2017 February California Bar Exam

User avatar
rcharter1978
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:21 am

Interesting. How can students make an informed decision without that information? And won't USNWR eventually have to get it for rankings?

Rap Genius
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 2:56 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Rap Genius » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:05 pm

Can someone PM me CMR updates on the property section of the MBE?

Msnegativity
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 4:48 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Msnegativity » Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:39 pm

pml87 wrote:
Msnegativity wrote:Hi all. I was close enough to get a second read, but I definitely underestimated the PTs and essays. Kicking myself now.

Essay 1: 60
Essay 2: 57.5
Essay 3: 55
Essay 4: 60
Essay 5: 67.5
Essay 6: 65
PT A: 50
PT B: 57.5

Scaled written: 1359.6608
Scaled MBE: 1489.0
Scaled TOTAL: 1404.9295

I've got a lot of work to do, but I'm stumped on how to improve my PT score. I feel like nothing could've prepared me for PT A. Sigh.


That was unfortunate. I feel for you. On the other hand, you only need to do better on PT and one essay to pass this Feb. Re PT A, it was a classic assignment any associate would get first year in and I expect at least one PT will have something like it this Feb. You get the facts, the Black Letter, and the authorities that hint on how to apply the BL. The trick is to fast read everything, then start outlining with the BL as your big bullet point and the cases as your small one. The facts are the meat that will be regrouped under each point. Again, the trick is high concentration during 1st and 2nd reading of the facts. Make a mental or physical notes about a fact that is pertinent to either the BL or a case. The mapping out of the BL and authorities will help immensely in navigating through the facts. Practicing by reading long passages without breaking concentration. Doing this well enough and you will realize additional and more obscure facts/law that will distinguish your essay from the rest.


Thanks for your reply. It's super unfortunate. I actually had a freak out sesh in the bathroom during the first PT. My scores for that first day reflect my fragile mental state, I think. Lol. I'm hoping to come up with a game plan for the PTs (lots of practice, basically) so that I don't freak out. I think more practice will help alleviate my anxiety. I'd be interested to know how many repeaters struggle with anxiety issues. I think it may have affected my first-day scores, but honestly, WHO KNOWS! This whole thing is so arbitrary.

LockBox
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby LockBox » Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:24 pm

Msnegativity wrote:
pml87 wrote:
Msnegativity wrote:Hi all. I was close enough to get a second read, but I definitely underestimated the PTs and essays. Kicking myself now.

Essay 1: 60
Essay 2: 57.5
Essay 3: 55
Essay 4: 60
Essay 5: 67.5
Essay 6: 65
PT A: 50
PT B: 57.5

Scaled written: 1359.6608
Scaled MBE: 1489.0
Scaled TOTAL: 1404.9295

I've got a lot of work to do, but I'm stumped on how to improve my PT score. I feel like nothing could've prepared me for PT A. Sigh.


That was unfortunate. I feel for you. On the other hand, you only need to do better on PT and one essay to pass this Feb. Re PT A, it was a classic assignment any associate would get first year in and I expect at least one PT will have something like it this Feb. You get the facts, the Black Letter, and the authorities that hint on how to apply the BL. The trick is to fast read everything, then start outlining with the BL as your big bullet point and the cases as your small one. The facts are the meat that will be regrouped under each point. Again, the trick is high concentration during 1st and 2nd reading of the facts. Make a mental or physical notes about a fact that is pertinent to either the BL or a case. The mapping out of the BL and authorities will help immensely in navigating through the facts. Practicing by reading long passages without breaking concentration. Doing this well enough and you will realize additional and more obscure facts/law that will distinguish your essay from the rest.


Thanks for your reply. It's super unfortunate. I actually had a freak out sesh in the bathroom during the first PT. My scores for that first day reflect my fragile mental state, I think. Lol. I'm hoping to come up with a game plan for the PTs (lots of practice, basically) so that I don't freak out. I think more practice will help alleviate my anxiety. I'd be interested to know how many repeaters struggle with anxiety issues. I think it may have affected my first-day scores, but honestly, WHO KNOWS! This whole thing is so arbitrary.


I'll throw in my two cents. Honestly, it isn't arbitrary. Yes, one reviewer will give a particular essay a 55 and another will give it a 60 (or 65 [fine maybe even 70]) but that is one of the reasons why you have to write six (6) essays and two (2) PTs - to demonstrate an ability to write in a lawerly way consistently. (Great info/approach here: http://scientificmethodbarexam.blogspot.com/2013/05/tips-from-engineer-on-how-to-pass.html)

Excerpt: With essays you will find you can get a fairly consistent score from essay to essay. It is very rare to get an 80. It is very rare to get a 50. Most of your scores tend to hover somewhere in the middle if you listen to Jay’s advice. Similar for PTs. If you write consistently you can trust your average score will be similar on the actual exam. The lesson learned here is just write consistently. Essays and PTs account for 2/3 of the exam score and MBEs account for 1/3. One of the reasons there are 6 essays and 2 PTs is to find a person's average lawyering ability. If there was only 1 esssay and 1 PT, it could be a flip of the coin whether you ended up performing well. By having 6 essays and 2 PTs, no one grader can ruin your overall score. No one poor essay answer can take down your score. By giving you 2 days worth of writing the state bar wants to give you a fair chance to demonstrate your ability to write at a consistent AVERAGE level. Thus, the scientific approach of tracking your scores and keeping a running average should be indicative of your performance level.


I'm not trying to harp on you specifically. Rather, everyone else who thinks it's subjective/arbitrary etc. This does not help you pass the bar. It does not help anxiety when you believe that it's just luck rather than skill. Drink the kool-aid, do the work and know it will pay off. It's hard to say you just didn't cut it. I didn't cut it on my first take. It happens.

Secondly, there is some merit to saying you were close. But there is danger there as well. I know someone who scored in the 1420's their first time. Second round? 1390. I don't know specifically what happened, but I can say this - don't underestimate any portion of the exam and work hard to improve all areas.

As to the PT's here is what I would say: if you haven't written a memo in a while (e.g., since 1L), then by all means practice doing PT's. (some here say write a PT each week regardless). What worked for me was dedicating about 30 minutes to a PT where I would start as I would on the bar and review the introductory letter and outline what the PT should look like with my headings. Then I would do a very high overview of the cases/facts and try and piece together where things go, flesh out my outline even more while considering the tone I would want the writing to portrait. Then, and just as importantly, read the model answer to see how close/far off I was.

The task isn't insurmountable - it just takes consistent work.

Msnegativity
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 4:48 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Msnegativity » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:13 pm

LockBox wrote:
Msnegativity wrote:
pml87 wrote:
Msnegativity wrote:Hi all. I was close enough to get a second read, but I definitely underestimated the PTs and essays. Kicking myself now.

Essay 1: 60
Essay 2: 57.5
Essay 3: 55
Essay 4: 60
Essay 5: 67.5
Essay 6: 65
PT A: 50
PT B: 57.5

Scaled written: 1359.6608
Scaled MBE: 1489.0
Scaled TOTAL: 1404.9295

I've got a lot of work to do, but I'm stumped on how to improve my PT score. I feel like nothing could've prepared me for PT A. Sigh.


That was unfortunate. I feel for you. On the other hand, you only need to do better on PT and one essay to pass this Feb. Re PT A, it was a classic assignment any associate would get first year in and I expect at least one PT will have something like it this Feb. You get the facts, the Black Letter, and the authorities that hint on how to apply the BL. The trick is to fast read everything, then start outlining with the BL as your big bullet point and the cases as your small one. The facts are the meat that will be regrouped under each point. Again, the trick is high concentration during 1st and 2nd reading of the facts. Make a mental or physical notes about a fact that is pertinent to either the BL or a case. The mapping out of the BL and authorities will help immensely in navigating through the facts. Practicing by reading long passages without breaking concentration. Doing this well enough and you will realize additional and more obscure facts/law that will distinguish your essay from the rest.


Thanks for your reply. It's super unfortunate. I actually had a freak out sesh in the bathroom during the first PT. My scores for that first day reflect my fragile mental state, I think. Lol. I'm hoping to come up with a game plan for the PTs (lots of practice, basically) so that I don't freak out. I think more practice will help alleviate my anxiety. I'd be interested to know how many repeaters struggle with anxiety issues. I think it may have affected my first-day scores, but honestly, WHO KNOWS! This whole thing is so arbitrary.


I'll throw in my two cents. Honestly, it isn't arbitrary. Yes, one reviewer will give a particular essay a 55 and another will give it a 60 (or 65 [fine maybe even 70]) but that is one of the reasons why you have to write six (6) essays and two (2) PTs - to demonstrate an ability to write in a lawerly way consistently. (Great info/approach here: http://scientificmethodbarexam.blogspot.com/2013/05/tips-from-engineer-on-how-to-pass.html)

Excerpt: With essays you will find you can get a fairly consistent score from essay to essay. It is very rare to get an 80. It is very rare to get a 50. Most of your scores tend to hover somewhere in the middle if you listen to Jay’s advice. Similar for PTs. If you write consistently you can trust your average score will be similar on the actual exam. The lesson learned here is just write consistently. Essays and PTs account for 2/3 of the exam score and MBEs account for 1/3. One of the reasons there are 6 essays and 2 PTs is to find a person's average lawyering ability. If there was only 1 esssay and 1 PT, it could be a flip of the coin whether you ended up performing well. By having 6 essays and 2 PTs, no one grader can ruin your overall score. No one poor essay answer can take down your score. By giving you 2 days worth of writing the state bar wants to give you a fair chance to demonstrate your ability to write at a consistent AVERAGE level. Thus, the scientific approach of tracking your scores and keeping a running average should be indicative of your performance level.


I'm not trying to harp on you specifically. Rather, everyone else who thinks it's subjective/arbitrary etc. This does not help you pass the bar. It does not help anxiety when you believe that it's just luck rather than skill. Drink the kool-aid, do the work and know it will pay off. It's hard to say you just didn't cut it. I didn't cut it on my first take. It happens.

Secondly, there is some merit to saying you were close. But there is danger there as well. I know someone who scored in the 1420's their first time. Second round? 1390. I don't know specifically what happened, but I can say this - don't underestimate any portion of the exam and work hard to improve all areas.

As to the PT's here is what I would say: if you haven't written a memo in a while (e.g., since 1L), then by all means practice doing PT's. (some here say write a PT each week regardless). What worked for me was dedicating about 30 minutes to a PT where I would start as I would on the bar and review the introductory letter and outline what the PT should look like with my headings. Then I would do a very high overview of the cases/facts and try and piece together where things go, flesh out my outline even more while considering the tone I would want the writing to portrait. Then, and just as importantly, read the model answer to see how close/far off I was.

The task isn't insurmountable - it just takes consistent work.


Solid advice. I'm not trying to make excuses or anything. I failed because I focused on MBE and slacked on PTs. I've always sucked at multiple choice, so I thought I was doing the right thing by spending extra time studying for that portion of the exam. I also suck at contracts (lowest essay score). I didn't really mean that the grading is arbitrary, but rather, that the test itself is arbitrary. I am actually surprised they gave me a 50 on the first PT because it was garbage. Also, both graders gave me similar scores (give or take 5 points or so). So yeah, I agree that I just didn't cut it.

Rap Genius
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 2:56 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Rap Genius » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:53 am

.
Last edited by Rap Genius on Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ledv
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ledv » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:54 pm

looking for a former CA bar grader to review my essays for a price. It looks like the ones mentioned are all completely booked. Anyone have any references or any leads? Specifically, I'm looking for essay reviewers who will package 24 essays for x amount. Thanks!

User avatar
2807
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:23 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby 2807 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:05 pm

ledv wrote:looking for a former CA bar grader to review my essays for a price. It looks like the ones mentioned are all completely booked. Anyone have any references or any leads? Specifically, I'm looking for essay reviewers who will package 24 essays for x amount. Thanks!


Look no further:
www.bestbarsuccess.com

Ive sent many people here. He is awesome.
Normally, a live bootcamp class.
But he has done web-based help in the past, maybe he can work with you.
He is no joke. You will be in good hands.

User avatar
rcharter1978
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:35 pm

2807 wrote:
ledv wrote:looking for a former CA bar grader to review my essays for a price. It looks like the ones mentioned are all completely booked. Anyone have any references or any leads? Specifically, I'm looking for essay reviewers who will package 24 essays for x amount. Thanks!


Look no further:
http://www.bestbarsuccess.com

Ive sent many people here. He is awesome.
Normally, a live bootcamp class.
But he has done web-based help in the past, maybe he can work with you.
He is no joke. You will be in good hands.


2807 is right. I'm surprised this program is still open because it fills up quick. I assumed you had to show up in person. From what I remember they have a very very high success rate and they won't take just anyone.

I've only heard good things about this program.

However, I'm not sure anyone there is a past grader and I totally get why that is important (It was to me).

I only know of the three past graders in CA that tutor. I would talk to Patrick Lin. He was my tutor and a past CBX grader. I thought his written feedback was really good, so while his actual tutoring may be full, he may have room for someone who is okay with purely written feedback.

The other guy I spoke to nor. Cal was a former CBS grader but he only did written feedback and has a cap of 25 students. So If he is full, he probably can't take additional essays. The third guy was also in nor.cal and seemed really nice but was also full by the time I got to him.

He is a pretty flexible guy.

But if he is COMPLETELY full, I would see if you can work with the group 2807 reccomends.

ledv
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ledv » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:02 pm

rcharter1978 wrote:
2807 wrote:
ledv wrote:looking for a former CA bar grader to review my essays for a price. It looks like the ones mentioned are all completely booked. Anyone have any references or any leads? Specifically, I'm looking for essay reviewers who will package 24 essays for x amount. Thanks!


Look no further:
http://www.bestbarsuccess.com

Ive sent many people here. He is awesome.
Normally, a live bootcamp class.
But he has done web-based help in the past, maybe he can work with you.
He is no joke. You will be in good hands.


2807 is right. I'm surprised this program is still open because it fills up quick. I assumed you had to show up in person. From what I remember they have a very very high success rate and they won't take just anyone.

I've only heard good things about this program.

However, I'm not sure anyone there is a past grader and I totally get why that is important (It was to me).

I only know of the three past graders in CA that tutor. I would talk to Patrick Lin. He was my tutor and a past CBX grader. I thought his written feedback was really good, so while his actual tutoring may be full, he may have room for someone who is okay with purely written feedback.

The other guy I spoke to nor. Cal was a former CBS grader but he only did written feedback and has a cap of 25 students. So If he is full, he probably can't take additional essays. The third guy was also in nor.cal and seemed really nice but was also full by the time I got to him.

He is a pretty flexible guy.

But if he is COMPLETELY full, I would see if you can work with the group 2807 reccomends.



Hey rcharter1978, yeah I was following your posts regarding Mr. Lin and John Crossfield. I looked into John Crossfield but he filled up and I am currently talking to the tutor that you had. I sent you a PM!

User avatar
rcharter1978
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:15 pm

ledv wrote:
rcharter1978 wrote:
2807 wrote:
ledv wrote:looking for a former CA bar grader to review my essays for a price. It looks like the ones mentioned are all completely booked. Anyone have any references or any leads? Specifically, I'm looking for essay reviewers who will package 24 essays for x amount. Thanks!


Look no further:
http://www.bestbarsuccess.com

Ive sent many people here. He is awesome.
Normally, a live bootcamp class.
But he has done web-based help in the past, maybe he can work with you.
He is no joke. You will be in good hands.


2807 is right. I'm surprised this program is still open because it fills up quick. I assumed you had to show up in person. From what I remember they have a very very high success rate and they won't take just anyone.

I've only heard good things about this program.

However, I'm not sure anyone there is a past grader and I totally get why that is important (It was to me).

I only know of the three past graders in CA that tutor. I would talk to Patrick Lin. He was my tutor and a past CBX grader. I thought his written feedback was really good, so while his actual tutoring may be full, he may have room for someone who is okay with purely written feedback.

The other guy I spoke to nor. Cal was a former CBS grader but he only did written feedback and has a cap of 25 students. So If he is full, he probably can't take additional essays. The third guy was also in nor.cal and seemed really nice but was also full by the time I got to him.

He is a pretty flexible guy.

But if he is COMPLETELY full, I would see if you can work with the group 2807 reccomends.



Hey rcharter1978, yeah I was following your posts regarding Mr. Lin and John Crossfield. I looked into John Crossfield but he filled up and I am currently talking to the tutor that you had. I sent you a PM!


I saw that. I want to give you a comprehensive answer so I want to wait to have the time.

Yeah, I really, really liked John but his price is no joke. By the time I finally was ready to sign up he was filled to the gills.

If you want the short answer : I like Patrick, and I passed with his help. His program is 1/2 the cost for 2x the number of graded essays and actual tutoring time. I'll send you a longer answer in PM.

There is also another guy up north, his name is Jay something I believe. He is also a former grader but filled up quick as well.

mmmm
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby mmmm » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:37 am

Is anyone in San Jose area interested in a weekly study group or a meet up? I'm using Themis books, Adaptibar, BarEssays, and Emanuel S&T. If interested, please pm me! Thanks.

Discouraged
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Discouraged » Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:00 pm

Is anyone in Redlands/Loma Linda/Riverside area interested in doing a weekly study group or something? Or really anyone who wants to like meet up online and keep each other accountable would be great! I'm using Barbri, Adaptibar, and old exams from the test bank.

If interested, let me know! Thanks!

User avatar
rcharter1978
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:58 pm

Discouraged wrote:Is anyone in Redlands/Loma Linda/Riverside area interested in doing a weekly study group or something? Or really anyone who wants to like meet up online and keep each other accountable would be great! I'm using Barbri, Adaptibar, and old exams from the test bank.

If interested, let me know! Thanks!


La Verne runs a repeater course. You may want to try there if you're looking for people in that area.

LockBox
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby LockBox » Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:12 pm

rcharter1978 wrote:
Discouraged wrote:Is anyone in Redlands/Loma Linda/Riverside area interested in doing a weekly study group or something? Or really anyone who wants to like meet up online and keep each other accountable would be great! I'm using Barbri, Adaptibar, and old exams from the test bank.

If interested, let me know! Thanks!


La Verne runs a repeater course. You may want to try there if you're looking for people in that area.


I had some success studying at U of R library for the LSAT, though you won't be able to get much collaboration done. It was nice though, with free parking and access to their library fyi.

bm_19
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:27 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby bm_19 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:30 pm

mmmm wrote:Is anyone in San Jose area interested in a weekly study group or a meet up? I'm using Themis books, Adaptibar, BarEssays, and Emanuel S&T. If interested, please pm me! Thanks.

I am. PM me.

drawingasmile
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:39 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby drawingasmile » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:38 pm

mmmm wrote:Is anyone in San Jose area interested in a weekly study group or a meet up? I'm using Themis books, Adaptibar, BarEssays, and Emanuel S&T. If interested, please pm me! Thanks.


I am as well, will send you a PM!

rhs67858
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:42 pm

Postby rhs67858 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:50 pm

A plaintiff suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The injury occurred when the plaintiff and the defendant, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, the plaintiff was struck and injured by the defendant's elbow. The plaintiff now seeks compensation from the defendant.

At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that the plaintiff had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics.

In this action, will the plaintiff prevail?

A. Yes, because the defendant intended to strike the plaintiff with his elbow.

B. Yes, because the defendant intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.

C. No, because the plaintiff impliedly consented to violent play.

D. No, because the defendant did not intentionally use force that exceeded the players' consent.

D was correct; i chose C. Then, when I got it wrong I flipped out. Then, I returned to calmness and continued. Is it because D includes the term "intentionally?" Or, is it because C is wrong in claiming P consented to "violent" play, whatever the F that means, thus D is more relevant because it talks about exceeding players' consent?

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re:

Postby a male human » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:01 pm

rhs67858 wrote:A plaintiff suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The injury occurred when the plaintiff and the defendant, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, the plaintiff was struck and injured by the defendant's elbow. The plaintiff now seeks compensation from the defendant.

At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that the plaintiff had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics.

In this action, will the plaintiff prevail?

A. Yes, because the defendant intended to strike the plaintiff with his elbow.

B. Yes, because the defendant intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.

C. No, because the plaintiff impliedly consented to violent play.

D. No, because the defendant did not intentionally use force that exceeded the players' consent.

D was correct; i chose C. Then, when I got it wrong I flipped out. Then, I returned to calmness and continued. Is it because D includes the term "intentionally?" Or, is it because C is wrong in claiming P consented to "violent" play, whatever the F that means, thus D is more relevant because it talks about exceeding players' consent?

C says P impliedly consented to violent play. The problem here is "consented to violent play." Nowhere do the facts suggest this. At most, the game was rough. Moreover, (correct me if I'm wrong) assumption of risk needs to be explicit. Is there an "implied consent" theory?

D gets to the legal issue of intentional torts. Given the rough play involving elbows and knees, there was no intentional use of force that's offensive to a reasonable person. Thus, there was no battery because the elbowing didn't appear to be intentional (at least, the facts are insufficient to fairly suggest this).

This is tricky (as are many MBE questions) yet obvious in hindsight, but the more you do questions and analyze why you got it wrong OR right, the better you'll get at it.

rhs67858
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:42 pm

Re: Re:

Postby rhs67858 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:33 am

a male human wrote:
rhs67858 wrote:A plaintiff suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The injury occurred when the plaintiff and the defendant, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, the plaintiff was struck and injured by the defendant's elbow. The plaintiff now seeks compensation from the defendant.

At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that the plaintiff had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics.

In this action, will the plaintiff prevail?

A. Yes, because the defendant intended to strike the plaintiff with his elbow.

B. Yes, because the defendant intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.

C. No, because the plaintiff impliedly consented to violent play.

D. No, because the defendant did not intentionally use force that exceeded the players' consent.

D was correct; i chose C. Then, when I got it wrong I flipped out. Then, I returned to calmness and continued. Is it because D includes the term "intentionally?" Or, is it because C is wrong in claiming P consented to "violent" play, whatever the F that means, thus D is more relevant because it talks about exceeding players' consent?

C says P impliedly consented to violent play. The problem here is "consented to violent play." Nowhere do the facts suggest this. At most, the game was rough. Moreover, (correct me if I'm wrong) assumption of risk needs to be explicit. Is there an "implied consent" theory?

D gets to the legal issue of intentional torts. Given the rough play involving elbows and knees, there was no intentional use of force that's offensive to a reasonable person. Thus, there was no battery because the elbowing didn't appear to be intentional (at least, the facts are insufficient to fairly suggest this).

This is tricky (as are many MBE questions) yet obvious in hindsight, but the more you do questions and analyze why you got it wrong OR right, the better you'll get at it.


Thanks bud, I do see it now. Tricky indeed!

LockBox
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re:

Postby LockBox » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:51 pm

rhs67858 wrote:A plaintiff suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The injury occurred when the plaintiff and the defendant, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, the plaintiff was struck and injured by the defendant's elbow. The plaintiff now seeks compensation from the defendant.

At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that the plaintiff had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics.

In this action, will the plaintiff prevail?

A. Yes, because the defendant intended to strike the plaintiff with his elbow.

B. Yes, because the defendant intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.

C. No, because the plaintiff impliedly consented to violent play.

D. No, because the defendant did not intentionally use force that exceeded the players' consent.

D was correct; i chose C. Then, when I got it wrong I flipped out. Then, I returned to calmness and continued. Is it because D includes the term "intentionally?" Or, is it because C is wrong in claiming P consented to "violent" play, whatever the F that means, thus D is more relevant because it talks about exceeding players' consent?


I like a male human's breakdown. I'll contribute my own as well. After a great deal of practice, I think the following can be done quite quickly.

I would narrow the topic down to torts - one player is causing harm to another. My next step is whether this is intentional or negligence. Clearly, the players are acting intentionally in that they are intending to cause the movements of their bodies that results in contact with another.

For intentional torts, we know that we have to have the requisite (1) intent to (2) cause an (3) act.

Immediately, I would cross the "yes" responses off - from the facts we can tell that the players were not intentionally harming others. Better yet, there are no facts which can show that defendant intentionally harmed plaintiff. Down to 2 choices.

When you look at a suit, P v. D. you always start with the prima facie case. This is how I started the analysis above. It is always stronger to show that P's prima facie case is weak, rather than relying on D's defense being strong, all things being the same.

So, I don't think that C is all that bad an answer. The trouble is, it is a defense to a claim (e.g., assumption of the risk, as AMH stated). D, I believe is stronger, because it attacks the prima facie case by showing that P's claim that D (1) intentionally (2) acted in a manner that (3) caused harm to P is faulty/weak.

From the 10,000 ft view, the two seem the same. But when you're the judge looking at which one to go with, I would rather show the Plaintiff/Petitioner's pf claim is weak, rather than relying on a (semi) strong defense to throw the case out of the court room/render an opinion.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Re:

Postby a male human » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:55 pm

Nice one LockBox. Particularly agree with this:

LockBox wrote:But when you're the judge looking at which one to go with, I would rather show the Plaintiff/Petitioner's pf claim is weak, rather than relying on a (semi) strong defense to throw the case out of the court room.

LockBox
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: Re:

Postby LockBox » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:04 pm

a male human wrote:Nice one LockBox. Particularly agree with this:

LockBox wrote:But when you're the judge looking at which one to go with, I would rather show the Plaintiff/Petitioner's pf claim is weak, rather than relying on a (semi) strong defense to throw the case out of the court room.


Thank you. It's odd, but sometimes when going through the motions of doing MBE's I would lose track of the fact that each one is a little mini lawsuit. I would do my best to imagine the court room drama, with the plaintiff/prosecution making their case then back to the defense etc. I think, in the end, this process helped me figure out which answers were right and which were clearly wrong.

rhs67858
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:42 pm

Re: Re:

Postby rhs67858 » Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:02 pm

LockBox wrote:
a male human wrote:Nice one LockBox. Particularly agree with this:

LockBox wrote:But when you're the judge looking at which one to go with, I would rather show the Plaintiff/Petitioner's pf claim is weak, rather than relying on a (semi) strong defense to throw the case out of the court room.


Thank you. It's odd, but sometimes when going through the motions of doing MBE's I would lose track of the fact that each one is a little mini lawsuit. I would do my best to imagine the court room drama, with the plaintiff/prosecution making their case then back to the defense etc. I think, in the end, this process helped me figure out which answers were right and which were clearly wrong.


Thanks for the analysis LockBox, and a male human too!

Grindin fellas, just grindin away.

sssnuggles
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:25 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby sssnuggles » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:56 pm

Well.... This sucks.

July 2016 CA Bar Exam
Essay 1: 55
Essay 2: 60
Essay 3: 50
Essay 4: 55
Essay 5: 55
Essay 6: 55
PT-A: 50
PT-B: 60

Raw Written: 550.0 :oops:
Scaled Written: 1255.2812 :(
Scaled MBE: 1543 8)
Total Scaled Score: 1355.9832

Bar Prep
Barbri - 98% completion
Adaptibar - Overall Average: 61.9% Questions Answered: 704 [All Users: 60.7% overall average Questions Answered: 616]
baressays.com - i reviewed essays that scored 65 and up.

My Dilemma
Most people I have talked to or read about seemed to have had low MBE and average essay/PT scores. My problem is the opposite. I had terrible essays and a strong MBE score. At this point I feel that I need to work on formatting my essays (maybe issue spotting as well), but I don't know the best course of action. Watching Barbri videos seems like a waste since I grasp the majority of the concepts. Does anyone have any input on what bar programs, tools, or tips may help me excel in February? I will throw money at any program that will help me pass (because i believe that 6 more months of "not being an attorney" is more expensive than any bar prep program out there).

Thanks!!!!!!!




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests