Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[somuchbooty]

I probably shouldn't have done the practice test so late, but can someone explain to me why they chose the 200 worst worded questions they could find for this? Cool confidence boost.

[anon sequitur]

For a question that 91% of people missed, and the incorrect answers were all chosen with approximately equal frequency, Themis decides that four sentences are an adequate explanation, and that two of those sentences can be "Answer choice A is correct" and "Thus, answer choices B and D are incorrect".

Shouldn't the harder questions actually have more explanations?

[gr8scOtt!]

Can anyone summarize conflicts of interest in PR? Current clients, prospective clients, imputation, etc. In just a couple of sentences?

I keep looking at my notes and my eyes just glaze over, so it's not really sticking in my head

you can never represent adverse parties (obvs). if the conflict comes from your former client or the client of someone else in your firm, you also need informed consent from both parties AND the representation can't be materially limiting. if you have an incoming lawyer with a bunch of conflicts, you can impute all the existing lawyers to his conflicts from his former jobs. you can also impute if a lawyer in the firm has learned conflicting info from a potential client (i.e. the example where a spouse goes to every divorce lawyer in town and tells his story in the hopes that they're conflicted out of representing his wife- in that case, the whole firm isn't conflicted out, they're just screened from the one lawyer he told the story to).

that's def not everything but a good place to start

thank you!

[zor]

Question about the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. Under the common law/multistate, assuming the suspect is no longer within wingspan/reaching distance of the car, a cop only need reasonable suspicion that a weapon or evidence of the crime of arrest will be found within the vehicle to go rummaging around, right? And this includes locked containers/compartments like a glove compartment or lock box?

And in NY, the cop needs probable cause to do the same. Is that right?

I just got a NY distinctions essay that's confusing me.

Bumping my own question... can a NYer out there confirm?

[juniormint33]

I feel like my brain is locking me out today. Every time I open my materials to review it's like, "Nope. Closed on Sundays. Bye."

[eloise16]

I feel like my brain is locking me out today. Every time I open my materials to review it's like, "Nope. Closed on Sundays. Bye."

This. Is. So. Accurate. It's like my brain is at a tipping point and it's warning me that if I try to learn any more material it will let the rest of the already memorized material loose.

[Confused7]

Question about the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. Under the common law/multistate, assuming the suspect is no longer within wingspan/reaching distance of the car, a cop only need reasonable suspicion that a weapon or evidence of the crime of arrest will be found within the vehicle to go rummaging around, right? And this includes locked containers/compartments like a glove compartment or lock box?

And in NY, the cop needs probable cause to do the same. Is that right?

I just got a NY distinctions essay that's confusing me.

Bumping my own question... can a NYer out there confirm?

Yeah I was confused by that too. I think that's the GENERAL law. The NY law is more strict - the officer needs probable cause to think that evidence or instrumentalities of an offense are located in a car. I don't think reasonable belief suffices.

[smalogna]

Question about the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. Under the common law/multistate, assuming the suspect is no longer within wingspan/reaching distance of the car, a cop only need reasonable suspicion that a weapon or evidence of the crime of arrest will be found within the vehicle to go rummaging around, right? And this includes locked containers/compartments like a glove compartment or lock box?

And in NY, the cop needs probable cause to do the same. Is that right?

I just got a NY distinctions essay that's confusing me.

Bumping my own question... can a NYer out there confirm?

Yeah I was confused by that too. I think that's the GENERAL law. The NY law is more strict - the officer needs probable cause to think that evidence or instrumentalities of an offense are located in a car. I don't think reasonable belief suffices.

Not quite. Under Multistate, you need PC to search a vehicle UNLESS it is incident to arrest then you can search the vehicle interior but not the trunk if reasonable belief evidence of crime arrested for may be found in vehicle. PC required to search trunk under all circumstances

In NY, even incident to arrest, need PC to search vehicle once defendant is secured and removed from vehicle. Basically in NY once officer safety is assured you need PC to continue search.

[MZaf]

Question about the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. Under the common law/multistate, assuming the suspect is no longer within wingspan/reaching distance of the car, a cop only need reasonable suspicion that a weapon or evidence of the crime of arrest will be found within the vehicle to go rummaging around, right? And this includes locked containers/compartments like a glove compartment or lock box?

And in NY, the cop needs probable cause to do the same. Is that right?

I just got a NY distinctions essay that's confusing me.

Bumping my own question... can a NYer out there confirm?

these are two different ideas... In New York
With the vehicle exception to a warrant requirement, a cop can search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found in the car. Regardless if the defendant was in the car prior, or away from the car. The issues here come when the vehicle is parked in a driveway rather than parked in the street. the vehicle exception to a warrant requirement is based on the mobility of a car. But the probable cause will allow them to search the whole car. NY and Federal the same

the search incident to an arrest is another way to search a car. Under this exception in New York. police can search the the reachable areas while defendant is mobile, but once secure, the police may search the vehicle if they have " reason to believe" evidence of the crime for which they were pulled over for, would be found (there must be a nexus between the two). they would be able to search the car, but the scope of the search may not be as wide as if there was probable cause in the vehicle exception. (you might not be allowed to search the trunk of a car if you pull someone over for drunk driving because there would not be a strong nexus between the trunk of the car and drunk driving because you can't drink while its in the trunk, but you may be able to search the floor of the car and areas in the car where alcohol might be kept by the driver.
and with Federal- the "reason to believe" is the same analysis. But in some instances, even when the defendant has gotten out of his car, the police can open the car and search for weapons as incident to arrest, which New York you cannot do.

[zor]

Question about the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. Under the common law/multistate, assuming the suspect is no longer within wingspan/reaching distance of the car, a cop only need reasonable suspicion that a weapon or evidence of the crime of arrest will be found within the vehicle to go rummaging around, right? And this includes locked containers/compartments like a glove compartment or lock box?

And in NY, the cop needs probable cause to do the same. Is that right?

I just got a NY distinctions essay that's confusing me.

Bumping my own question... can a NYer out there confirm?

these are two different ideas...
With the vehicle exception to a warrant requirement, a cop can search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found in the car. Regardless if the defendant was in the car prior, or away from the car. The issues here come when the vehicle is parked in a driveway rather than parked in the street. the vehicle exception to a warrant requirement is based on the mobility of a car.

the search incident to an arrest is another way to search a car. Under this exception. police can search the the reachable areas while defendant is mobile, but once secure, the police may search the vehicle if they have " reason to believe" evidence of the crime for which they were pulled over for, would be found, or if they find evidence of another crime while searching the defendant after he is arrested, the can search the car as well.

in an example... a car was involved in a shooting and the license plate was taken down by the victim. an officer is driving around and sees the car parked in a parking lot and suspect is not around. Cop can search the vehicle because probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is in it.(vehicle exception)... example 2.... some guy is pulled over for speeding, you see he is drunk, you search him after the arrest and find nothing. you can search the vehicle if you have reason to believe there is alcohol, but that's it.

it revolves around this... vehicle exception = probable cause evidence of a crime is in the car (regardless if suspect was arrested or not)/ Search of a car incident to arrest = defendant was arrested, and there is a nexus between the search and the reason for the arrest.

I should have clarified--I'm only talking about traffic stops where the guy has been removed from the car and arrested and secured, not the general vehicle exception. I think you're describing the general/common law correctly but the essay said that in NY, even where they've removed the guy from the car at the traffic stop, the police need probable cause to search the car--reasonable suspicion of evidence was not enough (but I remember it being enough on the MBE). The NY distinction only has to do with traffic stops where the common law has a lower threshold than NY. smalogna's explanation aligns with mine.

[imdonezo]

Can someone explain to me 3rd Party Beneficiaries in these contexts?

1) A contracts with B. B owes A $1,000. A tells B to give the $1,000 to C (assigning A's rights to C). A tells C that B will give her money. C goes out and buys $1,000 worth of stuff on her credit card. B later gives $1,000 to A. Can C sue B for not giving her the money?

2) Same facts as above, EXCEPT B doesn't give money at all to A. Can C sue B for payment?

I've been really confused whether incidental beneficiaries can ever vest by detrimental reliance if they had notice (like A telling C that B will give her money).

Also, is there a difference between creditor/donee beneficiaries as to how their interests vest?

If anyone can tell me how they handle assignments of payment on K questions, I would greatly appreciate it! (e.g., who owes who the money, who can sue whom).

Thanks!

[kgus22]

My flight to Albany today got cancelled. Now my rebooked flight is delayed. Already getting in later than planned...hope I make my connection. Can't handle this!

[MZaf]

Question about the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. Under the common law/multistate, assuming the suspect is no longer within wingspan/reaching distance of the car, a cop only need reasonable suspicion that a weapon or evidence of the crime of arrest will be found within the vehicle to go rummaging around, right? And this includes locked containers/compartments like a glove compartment or lock box?

And in NY, the cop needs probable cause to do the same. Is that right?

I just got a NY distinctions essay that's confusing me.

Bumping my own question... can a NYer out there confirm?

these are two different ideas...
With the vehicle exception to a warrant requirement, a cop can search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found in the car. Regardless if the defendant was in the car prior, or away from the car. The issues here come when the vehicle is parked in a driveway rather than parked in the street. the vehicle exception to a warrant requirement is based on the mobility of a car.

the search incident to an arrest is another way to search a car. Under this exception. police can search the the reachable areas while defendant is mobile, but once secure, the police may search the vehicle if they have " reason to believe" evidence of the crime for which they were pulled over for, would be found, or if they find evidence of another crime while searching the defendant after he is arrested, the can search the car as well.

in an example... a car was involved in a shooting and the license plate was taken down by the victim. an officer is driving around and sees the car parked in a parking lot and suspect is not around. Cop can search the vehicle because probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is in it.(vehicle exception)... example 2.... some guy is pulled over for speeding, you see he is drunk, you search him after the arrest and find nothing. you can search the vehicle if you have reason to believe there is alcohol, but that's it.

it revolves around this... vehicle exception = probable cause evidence of a crime is in the car (regardless if suspect was arrested or not)/ Search of a car incident to arrest = defendant was arrested, and there is a nexus between the search and the reason for the arrest.

I should have clarified--I'm only talking about traffic stops where the guy has been removed from the car and arrested and secured, not the general vehicle exception. I think you're describing the general/common law correctly but the essay said that in NY, even where they've removed the guy from the car at the traffic stop, the police need probable cause to search the car--reasonable suspicion of evidence was not enough (but I remember it being enough on the MBE). The NY distinction only has to do with traffic stops where the common law has a lower threshold than NY. smalogna's explanation aligns with mine.

Responded too quickly.. I edited my response. I wrote the distinction between the two, because it sounds like your mixing up where the differences are. In New York, after a valid traffic stop, you can search a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in it, even if there is no nexus between the traffic stop and the reason for the search. But, if you have no probable cause, than you can search the car only if you arrest the defendant, he is secure, and there is "reason to believe" evidence of the arrest is in the car (nexus) AND the search would be limited in scope compared to if there was probable cause. This is the same for NY and Federal. Where NY and Federal are different, is that in NY once the defendant is arrested, you cannot search a bag, a car, a container, unless the nexus is there. However, in Federal, incident to the arrest, you can search those areas without anything more and with a car, even if the defendant is out of his car when you make the arrest, you may be able to search it incident to the arrest. But in New York, you wouldnt be able to search just because of the arrest.

[smalogna]

Question about the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. Under the common law/multistate, assuming the suspect is no longer within wingspan/reaching distance of the car, a cop only need reasonable suspicion that a weapon or evidence of the crime of arrest will be found within the vehicle to go rummaging around, right? And this includes locked containers/compartments like a glove compartment or lock box?

And in NY, the cop needs probable cause to do the same. Is that right?

I just got a NY distinctions essay that's confusing me.

Bumping my own question... can a NYer out there confirm?

these are two different ideas...
With the vehicle exception to a warrant requirement, a cop can search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found in the car. Regardless if the defendant was in the car prior, or away from the car. The issues here come when the vehicle is parked in a driveway rather than parked in the street. the vehicle exception to a warrant requirement is based on the mobility of a car.

the search incident to an arrest is another way to search a car. Under this exception. police can search the the reachable areas while defendant is mobile, but once secure, the police may search the vehicle if they have " reason to believe" evidence of the crime for which they were pulled over for, would be found, or if they find evidence of another crime while searching the defendant after he is arrested, the can search the car as well.

in an example... a car was involved in a shooting and the license plate was taken down by the victim. an officer is driving around and sees the car parked in a parking lot and suspect is not around. Cop can search the vehicle because probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is in it.(vehicle exception)... example 2.... some guy is pulled over for speeding, you see he is drunk, you search him after the arrest and find nothing. you can search the vehicle if you have reason to believe there is alcohol, but that's it.

it revolves around this... vehicle exception = probable cause evidence of a crime is in the car (regardless if suspect was arrested or not)/ Search of a car incident to arrest = defendant was arrested, and there is a nexus between the search and the reason for the arrest.

I should have clarified--I'm only talking about traffic stops where the guy has been removed from the car and arrested and secured, not the general vehicle exception. I think you're describing the general/common law correctly but the essay said that in NY, even where they've removed the guy from the car at the traffic stop, the police need probable cause to search the car--reasonable suspicion of evidence was not enough (but I remember it being enough on the MBE). The NY distinction only has to do with traffic stops where the common law has a lower threshold than NY. smalogna's explanation aligns with mine.

Responded too quickly.. I edited my response. I wrote the distinction between the two, because it sounds like your mixing up where the differences are. In New York, after a valid traffic stop, you can search a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in it, even if there is no nexus between the traffic stop and the reason for the search. But, if you have no probable cause, than you can search the car only if you arrest the defendant, he is secure, and there is "reason to believe" evidence of the arrest is in the car (nexus) AND the search would be limited in scope compared to if there was probable cause. This is the same for NY and Federal. Where NY and Federal are different, is that in NY once the defendant is arrested, you cannot search a bag, a car, a container, unless the nexus is there. However, in Federal, incident to the arrest, you can search those areas without anything more and with a car, even if the defendant is out of his car when you make the arrest, you may be able to search it incident to the arrest. But in New York, you wouldnt be able to search just because of the arrest.

I have to disagree with this explanation. NY once the defendant is removed from the vehicle the only way you can search the vehicle is with PC, not just nexus.

Quote from review outline: "NY Point of Law—no further search absent probable cause once occupant removed from vehicle, cannot ask about weapons without founded suspicion"

[UnamSanctam]

Can anyone summarize conflicts of interest in PR? Current clients, prospective clients, imputation, etc. In just a couple of sentences?

I keep looking at my notes and my eyes just glaze over, so it's not really sticking in my head

you can never represent adverse parties (obvs). if the conflict comes from your former client or the client of someone else in your firm, you also need informed consent from both parties AND the representation can't be materially limiting. if you have an incoming lawyer with a bunch of conflicts, you can impute all the existing lawyers to his conflicts from his former jobs. you can also impute if a lawyer in the firm has learned conflicting info from a potential client (i.e. the example where a spouse goes to every divorce lawyer in town and tells his story in the hopes that they're conflicted out of representing his wife- in that case, the whole firm isn't conflicted out, they're just screened from the one lawyer he told the story to).

that's def not everything but a good place to start

Good thing I read this post, since I forgot to review PR (and it always shows up on my state's essay portion). You just (probably) saved me from a very low PR essay in two days.

[sd5289]

I have to disagree with this explanation. NY once the defendant is removed from the vehicle the only way you can search the vehicle is with PC, not just nexus.

Quote from review outline: "NY Point of Law—no further search absent probable cause once occupant removed from vehicle, cannot ask about weapons without founded suspicion"

This is exactly right. The standard is higher in NY even though on the MBE you don't need as much to search a car.

[eloise16]

If we get an essay and completely know nothing at all about it (secured transactions I'm looking at you) is it better to be limited in what we write to try and make as much of it correct? Or is it better to bullshit the hell out of it to hope that we by chance get the right rule somewhere in there?

In other words, do we get marked down on essays for the wrong answer? Or do we only get points for stating right answers, even if in the next sentence we say something wrong?

[smalogna]

If we get an essay and completely know nothing at all about it (secured transactions I'm looking at you) is it better to be limited in what we write to try and make as much of it correct? Or is it better to bullshit the hell out of it to hope that we by chance get the right rule somewhere in there?

In other words, do we get marked down on essays for the wrong answer? Or do we only get points for stating right answers, even if in the next sentence we say something wrong?

Spew everything that comes to your mind. That was an exaggeration but do not hold back on analysis if you think it might be wrong, just be sure it's structured in a proper IRAC format and you'll score points for that. You will not lose points for bad content but you will lost points for being disorganized plus you will cause your grader's tiny attention span to disappear so any good points you make towards the end will be ignored.

[sd5289]

I am officially done. I can't do anymore (got about 87% of the way through the program). Taking tomorrow off entirely, and ended the night on a Property essay (haven't done one of those in a while), and while I was only solid on my memory of 2 of the 4 issues, I managed to get all 4. Time to play some Xbox, turn in early, wake up at a god awful hour (5am) and make it through tomorrow refraining from the urge to study (TLS doesn't count, right?).

WE'RE ALMOST THERE

[GULCPerson]

I am officially done. I can't do anymore (got about 87% of the way through the program). Taking tomorrow off entirely, and ended the night on a Property essay (haven't done one of those in a while), and while I was only solid on my memory of 2 of the 4 issues, I managed to get all 4. Time to play some Xbox, turn in early, wake up at a god awful hour (5am) and make it through tomorrow refraining from the urge to study (TLS doesn't count, right?).

WE'RE ALMOST THERE

If TLS counts, I have been doing so much more studying than I thought I was. There's no way I could fail at that rate... just gonna keep telling myself this.

[Lawbro]

For NY people, does anyone know exactly how no fault insurance works? It doesn't cover people in the other car. So do they get recovery under their own No fault insurance, or are they allowed to sue the negligent driver?

[smalogna]

For NY people, does anyone know exactly how no fault insurance works? It doesn't cover people in the other car. So do they get recovery under their own No fault insurance, or are they allowed to sue the negligent driver?

I believe they just get recovery under their own No Fault insurance. They can only sue the other driver where serious injury (fracture, non-use of extemity for long period of time) occurs or they have more than 50K in economic loss.

[Lawbro]

That seems logical. Thanks!

[Sefolifau]

I guess it's time for me to submit my Alabama Bar application. At least my past UBE scores will allow me to practice law there.

[charlieMF]

So I am definitely at my most alert/able to study the best after about 6pm. I am definitely at my worst at about 2pm. I was hoping that as the bar drew nearer, that that might change (with full nights sleep, etc). It hasn't. Therefore, it is going to be a miracle if I get through any of the afternoon sessions. Especially because they wont let you bring in candy! I might have been able to do it on a sugar high.