2017 July California Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
SmokeytheBear

Silver
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby SmokeytheBear » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:53 pm

cnk1220 wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:Man I'm starting to get worried. This is my second crack at the bar. Maybe need 3! Even Lebron needed 3 cracks at the finals before he won! Lol

It is just embarrassing (and a little costly) someone that did well and went to a top school can fail the bar. I can blame the biglaw hours and that I have nothing on the line in terms if I don't pass. Maybe I can blame that.


Very understandable. I only had 2 weeks to prepare for the bar as I also worked biglaw hours and had several closings schedule up to the week I started by 2-week bar leave. I just ended up doing a lot of MBE questions and reading and re-reading smartbarprep outlines. I was enrolled in Barbri, but had no time to listen to the lectures or read the materials. Smartbarprep is very useful, by the way. The outlines contain all the rules used in previous exams and rank them according to the frequency with which they appeared. I only had time to go over the "high" frequency rules, but I think that was sufficient. Some of the rule statements were incomplete, but I think sufficient to pass (provided you know how to apply to the facts, of course). Having taken the NY bar 3 years ago also helped to an extent.



I used smartbarprep too. That, my buddy's outlines, and the Barbri essay book are all that I used to study lol. I felt like I had a very superficial understanding of the issues. Hence, I didn't write a lot for the essays. I hope I did really well on the MPT. I spent 2 hours on the MPT and 45 mins each on the essay questions.


I did the 1 day exam so I didn't have to worry about MBE issues.


Honestly, I thought the MPT was pretty straightforward and fairly easy. I think we benefited from the fact that they're still trying to figure out how to go from a 3-hour test to a 1.5-hour one. I only spent an hour on it (wasted time trying to get Softest to work after it froze on me until I finally ended up handwriting the MPT) and still feel good about it. If you spent 2 hours on hit I'm sure you did very well.

The MPT was weird in that there was only one file in the library and the test wasn't a closed universe with made-up jurisdictions and made up rules (you actually had to bring in outside knowledge of the law). But then, maybe that's the way CA MPT's have always been?


No, you're not supposed to bring in outside knowledge of the law. Often times the law of the MPT universe will be parallel if not the same as real law. But the exercise is supposed to be closed universe.


I've seen some practice MPTs (granted this was when I was studying for the UBE) were sometimes the law in the case file is actually slightly wrong to test if you will bring in outside knowledge of the law or follow directions and apply only the law in your file. The PTs are supposed to be 100% closed universe- everything you need is in the file they give you.


Yes. My friend who took the test this year--who knows the actual substance of the real law that was discussed in the CA PT--noted that the law they gave you in the PT was not the real law. He noted it was hard for him to have to deviate from what he knows to be true. I didn't ask him to explain how, but I trust his knowledge.

jman77

Silver
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:54 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:Man I'm starting to get worried. This is my second crack at the bar. Maybe need 3! Even Lebron needed 3 cracks at the finals before he won! Lol

It is just embarrassing (and a little costly) someone that did well and went to a top school can fail the bar. I can blame the biglaw hours and that I have nothing on the line in terms if I don't pass. Maybe I can blame that.


Very understandable. I only had 2 weeks to prepare for the bar as I also worked biglaw hours and had several closings schedule up to the week I started by 2-week bar leave. I just ended up doing a lot of MBE questions and reading and re-reading smartbarprep outlines. I was enrolled in Barbri, but had no time to listen to the lectures or read the materials. Smartbarprep is very useful, by the way. The outlines contain all the rules used in previous exams and rank them according to the frequency with which they appeared. I only had time to go over the "high" frequency rules, but I think that was sufficient. Some of the rule statements were incomplete, but I think sufficient to pass (provided you know how to apply to the facts, of course). Having taken the NY bar 3 years ago also helped to an extent.



I used smartbarprep too. That, my buddy's outlines, and the Barbri essay book are all that I used to study lol. I felt like I had a very superficial understanding of the issues. Hence, I didn't write a lot for the essays. I hope I did really well on the MPT. I spent 2 hours on the MPT and 45 mins each on the essay questions.


I did the 1 day exam so I didn't have to worry about MBE issues.


Honestly, I thought the MPT was pretty straightforward and fairly easy. I think we benefited from the fact that they're still trying to figure out how to go from a 3-hour test to a 1.5-hour one. I only spent an hour on it (wasted time trying to get Softest to work after it froze on me until I finally ended up handwriting the MPT) and still feel good about it. If you spent 2 hours on hit I'm sure you did very well.

The MPT was weird in that there was only one file in the library and the test wasn't a closed universe with made-up jurisdictions and made up rules (you actually had to bring in outside knowledge of the law). But then, maybe that's the way CA MPT's have always been?


No, you're not supposed to bring in outside knowledge of the law. Often times the law of the MPT universe will be parallel if not the same as real law. But the exercise is supposed to be closed universe.


That was my experience when I took NY. In this case, though, it seemed pretty clear from the instructions that you were supposed to bring in knowledge about the 4th Amendment right against searches and seizures. That's why it seemed strange to me. In NY it was very clear that the laws in the cases were made up.

Anyway, hopefully it becomes obvious to my grader(s) when they get 5 printed answers and 1 handwritten answer that I encountered system issues on the MPT so they don't ding me too much for not formatting my answer. The requirement was to write a letter, so I literally wrote a letter (separate paragraphs but no headings for each section/paragraph).

dimetech

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby dimetech » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:55 pm

It's intended to be a closed universe exam, but the instructions I believe tell you to use common sense and general principles in evaluating the law contained in the library.

User avatar
SmokeytheBear

Silver
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby SmokeytheBear » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:58 pm

maxmartin wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:Man I'm starting to get worried. This is my second crack at the bar. Maybe need 3! Even Lebron needed 3 cracks at the finals before he won! Lol

It is just embarrassing (and a little costly) someone that did well and went to a top school can fail the bar. I can blame the biglaw hours and that I have nothing on the line in terms if I don't pass. Maybe I can blame that.


Very understandable. I only had 2 weeks to prepare for the bar as I also worked biglaw hours and had several closings schedule up to the week I started by 2-week bar leave. I just ended up doing a lot of MBE questions and reading and re-reading smartbarprep outlines. I was enrolled in Barbri, but had no time to listen to the lectures or read the materials. Smartbarprep is very useful, by the way. The outlines contain all the rules used in previous exams and rank them according to the frequency with which they appeared. I only had time to go over the "high" frequency rules, but I think that was sufficient. Some of the rule statements were incomplete, but I think sufficient to pass (provided you know how to apply to the facts, of course). Having taken the NY bar 3 years ago also helped to an extent.



I used smartbarprep too. That, my buddy's outlines, and the Barbri essay book are all that I used to study lol. I felt like I had a very superficial understanding of the issues. Hence, I didn't write a lot for the essays. I hope I did really well on the MPT. I spent 2 hours on the MPT and 45 mins each on the essay questions.


I did the 1 day exam so I didn't have to worry about MBE issues.


Honestly, I thought the MPT was pretty straightforward and fairly easy. I think we benefited from the fact that they're still trying to figure out how to go from a 3-hour test to a 1.5-hour one. I only spent an hour on it (wasted time trying to get Softest to work after it froze on me until I finally ended up handwriting the MPT) and still feel good about it. If you spent 2 hours on hit I'm sure you did very well.

The MPT was weird in that there was only one file in the library and the test wasn't a closed universe with made-up jurisdictions and made up rules (you actually had to bring in outside knowledge of the law). But then, maybe that's the way CA MPT's have always been?


No, you're not supposed to bring in outside knowledge of the law. Often times the law of the MPT universe will be parallel if not the same as real law. But the exercise is supposed to be closed universe.

Wrong, the instruction specifically (maybe always) said you can supply outside legal principle and knowledge. In 3 hours exam, the material within is so much, no one really bothers but I do see released good answers having outside law or knowledge. But this MPT I fear you have to bring a lot outside stuff.


Yes, but the instructions always say that the problem takes place in a fictional jurisdiction. The instructions ask you to draw on your general knowledge of law to help you analyze the situation. It specifically says that all the materials you need have been given to you in the file and library.

jman77

Silver
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:58 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
cnk1220 wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:Man I'm starting to get worried. This is my second crack at the bar. Maybe need 3! Even Lebron needed 3 cracks at the finals before he won! Lol

It is just embarrassing (and a little costly) someone that did well and went to a top school can fail the bar. I can blame the biglaw hours and that I have nothing on the line in terms if I don't pass. Maybe I can blame that.


Very understandable. I only had 2 weeks to prepare for the bar as I also worked biglaw hours and had several closings schedule up to the week I started by 2-week bar leave. I just ended up doing a lot of MBE questions and reading and re-reading smartbarprep outlines. I was enrolled in Barbri, but had no time to listen to the lectures or read the materials. Smartbarprep is very useful, by the way. The outlines contain all the rules used in previous exams and rank them according to the frequency with which they appeared. I only had time to go over the "high" frequency rules, but I think that was sufficient. Some of the rule statements were incomplete, but I think sufficient to pass (provided you know how to apply to the facts, of course). Having taken the NY bar 3 years ago also helped to an extent.



I used smartbarprep too. That, my buddy's outlines, and the Barbri essay book are all that I used to study lol. I felt like I had a very superficial understanding of the issues. Hence, I didn't write a lot for the essays. I hope I did really well on the MPT. I spent 2 hours on the MPT and 45 mins each on the essay questions.


I did the 1 day exam so I didn't have to worry about MBE issues.


Honestly, I thought the MPT was pretty straightforward and fairly easy. I think we benefited from the fact that they're still trying to figure out how to go from a 3-hour test to a 1.5-hour one. I only spent an hour on it (wasted time trying to get Softest to work after it froze on me until I finally ended up handwriting the MPT) and still feel good about it. If you spent 2 hours on hit I'm sure you did very well.

The MPT was weird in that there was only one file in the library and the test wasn't a closed universe with made-up jurisdictions and made up rules (you actually had to bring in outside knowledge of the law). But then, maybe that's the way CA MPT's have always been?


No, you're not supposed to bring in outside knowledge of the law. Often times the law of the MPT universe will be parallel if not the same as real law. But the exercise is supposed to be closed universe.


I've seen some practice MPTs (granted this was when I was studying for the UBE) were sometimes the law in the case file is actually slightly wrong to test if you will bring in outside knowledge of the law or follow directions and apply only the law in your file. The PTs are supposed to be 100% closed universe- everything you need is in the file they give you.


Yes. My friend who took the test this year--who knows the actual substance of the real law that was discussed in the CA PT--noted that the law they gave you in the PT was not the real law. He noted it was hard for him to have to deviate from what he knows to be true. I didn't ask him to explain how, but I trust his knowledge.


From what I recall, there were nuanced rules in the case that may deviate from the actual law or may not be actual law. However, laying the general foundation before getting into the nuances required knowledge of the 4th amendment rights (e.g., persons are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures in places where they have reasonable expectations of privacy and searches without warrants are generally unreasonable except in certain cases). I felt like it was when you got to the "exception" part when the case actually came into play.

User avatar
cnk1220

Silver
Posts: 989
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby cnk1220 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:01 pm

Oh that's interesting^^

Does CA use makeup its own MPTs? Or are they same MPTs that the NCBE makes up for the UBE? I'm eventually going to do the CA attorney's exam down the road so just curious!

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:03 pm

SmokeytheBear wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
SmokeytheBear wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:
jman77 wrote:
Slickrick90 wrote:Man I'm starting to get worried. This is my second crack at the bar. Maybe need 3! Even Lebron needed 3 cracks at the finals before he won! Lol

It is just embarrassing (and a little costly) someone that did well and went to a top school can fail the bar. I can blame the biglaw hours and that I have nothing on the line in terms if I don't pass. Maybe I can blame that.


Very understandable. I only had 2 weeks to prepare for the bar as I also worked biglaw hours and had several closings schedule up to the week I started by 2-week bar leave. I just ended up doing a lot of MBE questions and reading and re-reading smartbarprep outlines. I was enrolled in Barbri, but had no time to listen to the lectures or read the materials. Smartbarprep is very useful, by the way. The outlines contain all the rules used in previous exams and rank them according to the frequency with which they appeared. I only had time to go over the "high" frequency rules, but I think that was sufficient. Some of the rule statements were incomplete, but I think sufficient to pass (provided you know how to apply to the facts, of course). Having taken the NY bar 3 years ago also helped to an extent.



I used smartbarprep too. That, my buddy's outlines, and the Barbri essay book are all that I used to study lol. I felt like I had a very superficial understanding of the issues. Hence, I didn't write a lot for the essays. I hope I did really well on the MPT. I spent 2 hours on the MPT and 45 mins each on the essay questions.


I did the 1 day exam so I didn't have to worry about MBE issues.


Honestly, I thought the MPT was pretty straightforward and fairly easy. I think we benefited from the fact that they're still trying to figure out how to go from a 3-hour test to a 1.5-hour one. I only spent an hour on it (wasted time trying to get Softest to work after it froze on me until I finally ended up handwriting the MPT) and still feel good about it. If you spent 2 hours on hit I'm sure you did very well.

The MPT was weird in that there was only one file in the library and the test wasn't a closed universe with made-up jurisdictions and made up rules (you actually had to bring in outside knowledge of the law). But then, maybe that's the way CA MPT's have always been?


No, you're not supposed to bring in outside knowledge of the law. Often times the law of the MPT universe will be parallel if not the same as real law. But the exercise is supposed to be closed universe.

Wrong, the instruction specifically (maybe always) said you can supply outside legal principle and knowledge. In 3 hours exam, the material within is so much, no one really bothers but I do see released good answers having outside law or knowledge. But this MPT I fear you have to bring a lot outside stuff.


Yes, but the instructions always say that the problem takes place in a fictional jurisdiction. The instructions ask you to draw on your general knowledge of law to help you analyze the situation. It specifically says that all the materials you need have been given to you in the file and library.


It never says that. "You should concentrate on the material provided, but you should also bring to bear on the problem your general knowledge of law." That is the wording.

With only one short case in the library, it just makes sense to bring much outside knowledge or law.

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:04 pm

cnk1220 wrote:Oh that's interesting^^

Does CA use makeup its own MPTs? Or are they same MPTs that the NCBE makes up for the UBE? I'm eventually going to do the CA attorney's exam down the road so just curious!

CA has own PT has nothing to do with NCBE.

jman77

Silver
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:16 pm

[/quote]

No, you're not supposed to bring in outside knowledge of the law. Often times the law of the MPT universe will be parallel if not the same as real law. But the exercise is supposed to be closed universe.[/quote]
Wrong, the instruction specifically (maybe always) said you can supply outside legal principle and knowledge. In 3 hours exam, the material within is so much, no one really bothers but I do see released good answers having outside law or knowledge. But this MPT I fear you have to bring a lot outside stuff.[/quote]

Yes, but the instructions always say that the problem takes place in a fictional jurisdiction. The instructions ask you to draw on your general knowledge of law to help you analyze the situation. It specifically says that all the materials you need have been given to you in the file and library.[/quote]

It never says that. "You should concentrate on the material provided, but you should also bring to bear on the problem your general knowledge of law." That is the wording.

With only one short case in the library, it just makes sense to bring much outside knowledge or law.[/quote]

I in fact think it would be possible to write a passing answer in this particular MPT without reading/referencing the case at all (I think some examinees did in fact overlook the library). You'll get docked points for not discussing the nuances in the case, but if you have a firm knowledge of the 4th Amendment you can just apply that knowledge and pass.

It was one case and it was fairly short (I think there were about 2 or 3, maybe 4, nuanced rules there that you would not have known from general knowledge but you would not have been significantly hurt if you used the actual law/rules instead as they would have yielded fairly similar conclusions). That's why it struck me as being strange. It occurred to me that maybe they are experimenting on whether they can use the MPT as a some sort of cross-over MPT-Essay test (in this case Con Law) to make up for the fact that there are now lesser essays on the exam?
Last edited by jman77 on Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dee099

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Dee099 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:32 pm

After worrying about the material, I can now worry about grading , yay!

But how is the bar graded?
Does it help if we all do poorly, so the curve is better, is there even a curve?

The mbe, so 25 Qs were already not for points, what does raw vs scales mean?

Novemberis when all my family meets at my parents house for Thanksgiving, it's gnna be one to remember

jman77

Silver
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:37 pm

Dee099 wrote:After worrying about the material, I can now worry about grading , yay!

But how is the bar graded?
Does it help if we all do poorly, so the curve is better, is there even a curve?

The mbe, so 25 Qs were already not for points, what does raw vs scales mean?

Novemberis when all my family meets at my parents house for Thanksgiving, it's gnna be one to remember


From what I understand about the MBE, we all automatically get point bumps because the 175 questions will be scaled to 200. Then, depending on how we performed compared to previous batches of examinees with respect to "anchor questions" (same questions that appear in each exam to gauge how one batch compares to another batch in terms of ability/aptitude and to adjust for any score variations due to one test being more or less inherently difficult than another) we may get additional point bumps (or downward adjustments?).

Essays are curved, but I don't know exactly how.

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:49 pm

Does the first CP question has a personal injury tort judgment? I can't remember I discussed any tort judgment distribution. Did I just misread the question?

Hangastaronit

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:50 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Hangastaronit » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:02 pm

If others had a question that you definitely did NOT have (kid drowning in 4 feet of water was not on my test), does that mean it was for sure experimental?

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:04 pm

Hangastaronit wrote:If others had a question that you definitely did NOT have (kid drowning in 4 feet of water was not on my test), does that mean it was for sure experimental?


Yes, i don't have that one.

happybar

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby happybar » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:05 pm

jman77 wrote:
nsv wrote:Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?


In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).


But they didn't ask if the memorandum is admissible. They asked if the plaintiff can compel lawyer to give it her in discovery. So I don't think evidence was even necessary at this stage of discovery.
The question was only asking if he has reason to refuse discover because of att client privilege / work product.

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:09 pm

happybar wrote:
jman77 wrote:
nsv wrote:Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?


In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).


But they didn't ask if the memorandum is admissible. They asked if the plaintiff can compel lawyer to give it her in discovery. So I don't think evidence was even necessary at this stage of discovery.
The question was only asking if he has reason to refuse discover because of att client privilege / work product.


Yep, this question just has nothing to do with evidence.

User avatar
logical seasoning

Bronze
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:26 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby logical seasoning » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:11 pm

maxmartin wrote:
Hangastaronit wrote:If others had a question that you definitely did NOT have (kid drowning in 4 feet of water was not on my test), does that mean it was for sure experimental?


Yes, i don't have that one.


Dang ittttt. I remember that one because it was one of the few that I knew i got right (no duty to rescue)

fml

Hangastaronit

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:50 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Hangastaronit » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:13 pm

maxmartin wrote:
happybar wrote:
jman77 wrote:
nsv wrote:Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?


In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).


But they didn't ask if the memorandum is admissible. They asked if the plaintiff can compel lawyer to give it her in discovery. So I don't think evidence was even necessary at this stage of discovery.
The question was only asking if he has reason to refuse discover because of att client privilege / work product.


Yep, this question just has nothing to do with evidence.


Do others agree on this? I read it as the lawyer being compelled to testify at trial was asking for a discussion of 2 levels of hearsay under CA evidence rules. If evidence wasn't supposed to be discussed on essay 2, there goes 1/3 of my essay...

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 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:22 pm

Hangastaronit wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
happybar wrote:
jman77 wrote:
nsv wrote:Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?


In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).


But they didn't ask if the memorandum is admissible. They asked if the plaintiff can compel lawyer to give it her in discovery. So I don't think evidence was even necessary at this stage of discovery.
The question was only asking if he has reason to refuse discover because of att client privilege / work product.


Yep, this question just has nothing to do with evidence.


Do others agree on this? I read it as the lawyer being compelled to testify at trial was asking for a discussion of 2 levels of hearsay under CA evidence rules. If evidence wasn't supposed to be discussed on essay 2, there goes 1/3 of my essay...


Agreed with Hangas, the call of the question was about if the court should compel the lawyer to testify at trial, not in discovery. I reread the call of the question many times because it was difficult to wrap my mind around. The call also asked specifically about ACP (which is evidence) & WPD (which is civpro) for the first question and only asked about DoC for the last question. Of course, all three of these things are kind of cross-over points in law. Regardless of whether people focused on evidence or PR, I think that if you had reasonable things to say about the applicable law, you will probably be fine.

valentina

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:28 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby valentina » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:32 pm

I didn't say absolutely anything about evidence on that second essay. I re-read it several times and while of course, I did see hearsay issues, the calls of the question did not ask about admissibility, it was about whether or not the attorney could be compelled to testify about what his client told him, then about what a witness told him. The next question was whether he could be compelled to produce his work product, and then finally, the last question asked to identify breaches of duty (confidentiality and loyalty, because of a potential conflict). Am I the only who attacked this essay in that way? I literally did not mention one word of evidentiary law.

luckyjd

Bronze
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby luckyjd » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:33 pm

Yes, call specifically asked can he be compelled to testify at trial. I also read this over to make sure it wasn't asking about discovery. Those tricksters.

jman77

Silver
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:35 pm

whats an updog wrote:
Hangastaronit wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
happybar wrote:
jman77 wrote:
nsv wrote:Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?


In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).


But they didn't ask if the memorandum is admissible. They asked if the plaintiff can compel lawyer to give it her in discovery. So I don't think evidence was even necessary at this stage of discovery.
The question was only asking if he has reason to refuse discover because of att client privilege / work product.


Yep, this question just has nothing to do with evidence.


Do others agree on this? I read it as the lawyer being compelled to testify at trial was asking for a discussion of 2 levels of hearsay under CA evidence rules. If evidence wasn't supposed to be discussed on essay 2, there goes 1/3 of my essay...


Agreed with Hangas, the call of the question was about if the court should compel the lawyer to testify at trial, not in discovery. I reread the call of the question many times because it was difficult to wrap my mind around. The call also asked specifically about ACP (which is evidence) & WPD (which is civpro) for the first question and only asked about DoC for the last question. Of course, all three of these things are kind of cross-over points in law. Regardless of whether people focused on evidence or PR, I think that if you had reasonable things to say about the applicable law, you will probably be fine.


There's been discussion on this a couple of threads up. The call was whether he could be compelled at trial, the likely right answer was tied to work product privilege, not confidentiality. However, I think you missed out on points if you didn't spot and discuss the issues regarding hearsay. In my case, I went with "even if the court compels him to produce, the document may nonetheless be inadmissible if it is hearsay not sublet to any applicable exception....". I think spotting/discussing other relevant issues even if not directly but only indirectly related to the call can only add points and not spotting/discussing them is basically leaving points on the table.

For instance, in the CP question regarding the condo, Lucas/anti-Lucas would have given you solid points, but there were also points to be had if you worked in an analysis on why the condo interest were TIC instead of JT and an analysis on why transmutation (either by writing or by gift) did not occur.

controo

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby controo » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:35 pm

Hangastaronit wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
happybar wrote:
jman77 wrote:
nsv wrote:Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?


In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).


But they didn't ask if the memorandum is admissible. They asked if the plaintiff can compel lawyer to give it her in discovery. So I don't think evidence was even necessary at this stage of discovery.
The question was only asking if he has reason to refuse discover because of att client privilege / work product.


Yep, this question just has nothing to do with evidence.


Do others agree on this? I read it as the lawyer being compelled to testify at trial was asking for a discussion of 2 levels of hearsay under CA evidence rules. If evidence wasn't supposed to be discussed on essay 2, there goes 1/3 of my essay...


At the very least, I don't think it was a pure PR question. Themis said that for PR questions, the call of the question would generally say "answer according to CA and ABA." They said this for the 3rd call of the question, but the first two said "answer according to CA law" only. So even though PR was huge obviously on those too, I think they were looking for either some CA civ pro or some CA evidence for those two. I'm not sure which because I don't remember exactly what the questions said. But I put some really basic evidence stuff for the lawyer testifying at trial one and some really basic civ pro stuff stuff for the memorandum. I am not at all confident about this though. I was just guessing and didn't feel good about the question at all.

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 712
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:42 pm

controo wrote:
Hangastaronit wrote:
maxmartin wrote:
happybar wrote:
jman77 wrote:
nsv wrote:Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?


In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).


But they didn't ask if the memorandum is admissible. They asked if the plaintiff can compel lawyer to give it her in discovery. So I don't think evidence was even necessary at this stage of discovery.
The question was only asking if he has reason to refuse discover because of att client privilege / work product.


Yep, this question just has nothing to do with evidence.


Do others agree on this? I read it as the lawyer being compelled to testify at trial was asking for a discussion of 2 levels of hearsay under CA evidence rules. If evidence wasn't supposed to be discussed on essay 2, there goes 1/3 of my essay...


At the very least, I don't think it was a pure PR question. Themis said that for PR questions, the call of the question would generally say "answer according to CA and ABA." They said this for the 3rd call of the question, but the first two said "answer according to CA law" only. So even though PR was huge obviously on those too, I think they were looking for either some CA civ pro or some CA evidence for those two. I'm not sure which because I don't remember exactly what the questions said. But I put some really basic evidence stuff for the lawyer testifying at trial one and some really basic civ pro stuff stuff for the memorandum. I am not at all confident about this though. I was just guessing and didn't feel good about the question at all.

I don't recall seeing this in the question.
Last edited by maxmartin on Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

happybar

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby happybar » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:42 pm

valentina wrote:I didn't say absolutely anything about evidence on that second essay. I re-read it several times and while of course, I did see hearsay issues, the calls of the question did not ask about admissibility, it was about whether or not the attorney could be compelled to testify about what his client told him, then about what a witness told him. The next question was whether he could be compelled to produce his work product, and then finally, the last question asked to identify breaches of duty (confidentiality and loyalty, because of a potential conflict). Am I the only who attacked this essay in that way? I literally did not mention one word of evidentiary law.


I don't think there was any loyalty or potential conflicts issues because the facts indicated that he separately represented the owner of the company and not the company itself. I also mentioned financial integrity - his duty to return the estate some of the money he got in the retainer agreement which is an agreement where you typically get money in advance while he was fired in the beginning , shortly thereafter his client died.

Since I concluded that the privilege ended when the deceased client estate was settled - he violated his duty of candor to the court and fairness to thid parties (here Claire) by refusing to testify and forcing her to submit a motion to compel.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests