Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

User avatar
Young Marino
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby Young Marino » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:15 pm

hockeyman969 wrote:
Young Marino wrote:
RC76 wrote:Although its possible they will test BE twice in a row, more likely it will be Wills and Evidence to go along with Procedure for the the MC.

this what i'm thinking too. the guy doing the BE lectures was like "yea they rarely ever test BE twice in a row.. but it's happened before."


I never count anything out and hope like crazy too though not having to deal with 120 hour rule and having strict per stripes helps. I only say about BE because the element of surprise is always there, I sat in the Javits Center last July and heard a massive sigh/groan when an article 9 essay showed up when it had just been tested in February, the girl next to me was rattled hardcore cuz her bar course told her article 9 never goes twice in a row.

I'm just wondering if they are ratcheting the difficulty of the MBE up again, the one in July seemed easier than id heard from others. Only took me 3 hours fifty minutes to burn through that puppy.

So that means UCC on the essay for us then right? Lol. I heard about like 3 people barely failing thanks to that dirty trick they pulled.

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:31 pm

Young Marino wrote:
hockeyman969 wrote:
Young Marino wrote:
RC76 wrote:Although its possible they will test BE twice in a row, more likely it will be Wills and Evidence to go along with Procedure for the the MC.

this what i'm thinking too. the guy doing the BE lectures was like "yea they rarely ever test BE twice in a row.. but it's happened before."


I never count anything out and hope like crazy too though not having to deal with 120 hour rule and having strict per stripes helps. I only say about BE because the element of surprise is always there, I sat in the Javits Center last July and heard a massive sigh/groan when an article 9 essay showed up when it had just been tested in February, the girl next to me was rattled hardcore cuz her bar course told her article 9 never goes twice in a row.

I'm just wondering if they are ratcheting the difficulty of the MBE up again, the one in July seemed easier than id heard from others. Only took me 3 hours fifty minutes to burn through that puppy.

So that means UCC on the essay for us then right? Lol. I heard about like 3 people barely failing thanks to that dirty trick they pulled.


I could see a wacko hybrid of 3/9/contracts that totally screws with people. Or they could drop 9 and property and have a priority dispute between mortgage and secured creditor with ethics. The possibilities of what 3 and 9 can do to cause horrors are endless.

Pass302
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:25 am

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby Pass302 » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:57 pm

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:53 am

Pass302 wrote:Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?


There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

User avatar
Young Marino
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby Young Marino » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:06 am

hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?


There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

182 is pretty good at this stage in the game. I take the Barbri simulated MBE this Friday just hoping for a 120 floor score

Pass302
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:25 am

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby Pass302 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:52 am

hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?


There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.


I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:04 am

Pass302 wrote:
hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?


There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.


I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.



Not my first bar exam either lol got a 168 last go round cuz I said "ahhh fuck it" the last 20 qs.. I'll have to contact my representative then. Thanks for heads up. Granted I'm done with the course already and now in cram mode.

Pass302
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:25 am

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby Pass302 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:18 pm

hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:
hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?


There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.


I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.



Not my first bar exam either lol got a 168 last go round cuz I said "ahhh fuck it" the last 20 qs.. I'll have to contact my representative then. Thanks for heads up. Granted I'm done with the course already and now in cram mode.


yeah, I took took and passed the Maryland bar in July 2016, but the MBE was only worth 1/3 of the overall score, so I focused less on it.

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:36 pm

Pass302 wrote:
hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:
hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?


There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.


I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.



Not my first bar exam either lol got a 168 last go round cuz I said "ahhh fuck it" the last 20 qs.. I'll have to contact my representative then. Thanks for heads up. Granted I'm done with the course already and now in cram mode.


yeah, I took took and passed the Maryland bar in July 2016, but the MBE was only worth 1/3 of the overall score, so I focused less on it.



Lucky you, the only thing that sucks about FL is no PTs.

Pass302
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:25 am

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby Pass302 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:35 pm

hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:
hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:
hockeyman969 wrote:
Pass302 wrote:Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?


There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.


I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.



Not my first bar exam either lol got a 168 last go round cuz I said "ahhh fuck it" the last 20 qs.. I'll have to contact my representative then. Thanks for heads up. Granted I'm done with the course already and now in cram mode.


yeah, I took took and passed the Maryland bar in July 2016, but the MBE was only worth 1/3 of the overall score, so I focused less on it.



Lucky you, the only thing that sucks about FL is no PTs.


Ugh yeah. Last July's PT' was an easy one too!

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:03 pm

Pass,

You guys get the tax brief from hell or the landlord tenant memo?

Pass302
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:25 am

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby Pass302 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:50 pm

hockeyman969 wrote:Pass,

You guys get the tax brief from hell or the landlord tenant memo?


Landlord Tenant... Glad I didn't get the tax brief from hell haha.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:56 pm

I'm really confused by one of my Florida Evidence questions. Hopefully, one of y'all can explain this to me:
[+] Spoiler
A mailman sued the defendant for $5,000 in compensatory damages, which included pain and suffering and medical expenses, as a result of a dog bite. The only issues in the case were the identity of the dog and the amount of damages. The defendant offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home.
Will the trial judge find this testimony objectionable?

Answers:
A. Yes, because propensity may not be proved by specific instances.
B. Yes, because it calls for a self-serving declaration.
C. Yes, because it calls for the conclusion of the witness.
D. No, because it is evidence of habit.

Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. Evidence of a person's habit is admissible to prove conduct in conformity with the habit on a particular occasion. A habit is a person's particular routine reaction to a specific set of circumstances. Answer choice A is incorrect because this testimony is not being provided as character evidence. Character evidence attempts to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question. This type of evidence is inadmissible. Answer choice B is incorrect because evidence of a habit is not considered a self-serving declaration. Answer choice C is incorrect because the witness is not reaching a conclusion.


The outline says the following about the Florida rule:
[+] Spoiler
Florida Point of Law: Habit Evidence
The Florida rule does not mention a person’s habit, but only “the routine practice of an organization,” which, like the federal rule, may be admitted without corroboration and without an eyewitness’s presence. See Fla. Stat. § 90.406. Florida courts, however, have admitted evidence of a person’s habit under the common-law exception. Evidence of a person’s habit is admissible to corroborate other evidence that shows the habit occurred at a relevant time, but, unlike the federal rule, it is not admissible as direct evidence without corroboration. Peter Nicolas, Florida and Federal Evidence Rules With Commentary (2009–10) 77 (citing sources).


I totally understand why this is habit under the Federal Rules. What I don't understand is why it is acceptable habit evidence under the Florida rule. Can someone explain what evidence it is corroborating? I must be misunderstanding that.

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:53 am

lavarman84 wrote:I'm really confused by one of my Florida Evidence questions. Hopefully, one of y'all can explain this to me:
[+] Spoiler
A mailman sued the defendant for $5,000 in compensatory damages, which included pain and suffering and medical expenses, as a result of a dog bite. The only issues in the case were the identity of the dog and the amount of damages. The defendant offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home.
Will the trial judge find this testimony objectionable?

Answers:
A. Yes, because propensity may not be proved by specific instances.
B. Yes, because it calls for a self-serving declaration.
C. Yes, because it calls for the conclusion of the witness.
D. No, because it is evidence of habit.

Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. Evidence of a person's habit is admissible to prove conduct in conformity with the habit on a particular occasion. A habit is a person's particular routine reaction to a specific set of circumstances. Answer choice A is incorrect because this testimony is not being provided as character evidence. Character evidence attempts to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question. This type of evidence is inadmissible. Answer choice B is incorrect because evidence of a habit is not considered a self-serving declaration. Answer choice C is incorrect because the witness is not reaching a conclusion.


The outline says the following about the Florida rule:
[+] Spoiler
Florida Point of Law: Habit Evidence
The Florida rule does not mention a person’s habit, but only “the routine practice of an organization,” which, like the federal rule, may be admitted without corroboration and without an eyewitness’s presence. See Fla. Stat. § 90.406. Florida courts, however, have admitted evidence of a person’s habit under the common-law exception. Evidence of a person’s habit is admissible to corroborate other evidence that shows the habit occurred at a relevant time, but, unlike the federal rule, it is not admissible as direct evidence without corroboration. Peter Nicolas, Florida and Federal Evidence Rules With Commentary (2009–10) 77 (citing sources).


I totally understand why this is habit under the Federal Rules. What I don't understand is why it is acceptable habit evidence under the Florida rule. Can someone explain what evidence it is corroborating? I must be misunderstanding that.


Ahhh, state evidence rules and how they screw with you. First premise the book is right, habit is only good for a routine practice of an organization in Florida. Habit of persons is subject to a trial judge's discretion of probative value and corroborating other evidence.

Here the identity of el angry pooch is at issue and if a mailman is bit by a dog, what are you naturally going to say? It's not my dog that bit you, there are tons of other dogs out there, how do you know my dog even got out? I always latch the gate to the kennel, never let my dog out.

From my rudimentary argument above, and this is a stretch, I'm guessing the habit of this person latching the kennel is to corroborate the defense (you're supposed to supply, much like imaginary statutes and negligence per se--yeah they don't give statutes in florida) and probative to the issue of which dog bit the mailman.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby lavarman84 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:27 am

I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:00 am

lavarman84 wrote:I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.


The direct evidence is the fact that the identity of which dog bit the mailman and the defense proferred. It's relevant and corroborates the statement that it wasn't the guy's dog. It doesn't corroborate the action because with a person it can't corroborate the action...I hope that helps.

If the dog's identity weren't in issue, it would be inadmissible.

The latching the gate corroborates the defense.

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby lavarman84 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:50 pm

hockeyman969 wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.


The direct evidence is the fact that the identity of which dog bit the mailman and the defense proferred. It's relevant and corroborates the statement that it wasn't the guy's dog. It doesn't corroborate the action because with a person it can't corroborate the action...I hope that helps.

If the dog's identity weren't in issue, it would be inadmissible.

The latching the gate corroborates the defense.


My issue is that all is implied from the question rather than express. My assumption was with a question on habit that they would need to be express about the direct evidence it corroborates, but I guess that's hoping for too much.

User avatar
mehiguess
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby mehiguess » Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:06 pm

My most difficult call of the question prompt is, "strongest argument" or best argument". I've been taught to pick an answer that: A)does not add new facts and, B)is technically the only right answer; basically saying that the "strongest" or "best" is a misnomer. I consistently get these wrong, either because I fail to recognize the strongest argument or what I think is the strongest argument is not rooted in existing law. Anyone else have issues here? Any help is appreciated.

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:34 pm

lavarman84 wrote:
hockeyman969 wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.


The direct evidence is the fact that the identity of which dog bit the mailman and the defense proferred. It's relevant and corroborates the statement that it wasn't the guy's dog. It doesn't corroborate the action because with a person it can't corroborate the action...I hope that helps.

If the dog's identity weren't in issue, it would be inadmissible.

The latching the gate corroborates the defense.


My issue is that all is implied from the question rather than express. My assumption was with a question on habit that they would need to be express about the direct evidence it corroborates, but I guess that's hoping for too much.


Look at negligence per se, you have to imply that from the fact pattern too. Any other jurisdiction gives a statute.

not guilty
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:22 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby not guilty » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:07 pm

lavarman84 wrote:I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

I guess it is not corroborating direct evidence per se, but more corroborating the defense as a whole.

hockeyman969
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:17 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby hockeyman969 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:11 pm

not guilty wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

I guess it is not corroborating direct evidence per se, but more corroborating the defense as a whole.


That's my guess as well. On another note, I'm enjoying
extra study time from the NJ govt shutdown lol.

RC76
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 4:26 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby RC76 » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:34 am

I was originally thinking we would get Wills and Evidence for the FL MC, but we are due for the rare double shot of BE and Wills. They haven't done that since Feb 2014. T- 3 weeks!

User avatar
lavarman84
#MAGA
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby lavarman84 » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:05 pm

RC76 wrote:I was originally thinking we would get Wills and Evidence for the FL MC, but we are due for the rare double shot of BE and Wills. They haven't done that since Feb 2014. T- 3 weeks!


BE doesn't seem too bad. I hate Wills and Trusts. Gonna have to work my ass off to learn it.

redsox550
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:15 am

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby redsox550 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:32 pm

I'm confused, can someone clarify what subjects get tested on the FL MC, is it only Corporations, vic pro, evidence and wills?

User avatar
foundingfather
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:31 pm

Re: Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread

Postby foundingfather » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:28 am

redsox550 wrote:I'm confused, can someone clarify what subjects get tested on the FL MC, is it only Corporations, vic pro, evidence and wills?


these are the historically tested Florida multiple choice subjects:

civil procedure
criminal procedure
judicial procedure
florida evidence distinctions
wills and estates (i think trusts is usually tested as an essay)
business partnerships
corporations

procedure is the only subject guaranteed to be on the bar exam




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 6TimeFailure, airdudeme, corcoran00, Got'eem, iWin, KGE, nervous_wreck, oxie, shawn11h, Thrive, vaheezy, wafflehausenberg and 65 guests