2017 July California Bar

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:38 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:If after reducing the number of days from three to two and giving equal weight to both the MBE and the essay portion, the July 2017 scores increase, even by a few percentage points, I doubt that the cut score will be lowered, at least not in time to help July takers. The argument will be that scores will likely increase with the new format.


That's certainly be the state bar's / committee's argument, but I really doubt the court will be all that deferential IMO.

User avatar
BulletTooth
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby BulletTooth » Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:50 pm

Why would Cal. S. Ct. do what they've done to just say, "You know what, the score was fine where its at." They'll look like fools for causing such all this hype. And there is even more pressure on them to lower the score with the recommendation that it be reduced to 1390. They'll probably just end up picking the middle option, 1414, to try and appease the most people without making a radical downward departure to 1390. In my opinion, the 1390 option frames it perfectly so that the Cal. S. Ct. can pick the middle ground without taking too much heat from either side.

mcmand
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby mcmand » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:24 pm

BulletTooth wrote:Why would Cal. S. Ct. do what they've done to just say, "You know what, the score was fine where its at." They'll look like fools for causing such all this hype. And there is even more pressure on them to lower the score with the recommendation that it be reduced to 1390. They'll probably just end up picking the middle option, 1414, to try and appease the most people without making a radical downward departure to 1390. In my opinion, the 1390 option frames it perfectly so that the Cal. S. Ct. can pick the middle ground without taking too much heat from either side.


I would guess that the California Supreme Court does not want to spend the energy figuring out for itself what the ideal score on a crappy test is, and would rather let the bar do all the work. It's plausible that the Court would buck the bar, but I can't imagine that's common.

Considering the Court just made it clear that they have final say over any score-setting, which was probably for the purpose of helping the bar avoid antitrust liability, I'm not optimistic.

In Washington, where I'm from, the Court usually accepts the bars recommendations, or tweaks them. Only under unusual circumstances do they buck their recommendation. The last two examples I can think of is the Limited License Legal Technician rule the WA court adopted (against the bar's wishes), and the court rule for public records access to the bar's records (the bar had been claiming it was exempt from state public records act and court rules did not address the issue). I don't know how analogous WA's court/bar relationships are to California's, but I'm not sure why they would be vastly different.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:54 am

mcmand wrote:
I would guess that the California Supreme Court does not want to spend the energy figuring out for itself what the ideal score on a crappy test is, and would rather let the bar do all the work. It's plausible that the Court would buck the bar, but I can't imagine that's common.

Considering the Court just made it clear that they have final say over any score-setting, which was probably for the purpose of helping the bar avoid antitrust liability, I'm not optimistic.

In Washington, where I'm from, the Court usually accepts the bars recommendations, or tweaks them. Only under unusual circumstances do they buck their recommendation. The last two examples I can think of is the Limited License Legal Technician rule the WA court adopted (against the bar's wishes), and the court rule for public records access to the bar's records (the bar had been claiming it was exempt from state public records act and court rules did not address the issue). I don't know how analogous WA's court/bar relationships are to California's, but I'm not sure why they would be vastly different.


Agreed. My money says the cut score remains at 1440 with the reasoning that they've already reduced the number of testing days. I just don't see the Court diverging all that much from the State Bar. I'm still betting on 1440, and worrying that I tanked it because of!@#$!@#$ essay 2. I don't, however, let myself hope for a lowered cut score. It's a fool's bet. (I noticed all the betting references in this post. I've been spending a lot of time playing NLHE, where hope gets you nowhere but broke.)

gaddockteeg
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby gaddockteeg » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:22 pm

Trustee vote is today right?

User avatar
CAnow
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:18 pm

gaddockteeg wrote:Trustee vote is today right?


Here they are now:

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/ima ... 151910.jpg

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:54 pm

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News- ... sing-score

The trustees voted to submit/recommend the three options that have been out in the open: 1440, 1414, or 1390:

Today the State Bar Board of Trustees voted to submit three options regarding the California Bar Exam cut score to the California Supreme Court. The Court holds the ultimate authority to set the passing score for the exam. The options for consideration by the Supreme Court are:

- An interim cut score of 1390
- An interim cut score of 1414
- No change in the current score of 1440

User avatar
Alt123
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:12 pm

They just sent them the three options?? Wow, surprised they didn't just recommend keeping it the same, to be honest.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:34 pm

Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:55 pm

dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


IMO, I think they're more likely to lower it to 1414 than to keep it at 1440.

Also, my thinking is that even if giving MBE and the written portion equal weight has a positive impact on pass rates, it still doesn't answer the question as to why California has a disproportionately higher cut score than rest of the country. The court opting to keep the score as is on the basis of "the test tweak had a positive impact on the pass rate" seems to avoid the root/heart of the matter which would be sort of funny given all the time they've spent gathering public comments, statistical studies, the option of lowering to 1390, etc.

Then again, I've been wrong before so we shall see what happens.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:37 pm

dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


Agreed.

User avatar
fear_no_evil
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby fear_no_evil » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:45 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:
dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


Agreed.


Why do we need more studies? At least 3 other states have lowered their cut score within in the last 12 months. I haven't looked into their process, but, I am willing to bet they did not complete as many studies as we have already done before lowering their cut scores.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:54 pm

fear_no_evil wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


Agreed.


Why do we need more studies? At least 3 other states have lowered their cut score within in the last 12 months. I haven't looked into their process, but, I am willing to bet they did not complete as many studies as we have already done before lowering their cut scores.


Other states don't have 50+ law schools with ABA and state accreditations as well as unaccredited schools. There's more into determining a correct score than just looking at the pass trend and then saying, "shit, lowering the score will bring those rates up! Let's do it." How bout we shitcan half those schools and the students that attend and I guarantee you the pass rate will go up without modifying the score.

jphiggo
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:14 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jphiggo » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:05 pm

dimetech wrote:
fear_no_evil wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


Agreed.


Why do we need more studies? At least 3 other states have lowered their cut score within in the last 12 months. I haven't looked into their process, but, I am willing to bet they did not complete as many studies as we have already done before lowering their cut scores.


Other states don't have 40+ law schools with ABA and state accreditations as well as unaccredited schools. There's more into determining a correct score than just looking at the pass trend and then saying, "shit, lowering the score will bring those rates up! Let's do it"


I've seen this brought up a couple of times and just a couple of points that never seem to be factored in:

1. What's the point of the baby bar then for all of those non-ABA accredited law students? It seems to me that some try and use this as an argument to keep the cut score arbitrarily high more as a means of market protection than as a means of ensuring minimum competency for a licensing exam.

2. How or why does/should the number and type of law schools in California have any bearing on whether 1390 or 1440 is the minimum competency threshold? It's ~2.5% less correct answers on the exam, but gives a significant boost to the pass rate of minority test takers. Both 1390 and 1440 are within the 95% confidence interval of what the study has shown is "minimum competence" as defined in the study.

The bar exam in nearly every state acts more like a minimum competency licensing hurdle as opposed to how it's administered in California. It should not be wielded as a weapon to protect the number of lawyers entering the state each year, rather it should have one sole purpose and that is to test for minimum competency.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:15 pm

jphiggo wrote:
dimetech wrote:
fear_no_evil wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


Agreed.


Why do we need more studies? At least 3 other states have lowered their cut score within in the last 12 months. I haven't looked into their process, but, I am willing to bet they did not complete as many studies as we have already done before lowering their cut scores.


Other states don't have 40+ law schools with ABA and state accreditations as well as unaccredited schools. There's more into determining a correct score than just looking at the pass trend and then saying, "shit, lowering the score will bring those rates up! Let's do it"


I've seen this brought up a couple of times and just a couple of points that never seem to be factored in:

1. What's the point of the baby bar then for all of those non-ABA accredited law students? It seems to me that some try and use this as an argument to keep the cut score arbitrarily high more as a means of market protection than as a means of ensuring minimum competency for a licensing exam.

2. How or why does/should the number and type of law schools in California have any bearing on whether 1390 or 1440 is the minimum competency threshold? It's ~2.5% less correct answers on the exam, but gives a significant boost to the pass rate of minority test takers. Both 1390 and 1440 are within the 95% confidence interval of what the study has shown is "minimum competence" as defined in the study.

The bar exam in nearly every state acts more like a minimum competency licensing hurdle as opposed to how it's administered in California. It should not be wielded as a weapon to protect the number of lawyers entering the state each year, rather it should have one sole purpose and that is to test for minimum competency.


What I HAVEN'T seen brought up by anyone offering an argument in person at these meetings (seemingly all cal accredited law school deans too, hmmmm) is the "protectionism" argument. Seems the only place that is brought up is here on the forums by applicants to the bar who haven't yet passed (either first time or repeater). Lemme tell you something, there aren't any jobs to protect for recent admits. It's a difficult market as it is. Good luck to those "post-1390" grads finding a job amongst the already apparent saturation.

maxmartin
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:29 pm

fear_no_evil wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


Agreed.


Why do we need more studies? At least 3 other states have lowered their cut score within in the last 12 months. I haven't looked into their process, but, I am willing to bet they did not complete as many studies as we have already done before lowering their cut scores.


Exactly what I thought! Looks like they are paving the way for the court to choose the middle path, the other two are too drastic measures. :mrgreen:

maxmartin wrote:Everyone knows this high cut score is arbitrary, there is no real science or social reason behind it. They should stop this nonsense show of public studying and commenting. CA supreme court should take swift action, like the Oregon supreme court, to either reduce or maintain the cut score, regardless whatever bullshit bar committee spews. Just pick a cut score and get on with it. I am not aware Oregon has any study done lol.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/another- ... age-score/

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:55 am

dimetech wrote:
jphiggo wrote:
dimetech wrote:
fear_no_evil wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


Agreed.


Why do we need more studies? At least 3 other states have lowered their cut score within in the last 12 months. I haven't looked into their process, but, I am willing to bet they did not complete as many studies as we have already done before lowering their cut scores.


Other states don't have 40+ law schools with ABA and state accreditations as well as unaccredited schools. There's more into determining a correct score than just looking at the pass trend and then saying, "shit, lowering the score will bring those rates up! Let's do it"


I've seen this brought up a couple of times and just a couple of points that never seem to be factored in:

1. What's the point of the baby bar then for all of those non-ABA accredited law students? It seems to me that some try and use this as an argument to keep the cut score arbitrarily high more as a means of market protection than as a means of ensuring minimum competency for a licensing exam.

2. How or why does/should the number and type of law schools in California have any bearing on whether 1390 or 1440 is the minimum competency threshold? It's ~2.5% less correct answers on the exam, but gives a significant boost to the pass rate of minority test takers. Both 1390 and 1440 are within the 95% confidence interval of what the study has shown is "minimum competence" as defined in the study.

The bar exam in nearly every state acts more like a minimum competency licensing hurdle as opposed to how it's administered in California. It should not be wielded as a weapon to protect the number of lawyers entering the state each year, rather it should have one sole purpose and that is to test for minimum competency.


What I HAVEN'T seen brought up by anyone offering an argument in person at these meetings (seemingly all cal accredited law school deans too, hmmmm) is the "protectionism" argument. Seems the only place that is brought up is here on the forums by applicants to the bar who haven't yet passed (either first time or repeater). Lemme tell you something, there aren't any jobs to protect for recent admits. It's a difficult market as it is. Good luck to those "post-1390" grads finding a job amongst the already apparent saturation.


Are you sure you're a lawyer, dude?

Assuming it's true that no one has brought up the "protectionism" argument at these meetings (have you personally sat in all of these meetings and are you privy to all the conversations that take place behind the scenes, or have you read through all the transcripts of these meetings?), several persons have certainly raised the point about the bar supposedly being a test of minimum competency. That by itself necessarily implies the other part of that argument (that the bar is not supposed to be a tool for economic protectionism). Why would anyone explicitly bring that up at the committee meetings? What useful purpose would be served by antagonizing the people you are trying to convince to side with you? Just because an argument is available doesn't mean it has to be used, and many times an argument can be made without explicitly stating it.

If you seriously think the "protectionism" argument is only raised in this forum, you obviously have not been doing enough reading on the topic outside of this forum. Just a basic Google search readily brings up several hits (including by some of these law deans you allude to). Yeah, it's a difficult job market even for licensed lawyers but being licensed at least puts you in the game and lets you compete with other licensed lawyers (let the market decide who gets a job and who doesn't). Not having a license precludes you from even competing, saturated market or not.

Some people keep bringing up the fact that CA has more non-ABA schools than others. Consider this: those "unqualified" candidates you're so concerned about would probably not pass under a lower cut score either, so the ones that are getting marginalized are the candidates who would otherwise be qualified to practice law in 90-95% of the jurisdictions but for some mysterious reason are deemed incompetent to practice in CA. I struggle to understand how one can miss seeing the absurdity in that. You're good enough to be a lawyer in 48, 49 jurisdictions, but not good enough in CA. Again, what's so special about CA? Is there any proof that CA lawyers are better than NY lawyers? Are there more instances of disciplinary actions or client complaints stemming from incompetence against NY lawyers compared to CA lawyers?

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:16 am

jman77 wrote:
dimetech wrote:
jphiggo wrote:
dimetech wrote:
fear_no_evil wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:
dimetech wrote:Here's why I think they'll keep it the same pending more studies: they just administered the 2 day bar for the first time and haven't even really been able to measure whether or not the switch has had a positive impact on pass rates. Just my 2 cents.


Agreed.


Why do we need more studies? At least 3 other states have lowered their cut score within in the last 12 months. I haven't looked into their process, but, I am willing to bet they did not complete as many studies as we have already done before lowering their cut scores.


Other states don't have 40+ law schools with ABA and state accreditations as well as unaccredited schools. There's more into determining a correct score than just looking at the pass trend and then saying, "shit, lowering the score will bring those rates up! Let's do it"


I've seen this brought up a couple of times and just a couple of points that never seem to be factored in:

1. What's the point of the baby bar then for all of those non-ABA accredited law students? It seems to me that some try and use this as an argument to keep the cut score arbitrarily high more as a means of market protection than as a means of ensuring minimum competency for a licensing exam.

2. How or why does/should the number and type of law schools in California have any bearing on whether 1390 or 1440 is the minimum competency threshold? It's ~2.5% less correct answers on the exam, but gives a significant boost to the pass rate of minority test takers. Both 1390 and 1440 are within the 95% confidence interval of what the study has shown is "minimum competence" as defined in the study.

The bar exam in nearly every state acts more like a minimum competency licensing hurdle as opposed to how it's administered in California. It should not be wielded as a weapon to protect the number of lawyers entering the state each year, rather it should have one sole purpose and that is to test for minimum competency.


What I HAVEN'T seen brought up by anyone offering an argument in person at these meetings (seemingly all cal accredited law school deans too, hmmmm) is the "protectionism" argument. Seems the only place that is brought up is here on the forums by applicants to the bar who haven't yet passed (either first time or repeater). Lemme tell you something, there aren't any jobs to protect for recent admits. It's a difficult market as it is. Good luck to those "post-1390" grads finding a job amongst the already apparent saturation.


Are you sure you're a lawyer, dude?

Assuming it's true that no one has brought up the "protectionism" argument at these meetings (have you personally sat in all of these meetings and are you privy to all the conversations that take place behind the scenes, or have you read through all the transcripts of these meetings?), several persons have certainly raised the point about the bar supposedly being a test of minimum competency. That by itself necessarily implies the other part of that argument (that the bar is not supposed to be a tool for economic protectionism). Why would anyone explicitly bring that up at the committee meetings? What useful purpose would be served by antagonizing the people you are trying to convince to side with you? Just because an argument is available doesn't mean it has to be used, and many times an argument can be made without explicitly stating it.

If you seriously think the "protectionism" argument is only raised in this forum, you obviously have not been doing enough reading on the topic outside of this forum. Just a basic Google search readily brings up several hits (including by some of these law deans you allude to). Yeah, it's a difficult job market even for licensed lawyers but being licensed at least puts you in the game and lets you compete with other licensed lawyers (let the market decide who gets a job and who doesn't). Not having a license precludes you from even competing, saturated market or not.

Some people keep bringing up the fact that CA has more non-ABA schools than others. Consider this: those "unqualified" candidates you're so concerned about would probably not pass under a lower cut score either, so the ones that are getting marginalized are the candidates who would otherwise be qualified to practice law in 90-95% of the jurisdictions but for some mysterious reason are deemed incompetent to practice in CA. I struggle to understand how one can miss seeing the absurdity in that. You're good enough to be a lawyer in 48, 49 jurisdictions, but not good enough in CA. Again, what's so special about CA? Is there any proof that CA lawyers are better than NY lawyers? Are there more instances of disciplinary actions or client complaints stemming from incompetence against NY lawyers compared to CA lawyers?


Yr back! Just for me? You said you were done. Haha. I can't wait to come back in November to see you bitching about failing and how messed up it is that they didn't change the score. Good luck to everyone else, not this clown. Keep posting too. I'm sure it makes you feel like yr correct when someone ceases to respond. Gotta have that last word or it burns you up.

TL:DR yr post, btw.

User avatar
Alt123
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:22 am

Dime's account was made right as the CA bar exam ended, so I am still personally unsure if it's a troll account or not. Seems like a bunch of them were made right afterward to cause trouble.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:38 am

Yep. Just a troll. You got me. Didn't pass multiple bars; I have no insight into the process...No constructive comments to be found in my post history. At all. Jesus Christ. If more people on here spent more time studying during bar prep than they do complaining about the score or identifying "trolls," we'd all be better off.

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:43 am

[/quote]
[/quote]

Yr back! Just for me? You said you were done. Haha. I can't wait to come back in November to see you bitching about failing and how messed up it is that they didn't change the score. Good luck to everyone else, not this clown. Keep posting too. I'm sure it makes you feel like yr correct when someone ceases to respond. Gotta have that last word or it burns you up.

TL:DR yr post, btw.[/quote]

Hahaha! I am subscribed to this forum because, yah know, I took the July 2017 CA bar. What are you doing here (hint, how's the bridge you're living under)? Got nothing better to do with your time? You keep shooting your mouth off here. How about backing it up. Let's make a $5,000 bet on whether I pass or fail. Gentlemen's agreement. I'll give you 2-to-1 odds. Are your balls as brazen as your mouth? Put up or shut up, troll. Take me up on my bet and keep posting your BS, or GTFO of this forum and take your weak-ass arguments with you.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:01 am

jman77 wrote:

[/quote]

Yr back! Just for me? You said you were done. Haha. I can't wait to come back in November to see you bitching about failing and how messed up it is that they didn't change the score. Good luck to everyone else, not this clown. Keep posting too. I'm sure it makes you feel like yr correct when someone ceases to respond. Gotta have that last word or it burns you up.

TL:DR yr post, btw.[/quote]

Hahaha! I am subscribed to this forum because, yah know, I took the July 2017 CA bar. What are you doing here (hint, how's the bridge you're living under)? Got nothing better to do with your time? You keep shooting your mouth off here. How about backing it up. Let's make a $5,000 bet on whether I pass or fail. Gentlemen's agreement. I'll give you 2-to-1 odds. Are your balls as brazen as your mouth? Put up or shut up, troll. Take me up on my bet and keep posting your BS, or GTFO of this forum and take your weak-ass arguments with you.[/quote]

Deal.

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:08 am

dimetech wrote:
jman77 wrote:



Yr back! Just for me? You said you were done. Haha. I can't wait to come back in November to see you bitching about failing and how messed up it is that they didn't change the score. Good luck to everyone else, not this clown. Keep posting too. I'm sure it makes you feel like yr correct when someone ceases to respond. Gotta have that last word or it burns you up.

TL:DR yr post, btw.[/quote]

Hahaha! I am subscribed to this forum because, yah know, I took the July 2017 CA bar. What are you doing here (hint, how's the bridge you're living under)? Got nothing better to do with your time? You keep shooting your mouth off here. How about backing it up. Let's make a $5,000 bet on whether I pass or fail. Gentlemen's agreement. I'll give you 2-to-1 odds. Are your balls as brazen as your mouth? Put up or shut up, troll. Take me up on my bet and keep posting your BS, or GTFO of this forum and take your weak-ass arguments with you.[/quote]

Deal.[/quote]

Great. Easiest $5K I'll ever make. Don't be a little b*tch and weasel out when the time comes. I'll put my email here: killer_instinct77@hotmail.com. Email me and we'll finalize the details. Better yet, post your email here and I'll email you. We can start by privately exchanging our law firm bio pages. If anyone here wants to volunteer to be a witness to be copied on the emails (just so this little troll doesn't claim that he emailed me or that I didn't email him) PM me. I'll cut you in on the bet.

Let's see if this loudmouth can truly back up his words. Again, if you don't follow through, GTFO of this forum. That's part of the deal.

dimetech
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:32 am

Yr a bigger moron than I realized. Thanks for that email tho. Might be able to put it to good use. You also need to get your trigger points under control.

jman77
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:37 am

dimetech wrote:Yr a bigger moron than I realized. Thanks for that email tho. Might be able to put it to good use. You also need to get your trigger points under control.


Haha, good luck using that email. As if I was going to give out info publicly that could be tied to me. Now, either email me or put up a similar email I can reach you at, or GTFO of this forum you little b*tch. Put up or shut up, remember?

Now we all know what you are. Talk a big game but can't back up with action. Just more BS posts like all your other posts here. Just another little troll. Run along now, troll.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], thecogito and 4 guests