Top Law Schools

beacuse the ethics opinion was only persuasive and the Court case was binding authority and the court case was the basis for the main arguments in the MPT I focused on the case the most and didn't really use the opinion very much.

.

The purpose of the appearance for the second part was to use the memo on the press release. The Press gave lots of clues that there was no appearance. It was so long ago, as opposed to the recent attorney switching firms, and the text supported that it was not reasonable for people - the public - to view this as an improper appearance.

The first part should have been analyzed according to the case law. It went through 1.7, 1.6, and then you distinguish it as being different in terms of the level of control.

The second part was 1.9 analysis of the former client from so long ago. Then, you specify the appearance of conflict, which would then cite the press.

The third part of the attorney switching firms was also 1.9. This was a clear conflict, and would also be a conflict on the appearance of conflict. At this point, you go through the steps of what it means to screen and what the firm should do to ensure that it can keep the case so long as it followed the rules provided on the Ethics Opinion of Screening.

cnk1220 wrote:

happyhour1122 wrote:

lawdeeedaw wrote:I think with that MPT the essential information was in the Ethic's committee discussion. That even if you find that he represented the client on a different type of issue, that the vetting of him would essentially reveal confidential information- and therefore there would be a conflict. But who knows, I could have read that wrong.

I agree.
I used mostly the 3 points that committee looked into. Havn't seen anyone here...that talked about this...

Either that Hooper case or the ethics committee mentioned something about the appearance of a conflict/impropriety of a conflict = possibility was enough to be problematic?! I figured that was the whole point of the task memo asking "is there a conflict" + "what action should we take"

Is that what you're getting at too lawdeedaw?

That is what I was getting at.

.

MEE k question was dreadful (not sure if it was #6..?). I skipped around trying to lead w/ ones I felt most comfortable with.. did K & Trusts in last 45 mins. All i remember is thinking "f*ck" when I read that incredibly broad CoQ. Def made up issues hoping to hit on something that would count (promissory estoppel !?!) Am i alone here? Or should I have been relieved by the broadness?

I thought I was fine walking out that Wednesday afternoon. Woke up last night startled by a dream about forgetting to upload my answers by 11:59 pm. Not sure how I'm gonna keep it together till mid-May without picking up a drug habit.

cnk1220 wrote:

BubbaMean86 wrote:The purpose of the appearance for the second part was to use the memo on the press release. The Press gave lots of clues that there was no appearance. It was so long ago, as opposed to the recent attorney switching firms, and the text supported that it was not reasonable for people - the public - to view this as an improper appearance.

The first part should have been analyzed according to the case law. It went through 1.7, 1.6, and then you distinguish it as being different in terms of the level of control.

The second part was 1.9 analysis of the former client from so long ago. Then, you specify the appearance of conflict, which would then cite the press.

The third part of the attorney switching firms was also 1.9. This was a clear conflict, and would also be a conflict on the appearance of conflict. At this point, you go through the steps of what it means to screen and what the firm should do to ensure that it can keep the case so long as it followed the rules provided on the Ethics Opinion of Screening.

I agree with this, although for appearance of conflict I used the case law not the press but I totally overlooked that article in its entirety- also I thought the girl attorney was only interviewing for the other office she hadn't left yet? But i could be wrong-- so I framed it more as she has a 1.6/1.7 issue bc current client/confidentiality applies but then if we hire her then..1.9 applies bc shell owe a DTFC and then we have to screen bc 1.10 imputes her conflict to us"

Did anyone else get the impression she wasnt hired yet? Maybe i read wrong but i swore it said "shes interviewing for our olympia office" or something-- I also hate how i can still sorta remember stuff/prob everything i got wrong

I thought we were just analyzing it for the firm's perspective on conflicts. So if we hired here, then our concern is 1.9. If they didn't hire her, then no conflict analysis needed.

.

.

on the contracts question I argues that because he had a 1/2 acre plot of tomatoes and that because he was introducing the tomatoes into the marketplace that the court would likely find him a merchant for the purpose of the transaction and that the firm offer rule would apply. I also stated the opposite that the firm offer rule would not apply if he was not considered a merchant by the court. But in the end I argued that he would be considered a merchant for purposes of the transaction and that because the option was signed no consideration was necessary because both are merchants. FYI, I am a licensed attorney who works as in house counsel and I deal with contracts every day.

.

It did say that he had not sold them before. However the fact that he was willing to sell them now and then was approached by a farmers market and was willing to sell to the farmers market and the 1/2 acre of a single product it is likely that the courts would find that he was acting as a merchant. Again I did state that if he was not considered a merchant he would not have an option contract for the lack of consideration. But I felt the facts led him to be more of a merchant than not. I don't think it matters whether you were right or wrong as long as you used the facts to make a logical and reasonable argument. That is why there is always a Plaintiff and a Defendant.

cnk1220 wrote:

babylonianprincess wrote:MEE k question was dreadful (not sure if it was #6..?). I skipped around trying to lead w/ ones I felt most comfortable with.. did K & Trusts in last 45 mins. All i remember is thinking "f*ck" when I read that incredibly broad CoQ. Def made up issues hoping to hit on something that would count (promissory estoppel !?!) Am i alone here? Or should I have been relieved by the broadness?

I thought I was fine walking out that Wednesday afternoon. Woke up last night startled by a dream about forgetting to upload my answers by 11:59 pm. Not sure how I'm gonna keep it together till mid-May without picking up a drug habit.

Contracts was Q1. I just argued not a merchant so firm offer doesnt apply, i mentioned prom estop but noted weak, power of acceptance was cut off by when he told him, no option k bc no consideration to keep it open.

Trusts was LOL
Q1- lol i did some revocable trust argument, material purpose of the trust, beneficiaries in existence, claflin rule word vomit- ended up saying yes it was fine.
Q2 i hought Q2 was discussing power of appt?? I went into some specific/limited POA discussion, mentioned substantial compliance rule under upc, intent of settlor...more word vomit and made up stuff thats prob wrong.
Q3- um i said husband took $50k? Under probate assets, and made up a rule about surviving spouse taking more than the statute allowed of only 33k?

It was Q1, you're right. I went about it nearly the same.. not a merchant so no FO. Totally made up some arg about different term in doc= c/offer. Prom estop, also weak. Hit on consideration. Threw in some weak good faith arg too.

LOL Trusts was just UGH.. i bs'd the whole thing.. said something about validity, intent, consent of benefs. Mentioned claflin rule only bc i remembered it from lecture the night before…didn't actually know what it was so no analysis for that. Freaked out when i heard 15 min warning.. ran out of bs so went into some crazy RAP arg.. charity exc.. then mentally flipped a coin & said husband gets 33k but not 50k for whatever reason. Sigh. oh well =/

.

cnk1220 wrote:

eatthebarforlunch wrote:on the contracts question I argues that because he had a 1/2 acre plot of tomatoes and that because he was introducing the tomatoes into the marketplace that the court would likely find him a merchant for the purpose of the transaction and that the firm offer rule would apply. I also stated the opposite that the firm offer rule would not apply if he was not considered a merchant by the court. But in the end I argued that he would be considered a merchant for purposes of the transaction and that because the option was signed no consideration was necessary because both are merchants. FYI, I am a licensed attorney who works as in house counsel and I deal with contracts every day.

Didn't the facts say he had never sold tomatoes before? I thought merchant was one who regularly deals in selling those types of goods? I'm geninuely asking- deff trust your views more than mine i suck at K lol

I kinda wrestled a little with the facts too. I initially thought he could be a merchant since he wanted to put all those tomatoes on the market by doing biz w/ a merchant. But then i convinced myself that a one time deal doesn't meet the "regularly deals in the sale of such goods" req. Def agree that the arg should've been made for both & a court could determine that he's a merchant or not. Another L i'll have to take.

.

cnk1220 wrote:

babylonianprincess wrote:

cnk1220 wrote:

eatthebarforlunch wrote:on the contracts question I argues that because he had a 1/2 acre plot of tomatoes and that because he was introducing the tomatoes into the marketplace that the court would likely find him a merchant for the purpose of the transaction and that the firm offer rule would apply. I also stated the opposite that the firm offer rule would not apply if he was not considered a merchant by the court. But in the end I argued that he would be considered a merchant for purposes of the transaction and that because the option was signed no consideration was necessary because both are merchants. FYI, I am a licensed attorney who works as in house counsel and I deal with contracts every day.

Didn't the facts say he had never sold tomatoes before? I thought merchant was one who regularly deals in selling those types of goods? I'm geninuely asking- deff trust your views more than mine i suck at K lol

I kinda wrestled a little with the facts too. I initially thought he could be a merchant since he wanted to put all those tomatoes on the market by doing biz w/ a merchant. But then i convinced myself that a one time deal doesn't meet the "regularly deals in the sale of such goods" req. Def agree that the arg should've been made for both & a court could determine that he's a merchant or not. Another L i'll have to take.

Yeah the most points argument was to argue both ways. I'm still kicking myself for missing bigamy in fam law

Id love to know what a "passing essay" is

i personally thought bigamy was a bit of a reach so, not beating myself up over it (though it probably wouldn't have hurt to get some bonus pts). I'm just as curious about what a passing essay looks like.

.

cnk1220 wrote:
What I'm still confused about was didn't the call of the Q say "assume the marriage is valid- on what basis would the 2nd husband get the lottery $?" Am i remembering this correctly? If so- why would he want to argue bigamy?

That's how I recall the question reading as well. I think I mentioned he may claim it was a bigamous marriage in order to get 15 years of tort damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and could garnish the lottery winnings on any judgment. However, I also firmly believe they typo-ed because I cannot fathom any family law-based grounds for the dude to recover.

.

cnk1220 wrote:

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:

cnk1220 wrote:
What I'm still confused about was didn't the call of the Q say "assume the marriage is valid- on what basis would the 2nd husband get the lottery $?" Am i remembering this correctly? If so- why would he want to argue bigamy?

That's how I recall the question reading as well. I think I mentioned he may claim it was a bigamous marriage in order to get 15 years of tort damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and could garnish the lottery winnings on any judgment. However, I also firmly believe they typo-ed because I cannot fathom any family law-based grounds for the dude to recover.

Thats a good argument^^ I just got so confused with the wording bc i was like well um if you want the lottery $$ you better argue its marital income buddy- ie equitable dist. of marital assets approach and lottery $$$ is considered marital income bc it was acquired while they were married & it didn't meet definition of BIG- before the marriage, inheritance in one name, or gift to one spouse either? What a stupidly weird Q...

I had a flashback of the ashton kutcher/cameron diaz movie when they go to vegas and hit the jackpot and are married lol

This is what i did.

Question 1. Can B claim A's lottery $$$
- I argued common law marriage,
- assuming common law marriage, based on facts and circumstances unlikely to be able to claim for A's $$$$

Question 2. Assuming there is marriage (between A and B) can C (the new hub) claim A's $$$

I guess the queston directly didn't say "assume marriage between A and B", but thats how I took it. So,,,assuming there is a valid marriage between A and B...marriage between A and C is bigamy is what I said...

cnk1220 wrote:

babylonianprincess wrote:

cnk1220 wrote:

eatthebarforlunch wrote:on the contracts question I argues that because he had a 1/2 acre plot of tomatoes and that because he was introducing the tomatoes into the marketplace that the court would likely find him a merchant for the purpose of the transaction and that the firm offer rule would apply. I also stated the opposite that the firm offer rule would not apply if he was not considered a merchant by the court. But in the end I argued that he would be considered a merchant for purposes of the transaction and that because the option was signed no consideration was necessary because both are merchants. FYI, I am a licensed attorney who works as in house counsel and I deal with contracts every day.

Didn't the facts say he had never sold tomatoes before? I thought merchant was one who regularly deals in selling those types of goods? I'm geninuely asking- deff trust your views more than mine i suck at K lol

I kinda wrestled a little with the facts too. I initially thought he could be a merchant since he wanted to put all those tomatoes on the market by doing biz w/ a merchant. But then i convinced myself that a one time deal doesn't meet the "regularly deals in the sale of such goods" req. Def agree that the arg should've been made for both & a court could determine that he's a merchant or not. Another L i'll have to take.

Yeah the most points argument was to argue both ways. I'm still kicking myself for missing bigamy in fam law

Id love to know what a "passing essay" is

Fuck.....
i didn't even argue both ways..
i didn't even argue promissory estoppel

.

cnk1220 wrote:

happyhour1122 wrote:

cnk1220 wrote:

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:

cnk1220 wrote:
What I'm still confused about was didn't the call of the Q say "assume the marriage is valid- on what basis would the 2nd husband get the lottery $?" Am i remembering this correctly? If so- why would he want to argue bigamy?

That's how I recall the question reading as well. I think I mentioned he may claim it was a bigamous marriage in order to get 15 years of tort damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and could garnish the lottery winnings on any judgment. However, I also firmly believe they typo-ed because I cannot fathom any family law-based grounds for the dude to recover.

Thats a good argument^^ I just got so confused with the wording bc i was like well um if you want the lottery $$ you better argue its marital income buddy- ie equitable dist. of marital assets approach and lottery $$$ is considered marital income bc it was acquired while they were married & it didn't meet definition of BIG- before the marriage, inheritance in one name, or gift to one spouse either? What a stupidly weird Q...

I had a flashback of the ashton kutcher/cameron diaz movie when they go to vegas and hit the jackpot and are married lol

This is what i did.

Question 1. Can B claim A's lottery $$$
- I argued common law marriage,
- assuming common law marriage, based on facts and circumstances unlikely to be able to claim for A's $$$$

Question 2. Assuming there is marriage (between A and B) can C (the new hub) claim A's $$$

I guess the queston directly didn't say "assume marriage between A and B", but thats how I took it. So,,,assuming there is a valid marriage between A and B...marriage between A and C is bigamy is what I said...

Q1 only asked if there was a marriage between the woman and her first husband it never asked can he take the lottery$$? I think Q1 was getting at the CACH analysis re: CLM: capacity, agreement, cohab, holding out to community it was getting whether the joint tax returns but no vows or ceremony or whether family friends knowing + cohab together was enough for a CLM. + the conflicts issue of CLM recognized in both state A and B

Q2 asked assume marriage between 1st Husband and woman is valid- on what basis can 2nd husband get lottery $- she didn't hit the lottery until she married the second guy?[/quote

I don't know..remember the question..

cnk1220 wrote:

happyhour1122 wrote:

cnk1220 wrote:

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:

cnk1220 wrote:
What I'm still confused about was didn't the call of the Q say "assume the marriage is valid- on what basis would the 2nd husband get the lottery $?" Am i remembering this correctly? If so- why would he want to argue bigamy?

That's how I recall the question reading as well. I think I mentioned he may claim it was a bigamous marriage in order to get 15 years of tort damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and could garnish the lottery winnings on any judgment. However, I also firmly believe they typo-ed because I cannot fathom any family law-based grounds for the dude to recover.

Thats a good argument^^ I just got so confused with the wording bc i was like well um if you want the lottery $$ you better argue its marital income buddy- ie equitable dist. of marital assets approach and lottery $$$ is considered marital income bc it was acquired while they were married & it didn't meet definition of BIG- before the marriage, inheritance in one name, or gift to one spouse either? What a stupidly weird Q...

I had a flashback of the ashton kutcher/cameron diaz movie when they go to vegas and hit the jackpot and are married lol

This is what i did.

Question 1. Can B claim A's lottery $$$
- I argued common law marriage,
- assuming common law marriage, based on facts and circumstances unlikely to be able to claim for A's $$$$

Question 2. Assuming there is marriage (between A and B) can C (the new hub) claim A's $$$

I guess the queston directly didn't say "assume marriage between A and B", but thats how I took it. So,,,assuming there is a valid marriage between A and B...marriage between A and C is bigamy is what I said...

Q1 only asked if there was a marriage between the woman and her first husband it never asked can he take the lottery$$? I think Q1 was getting at the CACH analysis re: CLM: capacity, agreement, cohab, holding out to community it was getting whether the joint tax returns but no vows or ceremony or whether family friends knowing + cohab together was enough for a CLM. + the conflicts issue of CLM recognized in both state A and B

Q2 asked assume marriage between 1st Husband and woman is valid- on what basis can 2nd husband get lottery $- she didn't hit the lottery until she married the second guy?

i can't remember if q asked whether 1st husband had a claim to lottery $$, but i remember assuming it did (RIP). Only way he could is if there was a CLM. Under equitable distribution approach, ct divides all property owned by either spouse, whether acquired before or after the marriage (minority approach..not likely but only one that would apply here since she won lottery after she left 1st guy). Otherwise, he could have claim to lottery $$ based on implied k b/t unmarried cohabitants (Ct not likely to enforce either).
if 2nd marriage not valid, 2nd husband can make implied k bt unmarried cohab arg. If 2nd marriage=valid, he can get some as spousal support during divorce proceeding if ct determines marriage was long enough; he became accustomed to standard of living; made contributions to marriage, i.e. quit job to care for 2 yr old. The wording of the questions was vague/confusing. i just argued whatever i could. Starting to realize i should've made bigamy argument after all