Slickrick90 wrote:Blossomray wrote:caliguy93 wrote:Dee099 wrote:A valid argument but not enough to convince me Evidence didn't apply, or even some Civ Pro.
November is only light years away, so well know soon.
unfortunately, there is never a case where they test a subject twice, and we had a full civ pro question. so there is zero chance that the question had a civ pro crossover even though i agree, motion to compel and work product for discovery reason all fall under it. You had to Know Civ pro for it, but they are grading it for PR.
My tutor told me that in fact patterns, if there just isn't enough facts to support the header you are analyzing, then chances are its not relevant. From what i hear regarding your guys analysis for evidence, a lot of people had to make lots of assumptions that were not in the fact pattern to discuss evidence issues such as relevance, authentication, business records, or anything else for the elements of exceptions to hearsay.
If you have to assume too many facts, or don't have much facts to support a potential issue, chances are its not an issue for the exam... as such evidence would fall into that category and is ultimately a deciding factor for me that it was not an evidence question.
i can see how anyone can fall down that rabbit hole, as when i read the calls of the question first i couldn't decide whether it was evidence, civ pro or PR and didn't figure it out until i read the entire fact pattern.
You're going to feel very silly come November. Attorney-client privilege is purely an evidentiary issue. Work product is a discovery issue and therefore a civ pro issue. You are correct that PR was an issue to discuss, but it was only an issue in the third question that asked about ethical violations. Given that the first question asked whether the judge should compel testimony and didn't specify deposition testimony, hearsay and other evidentiary issues were entirely appropriate (though collateral) issues to discuss. I saw your comment that in your opinion, work product and privilege are PR issues. Unfortunately, this isn't a matter of opinion. This was a cross-over question between CA evidence, CA civ pro, and PR. You can confirm this information with your tutor.
I hope you are right. That's how I felt too.
Question 2 was straight up CA evidence and PR. It was not a CivPro question. The first call was testing whether you could tell who the client was and whether it was relevant. The attorney could testify because his client was not the defendant. The second call was also testing relevancy. Wendy's testimony was completely irrelevant, and even if it did get in, it was complete hearsay. I threw in vicarious admission, and then dismissed it. Where I blew it was the PR. Went with competency, conflict of interest, and confidence, but only talked about the potential breach, not the actual breach that was right there in the fact pattern. If I got to sixty on number 2, I think I'm okay on the others.