Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

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

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:43 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby iOwnBlackacre » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:40 pm

I think I'm going to skip these MPT workshop videos. Seems like a waste of time and I'm at 27.5% as of today.

User avatar
MelaPela

New
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby MelaPela » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:46 pm

Anyone do the second Evidence MBE practice question set and find it incredibly hard? I scored terribly and to be honest couldn't even figure out the relevant subject matter on many of the questions, much less the right answer. This was after scoring 75% on the introductory session (which I understand is made up of easier questions).

User avatar
SeewhathappensLarry

Bronze
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:25 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby SeewhathappensLarry » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:54 pm

MelaPela wrote:Anyone do the second Evidence MBE practice question set and find it incredibly hard? I scored terribly and to be honest couldn't even figure out the relevant subject matter on many of the questions, much less the right answer. This was after scoring 75% on the introductory session (which I understand is made up of easier questions).



Omg, yes. Evidence was one of my best subjects in law school but I have majorly struggled with it so far on the MBE.

sasquatchsam

Bronze
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby sasquatchsam » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:54 pm

MelaPela wrote:Anyone do the second Evidence MBE practice question set and find it incredibly hard? I scored terribly and to be honest couldn't even figure out the relevant subject matter on many of the questions, much less the right answer. This was after scoring 75% on the introductory session (which I understand is made up of easier questions).


I did the second and third sets this morning. Second set I was at 59% (20/34) and the third I was at 82% (28/34). Seems like they need to adjust the difficulty of the questions a bit or at least mix them between some of the sets.

helpappreciated

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:43 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby helpappreciated » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:55 pm

How did people feel about the civil procedure questions and essays?

User avatar
whats an updog

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby whats an updog » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:02 pm

The CivPro essays I've gotten so far have mostly centered on a PJ analysis, which I think I have the structure down for, so not so bad. Though, if I get anything on more minute issues (timing etc.), I'd probably be hosed.

Subjects I understand the least so far after having "completed" are Remedies and PR.

User avatar
shaynislegend

Bronze
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:40 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby shaynislegend » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:05 pm

The questions on the practice exam #2 are laughable. I hope these are all themis questions. Half of them don't even supply enough information to give an answer.

User avatar
MelaPela

New
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby MelaPela » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:19 pm

sasquatchsam wrote:
MelaPela wrote:Anyone do the second Evidence MBE practice question set and find it incredibly hard? I scored terribly and to be honest couldn't even figure out the relevant subject matter on many of the questions, much less the right answer. This was after scoring 75% on the introductory session (which I understand is made up of easier questions).


I did the second and third sets this morning. Second set I was at 59% (20/34) and the third I was at 82% (28/34). Seems like they need to adjust the difficulty of the questions a bit or at least mix them between some of the sets.


Ugh, at least you still scored a 59%. I'm at 40% over here. :(

bmmccb223

Bronze
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby bmmccb223 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:20 pm

shaynislegend wrote:The questions on the practice exam #2 are laughable. I hope these are all themis questions. Half of them don't even supply enough information to give an answer.


What do you mean? They were hard but I didn't encounter one that was unanswerable.

champloo

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby champloo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:28 pm

anyone know of an easy way of punching holes into the critical pass cards so i can ring them? cards are so thick regular hole punchers don't work that well.

User avatar
Bass

New
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:16 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Bass » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:47 pm

Can anyone shed light on the model answer below? Am I missing something? 8)

Spoilers for Themis graded essay on Evidence. (Referring to question 2)

[+] Spoiler
Question ID: 284

Driver was driving an automobile that struck Pedestrian in the crosswalk of a busy street. Pedestrian suffered painful fractures and a concussion that affected her memory of the accident.

Pedestrian filed a negligence action against Driver, who responded with a general denial and an assertion that Pedestrian’s negligence caused her injuries. The parties have stipulated to the severity of Pedestrian’s injuries, to Pedestrian’s pain and suffering, and to the total value of Pedestrian’s damages. The parties are scheduled for a jury trial on the issues of both Driver’s and Pedestrian’s negligence.

Pedestrian plans to call Witness to testify at trial. Witness did not see the collision occur. However, Witness will testify that he walked past Pedestrian no more than five seconds before the collision, at which time Witness saw that Pedestrian was deeply engrossed in a cell phone conversation. Witness will also testify that he saw Driver’s distinctive sports car as it approached the intersection in which Pedestrian was hit. Witness, who has no specialized training, experience, or education, will also offer the opinion that the car was speeding just prior to the collision because it was traveling noticeably faster than the cars near it, all of which appeared to be traveling at the same slower speed.

Pedestrian plans to call her Spouse to testify that Pedestrian is very cautious and risk-averse.

Pedestrian also plans to testify at trial. She will not deny having been on the cell phone when Witness walked by, but will claim to have lowered the cell phone and looked for traffic just prior to entering the intersection. In fact, Pedestrian intends to testify that she has used a cell phone for many years, that she talks on it while walking almost every day, and that she invariably ends a call or lowers the cell phone when preparing to cross a street in order to look both ways before entering the intersection.

Driver intends to undermine Pedestrian’s credibility by introducing evidence of her memory loss. Pedestrian counters that if the jury hears about some of Pedestrian’s injuries, then it must hear about all of them, and so Pedestrian seeks to introduce evidence on the full nature and extent of her other injuries.

At the final pretrial motion hearing, Driver’s counsel argued that the court should grant these four motions in limine:

(1) to exclude Witness’s opinion that Driver was speeding;

(2) to exclude Spouse’s testimony;

(3) to exclude evidence of Pedestrian’s cell phone use at any time other than the day of the collision;

(4) to admit evidence of Pedestrian’s memory loss, but to exclude evidence of Pedestrian’s other injuries.

The evidence rules of this jurisdiction are identical to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

How should the court rule on each of these motions? Explain.

Answer for question 2

2. Spouse’s testimony as to Pedestrian’s character for being cautious and risk-averse (25%)

Generally, evidence of a person’s character is inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with that character trait. In this case, Spouse would like to testify that Pedestrian is characteristically cautious and risk averse because it suggests that on the day of the collision, Pedestrian was acting in conformity with these character traits. The court should not admit Spouse’s testimony regarding Pedestrian’s character traits because it is inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with that character trait.


Themis Torts outline page 10 seems to suggest that character evidence in a civil case is admissible if the character is at issue when it is an essential element of a claim or defense? Wouldn't the cautious character be at issue here because the negligence of the Pedestrian is part of the Driver's defense?

Puffman1234

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:16 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Puffman1234 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:54 pm

I just missed a property question where X secured a loan from A, B, and then C, in that order, and all with a mortgage on X's home. A, B, and C all promptly and properly recorded their mortgages. C's loan, secured by the mortgage, was made to X on the belief that X would be able to fully pay off A's loan, but it wasn't sufficient to do so. X then defaulted on all the loans, and B initiated foreclosure. The question asks whether B or C has priority.

This seemed like one of the "answer is obvious so they're trying to trick you"-type questions. I chose the answer that B had priority because B recorded first. Apparently that's wrong. The right answer is that because there is no recording act mentioned in the question, the common law first-in-time rule applies, so B has priority over C. While C's loan partially paid off X's obligation to A, it didn't fully pay off the debt, so C did not step into A's shoes via subrogation.

This answer doesn't make sense to me. First of all, the facts say A, B, and C recorded. Every state has a recording statute, and under any of the three types, A>B>C. But we're supposed to assume that if the type of recording statute isn't mentioned, they're just recording for no reason and the common law controls?

Also—and this doesn't really matter to the answer—but I wouldn't have thought that it would count as subrogation if X gives Y money to pay off a loan to Z. I would think X would have to pay Z directly to take over Y's debt.

Am I missing something? I guess if that's the default rule then that's the default rule and I'll go with it, in which case I'm not missing anything, I just think it's stupid.
Last edited by Puffman1234 on Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
whats an updog

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby whats an updog » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:57 pm

The common law thing is for sure stupid, considering that the lecture hand-outs do say that every state has a recording statute and the question specifically mentioned that people were recording. Seems like more of a trick than a do-you-know-the-law sort of thing.

I would also have thought the same as you re: subrogation, but I googled it up and this was a helpful in-depth explanation: https://subrogation.uslegal.com/subroga ... mortgages/ (it's probably also in our outline but didn't bother to look it up there)

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7712
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby lavarman84 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:10 pm

Yea, I got and missed that question too for the same reasons. There's no rhyme or reason to it. I'll just commit it to memory and hope they don't play games like that on the actual MBE.

djz

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:30 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby djz » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:48 am

Running pretty far behind and don't know anyone else taking the July bar because I graduated last year and moved out of state. If anyone wants to chat about the material or studying shoot me a PM. Feel it would be helpful.

bellalove23

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:37 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby bellalove23 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:02 am

So I'm fairly far along in the course % wise and have seen that a number of you guys are as well, but I'm sometimes hitting the recommended % of questions correct and sometimes not.

Are you guys over 40% completion also hitting the goal % consistently as well?

I feel like I've been studying hard, but despite that, sometimes I'm way off the goal mark.

User avatar
shaynislegend

Bronze
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:40 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby shaynislegend » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:09 am

bmmccb223 wrote:
shaynislegend wrote:The questions on the practice exam #2 are laughable. I hope these are all themis questions. Half of them don't even supply enough information to give an answer.


What do you mean? They were hard but I didn't encounter one that was unanswerable.


A few that come to mind
[+] Spoiler
Con law:
"Congress enacted immigration legislation that provided for special preferences for admitting into the United States an alien with a family member who is a United States citizen. In defining “family members” for this purpose, the statute included a natural mother and her illegitimate child, but made no similar provision for a natural father and his illegitimate child due to the greater administrative difficulty in ascertaining the existence of this relationship. A United States citizen who was the natural father of an illegitimate child filed an action in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the exclusion of a natural father and his illegitimate child from the definition of “family members.” Can the father successfully challenge this statute as unconstitutional?"

No where in the fact pattern does it say that the natural father's illegitimate child is an alien. If the child isn't an alien then there is not standing. Can you assume that the child is probably an alien, covered under the statute, and thus standing exists? Sure, but say that. Most of being a lawyer is attention to detail.

Civil Procedure:

"A plaintiff brought an injunctive action in federal court under the federal Clean Water Act, based on alleged pollution of a stream. The stream is located in a state in which both parties are citizens. The complaint also contained a nuisance claim based on state law arising from the same set of circumstances as the federal claim. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief only with respect to the nuisance claim. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the nuisance claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Must the court grant this motion?"

So confusing, did he file for an injunction as to the federal claim or was it just the state law claim . . .

Evidence:

"A plaintiff filed suit against a defendant supermarket for injuries he sustained when he slipped on a piece of lettuce in the supermarket’s produce aisle. A supermarket employee who witnessed the plaintiff’s fall prepared a written summary of the events that had occurred in order to alert the supermarket’s management. At trial, the supermarket’s lawyer called the employee as a witness and, after her testimony, asked her to read her summary to the jury. The plaintiff objected to the testimony. May the court admit the testimony at this time over the plaintiff’s objection?"

(1) what did he testify about, that he couldn't remember? Did he lay a foundation as to whether he had actual knowledge of the statement when he made it? Was it accurrate when he made it? (2) this also sounds a lot like a business record that would be excluded as a record made in contemplation of litigation.

Crim Pro:

A police officer saw a man who was a convicted drug dealer walking down the street. The officer temporarily detained the man based on a reasonable suspicion that the man was illegally carrying a weapon. The officer conducted a pat-down of the man and felt an indeterminate lump in the man’s jacket pocket. The officer removed the object, which turned out to be a pocket Bible. Protruding from the Bible was a plastic bag containing a white powder. The officer recognized the powder as heroin, and immediately arrested the man. Later tests confirmed that the powder was heroin. At trial, the man’s attorney moved to exclude evidence of the heroin. How should the judge rule?

An indeterminate lump? Did he think it was a weapon?

ThisMan

New
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:21 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby ThisMan » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:59 am

Bass wrote:Can anyone shed light on the model answer below? Am I missing something? 8)

Spoilers for Themis graded essay on Evidence. (Referring to question 2)

[+] Spoiler
Question ID: 284

Driver was driving an automobile that struck Pedestrian in the crosswalk of a busy street. Pedestrian suffered painful fractures and a concussion that affected her memory of the accident.

Pedestrian filed a negligence action against Driver, who responded with a general denial and an assertion that Pedestrian’s negligence caused her injuries. The parties have stipulated to the severity of Pedestrian’s injuries, to Pedestrian’s pain and suffering, and to the total value of Pedestrian’s damages. The parties are scheduled for a jury trial on the issues of both Driver’s and Pedestrian’s negligence.

Pedestrian plans to call Witness to testify at trial. Witness did not see the collision occur. However, Witness will testify that he walked past Pedestrian no more than five seconds before the collision, at which time Witness saw that Pedestrian was deeply engrossed in a cell phone conversation. Witness will also testify that he saw Driver’s distinctive sports car as it approached the intersection in which Pedestrian was hit. Witness, who has no specialized training, experience, or education, will also offer the opinion that the car was speeding just prior to the collision because it was traveling noticeably faster than the cars near it, all of which appeared to be traveling at the same slower speed.

Pedestrian plans to call her Spouse to testify that Pedestrian is very cautious and risk-averse.

Pedestrian also plans to testify at trial. She will not deny having been on the cell phone when Witness walked by, but will claim to have lowered the cell phone and looked for traffic just prior to entering the intersection. In fact, Pedestrian intends to testify that she has used a cell phone for many years, that she talks on it while walking almost every day, and that she invariably ends a call or lowers the cell phone when preparing to cross a street in order to look both ways before entering the intersection.

Driver intends to undermine Pedestrian’s credibility by introducing evidence of her memory loss. Pedestrian counters that if the jury hears about some of Pedestrian’s injuries, then it must hear about all of them, and so Pedestrian seeks to introduce evidence on the full nature and extent of her other injuries.

At the final pretrial motion hearing, Driver’s counsel argued that the court should grant these four motions in limine:

(1) to exclude Witness’s opinion that Driver was speeding;

(2) to exclude Spouse’s testimony;

(3) to exclude evidence of Pedestrian’s cell phone use at any time other than the day of the collision;

(4) to admit evidence of Pedestrian’s memory loss, but to exclude evidence of Pedestrian’s other injuries.

The evidence rules of this jurisdiction are identical to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

How should the court rule on each of these motions? Explain.

Answer for question 2

2. Spouse’s testimony as to Pedestrian’s character for being cautious and risk-averse (25%)

Generally, evidence of a person’s character is inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with that character trait. In this case, Spouse would like to testify that Pedestrian is characteristically cautious and risk averse because it suggests that on the day of the collision, Pedestrian was acting in conformity with these character traits. The court should not admit Spouse’s testimony regarding Pedestrian’s character traits because it is inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with that character trait.


Themis Torts outline page 10 seems to suggest that character evidence in a civil case is admissible if the character is at issue when it is an essential element of a claim or defense? Wouldn't the cautious character be at issue here because the negligence of the Pedestrian is part of the Driver's defense?


What helps me is to think of essential as "do I ABSOLUTELY NEED this evidence to prove or defend my case?" Even if Spouse did testify that Pedestrian was usually cautious and risk averse and a jury believed her 100%, a jury could still find that she was negligent on this particular occasion. I think a good example of when a character trait is needed to prove a claim is something like negligence in parental supervision (if I had the 1) opportunity but failed to 2) control my brat when 3) I knew or should have known it was necessary). Imagine if my kid was just always ridiculously violent and mauled a guest one day in my home. If the guest sues me for negligent parenting, then they can introduce my kid's violent character to establish that I knew it was necessary to control my kid. My kid's character is essential here because without it a plaintiff can't prove that I knew or should have known it was essential to control my child because I could just argue that it was unforeseeable my kid would beast out. I hope that makes sense because I'm running on caffeine, stress, and insecurity right now lol

Fireworks2016

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 1:17 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Fireworks2016 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:56 pm

bellalove23 wrote:So I'm fairly far along in the course % wise and have seen that a number of you guys are as well, but I'm sometimes hitting the recommended % of questions correct and sometimes not.

Are you guys over 40% completion also hitting the goal % consistently as well?

I feel like I've been studying hard, but despite that, sometimes I'm way off the goal mark.


Yeah I'm at 51% and I think I've been pretty consistently hitting 70% on the MBE PQs. It's tricky though, because it seems like some of the MBE PQs are designed to hammer smaller rules/nuances that aren't in the lecture hand outs. I've seen it the most in Con Law and Civ Pro. I think that could be why you're sometimes dipping below the goal.

User avatar
MelaPela

New
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby MelaPela » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:14 pm

bellalove23 wrote:So I'm fairly far along in the course % wise and have seen that a number of you guys are as well, but I'm sometimes hitting the recommended % of questions correct and sometimes not.

Are you guys over 40% completion also hitting the goal % consistently as well?

I feel like I've been studying hard, but despite that, sometimes I'm way off the goal mark.


Am now at 41%, and hitting the goal consistently, but not always surpassing by a lot (usually right on the dot or a few % over). I did have some trouble with Evidence, and there was one MBE set where I missed the goal completely (by >10%).

Don't worry yet! Everyone has been telling me that things will click later on! Keep reviewing the questions you get wrong and hopefully you'll start to spot those patterns. :)

Samarcan

New
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Samarcan » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:26 pm

I guess this has been noted already, but very frustrating that sometimes the "right answer" to a practice MBE question in Themis will refer to rules or exceptions that are not actually covered even in the big outline -- they are alluded to *for the first time* in the explanation of the answer to the practice question. Especially true in the Real Property section (mortgage foreclosures especially), in my experience. I get that the subject has lots of technical rules; but if so they should be covered in the outline, not saved for explanation to a particular question.

User avatar
Slytherpuff

Platinum
Posts: 5401
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Slytherpuff » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:03 pm

34% complete - I'm going to have to hustle to hit that 75% completion at this point.

honeyybee

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:07 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby honeyybee » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:13 pm

I'm at 33% today. I also will have to hustle to hit that 75% mark. I am anxious to get through the substantive law for all subjects and start drilling MBE and MEE. Time IS of the essence :roll:

User avatar
whats an updog

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby whats an updog » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:04 pm

Schott is not necessarily the worst lecturer so far, though he is the loosest with following the hand out, but what makes him the worst anyway is that he has decided all of his lectures will be in the 20 minute range. Throw me a fucking 13 min every once in awhile bro

Puffman1234

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:16 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Puffman1234 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:08 pm

whats an updog wrote:Schott is not necessarily the worst lecturer so far, though he is the loosest with following the hand out, but what makes him the worst anyway is that he has decided all of his lectures will be in the 20 minute range. Throw me a fucking 13 min every once in awhile bro


I just started him because I didn't want to do more fucking MBE questions...cruising through the lectures isn't too bad, but I'm wary of getting complacent feeling like I've got a lot done when I'm really just sitting here listening to some guy talk at 2x speed and filling in blanks on a handout. And yeah, it's harder to absorb the material when Schott doesn't really follow the handout. Wind up rewinding it or trying to read along while listening, which means I don't take it in.

I was at 26% at the end of last Friday and I'll probably end today at only about 32%, but the weighting is strange. Ticking off the MBE con law outline and listening to all the lectures counted as like .7%, but each set of MBE PQs (34 each) counts as .4%. So once it's more practice than substantive law exposure I think the progress bar fills a lot faster.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MichaelJackson, RareExports and 38 guests