Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
Confusedgraduate456

New
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 3:38 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Confusedgraduate456 » Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:52 pm

Calvin Murphy wrote:
Confusedgraduate456 wrote:Is there a good way to distinguish between when something is involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence) and when something is murder under depraved heart? Just got two practice questions wrong because I thought testing explosives near a school was criminal negligence (it was depraved heart) and then thought that shooting into a vacant lot was depraved heart (but it was criminal negligence). It seems somewhat arbitrary.


I'm definitely not going to write about it like this on the MEE if it comes up...but I think of it as the difference between someone doing something stupid (like pointing a roman candle at someone hoping to burn them) and someone who seems to have the psychopathic mental state that pop culture associates with murderers (playing russian roulette with someone with indifference as to whether there is a bullet in the chamber).


This is definitely helpful. Thanks!

Also, does anyone have a good summary on the introduction of character evidence, including past crimes? I'm having trouble getting it all straightened out (between crime and civil, between defendants and witnesses, etc)

LurkerTurnedMember

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:31 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LurkerTurnedMember » Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:47 am

mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
ellewoods123 wrote:quitclaim deeds confusion. actually, generally rules of marketable title confusion

I understand that when a seller conveys a quitclaim deed, there are no covenants and the seller isn't even promising he has title to what he is about to convey. But I read at some point that even in a quitclaim deed, there is an implied promise to deliver marketable title at closing. is that true?

In every conveyance, there is an implied promise to deliver marketable title. However, if AFTER closing, buyer learns he does not have marketable title, he has no recourse? Or he has recourse based on breach of one of the other type of covenants in a generally warranty deed, but no recourse if quitclaim deed because no covenants?

Help :shock:


True. Quitclaim is only as to express covenants. Implied covenant of marketable title is aways implied unless you expressly say there's no warranty as to marketable title. Remember that the implied term is only up to delivery. Once there is delivery the buyer only haas a cause of action for future covenants, if any, and real defenses.


True that the contract merges into the deed, but as to your last sentence, if there is a general warranty deed the buyer may have a cause of action for breach of present covenants, if any. Right?


You're totally right, present covenants too. I was mistakenly thinking of future grantees that may be able to enforce covenants but only future covenants because these covenants run with the land unlike present covenants.


If it's a quitclaim deed, there are no covenants in the deed. So after closing, the buyer is left on the hook? Am I understanding that right?

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:39 am

Calvin Murphy wrote:
Confusedgraduate456 wrote:Is there a good way to distinguish between when something is involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence) and when something is murder under depraved heart? Just got two practice questions wrong because I thought testing explosives near a school was criminal negligence (it was depraved heart) and then thought that shooting into a vacant lot was depraved heart (but it was criminal negligence). It seems somewhat arbitrary.


I'm definitely not going to write about it like this on the MEE if it comes up...but I think of it as the difference between someone doing something stupid (like pointing a roman candle at someone hoping to burn them) and someone who seems to have the psychopathic mental state that pop culture associates with murderers (playing russian roulette with someone with indifference as to whether there is a bullet in the chamber).


If it's an MEE question, just state the two standards. "Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life" versus criminal negligence, or recklessness under mpc. Then analyze.

I doubt the MBE will give you a close call to make. I haven't had a problem with any Barbri MBE questions on this yet, but maybe that's just me.

OTOH I did get a question wrong on a similarly murky distinction, where apparently leaving the electricity on to a transformer counts as deadly force (unjustifiable). I reasoned that this was like an electrified fence, which is obviously allowed in the defense of property.

Long story short, IMO, as long as u know the two standards i think you're good. Barbri definitely pages the envelope sometimes with tough distinctions, but I don't think the real MBE will require you to make one

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:46 am

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
ellewoods123 wrote:quitclaim deeds confusion. actually, generally rules of marketable title confusion

I understand that when a seller conveys a quitclaim deed, there are no covenants and the seller isn't even promising he has title to what he is about to convey. But I read at some point that even in a quitclaim deed, there is an implied promise to deliver marketable title at closing. is that true?

In every conveyance, there is an implied promise to deliver marketable title. However, if AFTER closing, buyer learns he does not have marketable title, he has no recourse? Or he has recourse based on breach of one of the other type of covenants in a generally warranty deed, but no recourse if quitclaim deed because no covenants?

Help :shock:


True. Quitclaim is only as to express covenants. Implied covenant of marketable title is aways implied unless you expressly say there's no warranty as to marketable title. Remember that the implied term is only up to delivery. Once there is delivery the buyer only haas a cause of action for future covenants, if any, and real defenses.


True that the contract merges into the deed, but as to your last sentence, if there is a general warranty deed the buyer may have a cause of action for breach of present covenants, if any. Right?


You're totally right, present covenants too. I was mistakenly thinking of future grantees that may be able to enforce covenants but only future covenants because these covenants run with the land unlike present covenants.


If it's a quitclaim deed, there are no covenants in the deed. So after closing, the buyer is left on the hook? Am I understanding that right?

Yes. I should've been clearer, I was simply adding a little something to my explanation. Quitclaim deeds have no express covenants.

LurkerTurnedMember

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:31 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LurkerTurnedMember » Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:04 pm

Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:37 pm

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.


You want to learn how impeachment works. Try to understand the big picture first. Extrinsic evidence is generally (almost always) not allowed for collateral matters and bad acts.

ss. Witness can be impeach through
i. Bias (lay foundation (authenticity of evidence, relevant) bring in extrinsic evidence
ii. PSI (extrinsic evidence ok but must allow party to examine W to explain it)
1. Includes grand jury, affidavit
iii. Character
1. Convictions (no misdemeanor w/o truthfulness) (not same as 803(22) hearsay exception judgment to prove a fact of the case)
2. Bad acts on cross (no extrinsic evidence)
iv. Competency
v. Bringing another W to contradict

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:39 pm

Anyone with a good summary of the rules for third parties beneficiaries wanna share it with me?

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:48 pm

mvp99 wrote:Anyone with a good summary of the rules for third parties beneficiaries wanna share it with me?


MEE Book - Additional Questions - Contracts - Question 2 - Model Answer

You're Welcome.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:57 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
mvp99 wrote:Anyone with a good summary of the rules for third parties beneficiaries wanna share it with me?


MEE Book - Additional Questions - Contracts - Question 2 - Model Answer

You're Welcome.


Good, succinct explanation. Thanks.

Additional questions.

What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?

What's an example of (i) manifest assent to the promise in a manner invited or requested by the parties? Could this be implied in the conduct of the parties or is it more narrow than that (for example, the parties asked the creditor to sign the contract)?
Last edited by mvp99 on Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LurkerTurnedMember

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:31 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LurkerTurnedMember » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:07 pm

mvp99 wrote:
LurkerTurnedMember wrote:Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.


You want to learn how impeachment works. Try to understand the big picture first. Extrinsic evidence is generally (almost always) not allowed for collateral matters and bad acts.

ss. Witness can be impeach through
i. Bias (lay foundation (authenticity of evidence, relevant) bring in extrinsic evidence
ii. PSI (extrinsic evidence ok but must allow party to examine W to explain it)
1. Includes grand jury, affidavit
iii. Character
1. Convictions (no misdemeanor w/o truthfulness) (not same as 803(22) hearsay exception judgment to prove a fact of the case)
2. Bad acts on cross (no extrinsic evidence)
iv. Competency
v. Bringing another W to contradict


I have no idea what that means haha. I just wish the Barbri material would explain it in plain english or include all the information in the same spot. For character evidence they don't even mention extrinsic evidence anywhere I can find, just whether opinion, reputation, or specific instances can be used and when. But this doesn't tell me whether I can introduce opinion, reputation, or specific instances through extrinsic evidence or just intrinsic. When they get to the impeachment, it's a bit better, although still murky at some parts. When you add all the distinctions (types of evidence allowed, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, the different purposes) and then on top of that my state's own distinctions, it's way too much.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:28 pm

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
LurkerTurnedMember wrote:Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.


You want to learn how impeachment works. Try to understand the big picture first. Extrinsic evidence is generally (almost always) not allowed for collateral matters and bad acts.

ss. Witness can be impeach through
i. Bias (lay foundation (authenticity of evidence, relevant) bring in extrinsic evidence
ii. PSI (extrinsic evidence ok but must allow party to examine W to explain it)
1. Includes grand jury, affidavit
iii. Character
1. Convictions (no misdemeanor w/o truthfulness) (not same as 803(22) hearsay exception judgment to prove a fact of the case)
2. Bad acts on cross (no extrinsic evidence)
iv. Competency
v. Bringing another W to contradict


I have no idea what that means haha. I just wish the Barbri material would explain it in plain english or include all the information in the same spot. For character evidence they don't even mention extrinsic evidence anywhere I can find, just whether opinion, reputation, or specific instances can be used and when. But this doesn't tell me whether I can introduce opinion, reputation, or specific instances through extrinsic evidence or just intrinsic. When they get to the impeachment, it's a bit better, although still murky at some parts. When you add all the distinctions (types of evidence allowed, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, the different purposes) and then on top of that my state's own distinctions, it's way too much.

I'm not an expert but when a W testifies as to his opinion of D or D's reputation (I believe only the prosecution may use specific instances on cross) as to a pertinent character trait that is in itself a use of extrinsic evidence. W is the extrinsic evidence, right?

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:35 pm

mvp99 wrote:
LurkerTurnedMember wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
LurkerTurnedMember wrote:Does someone have a good summary on when extrinsic evidence is allowed, for character, impeachment, etc? My outlines and notes for character evidence just have distinctions based on reputation, opinion, or specific acts, but nothing about whether these things can be proved with extrinsic evidence. Would be nice if someone had a clear summary of the extrinsic/intrinsic evidence usages.


You want to learn how impeachment works. Try to understand the big picture first. Extrinsic evidence is generally (almost always) not allowed for collateral matters and bad acts.

ss. Witness can be impeach through
i. Bias (lay foundation (authenticity of evidence, relevant) bring in extrinsic evidence
ii. PSI (extrinsic evidence ok but must allow party to examine W to explain it)
1. Includes grand jury, affidavit
iii. Character
1. Convictions (no misdemeanor w/o truthfulness) (not same as 803(22) hearsay exception judgment to prove a fact of the case)
2. Bad acts on cross (no extrinsic evidence)
iv. Competency
v. Bringing another W to contradict


I have no idea what that means haha. I just wish the Barbri material would explain it in plain english or include all the information in the same spot. For character evidence they don't even mention extrinsic evidence anywhere I can find, just whether opinion, reputation, or specific instances can be used and when. But this doesn't tell me whether I can introduce opinion, reputation, or specific instances through extrinsic evidence or just intrinsic. When they get to the impeachment, it's a bit better, although still murky at some parts. When you add all the distinctions (types of evidence allowed, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, the different purposes) and then on top of that my state's own distinctions, it's way too much.

I'm not an expert but when a W testifies as to his opinion of D or D's reputation (I believe only the prosecution may use specific instances on cross) as to a pertinent character trait that is in itself a use of extrinsic evidence. W is the extrinsic evidence, right?


Use of a W is extrinsic evidence. On cross examination the prosecution may inquire as to ANY specific instances of misconduct. The prosecution may not offer extrinsic evidence regarding the misconduct.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:37 pm

I'm confused what exactly the extrinsic evidence you're talking about is. For character evidence, a witness can testify to his impression of D and D's reputation in the community. What else do u mean by extrinsic evidence? Like, a video tape of something? If yes, I believe that would be a selection act, and not appropriate. Or do.u mean when can a witness testify in general?

LurkerTurnedMember

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:31 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LurkerTurnedMember » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:49 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:I'm confused what exactly the extrinsic evidence you're talking about is. For character evidence, a witness can testify to his impression of D and D's reputation in the community. What else do u mean by extrinsic evidence? Like, a video tape of something? If yes, I believe that would be a selection act, and not appropriate. Or do.u mean when can a witness testify in general?


If D has a witness say he has a great reputation, are you limited to just asking that witness (intrinsic evidence) questions regarding D's reputation, which, since it's on cross, can be answered through opinion, reputation, or specific instances? And if it's specific instance and the witness says I dunno, can you bring in paperwork showing the incident happened (extrinsic evidence)? Or what if you wanna have your own witness follow up to D's witness (this would presumably count as extrinsic evidence) to say no D had a bad reputation? That seems like it's allowed.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:14 pm

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:I'm confused what exactly the extrinsic evidence you're talking about is. For character evidence, a witness can testify to his impression of D and D's reputation in the community. What else do u mean by extrinsic evidence? Like, a video tape of something? If yes, I believe that would be a selection act, and not appropriate. Or do.u mean when can a witness testify in general?


If D has a witness say he has a great reputation, are you limited to just asking that witness (intrinsic evidence) questions regarding D's reputation, which, since it's on cross, can be answered through opinion, reputation, or specific instances? And if it's specific instance and the witness says I dunno, can you bring in paperwork showing the incident happened (extrinsic evidence)? Or what if you wanna have your own witness follow up to D's witness (this would presumably count as extrinsic evidence) to say no D had a bad reputation? That seems like it's allowed.


Specific acts are not allowed to prove propensity.

You can try to prove motive/MO etc with a specific act, but no extrinsic evidence.

If you're talking about impeachment, questioning W of bad acts is allowed, and extrinsic evidence can generally be used, but depends on the exact rule. E.g., extrinsic is OK for prior inconsistent statement (obviously). Not allowed for prior bad acts, unless a relevant conviction or felony within last 10 years.

You can call a rebuttal witness once the door had been opened.

I think your hangup on characterizing things as extrinsic is very confusing. Just learn the specific rules, IMHO.

ellewoods123

Bronze
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ellewoods123 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:07 pm

Common law Defamation damages:

Libel and slander per se = presumed

Otherwise, does P need to show some sort of pecuniary harm? I thought I read this in a PQ and I can't find it now and it's bothering me. What am I thinking of?

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:14 pm

ellewoods123 wrote:Common law Defamation damages:

Libel and slander per se = presumed

Otherwise, does P need to show some sort of pecuniary harm? I thought I read this in a PQ and I can't find it now and it's bothering me. What am I thinking of?


I believe this is correct. If damages are not presumed you need to show special damages.

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:19 pm

ellewoods123 wrote:Common law Defamation damages:

Libel and slander per se = presumed

Otherwise, does P need to show some sort of pecuniary harm? I thought I read this in a PQ and I can't find it now and it's bothering me. What am I thinking of?


You are right. Absent libel or slander per se P must show pecuniary harm.

User avatar
goden

Gold
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:52 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby goden » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:20 pm

if there’s multiple levels of hearsay, can the fact that the outer layer is by the opposing party get the whole statement in?

for example, P is trying to introduce an out-of-court statement by D saying: "My friend told me that I was negligent."

LurkerTurnedMember

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:31 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LurkerTurnedMember » Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:24 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:
LurkerTurnedMember wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:I'm confused what exactly the extrinsic evidence you're talking about is. For character evidence, a witness can testify to his impression of D and D's reputation in the community. What else do u mean by extrinsic evidence? Like, a video tape of something? If yes, I believe that would be a selection act, and not appropriate. Or do.u mean when can a witness testify in general?


If D has a witness say he has a great reputation, are you limited to just asking that witness (intrinsic evidence) questions regarding D's reputation, which, since it's on cross, can be answered through opinion, reputation, or specific instances? And if it's specific instance and the witness says I dunno, can you bring in paperwork showing the incident happened (extrinsic evidence)? Or what if you wanna have your own witness follow up to D's witness (this would presumably count as extrinsic evidence) to say no D had a bad reputation? That seems like it's allowed.


Specific acts are not allowed to prove propensity.

You can try to prove motive/MO etc with a specific act, but no extrinsic evidence.

If you're talking about impeachment, questioning W of bad acts is allowed, and extrinsic evidence can generally be used, but depends on the exact rule. E.g., extrinsic is OK for prior inconsistent statement (obviously). Not allowed for prior bad acts, unless a relevant conviction or felony within last 10 years.

You can call a rebuttal witness once the door had been opened.

I think your hangup on characterizing things as extrinsic is very confusing. Just learn the specific rules, IMHO.


I think you're right. I'm just getting really nervous. I studied so much and it's all starting to blur together out of nerves.

apricot

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:09 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby apricot » Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:03 pm

What is the situation for amending alimony (spousal maintenance awards)? Can a sister state amend or does the State of the original spousal maintenance order have continuing jurisdiction indefinitely?

(Not talking child support, just spousal support)

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:10 pm

What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?

What's an example of (i) manifest assent to the promise in a manner invited or requested by the parties? Could this be implied in the conduct of the parties or is it more narrow than that (for example, the parties asked the creditor to sign the contract)?

User avatar
BVest

Platinum
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby BVest » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:27 pm

mvp99 wrote:What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?


Creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisor or promisee, despite not being a party. Donee beneficiary can enforce against promisor but not promisee.

(either must be vested to enforce)
Last edited by BVest on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:32 pm

BVest wrote:
mvp99 wrote:What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?


Creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisor, despite not being a party. Donee beneficiary cannot.


I think you mean the creditor beneficiary can enforce against the promisee but a donee cannot. A donee beneficiary can enforce rights against the promisor if it's rights have vested.

User avatar
BVest

Platinum
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby BVest » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:40 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
I think you mean the creditor beneficiary can enforce against the promisee but a donee cannot. A donee beneficiary can enforce rights against the promisor if it's rights have vested.


Sorry. You're right. I've edited to correct above.
Last edited by BVest on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], pvnyc, qkqhdi02 and 14 guests