2017 July California Bar

Blossomray
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:22 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Blossomray » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:52 pm

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure what it has to do with my comment. I do appreciate the explanation of relevancy though lol. Bravo.

I wasn't applying any law or answering the question in my comment. I was merely explaining to you that this was a crossover question between evidence, civ pro, and PR - all subjects you just discussed, so you appear to agree.

InterAlia1961 wrote:
Blossomray wrote:Privilege is an evidence concept - regardless of whether it's spousal privilege, doctor-patient, etc. Discovery issues (qualified/absolute work product) are civ pro issues. Confidentiality issues are PR issues. The question wanted to see if we understood the difference between those concepts. If you don't believe me you can check the FRE, the CEC, the ABA or CA ethics code, or the CCP/FRCP. This won't affect your score in a major way I'm sure you still passed. It's more of just a fundamental misunderstanding of these concepts that you're struggling with.


In California, to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Wendy's statement was irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it was complete hearsay. Even if it could be admitted, it was work-product, and the ONLY way to get it in is to show a hardship such that the evidence could not be discovered any other way. I don't see what is so hard about that. The court wasn't going to compel production. Period. On the first call, the attorney could testify because the defendant wasn't his client. He had a huge conflict of interest, though.

User avatar
BulletTooth
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby BulletTooth » Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:13 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:
Blossomray wrote:Privilege is an evidence concept - regardless of whether it's spousal privilege, doctor-patient, etc. Discovery issues (qualified/absolute work product) are civ pro issues. Confidentiality issues are PR issues. The question wanted to see if we understood the difference between those concepts. If you don't believe me you can check the FRE, the CEC, the ABA or CA ethics code, or the CCP/FRCP. This won't affect your score in a major way I'm sure you still passed. It's more of just a fundamental misunderstanding of these concepts that you're struggling with.


In California, to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Wendy's statement was irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it was complete hearsay. Even if it could be admitted, it was work-product, and the ONLY way to get it in is to show a hardship such that the evidence could not be discovered any other way. I don't see what is so hard about that. The court wasn't going to compel production. Period. On the first call, the attorney could testify because the defendant wasn't his client. He had a huge conflict of interest, though.


What is the argument that the statement is irrelevant? Wasn't the Plaintiff trying to hold the Defendant vicariously liable for fraud committed by one of its employees, and the statement at issue was the employee admitting to the fraud. Seems relevant to me...

Hangastaronit
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:50 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Hangastaronit » Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:17 pm

BulletTooth wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
Blossomray wrote:Privilege is an evidence concept - regardless of whether it's spousal privilege, doctor-patient, etc. Discovery issues (qualified/absolute work product) are civ pro issues. Confidentiality issues are PR issues. The question wanted to see if we understood the difference between those concepts. If you don't believe me you can check the FRE, the CEC, the ABA or CA ethics code, or the CCP/FRCP. This won't affect your score in a major way I'm sure you still passed. It's more of just a fundamental misunderstanding of these concepts that you're struggling with.


In California, to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Wendy's statement was irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it was complete hearsay. Even if it could be admitted, it was work-product, and the ONLY way to get it in is to show a hardship such that the evidence could not be discovered any other way. I don't see what is so hard about that. The court wasn't going to compel production. Period. On the first call, the attorney could testify because the defendant wasn't his client. He had a huge conflict of interest, though.


What is the argument that the statement is irrelevant? Wasn't the Plaintiff trying to hold the Defendant vicariously liable for fraud committed by one of its employees, and the statement at issue was the employee admitting to the fraud. Seems relevant to me...


Right. And even under CEC, whether D defrauded client is "in dispute" ... why do people think it was irrelevant?

jman77
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:51 pm

Hangastaronit wrote:
BulletTooth wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
Blossomray wrote:Privilege is an evidence concept - regardless of whether it's spousal privilege, doctor-patient, etc. Discovery issues (qualified/absolute work product) are civ pro issues. Confidentiality issues are PR issues. The question wanted to see if we understood the difference between those concepts. If you don't believe me you can check the FRE, the CEC, the ABA or CA ethics code, or the CCP/FRCP. This won't affect your score in a major way I'm sure you still passed. It's more of just a fundamental misunderstanding of these concepts that you're struggling with.


In California, to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Wendy's statement was irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it was complete hearsay. Even if it could be admitted, it was work-product, and the ONLY way to get it in is to show a hardship such that the evidence could not be discovered any other way. I don't see what is so hard about that. The court wasn't going to compel production. Period. On the first call, the attorney could testify because the defendant wasn't his client. He had a huge conflict of interest, though.


What is the argument that the statement is irrelevant? Wasn't the Plaintiff trying to hold the Defendant vicariously liable for fraud committed by one of its employees, and the statement at issue was the employee admitting to the fraud. Seems relevant to me...


Right. And even under CEC, whether D defrauded client is "in dispute" ... why do people think it was irrelevant?


I thought it was relevant. The action was for fraud and the statement pertained to the deceased (who I argued was an employee of Home Inc.) admitting to his sister (Wendy) that he indeed committed fraud. I also thought it was admissible as an opponent party admission within a business record. However, I didn't think it could be compelled due to work-product privilege (there would be no unfair prejudice to P if the memo was not compelled because P could just subpoena Wendy to testify). Now, if Wendy refused to testify, then maybe there would be an argument in favor of compelling. However, I didn't take my analysis that far.

yost
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby yost » Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:13 pm

Didn't the question say something to the effect of: "Attorney objected on work-product and privilege grounds. How should the court rule on those objections?" If I'm remembering correctly, the calls were very specific. I'm sure mentioning relevance and hearsay would have earned extra points, and I did briefly mention hearsay, but it didn't seem necessary.

Also, Attorney was not representing anyone in the relevant action (client was dead, and claim with estate was settled), so why would he be making relevance and hearsay objections?

jman77
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:21 pm

yost wrote:Didn't the question say something to the effect of: "Attorney objected on work-product and privilege grounds. How should the court rule on those objections?" If I'm remembering correctly, the calls were very specific. I'm sure mentioning relevance and hearsay would have earned extra points, and I did briefly mention hearsay, but it didn't seem necessary.

Also, Attorney was not representing anyone in the relevant action (client was dead, and claim with estate was settled), so why would he be making relevance and hearsay objections?


I may be wrong, but I don't think the question was how should the court rule on the objections. Rather, I think the question was a more general "may the court compel atty. to produce...." or something like that.

yost
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby yost » Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:36 pm

jman77 wrote:
yost wrote:Didn't the question say something to the effect of: "Attorney objected on work-product and privilege grounds. How should the court rule on those objections?" If I'm remembering correctly, the calls were very specific. I'm sure mentioning relevance and hearsay would have earned extra points, and I did briefly mention hearsay, but it didn't seem necessary.

Also, Attorney was not representing anyone in the relevant action (client was dead, and claim with estate was settled), so why would he be making relevance and hearsay objections?


I may be wrong, but I don't think the question was how should the court rule on the objections. Rather, I think the question was a more general "may the court compel atty. to produce...." or something like that.


Yeah, I think you're right. But even so, aren't "compelling production" and "admitting into evidence" two totally different things? The court could very well compel production of a document and then later determine that the contents of the document are irrelevant (or hearsay, etc.) and that the document is therefore inadmissible. Really, production has to happen before a determination on admissibility can be made.

jman77
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:44 pm

yost wrote:
jman77 wrote:
yost wrote:Didn't the question say something to the effect of: "Attorney objected on work-product and privilege grounds. How should the court rule on those objections?" If I'm remembering correctly, the calls were very specific. I'm sure mentioning relevance and hearsay would have earned extra points, and I did briefly mention hearsay, but it didn't seem necessary.

Also, Attorney was not representing anyone in the relevant action (client was dead, and claim with estate was settled), so why would he be making relevance and hearsay objections?


I may be wrong, but I don't think the question was how should the court rule on the objections. Rather, I think the question was a more general "may the court compel atty. to produce...." or something like that.


Yeah, I think you're right. But even so, aren't "compelling production" and "admitting into evidence" two totally different things? The court could very well compel production of a document and then later determine that the contents of the document are irrelevant (or hearsay, etc.) and that the document is therefore inadmissible. Really, production has to happen before a determination on admissibility can be made.


I agree that ultimately the question was asking whether the atty. could be compelled and if you answered just that, you would probably be fine. However, I also think that bringing up the other relevant issues can only net you more points, which extra points would then compensate for any deficiencies in your answer. Let me put it this way: if you answered that question as strictly an admissibility question, you would probably not do as well as someone who answered the question strictly as a privilege question. However, someone who addressed the privilege question and then also addressed the admissibility question would probably get the most points out of the 3.

yost
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby yost » Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:45 pm

jman77 wrote:
yost wrote:
jman77 wrote:
yost wrote:Didn't the question say something to the effect of: "Attorney objected on work-product and privilege grounds. How should the court rule on those objections?" If I'm remembering correctly, the calls were very specific. I'm sure mentioning relevance and hearsay would have earned extra points, and I did briefly mention hearsay, but it didn't seem necessary.

Also, Attorney was not representing anyone in the relevant action (client was dead, and claim with estate was settled), so why would he be making relevance and hearsay objections?


I may be wrong, but I don't think the question was how should the court rule on the objections. Rather, I think the question was a more general "may the court compel atty. to produce...." or something like that.


Yeah, I think you're right. But even so, aren't "compelling production" and "admitting into evidence" two totally different things? The court could very well compel production of a document and then later determine that the contents of the document are irrelevant (or hearsay, etc.) and that the document is therefore inadmissible. Really, production has to happen before a determination on admissibility can be made.


I agree that ultimately the question was asking whether the atty. could be compelled and if you answered just that, you would probably be fine. However, I also think that bringing up the other relevant issues can only net you more points, which extra points would then compensate for any deficiencies in your answer. Let me put it this way: if you answered that question as strictly an admissibility question, you would probably not do as well as someone who answered the question strictly as a privilege question. However, someone who addressed the privilege question and then also addressed the admissibility question would probably get the most points out of the 3.


I agree with all that.

jman77
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:54 pm

yost wrote:
jman77 wrote:
yost wrote:
jman77 wrote:
yost wrote:Didn't the question say something to the effect of: "Attorney objected on work-product and privilege grounds. How should the court rule on those objections?" If I'm remembering correctly, the calls were very specific. I'm sure mentioning relevance and hearsay would have earned extra points, and I did briefly mention hearsay, but it didn't seem necessary.

Also, Attorney was not representing anyone in the relevant action (client was dead, and claim with estate was settled), so why would he be making relevance and hearsay objections?


I may be wrong, but I don't think the question was how should the court rule on the objections. Rather, I think the question was a more general "may the court compel atty. to produce...." or something like that.


Yeah, I think you're right. But even so, aren't "compelling production" and "admitting into evidence" two totally different things? The court could very well compel production of a document and then later determine that the contents of the document are irrelevant (or hearsay, etc.) and that the document is therefore inadmissible. Really, production has to happen before a determination on admissibility can be made.


I agree that ultimately the question was asking whether the atty. could be compelled and if you answered just that, you would probably be fine. However, I also think that bringing up the other relevant issues can only net you more points, which extra points would then compensate for any deficiencies in your answer. Let me put it this way: if you answered that question as strictly an admissibility question, you would probably not do as well as someone who answered the question strictly as a privilege question. However, someone who addressed the privilege question and then also addressed the admissibility question would probably get the most points out of the 3.


I agree with all that.


I also happen to think that PR was not really a factor in Q2, except to discuss that the duty of confidentiality would not shield the atty. because compliance with a court order is one of the exceptions to said duty. Same with conflict of interest. So if the court orders you to provide the evidence, you would not be violating the duty if you comply with the court order. The only shield there really was work product. Without work product privilege, the court can compel, and compliance with the court order would not result in a violation of any applicable duty. My 2 cents.

I think PR only came into play in Q3 (or was it Q4?) when the Q asked for all potential violations committed by the atty.

I saw someone argue that work product does not apply either because the D in the case in which he is being asked to testify is not/never was his client. I think this is a valid argument as well. I know that the work product privilege belongs to both the client and the atty. so the atty. can assert it independently, but I'm not sure if he can only assert it with respect to the actual representation that gave rise to the privilege or if he can assert it generally against anyone seeking the production of the evidence.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:22 pm

As long as you didn't do something stupid, like I did, you're fine on Essay Two. I said that the ACP survives the death of the client. Not in California. So, right off the bat, I was making the wrong argument. I also blew my opening statement. I meant to say that in California, all relevant evidence that isn't privileged is discoverable. That's not how it came out. Anyway, one essay isn't going to tank anyone. Even though I'm expecting double nickles on this one for not making the California distinction concerning ACP, I think I did pretty good on the others. However, on this particular one, relevancy was a factor on the first two questions. I understood the fact pattern to indicate that Claire was suing Home, Inc. for fraud. She had already settled with Don's estate. Is Don's statement admissible against Home, Inc.? That was an argument.

jman77
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:33 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:As long as you didn't do something stupid, like I did, you're fine on Essay Two. I said that the ACP survives the death of the client. Not in California. So, right off the bat, I was making the wrong argument. I also blew my opening statement. I meant to say that in California, all relevant evidence that isn't privileged is discoverable. That's not how it came out. Anyway, one essay isn't going to tank anyone. Even though I'm expecting double nickles on this one for not making the California distinction concerning ACP, I think I did pretty good on the others. However, on this particular one, relevancy was a factor on the first two questions. I understood the fact pattern to indicate that Claire was suing Home, Inc. for fraud. She had already settled with Don's estate. Is Don's statement admissible against Home, Inc.? That was an argument.


I discussed ACP but threw it out because the conversations/memo in question did not pertain to communications between the atty. and the client, but between the atty. and the client's sister. I said there was no atty.-client relationship with the sister so communications with her were not privileged under ACP. I said they were privileged under work product.

User avatar
Alt123
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:38 pm

Pretty sure the distinction is the privilege survives the client in California UNTIL the executor is discharged, and is still active while the executor is active. That's what Barbri told us, anyway.

In the essay, the executor still was active, so should the privilege be.

jman77
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:12 pm

Alt123 wrote:Pretty sure the distinction is the privilege survives the client in California UNTIL the executor is discharged, and is still active while the executor is active. That's what Barbri told us, anyway.

In the essay, the executor still was active, so should the privilege be.


I think this applies more to the other question where he was being asked to testify about what the client told him, no (was it Q1)? I believe we were talking about the compelling of the memo in which he documented his interview with the sister (Q2).

User avatar
Alt123
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:38 pm

jman77 wrote:
Alt123 wrote:Pretty sure the distinction is the privilege survives the client in California UNTIL the executor is discharged, and is still active while the executor is active. That's what Barbri told us, anyway.

In the essay, the executor still was active, so should the privilege be.


I think this applies more to the other question where he was being asked to testify about what the client told him, no (was it Q1)? I believe we were talking about the compelling of the memo in which he documented his interview with the sister (Q2).


Ah my mistake, yes I was just talking about testifying to what the client told him.

Blossomray
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:22 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Blossomray » Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:00 am

yost wrote:
jman77 wrote:
yost wrote:Didn't the question say something to the effect of: "Attorney objected on work-product and privilege grounds. How should the court rule on those objections?" If I'm remembering correctly, the calls were very specific. I'm sure mentioning relevance and hearsay would have earned extra points, and I did briefly mention hearsay, but it didn't seem necessary.

Also, Attorney was not representing anyone in the relevant action (client was dead, and claim with estate was settled), so why would he be making relevance and hearsay objections?


I may be wrong, but I don't think the question was how should the court rule on the objections. Rather, I think the question was a more general "may the court compel atty. to produce...." or something like that.


Yeah, I think you're right. But even so, aren't "compelling production" and "admitting into evidence" two totally different things? The court could very well compel production of a document and then later determine that the contents of the document are irrelevant (or hearsay, etc.) and that the document is therefore inadmissible. Really, production has to happen before a determination on admissibility can be made.


The first question asked about compelling his testimony and didn't specify deposition testimony - that's why people discussed relevancy/hearsay admissibility issues (also bc it asked about a-c privilege, which is an evidentiary objection, so people threw other evidentiary issues in to support why the court shouldn't compel his testimony). The second question asked if the court should compel production of the documents so just discovery stuff. So yes, you're right they're different, but they asked about both (separately).

Pbjd21
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:50 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Pbjd21 » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:45 am

Maybe we can all agree that "evidence" "civ pro" "pr" question was the mf'er of the 5 eassays. I'm sure you all answered accordingly and at worst you get what, a 55 maybe a 50?? If you at least answered the calls of the question with even basic arguments that's a 55. Now getting 60+ on the others puts you in the game and maybe getting 65+ on the new performance keeps you there. MBE as we all know is a toss up but from what I figure and hear and have discussed with others it is typically the part of the exam most everyone has a sense of insecurity yet california as a whole does better than average. So let's call that one essay the equalizer/X factor. Guys we did our best, we took the exam with an uncertainty in future grading/scoring. That prick of a question is just a stone in the pond. As most law students are, we are all likely over thinking this one question. Cut score be damned I hope everyone else crushed the tort/remedies/civ pro/cp essays. Maybe this July will set a new UPWARD trend in pass rate. I've scored a 1430.1967 before so I'm definitely not surprised by many graded essays anymore. Just my two cents.

I-object
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby I-object » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:08 pm

Here's my humble opinion.

Looking at the call, Evidence did not jump out at me, same while analyzing and outlining. I was sleep deprived, and pressure with new format etc. That said, simply did not see the Evidence-type call. So I thought this was a Civ Pro / PR cross over.

(1) First, a motion to compel resolves discovery disputes (at the discovery phase). Its a logical motion to file when the dispute involves "privileged" information since privileged info is not discoverable unless and exception applies.... (like fraud..there's the issue).... The point being, this could have been discussed as a Civ Pro call.

(2) It appeared from the calls, the case had not reached the trail phase. Unless i missed a deposition somewhere. if so then I messed up and will not get a passing grade on this exam.

I thought Clair was seeking discovery -communications between Wendy, Don and/or Luke (attorney), and the document -what Luke wrote down of his belief that Clair had a good case against Don (his work product). If So the Attorney Client privilege discussion would be appropriate at this phase. As would duty of Confidentiality.

On the other hand I did not see discovery devices (interrogatories, request for production of documents)....but cant get away the Motion to Compel.

(3) Had the case reached the trial phase, then the call would likely have said

"Assuming all appropriate objections and motions were timely made...".

This language is typical and appears in almost every Evidence question. It has too because admissibility of evidence at this phase is different from admissibility in the discovery phase. Generally one more strict than the other because entering trial hearsay etc applies.

Anyway, this is where my head was at during the exam. I think now, I may have missed this all together.

jarofsoup
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jarofsoup » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:44 pm

Can any retailers attest how the experience compares to the three day exam?

Blossomray
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:22 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Blossomray » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:21 pm

I-object wrote:Here's my humble opinion.

Looking at the call, Evidence did not jump out at me, same while analyzing and outlining. I was sleep deprived, and pressure with new format etc. That said, simply did not see the Evidence-type call. So I thought this was a Civ Pro / PR cross over.

(1) First, a motion to compel resolves discovery disputes (at the discovery phase). Its a logical motion to file when the dispute involves "privileged" information since privileged info is not discoverable unless and exception applies.... (like fraud..there's the issue).... The point being, this could have been discussed as a Civ Pro call.

(2) It appeared from the calls, the case had not reached the trail phase. Unless i missed a deposition somewhere. if so then I messed up and will not get a passing grade on this exam.

I thought Clair was seeking discovery -communications between Wendy, Don and/or Luke (attorney), and the document -what Luke wrote down of his belief that Clair had a good case against Don (his work product). If So the Attorney Client privilege discussion would be appropriate at this phase. As would duty of Confidentiality.

On the other hand I did not see discovery devices (interrogatories, request for production of documents)....but cant get away the Motion to Compel.

(3) Had the case reached the trial phase, then the call would likely have said

"Assuming all appropriate objections and motions were timely made...".

This language is typical and appears in almost every Evidence question. It has too because admissibility of evidence at this phase is different from admissibility in the discovery phase. Generally one more strict than the other because entering trial hearsay etc applies.

Anyway, this is where my head was at during the exam. I think now, I may have missed this all together.


All of that makes sense. It definitely wasn't the typical evidence question, and they probably weren't looking for discussion of evidence/relevancy. I don't remember 100% clearly, but I think there was only a motion to compel from re: the memorandum...which is why people didn't stick to a discussion on discovery.

User avatar
BulletTooth
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby BulletTooth » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:10 am

Blossomray wrote:
I-object wrote:Here's my humble opinion.

Looking at the call, Evidence did not jump out at me, same while analyzing and outlining. I was sleep deprived, and pressure with new format etc. That said, simply did not see the Evidence-type call. So I thought this was a Civ Pro / PR cross over.

(1) First, a motion to compel resolves discovery disputes (at the discovery phase). Its a logical motion to file when the dispute involves "privileged" information since privileged info is not discoverable unless and exception applies.... (like fraud..there's the issue).... The point being, this could have been discussed as a Civ Pro call.

(2) It appeared from the calls, the case had not reached the trail phase. Unless i missed a deposition somewhere. if so then I messed up and will not get a passing grade on this exam.

I thought Clair was seeking discovery -communications between Wendy, Don and/or Luke (attorney), and the document -what Luke wrote down of his belief that Clair had a good case against Don (his work product). If So the Attorney Client privilege discussion would be appropriate at this phase. As would duty of Confidentiality.

On the other hand I did not see discovery devices (interrogatories, request for production of documents)....but cant get away the Motion to Compel.

(3) Had the case reached the trial phase, then the call would likely have said

"Assuming all appropriate objections and motions were timely made...".

This language is typical and appears in almost every Evidence question. It has too because admissibility of evidence at this phase is different from admissibility in the discovery phase. Generally one more strict than the other because entering trial hearsay etc applies.

Anyway, this is where my head was at during the exam. I think now, I may have missed this all together.


All of that makes sense. It definitely wasn't the typical evidence question, and they probably weren't looking for discussion of evidence/relevancy. I don't remember 100% clearly, but I think there was only a motion to compel from re: the memorandum...which is why people didn't stick to a discussion on discovery.


The first question had to do with a motion to compel the lawyer's testimony re what the sister told the lawyer about the lawyer's client. I don't think a court is going to grant a motion to compel testimony when the testimony is irrelevant or hearsay not within an exception...

I'm sure you'll be fine, but you're probably getting people super stressed out because you don't accurately remember the call of the question, and now they're second guessing themselves.

Blossomray
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:22 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Blossomray » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:54 am

BulletTooth wrote:
Blossomray wrote:
I-object wrote:Here's my humble opinion.

Looking at the call, Evidence did not jump out at me, same while analyzing and outlining. I was sleep deprived, and pressure with new format etc. That said, simply did not see the Evidence-type call. So I thought this was a Civ Pro / PR cross over.

(1) First, a motion to compel resolves discovery disputes (at the discovery phase). Its a logical motion to file when the dispute involves "privileged" information since privileged info is not discoverable unless and exception applies.... (like fraud..there's the issue).... The point being, this could have been discussed as a Civ Pro call.

(2) It appeared from the calls, the case had not reached the trail phase. Unless i missed a deposition somewhere. if so then I messed up and will not get a passing grade on this exam.

I thought Clair was seeking discovery -communications between Wendy, Don and/or Luke (attorney), and the document -what Luke wrote down of his belief that Clair had a good case against Don (his work product). If So the Attorney Client privilege discussion would be appropriate at this phase. As would duty of Confidentiality.

On the other hand I did not see discovery devices (interrogatories, request for production of documents)....but cant get away the Motion to Compel.

(3) Had the case reached the trial phase, then the call would likely have said

"Assuming all appropriate objections and motions were timely made...".

This language is typical and appears in almost every Evidence question. It has too because admissibility of evidence at this phase is different from admissibility in the discovery phase. Generally one more strict than the other because entering trial hearsay etc applies.

Anyway, this is where my head was at during the exam. I think now, I may have missed this all together.


All of that makes sense. It definitely wasn't the typical evidence question, and they probably weren't looking for discussion of evidence/relevancy. I don't remember 100% clearly, but I think there was only a motion to compel from re: the memorandum...which is why people didn't stick to a discussion on discovery.


The first question had to do with a motion to compel the lawyer's testimony re what the sister told the lawyer about the lawyer's client. I don't think a court is going to grant a motion to compel testimony when the testimony is irrelevant or hearsay not within an exception...

I'm sure you'll be fine, but you're probably getting people super stressed out because you don't accurately remember the call of the question, and now they're second guessing themselves.


I also talked about hearsay and relevance bc it didn't specify deposition testimony. However, a court would grant a motion to compel deposition testimony even if it was irrelevant or was hearsay bc of the broader scope of discovery versus admissibility of evidence. And I do remember the call of the question. I just wasn't sure if there was a MTC re: the testimony, but that wouldn't have changed my analysis.

Don't second guess yourself though! If anything, this thread shows that there was a variety of interpretations of the questions. The important thing is that whatever law you went with, your analysis matched up and was thorough. No need to stress. :)

User avatar
fear_no_evil
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby fear_no_evil » Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:17 am

jman77 wrote:
34percent wrote:
a male human wrote:
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.





I agree with what you're saying, and also agree with looking at the underlying stats, i.e. what you said about first time ABA schools and their pass rate.
Having passed on my second try, from a CBA school, at 41 years old, not having taken Barbri, I can say, this test can be passed, but it takes effort and dedication. I am totally opposed to lowering the score, even had I not passed I would be opposed to it. Having been in a school where I could look around the room and know who would never pass the bar, I believe that is the real issue, taking peoples money who have no chance to ever pass the bar, and thus allowing these students to drag down the %.

I am sure it's not what people in this forum want to hear, but I am filled with satisfaction knowing I passed the 3 day CA bar, and I will tell you this, if I can do it, anyone who actually studies can do it, but you have to study the right way. I think that many just don't know how to approach studying for it and law schools are shitty about that. But lowering the score, to allow unqualified people to pass, it just demeans the whole profession.

It makes me sad to see all these people hoping and wishing for lower scores, shouldn't the goal be to write better exams, for you to have a better understanding of the law. Let's face some facts of life, not everyone gets everything they want, some things, like being an attorney, take a ton of effort and even then some never pass. But don't give up, study hard, and regardless of the cut score, you can pass the test.


I am personally indifferent with respect to maintaining or lowering the cut score, but I don't think you completely understand the issue here. It's not so much a matter of letting unqualified people in as it is a question of whether the current cut score in CA is reasonable. Did you take a look at the summary of the study in the CA bar resolution/memo someone posted yesterday? CA's cut score is significantly higher than cut scores in most other jurisdictions (about 9-10 pts. higher) and there is only one other jurisdiction in the entire nation with a cut score approximating CA's.

The question is, is there really something unique about practicing law in CA that justifies the significantly higher cut score? Are transactions/cases more complex here than, say, in NY? The real issue is that it's likely that candidates who otherwise possess the minimum competency may be unjustifiably excluded from practicing in CA because of the higher cut score. The point is not to lower the cut score to the point where every Tom, Dick and Harry can get into the profession. Rather, the point is to lower it to a reasonable level so that people who are qualified are not unduly excluded.

If you think there is a legitimate reason the cut score in CA needs to be significantly higher than in other jurisdictions, I'd be interested to hear what you think that reason is.

ETA: I passed the 2014 NY bar and took the July 2017 CA bar.



FYI, At least 2 jurisdictions have lowered their cut score within the past year: Nevada 140 -138, and Montana 270-266.

I'm willing to bet California will lower to at least the recommended 1410.

133CaliCutscore
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby 133CaliCutscore » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:01 pm

Hi All -- Been a long time lurker but had to create a username and post about this!!!

Public Hearing / Comment Notice on Lowering the Cali Cut Score.

Bar is recommending lowering 1440 to 1414 for July 2017 Administration.

Let them know how you all feel by filling out the form below!!

https://fs22.formsite.com/sbcta/form40/index.html

The Results can be found here along with the 2 options the form wants you to select between. http://apps.calbar.ca.gov/cbe/docs/agen ... 001926.pdf

maxmartin
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:09 pm

133CaliCutscore wrote:Hi All -- Been a long time lurker but had to create a username and post about this!!!

Public Hearing / Comment Notice on Lowering the Cali Cut Score.

Bar is recommending lowering 1440 to 1414 for July 2017 Administration.

Let them know how you all feel by filling out the form below!!

https://fs22.formsite.com/sbcta/form40/index.html

The Results can be found here http://apps.calbar.ca.gov/cbe/docs/agen ... 001926.pdf


Thanks, just submit my comment.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests