2017 July California Bar

lollipop1
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:47 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby lollipop1 » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:54 pm

Question about the registration fees:

I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:05 pm

Checking in... Texas resident will be flying in for the California bar in July.

Signed up for Anaheim as my 1st choice and Ontario as a backup. My admission status page shows Anaheim, so I guess it's safe to assume that I already got my first choice(?)

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:07 pm

lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:

I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!



Same here. I was admitted in Texas a couple of years ago so I will need to take the general exam but was still charged the attorney applicant fee. Mine was north of $1100 including the laptop fee.

Triangular
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:56 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Triangular » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:

I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!


Yes, unfortunately this is correct, it could be distinguished a lot clearer. You did it right. That $983 really stings, even more once you've just paid $375 in bar dues to NYS... :(

maxmartin
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:53 pm

CAnow wrote:
lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:

I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!



Same here. I was admitted in Texas a couple of years ago so I will need to take the general exam but was still charged the attorney applicant fee. Mine was north of $1100 including the laptop fee.


You can just directly apply as a student to save some money. My friend did just that.

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:08 am

maxmartin wrote:
CAnow wrote:
lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:

I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!



Same here. I was admitted in Texas a couple of years ago so I will need to take the general exam but was still charged the attorney applicant fee. Mine was north of $1100 including the laptop fee.


You can just directly apply as a student to save some money. My friend did just that.


Your friend will have to disclose the out-of-state license on the moral character application. I sure hope that inconsistency will not raise any red flags.

maxmartin
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:28 am

CAnow wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
CAnow wrote:
lollipop1 wrote:Question about the registration fees:

I was admitted to the NY bar this past January and plan to take the July CA bar. Because I have been admitted less than four years (far from it), I'll have to take the general 2-day exam rather than the 1-day attorney exam. When I tried to submit my application, it showed me as an attorney applicant and a charge of $983. Is that right? Even though I will be taking the general exam, I still need to pay the extra as an attorney applicant? Thanks so much!



Same here. I was admitted in Texas a couple of years ago so I will need to take the general exam but was still charged the attorney applicant fee. Mine was north of $1100 including the laptop fee.


You can just directly apply as a student to save some money. My friend did just that.


Your friend will have to disclose the out-of-state license on the moral character application. I sure hope that inconsistency will not raise any red flags.


He is already licensed in CA. He submitted his moral application after he knew he passed the exam.

xpcny
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:28 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby xpcny » Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:38 pm

I am constantly confused by all things math, so I apologize in advance if this question seems idiotic. Since the test sections are weighted differently now, does this change the raw scores needed to pass each section? For example, now that there are only 5 essays, is a score of 65 still considered a passing answer? Is ~128 raw still the passing score for the MBE?

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1859
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:48 pm

xpcny wrote:I am constantly confused by all things math, so I apologize in advance if this question seems idiotic. Since the test sections are weighted differently now, does this change the raw scores needed to pass each section? For example, now that there are only 5 essays, is a score of 65 still considered a passing answer? Is ~128 raw still the passing score for the MBE?

The raw scores are most likely the same, and you still need 1440 to pass, but this doesn't really matter.

Here are the new grading mechanics:
- MBE is worth 50% of your total score, up from 35%
- Written (essays and PT) is also worth 50% of your total score, down from 65%
- The written portion is out of 700 raw points now. The PT is worth 200 points. Essays are 100 points each (there are 5). This means the PT is worth two-seventh out of that 50%, or about 14.3% (which you get one shot at). Essays? They're also now worth slightly more (about 7.1% of your total score instead of 6.5%, still half as much as a PT, will show my work upon request).

More info here http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... 2017_R.pdf

There is no "passing" score. 65 is just a "safe" guideline number to hit on average that will generally lead to passing. Moreover, we don't know what will be enough to pass until they come up with the scaling.

Let's focus on the big changes... Are you weak at MBE? Now you gotta step up your game. Do you hate PTs? Great, now you can relax a bit (just a bit, still practice it). Essays continue to suck for everyone, a little bit more now.

I wrote more about the changes here and how to prepare for them: http://www.makethisyourlasttime.com/cal ... r-changes/

User avatar
Yea All Right
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:27 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Yea All Right » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:19 pm

Checking in. Good luck everyone!

DavidRW3344
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby DavidRW3344 » Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:50 pm

David here. I am in Malibu and interested in a study partner(s) for the MBE for the July CA Bar Exam. I am licensed in NY & NJ. For anyone taking the attorney's exam we can drop the MBE until June 15. I will let my practice test scores determine what to do.

DavidRW3344
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby DavidRW3344 » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:10 pm

Male Human;
Your post is impressive to say the least.
How can I go about securing the coupons you mentioned for the Bar Exam Answer repository?
Thank You,
David
DavidRW3344
drwilbur@gmail.com

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1859
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:15 pm

DavidRW3344 wrote:Male Human;
Your post is impressive to say the least.
How can I go about securing the coupons you mentioned for the Bar Exam Answer repository?

Thanks David! I'm assuming you're talking about BarEssays? Will send you a private message with $25 coupon.

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:51 am

I found this Civ Pro MBE question but don't agree with the answer, and the explanation they provided wasn't very helpful. What do y'all think?

A woman brought a lawsuit in federal district court against four defendants, who were all from the same state as the forum court. The state had four federal judicial districts. The woman's lawsuit was brought in the southern judicial district where both she and one of the defendants lived and where the incident that was the subject of the woman's lawsuit had occurred. One of the other defendants resided in the northern district, another in the central district, and the last in the eastern district. Before answering the woman's complaint, these three defendants immediately made a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Which of the following rulings is correct?

A. All three of these defendants waived their venue objection because they failed to raise it in a pre-answer motion.

B. Venue was improper because only one of the defendants resided in the southern district.

C. Venue was proper because all defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the southern district at the time that the action was commenced.

D. Venue was proper because one defendant could be found in the southern district, and there was no district in which the action could have otherwise been brought.


[+] Spoiler
Answer: D. Venue would be proper in all four judicial districts, including the southern judicial district, because (under 1391b1) all defendants reside in the same state, and because (under 1391b2) the incident occurred in the southern district.

So if venue is proper in all four judicial districts, why does D say there was no district in which the action could have otherwise been brought? Why are they analyzing the third prong at all?

ur_hero
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby ur_hero » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:16 pm

CAnow wrote:I found this Civ Pro MBE question but don't agree with the answer, and the explanation they provided wasn't very helpful. What do y'all think?

A woman brought a lawsuit in federal district court against four defendants, who were all from the same state as the forum court. The state had four federal judicial districts. The woman's lawsuit was brought in the southern judicial district where both she and one of the defendants lived and where the incident that was the subject of the woman's lawsuit had occurred. One of the other defendants resided in the northern district, another in the central district, and the last in the eastern district. Before answering the woman's complaint, these three defendants immediately made a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Which of the following rulings is correct?

A. All three of these defendants waived their venue objection because they failed to raise it in a pre-answer motion.

B. Venue was improper because only one of the defendants resided in the southern district.

C. Venue was proper because all defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in the southern district at the time that the action was commenced.

D. Venue was proper because one defendant could be found in the southern district, and there was no district in which the action could have otherwise been brought.


[+] Spoiler
Answer: D. Venue would be proper in all four judicial districts, including the southern judicial district, because (under 1391b1) all defendants reside in the same state, and because (under 1391b2) the incident occurred in the southern district.

So if venue is proper in all four judicial districts, why does D say there was no district in which the action could have otherwise been brought? Why are they analyzing the third prong at all?



D looks like the straight up right answer to me - pretty sure venue is proper either (1) if all D's in same state, any district where one resides; (2) where a substantial part of the transaction/events arose; or (3) if first 2 don't apply, anywhere any one D is subject to PJX.

Here, she has done both 1 AND 2 above and has thus selected the best possible venue (all D's same state, one lives in that district, and events transpired there) - there is no other district she could have otherwise brought it in.

Without the complicated explanation though.....A through C are just all completely wrong, so it MUST be D.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Duralex » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:16 pm

Agree w/ur_hero.

Note that venue is not the only limitation on where an action may be brought, so in a very pedantic sense there's no inherent conflict between "venue is proper in all four districts" and "the action could only have brought in District X." I'm not sure if that's intentionally fuzzily worded or just a shitty question. In an exam situation if I had doubts I'd satisfy myself the other answers were worse and move on.

I-object
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby I-object » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:02 pm

Looking for study partner. Im in Monterey Bay area. Do not have to be in person. We can work on a schedule and lay out a plan this week or next, or ?

please let know if your interested
rocklander1234@gmail.com

Thanks,

SUPERFEVER
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:56 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby SUPERFEVER » Fri May 12, 2017 5:55 pm

73 days remain

maxmartin
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Fri May 12, 2017 9:23 pm

The State Bar is undertaking a series of studies into the bar exam. The initial phase of the standard setting study, which examines the cut score, begins on May 15.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01707.aspx

Wishful thinking, they do lower the cut off score for July.

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Sat May 13, 2017 9:18 am

So...I won another chance to sit for the CBX. (How's that for a positive attitude?) This will be my fourth attempt. I'm wondering if anyone knows of any resources for the new PT format. I don't want to practice a 3-hour test if I can practice a 1.5-hour test.

Also, as far a locations. I've been to Pasadena once. Thought the city itself was way too noisy. Went to Ontario twice. The area around the convention center is nice, and even though it's next to the airport, it's still quieter than Pasadena. I'm thinking about Sacramento or Oakland. I understand that the Oakland venue is smaller. This might be a better fit for me given that I'm from a remote, rural area. Suggestions welcome.

RavenAgain
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:25 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby RavenAgain » Sat May 13, 2017 9:50 am

Checking in. European candidate flying into San Diego for the 6th attempt this July.

My MBEs need to improve, and this time around they will even get 50% weighting!

Would be happy if any of the repeaters let me know when they get their letter with the scores as I am not in SD and have to ask a friend to pick the letter up for me! Cheers!

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Sat May 13, 2017 10:33 am

maxmartin wrote:The State Bar is undertaking a series of studies into the bar exam. The initial phase of the standard setting study, which examines the cut score, begins on May 15.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01707.aspx

Wishful thinking, they do lower the cut off score for July.


Is it even possible the July exam will be affected?

maxmartin
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Sat May 13, 2017 11:27 am

Alt123 wrote:
maxmartin wrote:The State Bar is undertaking a series of studies into the bar exam. The initial phase of the standard setting study, which examines the cut score, begins on May 15.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01707.aspx

Wishful thinking, they do lower the cut off score for July.


Is it even possible the July exam will be affected?

Well, the petition letter from Deans to Supreme Court is all about July edition.

User avatar
rcharter1978
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby rcharter1978 » Sat May 13, 2017 11:39 am

You won't like it, but I don't think the CA bar gets any benefit by making the exam easier to pass so I don't think they will. The most recent changes seems as far as they would be willing to go.

maxmartin
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Sat May 13, 2017 11:45 am

rcharter1978 wrote:You won't like it, but I don't think the CA bar gets any benefit by making the exam easier to pass so I don't think they will. The most recent changes seems as far as they would be willing to go.


50% is good enough. Under 50% format, if you score around 1600 in MBE, you are almost guaranteed to pass.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a male human, Google Adsense [Bot], pvnyc and 7 guests