2017 July California Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
varcom24

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby varcom24 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:45 pm

did not fold CA evidence in at all. Caught the CA-specific distinctions about privileges and otherwise feel okay about that question, so hoping that missing that (potential) element to the question isn't too big of a deal.

InterAlia1961

Bronze
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:47 pm

I'm so screwed. I knew the choice of law rules. OMG. I just panicked when I drew the initial blank. It's a good thing I'm fond of California. I'll be back.

mcmand

Silver
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby mcmand » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:48 pm

I know TLS is all about rehashing and overthinking things we can't control anymore, but maybe, just maybe, we should just leave it be and focus on tomorrow and then all the wonderful things we can enjoy tomorrow evening!

Friendly suggestion :wink:

Channel good thoughts! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Y11hwjMNs
Last edited by mcmand on Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

varcom24

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby varcom24 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:49 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:I'm so screwed. I knew the choice of law rules. OMG. I just panicked when I drew the initial blank. It's a good thing I'm fond of California. I'll be back.


I'm not too confident about my choice of law analysis either. But it was also part of a 5-call question, so wouldn't consider anyone screwed for missing it

User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby whats an updog » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:51 pm

varcom24 wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:I'm so screwed. I knew the choice of law rules. OMG. I just panicked when I drew the initial blank. It's a good thing I'm fond of California. I'll be back.


I'm not too confident about my choice of law analysis either. But it was also part of a 5-call question, so wouldn't consider anyone screwed for missing it


I would not worry about it. Everyone, EVERYONE, missed stuff. As someone in this thread said earlier, your brain is geared to remember the things you did wrong.

User avatar
Alt123

New
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:51 pm

Nah, if anything, everyone didn't do super well on that question. I wouldn't sweat it.

Gotta stay in good head space for tomorrow.

User avatar
ManoftheHour

Gold
Posts: 3488
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby ManoftheHour » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:02 pm

whats an updog wrote:Fuck I did ordinary negligence for the utility pole and just spent more time on the standard of care. Did not consider that utility pole was an abnormally dangerous activity because I figured it was normally done in the community. I guess I should have at least mentioned that. Oh well, otherwise I felt mostly good about the rest of the questions.

The CA evid/PR question definitely threw me for a loop at first and was probably the strangest question on the exam.

Feel good about: CommProp, Remedies
Feel ok about: CivPro, Torts, PT
Feel uneasy about: CA evid / PR

lawschoolgradz1 wrote:
Alt123 wrote:
hatethelaw wrote:Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........


Not to be rude but, have you never done a practice PT before?

Edit: Just noticed this account is super recent, so assuming troll.


I DID THE SAME THING!!!!! Please tell me this has been done before and people still pass?????? I knew the law and wrote the right stuff just didn't use the case library!

Also, rude. I took a class on PT work and this was just an honest mistake. The only trolls here are you, commenting on things making people feel worse about themselves.


I did not make this mistake, but I'm sure you can both still get passing scores providing you're on track with the rest of the essays and MBE. This was definitely a weird PT and the library only had a single case in it, which was a little freaky in itself.


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.

justanotheruser

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:12 pm

How many practice MBE questions, if at all, are y'all doing to stay sharp? 20-30?

Slickrick90

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:37 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Slickrick90 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:13 pm

Thank god I took the 1 day exam.

How many words are you writing? I wrote about 1400 for the PT and about 1100-1300 for the rest of the essays.

I totally got destroyed on the civ pro. I did not remember anything about erie just the very basics. It was bad.

was strict liability part of the essay for torts? I didn't think it applied because it wasn't consumer.
Last edited by Slickrick90 on Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

nsv

New
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby nsv » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:14 pm

The first call to that civ pro threw me off. I talked about joinder of claims in a sentence and didn't know what else to put... Literally sat for a few minutes trying to determine if I'm blanking

User avatar
Dee099

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:30 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Dee099 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:16 pm

Our proctor is beyond slow, our break was 45 min
We were dismissed at 6:50pm.
To top it off the parking lot was a mess to get out (30 min to get out, just got home at 8:00pm

Definitely have to say the Evidence Q was the toughest for me, hed to re read it twice.

Also blanked out on weather you can bring a fraud and breach of K in same suit.(literally just blanked) don't know why.

Spent way too much time on the torts, 1hr 10, caused me to rush my PT, literally only spent like 25 min writing so it's super short, but hopefully my tone with Ms Castile wasn't too rough.

Happy i got through the worst imo, now time for the doubt game of picking between two answers on the MBE

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:18 pm

Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff

User avatar
twenty

Gold
Posts: 3189
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby twenty » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:19 pm

Dee099 wrote:Our proctor is beyond slow, our break was 45 min


fellow anaheim taker? or is this just a CA thing?

Slickrick90

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:37 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Slickrick90 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:20 pm

Sunny1211 wrote:Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff



Yes I talked about the breach of confidentiality for PR and also mentioned fees and how it has to be written down for Cali.

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:21 pm

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

wentmat

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:40 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby wentmat » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:22 pm

Slickrick90 wrote:Thank god I took the 1 day exam.

How many words are you writing? I wrote about 1400 for the PT and about 1100-1300 for the rest of the essays.

I totally got destroyed on the civ pro.

was strict liability part of the essay for torts? I didn't think it applied because it wasn't consumer.


I think it probably strictly involved negligence and strict product liability (electricity as a product, think there are some cases on this), but I wouldn't worry, more important is how you answer and not whether you pick up every issue, no one gets every issue!

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:22 pm

Slickrick90 wrote:
Sunny1211 wrote:Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff



Yes I talked about the breach of confidentiality for PR and also mentioned fees and how it has to be written down for Cali.




What about Negligence Per Se for the Torts question? That it DIDNT apply cuz it was not the type of harm and not the class of persons the law was trying to protect?

User avatar
Squintz805

New
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:33 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Squintz805 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:25 pm

.
Last edited by Squintz805 on Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Slickrick90

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:37 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Slickrick90 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:25 pm

Sunny1211 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:
Sunny1211 wrote:Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff



Yes I talked about the breach of confidentiality for PR and also mentioned fees and how it has to be written down for Cali.




What about Negligence Per Se for the Torts question? That it DIDNT apply cuz it was not the type of harm and not the class of persons the law was trying to protect?


Yes that's how I decided it too.

User avatar
CAnow

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:33 pm

Slickrick90 wrote:
Sunny1211 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:
Sunny1211 wrote:Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff



Yes I talked about the breach of confidentiality for PR and also mentioned fees and how it has to be written down for Cali.




What about Negligence Per Se for the Torts question? That it DIDNT apply cuz it was not the type of harm and not the class of persons the law was trying to protect?


Yes that's how I decided it too.


Yep. I feel like I wasted precious moments raising it just so I could shoot it back down.

I also spent the entire question on negligence. Completely missed the ultra-hazardous activity.

yost

Bronze
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby yost » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:34 pm

Squintz805 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.


Products Liability...did they even sell a product into the stream of commerce?


Electricity? Idk. I just acknowledged that Electric Company would make this argument and then moved on.

Totally missed abnormally dangerous activities though

User avatar
CAnow

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:36 pm

Received this orange card at the end of the exam:

"You must upload all four (4) exam answer files by 12:00 noon Thursday July 27, 2017"

Four???

yost

Bronze
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby yost » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:37 pm

CAnow wrote:Received this orange card at the end of the exam:

"You must upload all four (4) exam answer files by 12:00 noon Thursday July 27, 2017"

Four???


In Santa Clara at least they acknowledged that this was a mistake. Only two.

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:42 pm

Anahiem sucked balls today, there were atleast a 1000+ test takers and only 1 escalator.... took almost two hours from lunch break to get seated and the Proctors need more training for sure

User avatar
Dee099

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:30 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Dee099 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:42 pm

I spent way too much time on the per se aspect knowing Harry knew damn well he wasn't part of the class intended to be protected nor the the type of harm intented to prevent

Also can someone tell me if trying to avoid Probate raised an issue for Comm prop



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CiFULA, Cop2lawyerNYC, estefanchanning, lawomg, NotYourAvocado, nparks3 and 80 guests