RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

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

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:01 pm

RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby Widomar » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:02 pm

So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?

AspiringCALawyer

New
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:50 pm

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby AspiringCALawyer » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:13 pm

Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?


That's hard to say. Your answer would likely be incomplete; however, with headings that captured the main arguments could garner a decent amount of points perhaps. The library had the code, sections 40 and 65 and others plus a couple of cases and treatise you could've used.

sflyr2016

Bronze
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:47 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby sflyr2016 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:22 pm

Are you allowed to discuss bar questions given that some ppl may have not taken the exam yet? Just feel like you guys should be very careful.

Widomar

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:01 pm

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby Widomar » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:24 pm

My impression is that everyone has taken this portion of the test. No possibility for cheating at this point. this portion of the exam will not be administered at any later point in time.

poundcr

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:12 pm

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby poundcr » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:30 pm

apparently people haven't taken PT A yet
Last edited by poundcr on Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

loh

New
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby loh » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:57 pm

No you are not screwed. Last July I skipped the entire fact section of a memo when the prompt explicitly said to write one. And I didn't use all the library material. Still got 65.

webersan

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:49 pm

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby webersan » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:10 am

Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?



You aren't totally doomed because Section 40 and Section 65 were really important to the case and therefore were important to pull from the library. If you at least mentioned them then you'll get decent credit. The cases were more for arguing against the other side's argument than arguing for your own, so if you put together a cogent argument against opposing counsel's position without the cases then you may survive. Obviously, ignoring cases is bad and you'll have a pretty tough time getting above a 60 on this PT. Fortunately the Thursday PT was straightforward so if you pulled out a 70+ on it you'll have a fighting chance to pass, assuming the rest of your Tuesday PT was on point.

Golden gun

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:20 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby Golden gun » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:29 am

Probably less screwed than I am.

I did not even do task 2 on PT B since I ran out of time.

Tasks 3,4, and 5 all had one sentence each briefly decsribing which section and who could recover what. One sentence on what was left to do before filing. Smh

2TimesTheCharm

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:43 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby 2TimesTheCharm » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:04 am

Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?


You're okay. You probably won't get 65 missing the rest of the statutes and both cases, but if you formatted correctly, wrote persuasively, and at least made an effort to use the facts in the brief, you might get a 60. Don't beat yourself up over it. Everyone made mistakes on the essays and PT's. For me, part 1 of essay 1 is wrong, and I used FRCP so parts 2 and 3 are half credit best. Then I missed the merger issue on essay 2, and forgot to account for the difference between present and future covenants of title. So probably looking at a 55/50 between the two. (I should rename myself 3TimestheCharm)

EZ as AsDf

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:54 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby EZ as AsDf » Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:47 pm

.
Last edited by EZ as AsDf on Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

trojankid09

New
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:18 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby trojankid09 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:11 pm

2TimesTheCharm wrote:
Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?


You're okay. You probably won't get 65 missing the rest of the statutes and both cases, but if you formatted correctly, wrote persuasively, and at least made an effort to use the facts in the brief, you might get a 60. Don't beat yourself up over it. Everyone made mistakes on the essays and PT's. For me, part 1 of essay 1 is wrong, and I used FRCP so parts 2 and 3 are half credit best. Then I missed the merger issue on essay 2, and forgot to account for the difference between present and future covenants of title. So probably looking at a 55/50 between the two. (I should rename myself 3TimestheCharm)


Would you really get dropped to a 55/50 just for missing the merger issue and forgetting to account for the diff between present and future covs?! That seems harsh...

Neveragain

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:37 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby Neveragain » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:22 pm

2TimesTheCharm wrote:
Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?


You're okay. You probably won't get 65 missing the rest of the statutes and both cases, but if you formatted correctly, wrote persuasively, and at least made an effort to use the facts in the brief, you might get a 60. Don't beat yourself up over it. Everyone made mistakes on the essays and PT's. For me, part 1 of essay 1 is wrong, and I used FRCP so parts 2 and 3 are half credit best. Then I missed the merger issue on essay 2, and forgot to account for the difference between present and future covenants of title. So probably looking at a 55/50 between the two. (I should rename myself 3TimestheCharm)


Ok, so since all who have accoms have now finished testing, can anyone say "how many issues" you found on PTA? We all know that it was dedication vs. actual dedication, and automatic dedication once acquired by the public entity(P's position)
What were the others? If we can't discuss specifics can anyone say "how many other issues" they found? Reason I ask is that I have been told by tutors that there are at least 3-5 issues per PT you need to find in order to get a pass.

User avatar
chicoalto0649

Silver
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby chicoalto0649 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:54 pm

Neveragain wrote:
2TimesTheCharm wrote:
Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?


You're okay. You probably won't get 65 missing the rest of the statutes and both cases, but if you formatted correctly, wrote persuasively, and at least made an effort to use the facts in the brief, you might get a 60. Don't beat yourself up over it. Everyone made mistakes on the essays and PT's. For me, part 1 of essay 1 is wrong, and I used FRCP so parts 2 and 3 are half credit best. Then I missed the merger issue on essay 2, and forgot to account for the difference between present and future covenants of title. So probably looking at a 55/50 between the two. (I should rename myself 3TimestheCharm)


Ok, so since all who have accoms have now finished testing, can anyone say "how many issues" you found on PTA? We all know that it was dedication vs. actual dedication, and automatic dedication once acquired by the public entity(P's position)
What were the others? If we can't discuss specifics can anyone say "how many other issues" they found? Reason I ask is that I have been told by tutors that there are at least 3-5 issues per PT you need to find in order to get a pass.


The PT basically lifted from the case linked below. My memory fails me but if you read this it will probably all come screaming back

http://blog.aklandlaw.com/uploads/file/Ste%20Marie.pdf

2TimesTheCharm

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:43 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby 2TimesTheCharm » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:25 pm

Neveragain wrote:
2TimesTheCharm wrote:
Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?


You're okay. You probably won't get 65 missing the rest of the statutes and both cases, but if you formatted correctly, wrote persuasively, and at least made an effort to use the facts in the brief, you might get a 60. Don't beat yourself up over it. Everyone made mistakes on the essays and PT's. For me, part 1 of essay 1 is wrong, and I used FRCP so parts 2 and 3 are half credit best. Then I missed the merger issue on essay 2, and forgot to account for the difference between present and future covenants of title. So probably looking at a 55/50 between the two. (I should rename myself 3TimestheCharm)


Ok, so since all who have accoms have now finished testing, can anyone say "how many issues" you found on PTA? We all know that it was dedication vs. actual dedication, and automatic dedication once acquired by the public entity(P's position)
What were the others? If we can't discuss specifics can anyone say "how many other issues" they found? Reason I ask is that I have been told by tutors that there are at least 3-5 issues per PT you need to find in order to get a pass.


I think everyone, accommodations included, are done with PT1. I think we can talk about the essays, given that multiple bar prep courses make youtube videos about them shortly after the exam.

As for PT1, I put 4 sequential arguments to prove the merits of our position, and 5 reasons why Plaintiff's arguments were unsound.

bnghle234

Bronze
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby bnghle234 » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:57 pm

2TimesTheCharm wrote:
Neveragain wrote:
2TimesTheCharm wrote:
Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?


You're okay. You probably won't get 65 missing the rest of the statutes and both cases, but if you formatted correctly, wrote persuasively, and at least made an effort to use the facts in the brief, you might get a 60. Don't beat yourself up over it. Everyone made mistakes on the essays and PT's. For me, part 1 of essay 1 is wrong, and I used FRCP so parts 2 and 3 are half credit best. Then I missed the merger issue on essay 2, and forgot to account for the difference between present and future covenants of title. So probably looking at a 55/50 between the two. (I should rename myself 3TimestheCharm)


Ok, so since all who have accoms have now finished testing, can anyone say "how many issues" you found on PTA? We all know that it was dedication vs. actual dedication, and automatic dedication once acquired by the public entity(P's position)
What were the others? If we can't discuss specifics can anyone say "how many other issues" they found? Reason I ask is that I have been told by tutors that there are at least 3-5 issues per PT you need to find in order to get a pass.


I think everyone, accommodations included, are done with PT1. I think we can talk about the essays, given that multiple bar prep courses make youtube videos about them shortly after the exam.

As for PT1, I put 4 sequential arguments to prove the merits of our position, and 5 reasons why Plaintiff's arguments were unsound.
where are said videos?

LockBox

Bronze
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby LockBox » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:18 pm

Widomar wrote:So, i'm an idiot apparently. i wrote 1800 words for the CA PT without even looking at the Library. I read the client file (duh) and saw the scratch paper. But the Library was UNDER the scratch paper. I submitted my entire PT without even having read it. I BASED MY ENTIRE PT ON THE FUCKING CLIENT FILE. Essentially my argument centered around not using the land for district park purposes and "formally declared" park land or w.e. Section 40, 65 and common law made a brief appearance.
so, how fucked am I?


This is not intended to be mean, but I have a few questions if this is not a flame:

1. Have you ever done a PT before? If so, have you ever attempted one where there wasn't a library (genuine question)?

2. In broader terms, have you come across a PT where there isn't any law cited?

Is it true that people are saying you will be "okay" when you completed a PT without any reference to the law? The only reason that I think you won't be killed by this is because there is generally a narrow window for PT's ranging typically from 55 - 70/75.

User avatar
MsAvocadoPit

Bronze
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:20 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby MsAvocadoPit » Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:57 pm

how terrible would my score be by leaving out any discussion of policy/purpose of that particular statute in PT-B? B/c I didn't add it, kicking myself, b/c I wrote it down on scratch paper... did not get to it later. I think it could have fit in under a subpart in Q1 (friend did this, sounded good), and in Q2.

teabreeze

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:43 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby teabreeze » Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:32 pm

MsAvocadoPit wrote:how terrible would my score be by leaving out any discussion of policy/purpose of that particular statute in PT-B? B/c I didn't add it, kicking myself, b/c I wrote it down on scratch paper... did not get to it later. I think it could have fit in under a subpart in Q1 (friend did this, sounded good), and in Q2.


Policy/purpose was relevant, but not hugely important. I doubt they'll ding you for that as long as you got the main law down and applied it decently.

2TimesTheCharm

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:43 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby 2TimesTheCharm » Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:17 pm

MsAvocadoPit wrote:how terrible would my score be by leaving out any discussion of policy/purpose of that particular statute in PT-B? B/c I didn't add it, kicking myself, b/c I wrote it down on scratch paper... did not get to it later. I think it could have fit in under a subpart in Q1 (friend did this, sounded good), and in Q2.


what do you mean by policy/purpose of a particular statute? Q1 and Q2 were based on different statutes

User avatar
MsAvocadoPit

Bronze
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:20 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby MsAvocadoPit » Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:35 pm

2TimesTheCharm wrote:
MsAvocadoPit wrote:how terrible would my score be by leaving out any discussion of policy/purpose of that particular statute in PT-B? B/c I didn't add it, kicking myself, b/c I wrote it down on scratch paper... did not get to it later. I think it could have fit in under a subpart in Q1 (friend did this, sounded good), and in Q2.


what do you mean by policy/purpose of a particular statute? Q1 and Q2 were based on different statutes


Policy for Q1 Could have been more general I guess- reasons for why class cert elements could or could not be satisfied. Didn't add anything for that myself, my friend told me what she put, sounded good. Maybe that's more of a play on the facts beyond just the underlying violations (basically i said here are violations, and why they are too different.. No class cert). Policy for Q2 would be that directly from statute/cases. So you're right- it would have been diff for Q1/Q2. I am conflating the two. It's mushing together in my head.

I'm hoping my law analysis will carry me- felt really good about that and since PT was heavy on law rather than facts... Maybe I'm okay.

2TimesTheCharm

New
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:43 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby 2TimesTheCharm » Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:46 pm

MsAvocadoPit wrote:
2TimesTheCharm wrote:
MsAvocadoPit wrote:how terrible would my score be by leaving out any discussion of policy/purpose of that particular statute in PT-B? B/c I didn't add it, kicking myself, b/c I wrote it down on scratch paper... did not get to it later. I think it could have fit in under a subpart in Q1 (friend did this, sounded good), and in Q2.


what do you mean by policy/purpose of a particular statute? Q1 and Q2 were based on different statutes


Policy for Q1 Could have been more general I guess- reasons for why class cert elements could or could not be satisfied. Didn't add anything for that myself, my friend told me what she put, sounded good. Maybe that's more of a play on the facts beyond just the underlying violations (basically i said here are violations, and why they are too different.. No class cert). Policy for Q2 would be that directly from statute/cases. So you're right- it would have been diff for Q1/Q2. I am conflating the two. It's mushing together in my head.

I'm hoping my law analysis will carry me- felt really good about that and since PT was heavy on law rather than facts... Maybe I'm okay.


I think you're fine just sticking to legal analysis. I'm still not sure what policy arguments we could have made, but one of the cases said we could get more information through discovery, so I used that as a push for more info and said that until we have more info, the class cert questions could not be adequately answered. It's just one approach, but fwiw, I didn't go the policy route either

User avatar
MsAvocadoPit

Bronze
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:20 am

Re: RE: CA PT - How screwed am I? Didn't see Library

Postby MsAvocadoPit » Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:11 pm

2TimesTheCharm wrote:
MsAvocadoPit wrote:
2TimesTheCharm wrote:
MsAvocadoPit wrote:how terrible would my score be by leaving out any discussion of policy/purpose of that particular statute in PT-B? B/c I didn't add it, kicking myself, b/c I wrote it down on scratch paper... did not get to it later. I think it could have fit in under a subpart in Q1 (friend did this, sounded good), and in Q2.


what do you mean by policy/purpose of a particular statute? Q1 and Q2 were based on different statutes


Policy for Q1 Could have been more general I guess- reasons for why class cert elements could or could not be satisfied. Didn't add anything for that myself, my friend told me what she put, sounded good. Maybe that's more of a play on the facts beyond just the underlying violations (basically i said here are violations, and why they are too different.. No class cert). Policy for Q2 would be that directly from statute/cases. So you're right- it would have been diff for Q1/Q2. I am conflating the two. It's mushing together in my head.

I'm hoping my law analysis will carry me- felt really good about that and since PT was heavy on law rather than facts... Maybe I'm okay.


I think you're fine just sticking to legal analysis. I'm still not sure what policy arguments we could have made, but one of the cases said we could get more information through discovery, so I used that as a push for more info and said that until we have more info, the class cert questions could not be adequately answered. It's just one approach, but fwiw, I didn't go the policy route either


Thanks - I have been a mess, so that is a tiny relief. I too added the "more discovery" case law to show something else could be done despite current lack of commonality.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MRSP and 24 guests