sflyr2016 wrote:Not very happy with barbri, especially their essay responses. They make some of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read; one would likely lose points for some of the stuff they write. I read one that said "the corporation may argue that releasing its public records would violate its right against self incrimination. [Blah, blah, blah.] However, only people have a right against self-incrimination, not corporations, so this will probably fail." (I'm paraphrasing.) If I had made that argument in a law school exam, I would have had points deducted from my exam.
My favorite might be the multi-paragraph ethics rules they tack on to the end of each essay, regardless of whether those ethical rules are relevant
I imagine the essay writers' thought process as this: Contingency fee issue? "Oh, look, extra space on the page. let's include the rules on advertising and conflicts of interest just cuz"
Yes! Those are by far the best. It'll be something like, "The facts do not mention whether the lawyer solicited his employment on the matter; but, if he did, he would have to have had adhered (typical barbri vocab/verbosity) to Florida's Rule on Solicitation requiring: (1) _, (2) _, (3) _, (4) _, (5) _, (6) _, (7) _, and (8) _. Also, the facts also do not say who is going to pay the lawyer, but if it happens to be the client's rich uncle, then the lawyer must advise him that (1) _, (2) _, and (3) _. Lastly, client can argue this is an Equal Protection Violation (they seem to love the EPC), but that would be ridiculous since this is a probate proceeding."