (not likely).

2) This is purely a personal tactical question. For me, if Prop 8 applies, I'm putting it tip top of my essay before I type anything, that way I'm not being repetitious. Set forth the rule, the exceptions, why it's applicable or may be applicable, etc., then discuss each piece of evidence. If it applies based on the rule I set forth, bring it in and underline it.

Similar to a Community Property approach.

Quick question. Say house bought with Community Prop funds but taken title in husband's name only. This is not enough to rebut presumption of CP right? How could husband successfully argue it is SP?

smokeylarue wrote:Quick question. Say house bought with Community Prop funds but taken title in husband's name only. This is not enough to rebut presumption of CP right? How could husband successfully argue it is SP?

It depends whether it happened before 1985 or after.

smokeylarue wrote:Quick question. Say house bought with Community Prop funds but taken title in husband's name only. This is not enough to rebut presumption of CP right? How could husband successfully argue it is SP?

If at divorce, CP presumption applies:

Post-1985, he'd have to argue a valid transmutation, which requires an express declaration in writing signed by the spouse whose interests are adversely effected.

Pre-1985, Husband could argue oral transmutation in an attempt to rebut the CP presumption.

If at death, Title presumption applies. Party claiming it should be treated as CP would have to rebut w/clear and convincing evidence. Not sure why anyone in this scenario would contest as much since Husband gets it regardless (unless Wife has a valid will). In which case, bene could prove it should be treated as CP and rebut the title presumption.

BuenAbogado wrote:

smokeylarue wrote:Quick question. Say house bought with Community Prop funds but taken title in husband's name only. This is not enough to rebut presumption of CP right? How could husband successfully argue it is SP?

It depends whether it happened before 1985 or after.

What depends on this? I think it would be presumed CP because the source of the property is CP funds. The husband I guess could argue that it was a gift, but in order for that transmutation to stand (post-1985) the gift would have to be in writing.