2017 July California Bar Forum

[jman77]

Jesus am I glad that I didn't get on this message board after I took the bar exam. I'd be curled up in the corner of my bedroom with the shades drawn and the lights off listening to the National on repeat praying for a lightning bolt to pierce my room and hit me between the eyes.

Friends--what's done is done. You've expended so much energy already. Go enjoy the sunshine and some fish tacos.

This.

Tried to say the same thing earlier in the thread. It fell on deaf ears. Crazy anxious people gonna be crazy anxious people.

Hate to sound like a jerk, but why would you guys keep coming to this thread if you don't like what's being discussed here? What do you think people are going to be talking about in a thread that has "2017 July California Bar" in the title in the immediate aftermath of the bar and what would you rather that people tak about here? This is TLS after all...

[caliguy93]

Jesus am I glad that I didn't get on this message board after I took the bar exam. I'd be curled up in the corner of my bedroom with the shades drawn and the lights off listening to the National on repeat praying for a lightning bolt to pierce my room and hit me between the eyes.

Friends--what's done is done. You've expended so much energy already. Go enjoy the sunshine and some fish tacos.

This.

Tried to say the same thing earlier in the thread. It fell on deaf ears. Crazy anxious people gonna be crazy anxious people.

Hate to sound like a jerk, but why would you guys keep coming to this thread I feel you don't like what's being discussed here? What do you think people are going to be talking about in a thread that has "2017 July California Bar" in the title in the immediate aftermath of the bar and what would you rather that people tak about here? This is TLS after all...

its somewhat therapeutic to come here.. whether it helps affirm your thoughts of what you got right to make you feel better about your questionable answers or if it identifies the areas you got wrong to help you better prepare should you have to take the exam again it can be helpful. Plus, as bad as it sounds, misery loves company, so reading how other people messed up (in which messing up is normal for an exam like this) helps others feel not so bad about the things they know they messed up on as the feeling of being "not the only one" is a calming feeling.


i don't know about most of you, but most of my family and friends have no idea what its like to take the exam (or to fail the exam), so discussing it with people who actually understands the struggle of the hazing this exam forces upon future lawyers is also therapeutic

[jman77]

Jesus am I glad that I didn't get on this message board after I took the bar exam. I'd be curled up in the corner of my bedroom with the shades drawn and the lights off listening to the National on repeat praying for a lightning bolt to pierce my room and hit me between the eyes.

Friends--what's done is done. You've expended so much energy already. Go enjoy the sunshine and some fish tacos.

This.

Tried to say the same thing earlier in the thread. It fell on deaf ears. Crazy anxious people gonna be crazy anxious people.

Hate to sound like a jerk, but why would you guys keep coming to this thread I feel you don't like what's being discussed here? What do you think people are going to be talking about in a thread that has "2017 July California Bar" in the title in the immediate aftermath of the bar and what would you rather that people tak about here? This is TLS after all...

its somewhat therapeutic to come here.. whether it helps affirm your thoughts of what you got right to make you feel better about your questionable answers or if it identifies the areas you got wrong to help you better prepare should you have to take the exam again it can be helpful. Plus, as bad as it sounds, misery loves company, so reading how other people messed up (in which messing up is normal for an exam like this) helps others feel not so bad about the things they know they messed up on as the feeling of being "not the only one" is a calming feeling.


i don't know about most of you, but most of my family and friends have no idea what its like to take the exam (or to fail the exam), so discussing it with people who actually understands the struggle of the hazing this exam forces upon future lawyers is also therapeutic

Yup, commiseration and affirmation are what I come here for. I mean, if this is still going on a week, 2 weeks, or a month from now, I'd agree that people should just move on and stop "obsessing" over the bar. But it's the day after; I think it's reasonable for people to want to seek assurance that they weren't the only ones who messed up, or that they didn't mess up (or at least try to convince themselves that they did). I just don't see the point in telling people to stop and just move on at this time. And I particularly don't see the point in coming here for the sole purpose of telling people to stop and move on.

Personally, I'd probably stay on here until end of tomorrow, then "move on" once the weekend kicks in.

[Yogagirl]

I ran out of time with the PT. It was incomplete and will not receive a passing score. Does anyone think this will be completely fatal? Please let me know. I feel horrible.

[BulletTooth]

I ran out of time with the PT. It was incomplete and will not receive a passing score. Does anyone think this will be completely fatal? Please let me know. I feel horrible.

I don't think not finishing the PT will be completely fatal depending on how you did on the other portions of the exam. It sounds like you'll get somewhere between a 45-55 on the PT depending on how much you wrote (https://one-timers.com/one-timers-bar-exam-calculator/). Assuming you scored above 65s on some of the other essays and did well on the MBE, that should hopefully be able to offset your PT score. Good luck!

[BulletTooth]

Not really healthy, I know, but I am going over the questions in my head.
In the second question (the one focused on att-client privilege) - was the question asking whether the plaintiff can compel lawyer to testify ask specifically to testify about the conversation with the sister - or in general to testify also to what he spoke with the client?

I believe the question asked whether the Defendant (Home) could compel the lawyer (Luke) to testify as to the conversation he had with the sister re her brother admitting to the fraud. The facts stated that the attorney had raised the attorney-client privilege as a defense--which wouldn't apply because (1) the client died and his estate was distributed and (2) the conversation was between the attorney and a witness, not his client.

As to whether the question involved an evidence analysis, I believe that it did. The Defendant (Home) was trying to compel the lawyer to testify as to his conversation with the sister: Lawyer would testify, "Sister told me 'Brother said "I committed fraud"'" (two layers of hearsay). The Defendant is not going to be able to compel that testimony unless the hearsay falls within an exception--Sisters statement does not and the Brother does (statement against interest because he's dead and party opponent because he was defendant's employee etc.). Moreover, as it is California, the Defendant has the burden of showing that the hearsay falls within an exception (unlike FRE), so the Defendant (Home) would have the initial burden of showing that testimony it seeks to compel is admissible. I'm sure there are some more nuanced issues I've left out, but I think this covers the gist of the first question from that essay.

[Blossomray]

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.

[CAnow]

unfortunately, there is never a case where they test a subject twice,

Not true. Back in 2003 and 2005 there was a PR call on day 1 and then they came back with a full PR question on day 3.

[Slickrick90]

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.

[Hangastaronit]

Not really healthy, I know, but I am going over the questions in my head.
In the second question (the one focused on att-client privilege) - was the question asking whether the plaintiff can compel lawyer to testify ask specifically to testify about the conversation with the sister - or in general to testify also to what he spoke with the client?

I believe the question asked whether the Defendant (Home) could compel the lawyer (Luke) to testify as to the conversation he had with the sister re her brother admitting to the fraud. The facts stated that the attorney had raised the attorney-client privilege as a defense--which wouldn't apply because (1) the client died and his estate was distributed and (2) the conversation was between the attorney and a witness, not his client.

As to whether the question involved an evidence analysis, I believe that it did. The Defendant (Home) was trying to compel the lawyer to testify as to his conversation with the sister: Lawyer would testify, "Sister told me 'Brother said "I committed fraud"'" (two layers of hearsay). The Defendant is not going to be able to compel that testimony unless the hearsay falls within an exception--Sisters statement does not and the Brother does (statement against interest because he's dead and party opponent because he was defendant's employee etc.). Moreover, as it is California, the Defendant has the burden of showing that the hearsay falls within an exception (unlike FRE), so the Defendant (Home) would have the initial burden of showing that testimony it seeks to compel is admissible. I'm sure there are some more nuanced issues I've left out, but I think this covers the gist of the first question from that essay.

^Agreed except one question, my prep materials on CA evidence distinctions said that an employee statement under respondeat superior is only considered an admission of the employer in a negligence case where the employee's negligence gave rise to the liability. So I ignored party admission and went with statement against interest. Did I miss something there?

[Slickrick90]

Not really healthy, I know, but I am going over the questions in my head.
In the second question (the one focused on att-client privilege) - was the question asking whether the plaintiff can compel lawyer to testify ask specifically to testify about the conversation with the sister - or in general to testify also to what he spoke with the client?

I believe the question asked whether the Defendant (Home) could compel the lawyer (Luke) to testify as to the conversation he had with the sister re her brother admitting to the fraud. The facts stated that the attorney had raised the attorney-client privilege as a defense--which wouldn't apply because (1) the client died and his estate was distributed and (2) the conversation was between the attorney and a witness, not his client.

As to whether the question involved an evidence analysis, I believe that it did. The Defendant (Home) was trying to compel the lawyer to testify as to his conversation with the sister: Lawyer would testify, "Sister told me 'Brother said "I committed fraud"'" (two layers of hearsay). The Defendant is not going to be able to compel that testimony unless the hearsay falls within an exception--Sisters statement does not and the Brother does (statement against interest because he's dead and party opponent because he was defendant's employee etc.). Moreover, as it is California, the Defendant has the burden of showing that the hearsay falls within an exception (unlike FRE), so the Defendant (Home) would have the initial burden of showing that testimony it seeks to compel is admissible. I'm sure there are some more nuanced issues I've left out, but I think this covers the gist of the first question from that essay.

^Agreed except one question, my prep materials on CA evidence distinctions said that an employee statement under respondeat superior is only considered an admission of the employer in a negligence case where the employee's negligence gave rise to the liability. So I ignored party admission and went with statement against interest. Did I miss something there?

In re: double hearsay, I talked about statement against interest. I said u need to be unavailable. Also, I made a distinction between CA and federal law where the lady's statement could be determined as a statement against interest (societal interests) since she would be ratting out her family member or something. Not sure what other exemptions....

[34percent]

I've been reading this site for the past year.

I failed the July 2016 bar. It sucked. I got over it, studied really hard and was one of the 34% of the people that passed the Feb 2017 bar.

Between the bar and results I spent too many hours thinking about comments on this site as well as punching random scores into the bar pass calculator to see what I needed to have done to pass.

Reading the post bar comments regarding this bar I just wanted to say this;

nothing on this site matters. I wrote what I felt were passing essays in Feb. I came on here and felt like shit after reading what people said they wrote, what should have been written, or what shouldn't have been written. It wrecked the little bit of confidence I had. By the time results came out I was certain that I had failed. But I didn't, I passed.

So here was my take away. You've obviously got to hit the issues the graders are looking for, however, if you miss some, and hit some others, and identify them and IRAC them in a strong legal manner, you will get some points. I can tell you in the Feb bar, on the remedies question, I missed the entire point of it and didn't write on punitive damages, but I wrote on everything else, and I wrote well. I thought that did me in. I missed several things on a few other essays. I also didn't feel good about the second PT. I figured it was going to be close. But I passed.

What I thought about after getting my results and this thread was this, the other commentators are just like me. Some have failed once, some 5 times. They might think they are right, but only the graders know what is right, what will get you points. I took everyones comments as if they had to be right and I was wrong. Well guess what, I passed. I saw that many of the people who had been the most vocal about their positions did not.

So long as you write in a legal manner, IRAC that thing, and hit some of the main issues, and some of the minor issues, you can pass. It's not easy, but it's passable. And more importantly, if you don't pass, don't give up, as much as knowledge is a part of this exam, so is luck. Had I had a Con Law or Real Prop question I might have really been screwed, but the subjects came up that I was comfortable with, keep trying and one of these times your subjects will come up to. There is nothing like the feeling of passing this test, don't give up.

[jagsta]

I've been reading this site for the past year.

I failed the July 2016 bar. It sucked. I got over it, studied really hard and was one of the 34% of the people that passed the Feb 2017 bar.

Between the bar and results I spent too many hours thinking about comments on this site as well as punching random scores into the bar pass calculator to see what I needed to have done to pass.

Reading the post bar comments regarding this bar I just wanted to say this;

nothing on this site matters. I wrote what I felt were passing essays in Feb. I came on here and felt like shit after reading what people said they wrote, what should have been written, or what shouldn't have been written. It wrecked the little bit of confidence I had. By the time results came out I was certain that I had failed. But I didn't, I passed.

So here was my take away. You've obviously got to hit the issues the graders are looking for, however, if you miss some, and hit some others, and identify them and IRAC them in a strong legal manner, you will get some points. I can tell you in the Feb bar, on the remedies question, I missed the entire point of it and didn't write on punitive damages, but I wrote on everything else, and I wrote well. I thought that did me in. I missed several things on a few other essays. I also didn't feel good about the second PT. I figured it was going to be close. But I passed.

What I thought about after getting my results and this thread was this, the other commentators are just like me. Some have failed once, some 5 times. They might think they are right, but only the graders know what is right, what will get you points. I took everyones comments as if they had to be right and I was wrong. Well guess what, I passed. I saw that many of the people who had been the most vocal about their positions did not.

So long as you write in a legal manner, IRAC that thing, and hit some of the main issues, and some of the minor issues, you can pass. It's not easy, but it's passable. And more importantly, if you don't pass, don't give up, as much as knowledge is a part of this exam, so is luck. Had I had a Con Law or Real Prop question I might have really been screwed, but the subjects came up that I was comfortable with, keep trying and one of these times your subjects will come up to. There is nothing like the feeling of passing this test, don't give up.

Well said. Was in the exact same situation and outcome as 34 percent, couldn't have put it any better.

[happybar]

Not really healthy, I know, but I am going over the questions in my head.
In the second question (the one focused on att-client privilege) - was the question asking whether the plaintiff can compel lawyer to testify ask specifically to testify about the conversation with the sister - or in general to testify also to what he spoke with the client?

I believe the question asked whether the Defendant (Home) could compel the lawyer (Luke) to testify as to the conversation he had with the sister re her brother admitting to the fraud. The facts stated that the attorney had raised the attorney-client privilege as a defense--which wouldn't apply because (1) the client died and his estate was distributed and (2) the conversation was between the attorney and a witness, not his client.

As to whether the question involved an evidence analysis, I believe that it did. The Defendant (Home) was trying to compel the lawyer to testify as to his conversation with the sister: Lawyer would testify, "Sister told me 'Brother said "I committed fraud"'" (two layers of hearsay). The Defendant is not going to be able to compel that testimony unless the hearsay falls within an exception--Sisters statement does not and the Brother does (statement against interest because he's dead and party opponent because he was defendant's employee etc.). Moreover, as it is California, the Defendant has the burden of showing that the hearsay falls within an exception (unlike FRE), so the Defendant (Home) would have the initial burden of showing that testimony it seeks to compel is admissible. I'm sure there are some more nuanced issues I've left out, but I think this covers the gist of the first question from that essay.

Thanks BulletTooth.

[yeslekkkk]

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).

[unitball]

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).

Can't say if I'm depressed, but I definitely feel a bit down. Much more low-energy and apathetic than I usually would be. I'm assuming this is just carryover from all the stress the past months have brought. I'm sure we'll be feeling much better as the days go by.

[bacillusanthracis]

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).

How timely. This is exactly why I came to this thread today---to see if anyone else was feeling the same way.

I sure am.

I've been in denial with the "I'm not depressed, just tired" notion. Fuck that. I'm seriously depressed.

It has nothing to do with thinking I failed. I think I did, but that's okay. I did everything I could, so because of that, I can live with whatever the results are. But god, I just feel so .... sad. And so unmotivated. I'm sure this will pass, but in the meantime, post-bar depression is kicking my ass.

[34percent]

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).

You've studied countless hours for months, all leading up to this one giant moment where you know the results give you around a 50/50 chance. Every day you've woken with a purpose and a plan, and then, just like that, it's done. I remember not being able to get off my couch for about 3 days after the test. I just couldn't move. I was sad, exhausted, and depressed, I even did a few MBE's just to keep my mind working. I think it took me about 2 weeks to start to feel normal again.

[InterAlia1961]

Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?

I felt my analysis was super short each property

I did. Discussed it as a writing satisfying the requirements for a valid transmutation in California.

[InterAlia1961]

I second (fourth?) the 5 Ds in a row.

Also, don't think a judge needs to say anything for summary judgement (based on a an AdaptiBar question).

A judge does have to give reasons of law and fact for SJ, but not for a motion to dismiss.

[InterAlia1961]

I feel okay about the essays, except for the second one. I know I nailed the relevancy and evidence parts. (Of course Luke can testify, his client wasn't the defendant, and anything Wendy has to say is completely irrelevant. Even if the testimony managed to get past the relevancy challenge, it was complete hearsay.) Where I blew it was on the PR. I blew right past the main violation of confidence. I was watching the clock, and just breezed by it. Spit out a rule statement, said something about violating it if he testified, and went on to the remedies question, which I feel good about. Remembered all the elements of TRO, Prelim Inj, and SP. I feel good about the torts question and the civ pro question as well.

Then, there's the PT. I finished, but I could've discussed the hallway incident better, and although I discussed the mistake in ID and reasonable suspicion, I brushed over the wrong room number, saying something like he was on the other side of the ship. I'm not happy with it, but I finished, right down to the partner's signature line. I'm hoping I got to 60 on the PT and the Evidence/PR essays. I think I did better on the others.

The MBE didn't seem as difficult this time as it did the prior times. I don't know if that's good or bad. I noticed a lack of RAP questions. I hope that's a good sign. I've done thousands of MCQs in an effort to pass this beast. Sooner or later, it has to pay off. I noticed some questions on the exam that were close to questions from Barbri and Adaptibar, with one little difference. The answer that appears in the prep materials is there, and on at least on real property question, I almost chose it, because I had seen it before. But after reading the question closely, it was clear that the examiners were being tricky. The last practice exam I took before the real deal had me at 85%. I'm hoping I passed with at least a 70%.

[maxmartin]

Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?

I felt my analysis was super short each property

I did. Discussed it as a writing satisfying the requirements for a valid transmutation in California.

I though this was more about Lucas AntiLucas. I discussed transmutation heavily in the Van.

[maxmartin]

I second (fourth?) the 5 Ds in a row.

Also, don't think a judge needs to say anything for summary judgement (based on a an AdaptiBar question).

A judge does have to give reasons of law and fact for SJ, but not for a motion to dismiss.

For summary judgment, a judge has to give the reason of denying or granting. I don't know if that includes "law or fact”。 Does the question ask about summary judgment or motion to dismiss?

[InterAlia1961]

Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?

I felt my analysis was super short each property

I did. Discussed it as a writing satisfying the requirements for a valid transmutation in California.

I though this was more about Lucas AntiLucas. I discussed transmutation heavily in the Van.

I talked about Lucas/Anti-Lucas too. I also threw in Marriage of Moore on the increased value of the home, just to be safe. Talked about equitable distribution under normal circumstances. However, spouses owe a duty to one another to deal with each other fairly and in good faith, so husband was likely to get more because of wife's deceit.

[maxmartin]

Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?

I felt my analysis was super short each property

I did. Discussed it as a writing satisfying the requirements for a valid transmutation in California.

I though this was more about Lucas AntiLucas. I discussed transmutation heavily in the Van.

I talked about Lucas/Anti-Lucas too. I also threw in Marriage of Moore on the increased value of the home, just to be safe. Talked about equitable distribution under normal circumstances. However, spouses owe a duty to one another to deal with each other fairly and in good faith, so husband was likely to get more because of wife's deceit.

Yep I talked about the fiduciary duty too. But husband's hand is not entirely clean because he wants to evade the probate. This part can definitely be argued both ways.