2017 July California Bar

133CaliCutscore
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby 133CaliCutscore » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:25 pm

fear_no_evil wrote:
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.



Lower to 1330 and retro to 2008 to repair past injustices -
2018 moving forward, 1350 - let the malpractice cases rise, then we can readjust. (Highly doubt that would be the case)

133CaliCutscore
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby 133CaliCutscore » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:53 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
Last edited by 133CaliCutscore on Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

maxmartin
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:13 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 along with the 2 options the form wants you to select between. http://apps.calbar.ca.gov/cbe/docs/agen ... 001926.pdf


Cut to 1415 or 1420, and retro for the past 3 or 5 years. I don't think that is a terrible idea. If the cut score is 1420, the pass rate will only increase around 4 percent.

User avatar
esq
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby esq » Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:50 pm

Now, what if the court finds that the cut off score should be different than the 1414 standard? Shouldn't that be applied to the July 2017 test (whether the cut off score the court finds as appropriate is lower, the same as it has always been, or higher) if they find that a different cut off standard is appropriate?

justanotheruser
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:55 pm

esq wrote:Now, what if the court finds that the cut off score should be different than the 1414 standard? Shouldn't that be applied to the July 2017 test (whether the cut off score the court finds as appropriate is lower, the same as it has always been, or higher) if they find that a different cut off standard is appropriate?


A spokeswoman already confirmed that any change in the score will be retroactively applied to the July 2017 exam.

maxmartin
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:57 pm

esq wrote:Now, what if the court finds that the cut off score should be different than the 1414 standard? Shouldn't that be applied to the July 2017 test (whether the cut off score the court finds as appropriate is lower, the same as it has always been, or higher) if they find that a different cut off standard is appropriate?

Yes, any new cut score higher or lower will apply to this July. The question is if it should be applied to the past few years.

happybar
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby happybar » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:55 am

I know it has been quite some time since the bar, and you all probably blocked most of the questions out... but in case there are some people like me who still think about the questions and their answers (in vain, i know) I was wondering re the PT - if you guys referred to the whole Davis one "S" and Daviss (double ss) thing, and how. I didn't mention it because I thought it was not a strong argument given the fact that the police only asked for the ID (which revealed the mistake after the substance was found and the guy was arrested. but in retrospect It seems like something I Should have mentioned which kind of sucks cause I thought I did a 65 there.
Thanks

RCA88
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:05 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby RCA88 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:17 pm

I discussed it, because i thought it tends to show that his reasonable suspicion
Was based on on an unreasonable mistake - something the case in the library mentioned in dicta. I argued that the officer should have been more careful given that Davis is a pretty common last name, and that the search entailed an invasion into Davis' "home." But there were plenty of other ways to argue this point - Daviss was a lot shorter and weighed less, the fact that Davis's wife answered the door, whereas Davis's was much younger and travelled alone, etc.

133CaliCutscore
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby 133CaliCutscore » Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:30 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 along with the 2 options the form wants you to select between. http://apps.calbar.ca.gov/cbe/docs/agen ... 001926.pdf

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:31 pm

Do you have the full link for the results?

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Pbjd21 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:23 pm

justanotheruser wrote:
esq wrote:Now, what if the court finds that the cut off score should be different than the 1414 standard? Shouldn't that be applied to the July 2017 test (whether the cut off score the court finds as appropriate is lower, the same as it has always been, or higher) if they find that a different cut off standard is appropriate?


A spokeswoman already confirmed that any change in the score will be retroactively applied to the July 2017 exam.



Is there a link to the story where the spokeswoman confirmed retroactive application? And to confirm, we are only discussing among us if it should be applied beyond this July right? There's no way a lower cut score would be applied say 3 years back...my July 2015 1430 score is dying to know :(

logicspeaks
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby logicspeaks » Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:52 pm

People are assuming the score will be retroactive, but as far as I know everyone has been referring to this tweet, which only confirms the score could be applied to July 2017.

https://twitter.com/CalBarTrustee/statu ... 4965456896

justanotheruser
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:21 pm

logicspeaks wrote:People are assuming the score will be retroactive, but as far as I know everyone has been referring to this tweet, which only confirms the score could be applied to July 2017.

https://twitter.com/CalBarTrustee/statu ... 4965456896


Fair, it's a bit ambiguous right? I took 'could' to refer to the possibility of a score change, not to the possibility of whether a new score may/may not apply to July 2017 exam.

maxmartin
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:29 pm

logicspeaks wrote:People are assuming the score will be retroactive, but as far as I know everyone has been referring to this tweet, which only confirms the score could be applied to July 2017.

https://twitter.com/CalBarTrustee/statu ... 4965456896


The new cut score (changed or not) will come out in Sep, the exam result will be released in Nov. It is not even real retroactive. What is the point to have a new cut score but not apply to the July edition? The only question remains is whether the new score will be retro for the past few years. The answer most likely will be NO, simply because the test structure has changed.

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Pbjd21 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:00 pm

maxmartin wrote:
logicspeaks wrote:People are assuming the score will be retroactive, but as far as I know everyone has been referring to this tweet, which only confirms the score could be applied to July 2017.

https://twitter.com/CalBarTrustee/statu ... 4965456896


The new cut score (changed or not) will come out in Sep, the exam result will be released in Nov. It is not even real retroactive. What is the point to have a new cut score but not apply to the July edition? The only question remains is whether the new score will be retro for the past few years. The answer most likely will be NO, simply because the test structure has changed.


Agreed. However, from what I have read the committee is making their proposal officially in September but the court has up until December to make a final decision which is why I think there is some ambiguity as to how things would shake out. Either way hope the best for everyone, the wait is bad enough let alone not having clarification of what score we are striving for. But I do not see them retroactively applying anything past this July for the exam change as you stated. Guess wait and see approach is all we have. Hope it comes before November. I can't imagine getting a score b/w 1424-1440 and still not having clarification until December!

Legallywoke
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Legallywoke » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:09 am

RCA88 wrote:I discussed it, because i thought it tends to show that his reasonable suspicion
Was based on on an unreasonable mistake - something the case in the library mentioned in dicta. I argued that the officer should have been more careful given that Davis is a pretty common last name, and that the search entailed an invasion into Davis' "home." But there were plenty of other ways to argue this point - Daviss was a lot shorter and weighed less, the fact that Davis's wife answered the door, whereas Davis's was much younger and travelled alone, etc.


I roughly remember I had some issues with sub topic headings. How did everyone structure their PT letter?

User avatar
esq
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby esq » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:48 pm

RCA88 wrote:I discussed it, because i thought it tends to show that his reasonable suspicion
Was based on on an unreasonable mistake - something the case in the library mentioned in dicta. I argued that the officer should have been more careful given that Davis is a pretty common last name, and that the search entailed an invasion into Davis' "home." But there were plenty of other ways to argue this point - Daviss was a lot shorter and weighed less, the fact that Davis's wife answered the door, whereas Davis's was much younger and travelled alone, etc.


Not sure what the facts were, but gotta agree with RCA if the standard for the search is reasonable suspicion. Was it a semi public space? If so, then reasonable suspicion can likely be applied since expectation of privacy is lessened. Since Heien 2014 has decided that even a reasonable mistake of law doesn't make evidence found due to subsequent searches fruit of the poisonous tree, obviously proof that there was a unreasonable mistake of fact must be shown very clearly in order to suppress evidence. Anything that can show that the mistake was unreasonable, then, should be pointed out and examined (I'd say that the physical characteristics RCA pointed out would have been the most crucial factors, however).

133CaliCutscore
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby 133CaliCutscore » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:22 pm

maxmartin wrote:
logicspeaks wrote:People are assuming the score will be retroactive, but as far as I know everyone has been referring to this tweet, which only confirms the score could be applied to July 2017.

https://twitter.com/CalBarTrustee/statu ... 4965456896


The new cut score (changed or not) will come out in Sep, the exam result will be released in Nov. It is not even real retroactive. What is the point to have a new cut score but not apply to the July edition? The only question remains is whether the new score will be retro for the past few years. The answer most likely will be NO, simply because the test structure has changed.


PROPOSED MOTION
If the Committee agrees with the staff recommendation, the following motion would be in order:
Move … that the report “Conducting a Standard Setting Study for the California
Bar Exam” prepared by Chad Buckendahl, Ph.D. be accepted; that a request be
submitted to the Board Committee on Admissions and Education to authorize
release of the report and to circulate two options for a public comment period of
August 1 – 25, 2017, which will include two public hearings; that the options be:
1) No Change to the current CBX cut score; 2) To propose an interim CBX cut
score of 1414 to be used for the July 2017 CBX only; that following the period of
public comment, all comments received and the two options be once again
considered by the Committee in preparation for submission of a recommendation
to the Board of Trustees and ultimately the Supreme Court of California.

User avatar
21157015576609
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby 21157015576609 » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:56 pm


justanotheruser
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:10 pm

21157015576609 wrote:https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/342590


So many holes in his line of thinking lol

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:12 pm

21157015576609 wrote:https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/342590

Yep, got that in my email too. He makes a point but not sure if I necessarily agree in all aspects.

He talks mostly with respect to some attorneys he's seen, but there will be ineffective or incompetent attorneys no matter how much you raise the bar. I think the resolution for that is for the employer to fire the attorney or the state bar to disbar. Lowering the passing score to 1414 would have admitted 7-8% more applicants last year, which isn't a huge jump and a number that's probably not going to affect the competency of the profession.

I'm glad the judge mentioned that there isn't a shortage of lawyers here, though.

User avatar
esq
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby esq » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:00 pm

21157015576609 wrote:https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/342590


I honestly think this judge has a fair point. Those seeking representation usually face high stakes situations and should be able to count on their attorney to properly understand how to obtain a default judgment, lay a foundation for evidence, argue and write effectively.

However, the big question I have is whether this is achieved by a higher bar passage score or whether law schools are failing students by not training them for the every day ins and outs of what they will experience in a courtroom. Because the bar tests on the same rules and theoretical applications that are taught in a law school, an attorney could very well (in my opinion) pass the bar with a score above 1500 and still not be familiar with the practical steps needed to, for e.g., lay a foundation in a courtroom, though they might understand the evidence code inside and out. Public arguments and writing formalities used in court motions, and presiding judge preferences, are also learned through practical experience and not through passing the bar exam.

To me this indicates that the issues this judge nitpicks on are due to a failure in legal training. There really isn't any way to really understand how the practical application of all the rules, theories, and laws work inside a courtroom until you are required to apply them in mock trials or in an actual courtroom. Until then, everything is just a concept.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3482
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby ManoftheHour » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:34 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:I could be wrong here, but to me that was totally a negligence question. Lots of proximate cause to discuss. The stuff about the alternative product was used to talk extensively about breach/duty/standard of care (B<LP shit). Custom and alt product are factors but not determinant. Idk like I said I could be wrong...

Edit: Aight I'm gonna stop reading this stuff. I left the exam feeling pretty good and now I'm starting to have doubts. Need to focus on the MBE tomorrow.


I discussed proximate cause at length. Is is foreseeable that a downed power line would ignite a piece of paper that would then be carried by the wind and burn someone's house down? Yes. I also argued SPL. It was obvious that was what the numbers were for. In order to prevail on a defective design claim, P must show there are no other economically feasible alternatives and the current design is favored by the risk/utility test. I can see where a brief discussion of ADA might have been beneficial, though.


I definitely agree that I should have addressed SL but then dismiss quickly in a small paragraph or two. The problem with a SPL claim is that it seems way too far of a stretch. In order for there to be a SPL claim, there needs to be a proper defendant (manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, someone in the business of selling the product). Here, Defendant (the utilities company) is not a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, or even someone remotely in the business of selling the product. This is a pretty crucial element. What exactly was being injected into the stream of commerce? Nothing here is being sold or injected in the stream of commerce.

You would not sue a guy who used a product that injured someone under a strict liability claim. This dude had nothing to do with the design and did not inject it in the stream of commerce. This is basically the same thing. Alternative design here is irrelevant for the guy because he was not involved in the stream of commerce (didn't sell it, didn't design it, didn't distribute it). You could go after the company that produced it though. You could also sue the user under a negligence theory.

Furthermore, on the defective design claim, defendant (the utilities company) had nothing to do with the design. The numbers were used to show whether there was a breach of duty under the negligence claim. The utilities company had a duty to provide safe power lines to the residential community (RPP standard). Now whether that duty is breached or not is up for argument. The key question here is knowing that there is a safer wiring system existing and available, would a reasonable utilities company have used the new wiring system instead? This is ripe for a B>LP analysis. On one hand, there is this new safer alternative product that is out. The numbers from the research and studies shows that the new wiring system is definitely safer and would have probably prevented the fire. On the other hand, the new wires are expensive. Furthermore in D's favor, the facts indicate that most utility companies in the country still use the old ones. While "custom" isn't binding, it does show that the fact that most utility companies still use the old wiring system is favorable to D because it shows that perhaps D exercised a reasonable duty of care in implementing the old wiring system.

LockBox
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby LockBox » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:20 pm

esq wrote:
21157015576609 wrote:https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/342590


I honestly think this judge has a fair point. Those seeking representation usually face high stakes situations and should be able to count on their attorney to properly understand how to obtain a default judgment, lay a foundation for evidence, argue and write effectively.

However, the big question I have is whether this is achieved by a higher bar passage score or whether law schools are failing students by not training them for the every day ins and outs of what they will experience in a courtroom. Because the bar tests on the same rules and theoretical applications that are taught in a law school, an attorney could very well (in my opinion) pass the bar with a score above 1500 and still not be familiar with the practical steps needed to, for e.g., lay a foundation in a courtroom, though they might understand the evidence code inside and out. Public arguments and writing formalities used in court motions, and presiding judge preferences, are also learned through practical experience and not through passing the bar exam.

To me this indicates that the issues this judge nitpicks on are due to a failure in legal training. There really isn't any way to really understand how the practical application of all the rules, theories, and laws work inside a courtroom until you are required to apply them in mock trials or in an actual courtroom. Until then, everything is just a concept.


The prevailing thinking has never been that law school prepares you for practice. Only to think like a lawyer. You learn about practice during your first few years. To this extent, the bar isn't meant to only allow those qualified to practice - many members who passed the bar become disbarred every month. What the bar is meant to do is weed out those individuals who may or may not clearly be suited to practice insofar as the bar has decided that the current cut score eliminates most who might make mistakes that would adversely impact their clients.

maxmartin
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:10 pm

Just got an official bar survey email!




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests