July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:10 am

WestWingWatcher wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/massiah-rule/


Ah, so its basically the "don't send an informant into the jail cell w/ the defendant who has invoked his 6A right to counsel in order to get him to talk about his crime" rule.


Oh so literally just the Sixth Amendment :roll:

User avatar
acijku2
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby acijku2 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:25 am

For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?

User avatar
runthetrap1990
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby runthetrap1990 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:48 am

Man I'm burnt today. I can't muster up the energy to do these 6 essays...

User avatar
TheWalrus
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby TheWalrus » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:04 pm

acijku2 wrote:For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?


viewtopic.php?f=41&t=249162

User avatar
acijku2
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby acijku2 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:26 pm

TheWalrus wrote:
acijku2 wrote:For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?


viewtopic.php?f=41&t=249162


And that like the outlines, that link says apparent authority is an issue with contract liability to the principal. In question 1, the issue is tort liability to the principal and the model answer mentions apparent authority.

RDA2930
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:21 pm

acijku2 wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:
acijku2 wrote:For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?


viewtopic.php?f=41&t=249162


And that like the outlines, that link says apparent authority is an issue with contract liability to the principal. In question 1, the issue is tort liability to the principal and the model answer mentions apparent authority.


The lecture notes and CMR do a really bad job of explaining this (in that they don't), but this is from the restatement (3rd) of agency (copied from here https://sites.google.com/site/kubusines ... -principal):

A principal is subject to direct liability to a third party harmed by an agent's conduct when agent acts with actual authority, principal is negligent in controlling/hiring the agent, or principal delegates performance of a duty to use care to protect other persons or their property to an agent who fails to perform the duty.

A principal is subject to vicarious liability to a 3rd party harmed by an agent's conduct if the agent is an employee acting within scope of employment, OR the agent commits a tort when acting with apparent authority in dealing with a third party or purportedly on behalf of the principal.

The direct vs. vicarious liability distinction is a negligible one. I wouldn't worry too much. In any event, whenever an agency question comes up I'd try to put at least something down about authority if it seems at all implicated (e.g., facts give rise to a question about apparent authority).

Bobby_Axelrod
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Bobby_Axelrod » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:05 pm

Q 21 from Refresher:

Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.

3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k

Q: Which claims get into fed court?

A: All of them.

I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."

Brian_Wildcat
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Brian_Wildcat » Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:05 pm

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Q 21 from Refresher:

Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.

3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k

Q: Which claims get into fed court?

A: All of them.

I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."


My guess is no. You can aggregate claims being brought in under diversity jurisdiction i.e. aggregate all state law claims. However, the securities claim is federal question.

... but I could be wrong.

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:10 pm

Brian_Wildcat wrote:
Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Q 21 from Refresher:

Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.

3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k

Q: Which claims get into fed court?

A: All of them.

I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."


My guess is no. You can aggregate claims being brought in under diversity jurisdiction i.e. aggregate all state law claims. However, the securities claim is federal question.

... but I could be wrong.


I agree. I don't think I've seen anything specifically saying that is not the case, but AIC isn't even relevant if it is a FQ, so I'm assuming there would NOT be diversity jurisdiction for the unrelated negligence claim because of the low AIC. No supp jurisdiction either.

Bobby_Axelrod
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Bobby_Axelrod » Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:32 pm

cricketlove00 wrote:
Brian_Wildcat wrote:
Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Q 21 from Refresher:

Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.

3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k

Q: Which claims get into fed court?

A: All of them.

I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."


My guess is no. You can aggregate claims being brought in under diversity jurisdiction i.e. aggregate all state law claims. However, the securities claim is federal question.

... but I could be wrong.


I agree. I don't think I've seen anything specifically saying that is not the case, but AIC isn't even relevant if it is a FQ, so I'm assuming there would NOT be diversity jurisdiction for the unrelated negligence claim because of the low AIC. No supp jurisdiction either.


I'm still unsure, but I'm leaning toward this being okay. Just because a claim presents a federal question does not preclude it from invoking diversity jurisdiction.

User avatar
WestWingWatcher
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby WestWingWatcher » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:41 pm

Watch a 1 minute video of Joni telling you to avoid stressed out people — 2% completion.
Do a 3 hour practice test, and the review they say should take 3 hours — 0% completion. :roll:

dhersz
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:37 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby dhersz » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:17 am

So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:30 am

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
Brian_Wildcat wrote:
Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Q 21 from Refresher:

Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.

3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k

Q: Which claims get into fed court?

A: All of them.

I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."


My guess is no. You can aggregate claims being brought in under diversity jurisdiction i.e. aggregate all state law claims. However, the securities claim is federal question.

... but I could be wrong.


I agree. I don't think I've seen anything specifically saying that is not the case, but AIC isn't even relevant if it is a FQ, so I'm assuming there would NOT be diversity jurisdiction for the unrelated negligence claim because of the low AIC. No supp jurisdiction either.


I'm still unsure, but I'm leaning toward this being okay. Just because a claim presents a federal question does not preclude it from invoking diversity jurisdiction.

Yeah I agree with this last statement. Also, if you read the explanation a few lines down from what was quoted, it notes that the federal securities claim would get to federal court under both FQ and Diversity. So this to me clearly points to it being usable for reaching the aggregate AIC.

Brian_Wildcat
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Brian_Wildcat » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:01 pm

Is anyone actually reviewing the CMR today? I feel like it would be a waste of my time. planning on just reviewing lecture notes again.

MrWhitman
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby MrWhitman » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:32 pm

Brian_Wildcat wrote:Is anyone actually reviewing the CMR today? I feel like it would be a waste of my time. planning on just reviewing lecture notes again.

I found it very unhelpful. I am religious about following the Barbri plan but I'm not sure I can keep up with the CMR review program they've set up. It is also overwhelming to see all of the rules you don't yet know. I would maybe skim the CMR's charts, review areas you feel weak in, and then turn to the lecture review.

This is all on top of Barbri asking us to outline and grade every additional essay in each subject--it's a bit much IMO.

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:55 pm

MrWhitman wrote:
Brian_Wildcat wrote:Is anyone actually reviewing the CMR today? I feel like it would be a waste of my time. planning on just reviewing lecture notes again.

I found it very unhelpful. I am religious about following the Barbri plan but I'm not sure I can keep up with the CMR review program they've set up. It is also overwhelming to see all of the rules you don't yet know. I would maybe skim the CMR's charts, review areas you feel weak in, and then turn to the lecture review.

This is all on top of Barbri asking us to outline and grade every additional essay in each subject--it's a bit much IMO.

Oh, I took the "outline and grade additional essays" to mean "do as many as you need to feel comfortable in the subject." I'm not doing all of them for sure.

As for the CMR, I know exactly the areas of each subject where I struggle. I'm in depth going through the CMR for those. Otherwise I'm skimming the charts and bolded statements.

lawDC2017
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:59 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby lawDC2017 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:45 pm

dhersz wrote:So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??


I believe that attaining the suggested grades (and even a little bit below) would put you easily within the pass range. I had thought that Barbri's suggested grades were the average its students had gotten last year/in previous years on those tests. Since ~80% of those who use Barbri pass the bar (according to abovethelaw.com, citing "[Barbri] reps;" I couldn't find any actual statistics), if one scores average on the Barbri tests, he or she will easily pass the MBE. Being in the 30% percentile would still probably put you in the pass range.

If anyone knows/thinks differently, please let me know.

User avatar
TheWalrus
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby TheWalrus » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:54 pm

lawDC2017 wrote:
dhersz wrote:So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??


I believe that attaining the suggested grades (and even a little bit below) would put you easily within the pass range. I had thought that Barbri's suggested grades were the average its students had gotten last year/in previous years on those tests. Since ~80% of those who use Barbri pass the bar (according to abovethelaw.com, citing "[Barbri] reps;" I couldn't find any actual statistics), if one scores average on the Barbri tests, he or she will easily pass the MBE. Being in the 30% percentile would still probably put you in the pass range.

If anyone knows/thinks differently, please let me know.


What score does Barbri recommend as a suggested grade? Weirdly, Texas Barbri doesn't come with a suggested rubric.

User avatar
Toubro
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Toubro » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:57 pm

TheWalrus wrote:
lawDC2017 wrote:
dhersz wrote:So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??


I believe that attaining the suggested grades (and even a little bit below) would put you easily within the pass range. I had thought that Barbri's suggested grades were the average its students had gotten last year/in previous years on those tests. Since ~80% of those who use Barbri pass the bar (according to abovethelaw.com, citing "[Barbri] reps;" I couldn't find any actual statistics), if one scores average on the Barbri tests, he or she will easily pass the MBE. Being in the 30% percentile would still probably put you in the pass range.

If anyone knows/thinks differently, please let me know.


What score does Barbri recommend as a suggested grade? Weirdly, Texas Barbri doesn't come with a suggested rubric.


If you're hitting target or are slightly below, you should be fine. You definitely don't need to be better than the target. @TheWalrus - they're on the opening pages of the MPQ book

User avatar
TheWalrus
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby TheWalrus » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:08 pm

Toubro wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:
lawDC2017 wrote:
dhersz wrote:So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??


I believe that attaining the suggested grades (and even a little bit below) would put you easily within the pass range. I had thought that Barbri's suggested grades were the average its students had gotten last year/in previous years on those tests. Since ~80% of those who use Barbri pass the bar (according to abovethelaw.com, citing "[Barbri] reps;" I couldn't find any actual statistics), if one scores average on the Barbri tests, he or she will easily pass the MBE. Being in the 30% percentile would still probably put you in the pass range.

If anyone knows/thinks differently, please let me know.


What score does Barbri recommend as a suggested grade? Weirdly, Texas Barbri doesn't come with a suggested rubric.


If you're hitting target or are slightly below, you should be fine. You definitely don't need to be better than the target. @TheWalrus - they're on the opening pages of the MPQ book


Oh, I'm a dumbass. I thought he was talking about essays.

And yeah, the goals are the average of the students who took it last year.

User avatar
runthetrap1990
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby runthetrap1990 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:11 pm

I had a sensible chuckle when the personal study plan told me to do "Outline and Self-Grade Additional Tort Essays" and then when you turn to the Additional Essays section you are greeted with "No additional questions" on the page.

MrWhitman
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:15 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby MrWhitman » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:53 pm

EzraFitz wrote:
MrWhitman wrote:
Brian_Wildcat wrote:Is anyone actually reviewing the CMR today? I feel like it would be a waste of my time. planning on just reviewing lecture notes again.

I found it very unhelpful. I am religious about following the Barbri plan but I'm not sure I can keep up with the CMR review program they've set up. It is also overwhelming to see all of the rules you don't yet know. I would maybe skim the CMR's charts, review areas you feel weak in, and then turn to the lecture review.

This is all on top of Barbri asking us to outline and grade every additional essay in each subject--it's a bit much IMO.

Oh, I took the "outline and grade additional essays" to mean "do as many as you need to feel comfortable in the subject." I'm not doing all of them for sure.

As for the CMR, I know exactly the areas of each subject where I struggle. I'm in depth going through the CMR for those. Otherwise I'm skimming the charts and bolded statements.

You are far more sensible than me. I shall follow your lead.

bda
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:14 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby bda » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:34 pm

How screwed am I if I'm still getting "below passing" on a number of essays...

itsme123
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:45 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby itsme123 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:21 pm

bda wrote:How screwed am I if I'm still getting "below passing" on a number of essays...


I think I'm missing something... How are people getting their essays graded? I've just been comparing my essay to the essays in the book.

bda
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:14 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby bda » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:29 pm

itsme123 wrote:
bda wrote:How screwed am I if I'm still getting "below passing" on a number of essays...


I think I'm missing something... How are people getting their essays graded? I've just been comparing my essay to the essays in the book.


Based on the self-scoring checklist after each essay.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asroma, Beercules and 22 guests