2018 February CA Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
try try try again

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:10 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby try try try again » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:15 am

don't know that Free Speech is a direct issue (except with respect to religion of course). However, EPC, Establishment Clause and Free Exercise were important in my opinion.

Did not like the PT one bit. Felt like I knew what to do and organize but spent too much time arguing in one area and not enough on others.

Got'eem

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:50 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Got'eem » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:17 am

Ran out of time and didn’t put the exclusionary rule for crim pro. Big deal?

BrainToast

New
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:04 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby BrainToast » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:41 am

Got'eem wrote:Ran out of time and didn’t put the exclusionary rule for crim pro. Big deal?


In the bigger picture not really. In a time crunch, stuff like that happens. I forgot to discuss public use on the takings. But if the overall essay is good you will still get a passing score.

bigballerbrand

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:10 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby bigballerbrand » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:49 am

Got'eem wrote:
bigballerbrand wrote:I think my biggest whiff/miss today was neglecting to do a free speech analysis on the Con Law question. I decided to do Due Process and EPC, but neglected free speech. Blegh.


Try harder. You’re a better troll than that, right?


No, I heard a few people talking about time/place/manner and doing a quick content-based regulation analysis.

If I'm wrong/incorrect for feeling like I goofed for not doing anything on free speech, then believe me I'm glad and not trying to troll here.

febbartaker11

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:52 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby febbartaker11 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:58 am

Hi,
can someone please tell me the time we have to be there for tomorrow's session (preferably someone whose taking in Ontario) of course I cant remember the time.

Thank you!!!

Doobydoobydoo

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:13 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Doobydoobydoo » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:23 am

bigballerbrand wrote:
Got'eem wrote:
bigballerbrand wrote:I think my biggest whiff/miss today was neglecting to do a free speech analysis on the Con Law question. I decided to do Due Process and EPC, but neglected free speech. Blegh.


Try harder. You’re a better troll than that, right?


No, I heard a few people talking about time/place/manner and doing a quick content-based regulation analysis.

If I'm wrong/incorrect for feeling like I goofed for not doing anything on free speech, then believe me I'm glad and not trying to troll here.


Free speech was implicated as denial of religious books is both religious discrimination and content based restriction. Either way, subject to strict scrutiny, so don't worry.

justanotheruser

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:47 am

Doobydoobydoo wrote:
bigballerbrand wrote:
Got'eem wrote:
bigballerbrand wrote:I think my biggest whiff/miss today was neglecting to do a free speech analysis on the Con Law question. I decided to do Due Process and EPC, but neglected free speech. Blegh.


Try harder. You’re a better troll than that, right?


No, I heard a few people talking about time/place/manner and doing a quick content-based regulation analysis.

If I'm wrong/incorrect for feeling like I goofed for not doing anything on free speech, then believe me I'm glad and not trying to troll here.


Free speech was implicated as denial of religious books is both religious discrimination and content based restriction. Either way, subject to strict scrutiny, so don't worry.


Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to squeeze in a "1st amendment - free speech" header with a "see above" note pointing back to my SS analysis under free exercise.

Oh well.

justanotheruser

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:18 pm

Head proctor in Ontario was too slow on Tuesday so he decided to go extra fast with instructions today.

Makes sense...

Yogagirl

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Yogagirl » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:05 am

If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

Element795

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Element795 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:20 am

neb wrote:
chicoalto0649 wrote:[tweet][/tweet]
Element795 wrote:So, what were today’s subjects?


AM

Remedies/Crossover with PR
Con Law
Property/Torts

PM

Wills
Crim/Crimpro


Which part of Q3 did you think dealt with real property? I was short on time for it, so my cursory analysis of the facts indicated that the issues were nuisance, trespass to land and a taking. That'd be Con Law/Torts. Did I miss a real property issue?


Real Property/Con Law when it comes to those issues overlap so what is one persons Con Law is another persons Real Property. U are probably fine.

Element795

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Element795 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:22 am

BrainToast wrote:
Got'eem wrote:Ran out of time and didn’t put the exclusionary rule for crim pro. Big deal?


In the bigger picture not really. In a time crunch, stuff like that happens. I forgot to discuss public use on the takings. But if the overall essay is good you will still get a passing score.


They went with “Takings” again!?!?!?! WOW!

barexaminerssuck27

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:23 am

This is my 8th bar exam.

Here's something I've noticed so far....

Every SINGLE one of my friends who thought they "got all the issues" ended up failing the exam. On the other hand, while those who didn't get all the issues end up passing.......

I do believe it's substance rather quality.

I hope that will make some people at ease.

Good luck!
Last edited by barexaminerssuck27 on Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

barexaminerssuck27

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:26 am

Yes, there was a real property. Prescriptive easement as a a defense

Element795 wrote:
neb wrote:
chicoalto0649 wrote:[tweet][/tweet]
Element795 wrote:So, what were today’s subjects?


AM

Remedies/Crossover with PR
Con Law
Property/Torts

PM

Wills
Crim/Crimpro


Which part of Q3 did you think dealt with real property? I was short on time for it, so my cursory analysis of the facts indicated that the issues were nuisance, trespass to land and a taking. That'd be Con Law/Torts. Did I miss a real property issue?


Real Property/Con Law when it comes to those issues overlap so what is one persons Con Law is another persons Real Property. U are probably fine.

Element795

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Element795 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:32 am

chicoalto0649 wrote:[tweet][/tweet]
Element795 wrote:So, what were today’s subjects?


AM

Remedies/Crossover with PR
Con Law
Property/Torts

PM

Wills
Crim/Crimpro


Nothing “surprising.” Just a poopie group of subjects (blah)

barexaminerssuck27

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:05 am

barexaminerssuck27 wrote:This is my 8th bar exam.

Here's something I've noticed so far....

Every SINGLE one of my friends who thought they "got all the issues" ended up failing the exam. On the other hand, while those who didn't get all the issues end up passing.......

I do believe it's substance rather quantity.

I hope that will make some people at ease.

Good luck!

LawQueen777

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:15 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby LawQueen777 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:01 am

So I’m freaking out a little bc I didn’t time myself appropriately for the first section of the MBE and zoomed through the last like 8 questions. I’m really bummed about it bc the MBE is my better skill set. I’m a repeat taker-in July I got a scaled score of 1539 and written 1323, and a scaled total score of 1441, so I was short by 9 points. I definitely feel better about my essays but I know I didn’t kill them. I just pray that those questions weren’t fatal to my chances of passing.

barexaminerssuck27

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:09 am

LawQueen777 wrote:So I’m freaking out a little bc I didn’t time myself appropriately for the first section of the MBE and zoomed through the last like 8 questions. I’m really bummed about it bc the MBE is my better skill set. I’m a repeat taker-in July I got a scaled score of 1539 and written 1323, and a scaled total score of 1441, so I was short by 9 points. I definitely feel better about my essays but I know I didn’t kill them. I just pray that those questions weren’t fatal to my chances of passing.


Hi what do you use for MBES? Thank you

BrainToast

New
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:04 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby BrainToast » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:31 am

Yogagirl wrote:If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?

LawQueen777

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:15 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby LawQueen777 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:46 am

barexaminerssuck27 wrote:
LawQueen777 wrote:So I’m freaking out a little bc I didn’t time myself appropriately for the first section of the MBE and zoomed through the last like 8 questions. I’m really bummed about it bc the MBE is my better skill set. I’m a repeat taker-in July I got a scaled score of 1539 and written 1323, and a scaled total score of 1441, so I was short by 9 points. I definitely feel better about my essays but I know I didn’t kill them. I just pray that those questions weren’t fatal to my chances of passing.


Hi what do you use for MBES? Thank you


The first time I used the Emanuel MBE book, AdaptiBar, and some of the Barbri simulated questions. Honestly this time I felt like the questions were harder than last time, but maybe it’s bc I focused more on essays this time since that was where I needed to improve. The released NCBE questions were the most helpful this time. I highly recommend those. There are a lot of areas of the law, particularly Civ Pro, where the examiners are testing nuanced questions that are not covered in any of the current major bar prep outlines. Because the released questions don’t have explanations, I had to read the actual FRCP or Westlaw for the answers bc I could not find the answers.

Yogagirl

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:16 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Yogagirl » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:11 am

I discussed both Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, including the Lemon Test.

Doobydoobydoo

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:13 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Doobydoobydoo » Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:16 am

BrainToast wrote:
Yogagirl wrote:If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?


I am drunk. As for this free speech analysis you mentioned, it's not totally wrong. There is case law to suggest that the government does have some free speech protection. See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The sign may have been protected, thus Constitutional, under the First Amendment. So free speech analysis wasn't irrelevant or a "wrong" way of looking at the problem. It should earn you some points.

Mxmasterr

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:14 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:26 am

Honey0808 wrote:I think standing was an issue to address in the PT. Definitely not the main crux, so don't stress if you didn't focus on it. That PT was one of the more difficult ones I've seen


I agree. The prompt said the attorney wanted to argue standing, so I threw out a paragraph on it and essentially I said it could be relevant to her argument but ... We'd need more info. I also did a paragragh saying this might be a trust cause the one case said anytime u give to a school for educational purposes it's a trust as a matter of law ... Which is what are facts were exactly. The prompt said what type of gift could it be so I said it could be a conditional gift and I believe a charitable trust

Mxmasterr

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:14 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:50 am

Doobydoobydoo wrote:
BrainToast wrote:
Yogagirl wrote:If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?


I am drunk. As for this free speech analysis you mentioned, it's not totally wrong. There is case law to suggest that the government does have some free speech protection. See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The sign may have been protected, thus Constitutional, under the First Amendment. So free speech analysis wasn't irrelevant or a "wrong" way of looking at the problem. It should earn you some points.


I don't think there was any free speech analysis to be done. It might be a defense, that the Gov can say things it wants, but that just begs the question if whether what it is saying violates the establishment clause. I guess you could have done a sentence on that.

Apparently there was a different level of scrutiny and test for restrictions on inmate free exercise rights that my bar review class did not mention at all. Apparently inmates have free exercise rights but they fall under a rational basis review with like 4 distinct elements weighed under the realities of incarceration needs. Also equal protection was implicated, and ... i missed that as well.

Retakeorabust

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Retakeorabust » Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:08 pm

Mxmasterr wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:
BrainToast wrote:
Yogagirl wrote:If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?


I am drunk. As for this free speech analysis you mentioned, it's not totally wrong. There is case law to suggest that the government does have some free speech protection. See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The sign may have been protected, thus Constitutional, under the First Amendment. So free speech analysis wasn't irrelevant or a "wrong" way of looking at the problem. It should earn you some points.


I don't think there was any free speech analysis to be done. It might be a defense, that the Gov can say things it wants, but that just begs the question if whether what it is saying violates the establishment clause. I guess you could have done a sentence on that.

Apparently there was a different level of scrutiny and test for restrictions on inmate free exercise rights that my bar review class did not mention at all. Apparently inmates have free exercise rights but they fall under a rational basis review with like 4 distinct elements weighed under the realities of incarceration needs. Also equal protection was implicated, and ... i missed that as well.



I agree with no free speech. Also think the epc was a stretch.

Anyone else invalidate the codicil for lack of capacity?

Mxmasterr

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:14 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:24 pm

Retakeorabust wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
Doobydoobydoo wrote:
BrainToast wrote:
Yogagirl wrote:If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?


I am drunk. As for this free speech analysis you mentioned, it's not totally wrong. There is case law to suggest that the government does have some free speech protection. See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The sign may have been protected, thus Constitutional, under the First Amendment. So free speech analysis wasn't irrelevant or a "wrong" way of looking at the problem. It should earn you some points.


I don't think there was any free speech analysis to be done. It might be a defense, that the Gov can say things it wants, but that just begs the question if whether what it is saying violates the establishment clause. I guess you could have done a sentence on that.

Apparently there was a different level of scrutiny and test for restrictions on inmate free exercise rights that my bar review class did not mention at all. Apparently inmates have free exercise rights but they fall under a rational basis review with like 4 distinct elements weighed under the realities of incarceration needs. Also equal protection was implicated, and ... i missed that as well.



I agree with no free speech. Also think the epc was a stretch.

Anyone else invalidate the codicil for lack of capacity?


Yea but i didn't even mention the EPC, it should have been mentioned. Also there was a strict liability argument in the dog tort thing, didnt raise that, it not a winner, but I think they wanted you to talk about it. I raised easement by prescription in it cause of the 10 years. Are you joking on lack of capacity for the codicil? I didn't see a capacity issue at all I thought the prompt said the codicil was valid explicitly, it said that about the will for sure.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests