2017 July California Bar

InterAlia1961
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:06 pm

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.

maxmartin
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:13 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:
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.

Nope in my opinion, it is a pure PR question. It has nothing to do with the admissibility of the evidence, any analysis of relevance or hearsay is not necessary. But if you think privilege or confidentiality should be called evidence, I guess you can call it PR/E hybrid.

mimim8
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:35 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby mimim8 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:43 pm


InterAlia1961
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:44 pm

I'm trying to remember the wording on the civ pro question. The pleading wasn't sufficient in federal court, but I can't remember the wording, something to the effect of the defendant failed to deliver value, correct? I think this is the essay I did best on, and I think I rocked it. I'll let you know in a few months.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:47 pm



You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:51 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:


You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.


I'm confused. Didn't the CA SupCt already strip them of their ability to set the score?

justanotheruser
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:54 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:


You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.


I'm confused. Didn't the CA SupCt already strip them of their ability to set the score?


From the first page:
At its August 31, 2017, meeting, following receipt and consideration of comments received, the Committee will develop a recommendation to be submitted to the Board for consideration during that body’s September meeting. The Board of Trustees’ recommendation would then be transmitted to the Supreme Court for review and approval.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby SmokeytheBear » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:57 pm

justanotheruser wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:


You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.


I'm confused. Didn't the CA SupCt already strip them of their ability to set the score?


From the first page:
At its August 31, 2017, meeting, following receipt and consideration of comments received, the Committee will develop a recommendation to be submitted to the Board for consideration during that body’s September meeting. The Board of Trustees’ recommendation would then be transmitted to the Supreme Court for review and approval.


Yeah that didn't help.

This is what I am talking about and now I see.
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/californ ... -bar-exam/

mimim8
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 9:35 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby mimim8 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:57 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:


You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.



this meeting is apparently being webcast today but I can't seem to access it. not that I have time to watch it but lol http://board.calbar.ca.gov/Video.aspx

justanotheruser
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:17 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:


You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.


I'm confused. Didn't the CA SupCt already strip them of their ability to set the score?


From the first page:
At its August 31, 2017, meeting, following receipt and consideration of comments received, the Committee will develop a recommendation to be submitted to the Board for consideration during that body’s September meeting. The Board of Trustees’ recommendation would then be transmitted to the Supreme Court for review and approval.


Yeah that didn't help.

This is what I am talking about and now I see.
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/californ ... -bar-exam/


I think the point is Cal S. Ct. has final say, but the Board/Bar is still going to have these meetings/discussions and submit whatever they agree on as advisory material that is free to be relied on (or not) by the Court when it comes to setting the score. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

justanotheruser
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:23 pm



tl;dr version: The Bar proposes either retaining the 1440 passing score or lowering it to 1414. Hopefully Cal. Supreme Court is like "cool story" and lowers it even further below 1414 hahaha.

I-object
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby I-object » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:15 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:I'm trying to remember the wording on the civ pro question. The pleading wasn't sufficient in federal court, but I can't remember the wording, something to the effect of the defendant failed to deliver value, correct? I think this is the essay I did best on, and I think I rocked it. I'll let you know in a few months.


InterAlia1961, here is what I remember;

Civ Pro

1. Joinder of Claims

Could P join his claims against D. -P is from CA sued in D is from NY. Filed in Federal Court in NY. Diversity Jurisdiction implicated. The painting was purchased for $? but was only worth $200. The Land was worth $1. million.

-The Joinder of claims is easier to allow than joinder of parties because the adversaries are already in court. The action was between a single P verse a single D. I said yes for that reason (between single parties) but more importantly the claims can be joined because the claims were "related". (P had to first buy the painting to close on June 15th, then purchase the Real Property to close June 30th ) When P discovered the painting to be worth only $200, D reputed the sale deal of the Real Property.

The other reason P could join both her claims was for purposes of judicial economy.

2. was the complaint sufficient as plead

Plausibility standard was implicated. The pleading required a short plain statement about jurisdiction, short plain statement about the claim, and damages. This would likely have been enough given what P actually plead (was short plain statement satisfying those elements) ... However P plead fraud (the painting was not worth what D claimed (1$ million))

Pleading with particularity - where fraud , mistake, special damages are alleged, must plead with specific facts.

Here fraud and or mistake was implicated because the painting was not worth what D said was worth. Moreover, because the transaction implicitly required P to "first" purchase the painting, so it suggests the painting was "used" to purchase the Land because D said would not sell the land unless P purchased the painting first. Lastly special damages were implicated because the land was worth $1 million, as was the painting.

As a result the complaint was invalid as plead, or risked a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Amending the complaint -However P ,as a matter of right, could simply amend the complaint within 21 days, or at anytime during the litigation so long as it was on the merits. For example when damages are not specifically plead in relation to the harm incurred, and of course or purposes of justice.

Here P could have added the necessary language to satisfy the court

3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

They were diverse. CA / NY

Amount and Controversy -Painting worth $200 (not enough) Land speculatively worth $1 million (enough) Short discussion of legal sufficiency of claims

Legal sufficiency of claim - While the painting was only worth $200, P plead in good faith believing the Real Property was worth $1million. Even though P is not sure its true value, the court will allow the alleged value because there is at least "some" legal basis.

Aggregation of claims -Continuing with the same point, P can add to her claims so long as the claims P is suing on multiple claims against same D.

Supplemental

Alternatively -painting does not have independent bases to satisfy SMJ, but the Land does. Once the court has SMJ on one claim (the land claim) then the painting can come in because its same the claims are so related. The claims share a common nucleus of operative fact because both were part of the same transaction or occurrence when one could not be purchased without the other.

4. Jury Trial

Yes P could ask for jury trial because was filed in federal court . D might argue no jury trail because he didnt want it , and because Specific Performance is an equitable remedy. However that argument fails because the 7th amendment allows the legal remedy to be tried first. While Specific Performance claim is part of P's claim (Equity) so is the Painting (Legal). P joinded both her claims, (the legal and equitable claims) the legal claim would force the court to provide a Jury trial, especially because thats what P wanted.

hope this helps :o)

maxmartin
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:27 pm

I-object wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:I'm trying to remember the wording on the civ pro question. The pleading wasn't sufficient in federal court, but I can't remember the wording, something to the effect of the defendant failed to deliver value, correct? I think this is the essay I did best on, and I think I rocked it. I'll let you know in a few months.


InterAlia1961, here is what I remember;

Civ Pro

1. Joinder of Claims

Could P join his claims against D. -P is from CA sued in D is from NY. Filed in Federal Court in NY. Diversity Jurisdiction implicated. The painting was purchased for $? but was only worth $200. The Land was worth $1. million.

-The Joinder of claims is easier to allow than joinder of parties because the adversaries are already in court. The action was between a single P verse a single D. I said yes for that reason (between single parties) but more importantly the claims can be joined because the claims were "related". (P had to first buy the painting to close on June 15th, then purchase the Real Property to close June 30th ) When P discovered the painting to be worth only $200, D reputed the sale deal of the Real Property.

The other reason P could join both her claims was for purposes of judicial economy.

2. was the complaint sufficient as plead

Plausibility standard was implicated. The pleading required a short plain statement about jurisdiction, short plain statement about the claim, and damages. This would likely have been enough given what P actually plead (was short plain statement satisfying those elements) ... However P plead fraud (the painting was not worth what D claimed (1$ million))

Pleading with particularity - where fraud , mistake, special damages are alleged, must plead with specific facts.

Here fraud and or mistake was implicated because the painting was not worth what D said was worth. Moreover, because the transaction implicitly required P to "first" purchase the painting, so it suggests the painting was "used" to purchase the Land because D said would not sell the land unless P purchased the painting first. Lastly special damages were implicated because the land was worth $1 million, as was the painting.

As a result the complaint was invalid as plead, or risked a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Amending the complaint -However P ,as a matter of right, could simply amend the complaint within 21 days, or at anytime during the litigation so long as it was on the merits. For example when damages are not specifically plead in relation to the harm incurred, and of course or purposes of justice.

Here P could have added the necessary language to satisfy the court

3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

They were diverse. CA / NY

Amount and Controversy -Painting worth $200 (not enough) Land speculatively worth $1 million (enough) Short discussion of legal sufficiency of claims

Legal sufficiency of claim - While the painting was only worth $200, P plead in good faith believing the Real Property was worth $1million. Even though P is not sure its true value, the court will allow the alleged value because there is at least "some" legal basis.

Aggregation of claims -Continuing with the same point, P can add to her claims so long as the claims P is suing on multiple claims against same D.

Supplemental

Alternatively -painting does not have independent bases to satisfy SMJ, but the Land does
. Once the court has SMJ on one claim (the land claim) then the painting can come in because its same the claims are so related. The claims share a common nucleus of operative fact because both were part of the same transaction or occurrence when one could not be purchased without the other.

4. Jury Trial

Yes P could ask for jury trial because was filed in federal court . D might argue no jury trail because he didnt want it , and because Specific Performance is an equitable remedy. However that argument fails because the 7th amendment allows the legal remedy to be tried first. While Specific Performance claim is part of P's claim (Equity) so is the Painting (Legal). P joinded both her claims, (the legal and equitable claims) the legal claim would force the court to provide a Jury trial, especially because thats what P wanted.

hope this helps :o)

The question specifically says he is seek specific performance for land and damage for painting. Even though the land value is way above 75,000, but I actually don't know if the value of underline specific performance qualifies as damage for diversity purpose.

User avatar
Dee099
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:30 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Dee099 » Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:37 am

I have had zero energy since the exam.
I dont start work again until next monday,but it has been so hard to wake up early, do random errands, find motivation to go exercise. etc.
Today I literally just moved from laying in my bed to laying on the couch.
wtf is wrong with me lol

User avatar
catechumen
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 11:20 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby catechumen » Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:59 am

Pretty much... But I suspect 'they' are trying to limit the damage. They really don't want to lower the pass rate. If they wanted to they would have done it sometime in the last 30 years... What this is likely really about is hoping the CA Supreme Court just says cool idea you guys are the experts, 1414 sounds good to us. What I really hope happens is the CA Supreme Court lowers it much lower. Even better would be to make it retroactive for say the past 10 years, and auto admit anyone that achieved within the new scores. Regardless, we should lobby the CA Supreme Court, because it sounds like the CA Bar is trying to royally shaft us with almost no change to the pass rate.

And if you doubt they don't have your best interests at heart, just look at how much of 'cluster' the essay portion of the exam was this year. (It's the only real portion of the exam they control at this point...) Its not paranoia, if they really are out to get you. :D

SmokeytheBear wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:


You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.


I'm confused. Didn't the CA SupCt already strip them of their ability to set the score?

gaddockteeg
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby gaddockteeg » Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:41 am

catechumen wrote:Pretty much... But I suspect 'they' are trying to limit the damage. They really don't want to lower the pass rate. If they wanted to they would have done it sometime in the last 30 years... What this is likely really about is hoping the CA Supreme Court just says cool idea you guys are the experts, 1414 sounds good to us. What I really hope happens is the CA Supreme Court lowers it much lower. Even better would be to make it retroactive for say the past 10 years, and auto admit anyone that achieved within the new scores. Regardless, we should lobby the CA Supreme Court, because it sounds like the CA Bar is trying to royally shaft us with almost no change to the pass rate.

And if you doubt they don't have your best interests at heart, just look at how much of 'cluster' the essay portion of the exam was this year. (It's the only real portion of the exam they control at this point...) Its not paranoia, if they really are out to get you. :D

SmokeytheBear wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:


You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.


I'm confused. Didn't the CA SupCt already strip them of their ability to set the score?



I htink I read thjat Cal bar voted yesterday for 1414. They'll be submitting that for notice/comment

justanotheruser
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:04 pm

gaddockteeg wrote:
catechumen wrote:Pretty much... But I suspect 'they' are trying to limit the damage. They really don't want to lower the pass rate. If they wanted to they would have done it sometime in the last 30 years... What this is likely really about is hoping the CA Supreme Court just says cool idea you guys are the experts, 1414 sounds good to us. What I really hope happens is the CA Supreme Court lowers it much lower. Even better would be to make it retroactive for say the past 10 years, and auto admit anyone that achieved within the new scores. Regardless, we should lobby the CA Supreme Court, because it sounds like the CA Bar is trying to royally shaft us with almost no change to the pass rate.

And if you doubt they don't have your best interests at heart, just look at how much of 'cluster' the essay portion of the exam was this year. (It's the only real portion of the exam they control at this point...) Its not paranoia, if they really are out to get you. :D

SmokeytheBear wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:


You rock!!!!! Thanks for sharing. I doubt that they'll pick option number two, but at least they're considering it.


I'm confused. Didn't the CA SupCt already strip them of their ability to set the score?



I htink I read thjat Cal bar voted yesterday for 1414. They'll be submitting that for notice/comment


ideally the CA Supreme Court opts to lower it even more... but beggars can't be choosers...

maxmartin
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:27 pm

1414 is such an odd number, I think the passing score will be between 1400 and 1420 with incremental 5 points. What is the regular Kx SoL? 2 years? If so, the court should at least make the new passing score retroactively for the past 2 years! :mrgreen:

Slickrick90
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:37 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Slickrick90 » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:35 pm

maxmartin wrote:1414 is such an odd number, I think the passing score will be between 1400 and 1420 with incremental 5 points. What is the regular Kx SoL? 2 years? If so, the court should at least make the new passing score retroactively for the past 2 years! :mrgreen:


Just took it. I hope the cutoff is 141 instead of 144. If that is the case and I pass because of it, it feels like getting bailed out by a personal foul on a 3rd and 20. :)

However, I will gladly take it!

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:45 pm

maxmartin wrote:1414 is such an odd number, I think the passing score will be between 1400 and 1420 with incremental 5 points. What is the regular Kx SoL? 2 years? If so, the court should at least make the new passing score retroactively for the past 2 years! :mrgreen:

I briefly skimmed through the memo posted earlier, and it seems like 1414 is one standard deviation away from mean of the distribution of scores (or something like that). I didn't read deeply enough to see the rationale behind choosing one standard deviation, but it seems like moving it to 1414 in simulation of past exams would have increased the pass rate by 5-15% or so depending on the demographic based on race, sex, accreditation. I think it was about 8% overall, which I think is pretty good and would restore the pass rates back to their former levels.

User avatar
catechumen
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 11:20 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby catechumen » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:26 pm

Former CA levels? That is just not good enough. There is no reason the CA bar should be the hardest in the country. To put this in perspective there are states like Missouri that has a pass rate of something like 90%+ at times. Or states like Wisconsin that auto admit anyone who graduated from a Wisconsin law school... (IE 100% pass rate if you graduated from an in state law school...)

There is no need for the pass rate to be that high, but the pass rate should reflect how CA students compare to lawyers nationwide. Given that time and again CA students score higher on the MBE's and the ethics exam, the pass rate should reflect that CA students are better students than the national average, and thus allow for higher than national average pass rate. A pass rate between 70-75% seems not at all unreasonable, if not higher. This is a test of so called minim competence after all. That's a pretty low bar to clear... The standard should reflect that. Virtually everyone taking it already has a JD. This elitism and economic protectionism needs to end!


a male human wrote:
maxmartin wrote:1414 is such an odd number, I think the passing score will be between 1400 and 1420 with incremental 5 points. What is the regular Kx SoL? 2 years? If so, the court should at least make the new passing score retroactively for the past 2 years! :mrgreen:

I briefly skimmed through the memo posted earlier, and it seems like 1414 is one standard deviation away from mean of the distribution of scores (or something like that). I didn't read deeply enough to see the rationale behind choosing one standard deviation, but it seems like moving it to 1414 in simulation of past exams would have increased the pass rate by 5-15% or so depending on the demographic based on race, sex, accreditation. I think it was about 8% overall, which I think is pretty good and would restore the pass rates back to their former levels.

User avatar
krispymenudo
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby krispymenudo » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:29 pm

yeslekkkk wrote:Anyone else dealing with a wave of depression?

I am not really nervous/anxious about my results. I don't feel physically ill, which apparently can happen after the period of stress passes. However, I find myself sobbing/exhausted doing other tasks now (didn't cry throughout the study period).


In a similar boat. Came here today to see if anyone else felt the same. I am not married, but I assume it's a similar feeling to the buildup of the wedding and the anticipation, then the next day it's like "well, what now?" I cried 3 times during bar prep, only one of which was actually Bar related.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1826
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:52 pm

catechumen wrote:Former CA levels? That is just not good enough. There is no reason the CA bar should be the hardest in the country. To put this in perspective there are states like Missouri that has a pass rate of something like 90%+ at times. Or states like Wisconsin that auto admit anyone who graduated from a Wisconsin law school... (IE 100% pass rate if you graduated from an in state law school...)

There is no need for the pass rate to be that high, but the pass rate should reflect how CA students compare to lawyers nationwide. Given that time and again CA students score higher on the MBE's and the ethics exam, the pass rate should reflect that CA students are better students than the national average, and thus allow for higher than national average pass rate. A pass rate between 70-75% seems not at all unreasonable, if not higher. This is a test of so called minim competence after all. That's a pretty low bar to clear... The standard should reflect that. Virtually everyone taking it already has a JD. This elitism and economic protectionism needs to end!


a male human wrote:
maxmartin wrote:1414 is such an odd number, I think the passing score will be between 1400 and 1420 with incremental 5 points. What is the regular Kx SoL? 2 years? If so, the court should at least make the new passing score retroactively for the past 2 years! :mrgreen:

I briefly skimmed through the memo posted earlier, and it seems like 1414 is one standard deviation away from mean of the distribution of scores (or something like that). I didn't read deeply enough to see the rationale behind choosing one standard deviation, but it seems like moving it to 1414 in simulation of past exams would have increased the pass rate by 5-15% or so depending on the demographic based on race, sex, accreditation. I think it was about 8% overall, which I think is pretty good and would restore the pass rates back to their former levels.

I see your point and understand the frustration, and the thing to keep in mind is that this is a case of "being demanding about something I never knew I needed."

Why are former CA levels not good enough? It's been accepted for decades, and it's in light of recent trends that the S.Ct. is reconsidering the proposal by the State Bar.

We like to talk about abysmal pass rates like 34.5%, but what most (including myself) don't like to talk about is that first timers at ABA-accredited schools have a pass rate of 65%-ish. Much higher if we look at high-ranking schools like Stanford or Boalt.

So one of the issues is CA allowing people who may not be ready to study law and graduate law school, almost like a "scam." These so-called California-accredited schools take people with LSATs in the 140s and GPAs below 3.0. Do you think they should be automatically admitted to the bar? I don't think so. And don't get me started about the overpopulation of lawyers in CA.

I'm not saying that you're incapable if you graduate from unnamed schools--not at all! I know at least one person who graduated from an unaccredited school and passed the CA bar in two tries. Two implications here: (1) Most of them will not pass easily. (2) Yet it is more than possible to pass the CA bar.

It's always been up to you, not some outside bureaucracy, not Barbri. This isn't just about knowing the law. It's about beating the test, not being minimally competent (although the bar for "minimum competence" has gone up the last few years). It teaches you to figure things out, to pass the bar, to better serve clients.

Or they're just evil; who knows? Sorry if I sound out of touch or condescending (passed 3 years ago after all). I would rather set a high standard for ourselves, and I'm here to offer help if people are willing to consider alternatives to fear.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Over population of lawyers in California? I don't see it. I see hundreds of thousands of people who need legal advice, but can't access it because they can't afford it. I see rural areas with no lawyers, no courthouse, no way to access justice. If California is really as concerned with the rights and needs of immigrants and poor people, they'd admit more lawyers, not fewer.

gaddockteeg
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby gaddockteeg » Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:19 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:Over population of lawyers in California? I don't see it. I see hundreds of thousands of people who need legal advice, but can't access it because they can't afford it. I see rural areas with no lawyers, no courthouse, no way to access justice. If California is really as concerned with the rights and needs of immigrants and poor people, they'd admit more lawyers, not fewer.


This. There's actually a pretty severe shortage of lawyers. I forget the stats but I've heard of numbers as crazy as only 1 out of 10 lawyers in America serve the bottom 75%.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests