2017 February California Bar Exam

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

Bronze
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby LockBox » Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:10 pm

Also sending out good vibes. A friend sent me the essay topics, but i'm not sure if we can share yet - so i'll keep it to myself. Good luck guys, you've done the heavy lifting, now all there is to do is show your work.

Roupie

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Roupie » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:01 pm

LockBox wrote:Also sending out good vibes. A friend sent me the essay topics, but i'm not sure if we can share yet - so i'll keep it to myself. Good luck guys, you've done the heavy lifting, now all there is to do is show your work.



So how'd everybody do today?

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:05 pm

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

Zebra

New
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 8:01 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Zebra » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:35 pm

it was shitty

justanotheruser

New
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby justanotheruser » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:51 pm

I feel like I quoted the library/etc. too much in the PT. Is this a problem?

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 1962
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:53 pm

justanotheruser wrote:I feel like I quoted the library/etc. too much in the PT. Is this a problem?

Probably not as long as you used the stuff you quoted.

justanotheruser

New
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby justanotheruser » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:56 pm

This might go without saying, but now that I know 3 topics are out of the way for essays, I should review fewer topics for essays on Thursday right?

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 1962
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:04 am

justanotheruser wrote:This might go without saying, but now that I know 3 topics are out of the way for essays, I should review fewer topics for essays on Thursday right?

All subjects are still fair game, but yes, you can sort of exclude today's subjects from being the focus since they are much less likely to appear.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:25 am

What is the typical word count for a decent PT? I feel like I wrote way too little.

sittin_pretty

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:27 pm

Question #2

Postby sittin_pretty » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:31 am

unclepete wrote:Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?


Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: Question #2

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:41 am

sittin_pretty wrote:
unclepete wrote:Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?


Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.


I thought it was a contract misrepresentation fraud + remedies (bigger portion).

Just went over misrepresentation both intentional and negligent and other contract defenses.

Then did expectation damage, reliance damage (go for this), consequential damages, incidental damages, and punitive damages.

shawn11h

New
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:46 pm

Re: Question #2

Postby shawn11h » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:51 am

RickSanchez wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
unclepete wrote:Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?


Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.


I thought it was a contract misrepresentation fraud + remedies (bigger portion).

Just went over misrepresentation both intentional and negligent and other contract defenses.

Then did expectation damage, reliance damage (go for this), consequential damages, incidental damages, and punitive damages.


You can't have punitive damages for a claim of fraud under contracts.

Zebra

New
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Question #2

Postby Zebra » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:55 am

shawn11h wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
unclepete wrote:Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?


Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.


I thought it was a contract misrepresentation fraud + remedies (bigger portion).

Just went over misrepresentation both intentional and negligent and other contract defenses.

Then did expectation damage, reliance damage (go for this), consequential damages, incidental damages, and punitive damages.


You can't have punitive damages for a claim of fraud under contracts.


You can where there's fraud

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4275
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:59 am

I'm not taking your exam, but if there is fraud wouldn't the contract be voidable and you could potentially proceed with a tort claim.

Either way, doesn't that dude from bar secrets do a day 1 rundown/analysis?

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: Question #2

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:02 am

Zebra wrote:
shawn11h wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
unclepete wrote:Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?


Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.


I thought it was a contract misrepresentation fraud + remedies (bigger portion).

Just went over misrepresentation both intentional and negligent and other contract defenses.

Then did expectation damage, reliance damage (go for this), consequential damages, incidental damages, and punitive damages.


You can't have punitive damages for a claim of fraud under contracts.


You can where there's fraud


I think my answers were bit incoherent, but I made sure to hit all the issues and at least try to apply all the facts. If contract gets rescinded due to fraud you can claim punitive damage if it was wanton and willful, thus arising to independent tort. But I missed few issues and I am not worried because there is no way to hit every issue with the limited amount of time.

I am worried about my PT though since I only really had like 1800 words for it. I thought I had a pretty good essay but the lack of words scares me.

User avatar
lhanvt13

Gold
Posts: 2378
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:59 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby lhanvt13 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:09 am

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:11 am

lhanvt13 wrote:Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about


Professional Responsibilities + Corporations
Crim law + Crim Pro

Torts or Civ Pro

That's my prediction

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: Question #2

Postby unclepete » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:27 am

sittin_pretty wrote:
unclepete wrote:Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?


Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.


Yeah my plan at the beginning was to do a Tort and a Contract analysis, followed by Remedies. But I ran out of time and was too confused by Remedies (do you call it compensatory? or expectation? what do you do about punitive if its just contract?) that I ended up just making the cause of action analysis ambiguous. Meaning, I just listed general "Fraud" elements (material misrepresentation, intent to defraud, reasonable reliance, damages) and just didn't answer whether it was Contracts or Tort. I feel like this was not the right way to go because if it was Contracts it should have included an analysis on contract formation, etc. and then Fraud as a defense (??) which didn't really fit the fact pattern. I just don't know.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: Question #2

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:31 am

unclepete wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
unclepete wrote:Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?


Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.


Yeah my plan at the beginning was to do a Tort and a Contract analysis, followed by Remedies. But I ran out of time and was too confused by Remedies (do you call it compensatory? or expectation? what do you do about punitive if its just contract?) that I ended up just making the cause of action analysis ambiguous. Meaning, I just listed general "Fraud" elements (material misrepresentation, intent to defraud, reasonable reliance, damages) and just didn't answer whether it was Contracts or Tort. I feel like this was not the right way to go because if it was Contracts it should have included an analysis on contract formation, etc. and then Fraud as a defense (??) which didn't really fit the fact pattern. I just don't know.


Yeah, the question had both contracts and torts elements and it was really hard to call it a "contract question" or a "torts question". It was really a hybrid and that was just confusing. I get the sense as long as you listed the elements of misrepresentation (fraud) and the remedies, you will be fine.

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4275
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:33 am

lhanvt13 wrote:Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about


OMG, i knew these fools were gonna hit you with a straight evidence question!

You're getting a PR question, be it a crossover or by itself.

User avatar
lhanvt13

Gold
Posts: 2378
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:59 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby lhanvt13 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:35 am

rcharter1978 wrote:
lhanvt13 wrote:Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about


OMG, i knew these fools were gonna hit you with a straight evidence question!

You're getting a PR question, be it a crossover or by itself.

At least it was straight FRE! Just... so much typing.

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4275
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:39 am

RickSanchez wrote:
lhanvt13 wrote:Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about


Professional Responsibilities + Corporations
Crim law + Crim Pro

Torts or Civ Pro

That's my prediction


I'd be surprised if you got civ pro.

I wasn't surprised by evidence because they did civ pro like this: General civ pro, skip an administration, then .CA civ pro. So, i figured evidence would be the opposite and it was; CA evidence, skip an administration, general evidence.

So, id be surprised if they have you civ pro again (not saying they can't or won't but I'd be surprised) you'll get a PR question though. I wonder if they will do a criminal law or con from pro question. I think it's been a while.

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4275
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:40 am

lhanvt13 wrote:
rcharter1978 wrote:
lhanvt13 wrote:Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about


OMG, i knew these fools were gonna hit you with a straight evidence question!

You're getting a PR question, be it a crossover or by itself.

At least it was straight FRE! Just... so much typing.


LOL, you are right on. You should have seen my face in February when it was a .CA evidence instruction. I was so mad!

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:41 am

rcharter1978 wrote:
lhanvt13 wrote:
rcharter1978 wrote:
lhanvt13 wrote:Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about


OMG, i knew these fools were gonna hit you with a straight evidence question!

You're getting a PR question, be it a crossover or by itself.

At least it was straight FRE! Just... so much typing.


LOL, you are right on. You should have seen my face in February when it was a .CA evidence instruction. I was so mad!


wow I honestly would have cried

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:42 am

rcharter1978 wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:
lhanvt13 wrote:Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about


Professional Responsibilities + Corporations
Crim law + Crim Pro

Torts or Civ Pro

That's my prediction


I'd be surprised if you got civ pro.

I wasn't surprised by evidence because they did civ pro like this: General civ pro, skip an administration, then .CA civ pro. So, i figured evidence would be the opposite and it was; CA evidence, skip an administration, general evidence.

So, id be surprised if they have you civ pro again (not saying they can't or won't but I'd be surprised) you'll get a PR question though. I wonder if they will do a criminal law or con from pro question. I think it's been a while.



Right on! This makes sense



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests