2018 July California Bar Forum

[estefanchanning]

how is everyone dealing with the stress of waiting? personally I can't remember a thing from the exam and can't contribute to these discussions.

On dealing with the stress, I've been studying for the bar again since two weeks after taking the bar. I've managed to be able to learn more and keep doing MBE questions, and even some essays on topics I'm anticipating will show up in February. Frankly, I'm pretty sure I could take the MBE and pass it right now. If I failed this time, I will absolutely pass it in February.

I've been down this road of dismal failure already, and some of the worst advice I ever received was, "Don't start studying again, you probably passed." Thanks a pant-load to everyone (and there were several) who told me that.

So I've kept up what I knew, and learned more along the way. If I did pass, and all this studying didn't need to be done, it doesn't bother me. It helps me deal with the stress of waiting, it mentally and emotionally prepares me to to have to take it again, and I'll be well ahead of the 10 week cram session. There's not going to be any re-learning, re-remembering, re-memorizing bullshit if I do have to do it again. Next time it's a foregone conclusion.

As for not remembering what you wrote, I don't either. I know I bombed the contracts essay because while I did remember there was a writing requirement, I ascribed it to the wrong party. That one fuckup undid the entirety of the rest of the essay. So there's a 50. The rest? I don't know and it doesn't matter because the same exact topics aren't going to be tested on the next exam... Okay, I'll admit I did look up the Consent to Fight rule just to make sure it was a thing (it is).

I respect your persistence. I'm just burn out. I wish I had it in me to study but I just don't right now. Are you working full time by chance? If you are, I commend you for continuing to study after 2.5+ months of brutal studying for J18. I guess I'll cross the bridge when I get there if I fail.

Regarding contracts, my adequate assurances analysis was short and I didn't even discuss the writing requirement because I totally forgot about it, and I forgot about the 30 days reasonableness time (I just said a reasonable time). I think and hope the rest of my essay made up for that omission and that I still passed it or at least got a 60. I don't know if ascribing the writing requirement to the wrong party would cause you to get a 50 (I assume you mean Stan had to provide writing instead of Best, and Best only called to seek adequate assurances). It just depends on how the rest of your essay was.

You and I (and others) missed the same issues on the Contracts (i.e., writing requirement re: Adequate Assurances. Plus, I think I forgot about the specific 30 days as well). Also, can't recall if I mentioned Prior ID on the Evidence. DEFINITELY did not talk about the confrontation clause. We'll see.

CC was not an issue...

[mathandthelaw]

how is everyone dealing with the stress of waiting? personally I can't remember a thing from the exam and can't contribute to these discussions.

On dealing with the stress, I've been studying for the bar again since two weeks after taking the bar. I've managed to be able to learn more and keep doing MBE questions, and even some essays on topics I'm anticipating will show up in February. Frankly, I'm pretty sure I could take the MBE and pass it right now. If I failed this time, I will absolutely pass it in February.

I've been down this road of dismal failure already, and some of the worst advice I ever received was, "Don't start studying again, you probably passed." Thanks a pant-load to everyone (and there were several) who told me that.

So I've kept up what I knew, and learned more along the way. If I did pass, and all this studying didn't need to be done, it doesn't bother me. It helps me deal with the stress of waiting, it mentally and emotionally prepares me to to have to take it again, and I'll be well ahead of the 10 week cram session. There's not going to be any re-learning, re-remembering, re-memorizing bullshit if I do have to do it again. Next time it's a foregone conclusion.

As for not remembering what you wrote, I don't either. I know I bombed the contracts essay because while I did remember there was a writing requirement, I ascribed it to the wrong party. That one fuckup undid the entirety of the rest of the essay. So there's a 50. The rest? I don't know and it doesn't matter because the same exact topics aren't going to be tested on the next exam... Okay, I'll admit I did look up the Consent to Fight rule just to make sure it was a thing (it is).

I respect your persistence. I'm just burn out. I wish I had it in me to study but I just don't right now. Are you working full time by chance? If you are, I commend you for continuing to study after 2.5+ months of brutal studying for J18. I guess I'll cross the bridge when I get there if I fail.

Regarding contracts, my adequate assurances analysis was short and I didn't even discuss the writing requirement because I totally forgot about it, and I forgot about the 30 days reasonableness time (I just said a reasonable time). I think and hope the rest of my essay made up for that omission and that I still passed it or at least got a 60. I don't know if ascribing the writing requirement to the wrong party would cause you to get a 50 (I assume you mean Stan had to provide writing instead of Best, and Best only called to seek adequate assurances). It just depends on how the rest of your essay was.

You and I (and others) missed the same issues on the Contracts (i.e., writing requirement re: Adequate Assurances. Plus, I think I forgot about the specific 30 days as well). Also, can't recall if I mentioned Prior ID on the Evidence. DEFINITELY did not talk about the confrontation clause. We'll see.

CC was not an issue...

Minor issue IMO. One that you can omit, but a quick and concise IRAC wouldn't hurt.

[estefanchanning]

how is everyone dealing with the stress of waiting? personally I can't remember a thing from the exam and can't contribute to these discussions.

On dealing with the stress, I've been studying for the bar again since two weeks after taking the bar. I've managed to be able to learn more and keep doing MBE questions, and even some essays on topics I'm anticipating will show up in February. Frankly, I'm pretty sure I could take the MBE and pass it right now. If I failed this time, I will absolutely pass it in February.

I've been down this road of dismal failure already, and some of the worst advice I ever received was, "Don't start studying again, you probably passed." Thanks a pant-load to everyone (and there were several) who told me that.

So I've kept up what I knew, and learned more along the way. If I did pass, and all this studying didn't need to be done, it doesn't bother me. It helps me deal with the stress of waiting, it mentally and emotionally prepares me to to have to take it again, and I'll be well ahead of the 10 week cram session. There's not going to be any re-learning, re-remembering, re-memorizing bullshit if I do have to do it again. Next time it's a foregone conclusion.

As for not remembering what you wrote, I don't either. I know I bombed the contracts essay because while I did remember there was a writing requirement, I ascribed it to the wrong party. That one fuckup undid the entirety of the rest of the essay. So there's a 50. The rest? I don't know and it doesn't matter because the same exact topics aren't going to be tested on the next exam... Okay, I'll admit I did look up the Consent to Fight rule just to make sure it was a thing (it is).

I respect your persistence. I'm just burn out. I wish I had it in me to study but I just don't right now. Are you working full time by chance? If you are, I commend you for continuing to study after 2.5+ months of brutal studying for J18. I guess I'll cross the bridge when I get there if I fail.

Regarding contracts, my adequate assurances analysis was short and I didn't even discuss the writing requirement because I totally forgot about it, and I forgot about the 30 days reasonableness time (I just said a reasonable time). I think and hope the rest of my essay made up for that omission and that I still passed it or at least got a 60. I don't know if ascribing the writing requirement to the wrong party would cause you to get a 50 (I assume you mean Stan had to provide writing instead of Best, and Best only called to seek adequate assurances). It just depends on how the rest of your essay was.

You and I (and others) missed the same issues on the Contracts (i.e., writing requirement re: Adequate Assurances. Plus, I think I forgot about the specific 30 days as well). Also, can't recall if I mentioned Prior ID on the Evidence. DEFINITELY did not talk about the confrontation clause. We'll see.

CC was not an issue...

Minor issue IMO. One that you can omit, but a quick and concise IRAC wouldn't hurt.

Idk how it would have applied at all. The accuser testified on the stand. Marital privilege was more of an issue than CC.

[mathandthelaw]

how is everyone dealing with the stress of waiting? personally I can't remember a thing from the exam and can't contribute to these discussions.

On dealing with the stress, I've been studying for the bar again since two weeks after taking the bar. I've managed to be able to learn more and keep doing MBE questions, and even some essays on topics I'm anticipating will show up in February. Frankly, I'm pretty sure I could take the MBE and pass it right now. If I failed this time, I will absolutely pass it in February.

I've been down this road of dismal failure already, and some of the worst advice I ever received was, "Don't start studying again, you probably passed." Thanks a pant-load to everyone (and there were several) who told me that.

So I've kept up what I knew, and learned more along the way. If I did pass, and all this studying didn't need to be done, it doesn't bother me. It helps me deal with the stress of waiting, it mentally and emotionally prepares me to to have to take it again, and I'll be well ahead of the 10 week cram session. There's not going to be any re-learning, re-remembering, re-memorizing bullshit if I do have to do it again. Next time it's a foregone conclusion.

As for not remembering what you wrote, I don't either. I know I bombed the contracts essay because while I did remember there was a writing requirement, I ascribed it to the wrong party. That one fuckup undid the entirety of the rest of the essay. So there's a 50. The rest? I don't know and it doesn't matter because the same exact topics aren't going to be tested on the next exam... Okay, I'll admit I did look up the Consent to Fight rule just to make sure it was a thing (it is).

I respect your persistence. I'm just burn out. I wish I had it in me to study but I just don't right now. Are you working full time by chance? If you are, I commend you for continuing to study after 2.5+ months of brutal studying for J18. I guess I'll cross the bridge when I get there if I fail.

Regarding contracts, my adequate assurances analysis was short and I didn't even discuss the writing requirement because I totally forgot about it, and I forgot about the 30 days reasonableness time (I just said a reasonable time). I think and hope the rest of my essay made up for that omission and that I still passed it or at least got a 60. I don't know if ascribing the writing requirement to the wrong party would cause you to get a 50 (I assume you mean Stan had to provide writing instead of Best, and Best only called to seek adequate assurances). It just depends on how the rest of your essay was.

You and I (and others) missed the same issues on the Contracts (i.e., writing requirement re: Adequate Assurances. Plus, I think I forgot about the specific 30 days as well). Also, can't recall if I mentioned Prior ID on the Evidence. DEFINITELY did not talk about the confrontation clause. We'll see.

CC was not an issue...

Minor issue IMO. One that you can omit, but a quick and concise IRAC wouldn't hurt.

Idk how it would have applied at all. The accuser testified on the stand. Marital privilege was more of an issue than CC.

The witness was on the stand in the prosecutor's case in chief. However, the hearsay statement were his statements in the 911 call that were out of court. The 911 call statements would likely be considered an ongoing emergency, not testimonial, so then the conclusion is that CC would not bar such statements of 911 call evidence from going to the truth of the matter asserted in prosecutor's case in chief. Witness is also available for cross anyway. So, no CC issue.

So if you talked about marital privilege (I did), and rejected it, as I did, then I think that's an issue as well.

Again, not material in my opinion because the confrontation clause wouldn't bar the evidence from coming in. I just wouldn't say CC was not an issue at all. I could be wrong but that's my opinion.

[estefanchanning]

The witness was on the stand in the prosecutor's case in chief. However, the hearsay statement were his statements in the 911 call that were out of court. The 911 call statements would likely be considered an ongoing emergency, not testimonial, so then the conclusion is that CC would not bar such statements of 911 call evidence from going to the truth of the matter asserted in prosecutor's case in chief. Witness is also available for cross anyway. So, no CC issue.

So if you talked about marital privilege (I did), and rejected it, as I did, then I think that's an issue as well.

Again, not material in my opinion because the confrontation clause wouldn't bar the evidence from coming in. I just wouldn't say CC was not an issue at all. I could be wrong but that's my opinion.

Sorry, I don't mean to keep going back and forth because it's moot at this point. But I think you did very well by not mentioning CC. There is no way it applied. For CC, otherwise admissible hearsay is inadmissible if 1) statement offered in criminal case 2) declarant is unavailable 3) statement is testimonial and 4) accused had no opportunity to cross D’s testimonial S prior to trial.

Here, the declarant is on the stand, therefore CC is not implicated. Davis v. Washington squarely deals with this issue. If we adopt your interpretation, then CC would be triggered in every single case where a statement was made out of court.

[bacillusanthracis]

I respect your persistence. I'm just burn out. I wish I had it in me to study but I just don't right now. Are you working full time by chance? If you are, I commend you for continuing to study after 2.5+ months of brutal studying for J18. I guess I'll cross the bridge when I get there if I fail.

Sometimes I work 50+ hours a week, but sometimes I work as few as 24, but average 30-40. It varies. So I make the most of the time I have.

I see it as similar to the old salt about working out: it's easier to stay in shape than it is to get in shape. This is no different. Part of the reason failing, and then taking the bar again doesn't = already on 2nd base, so to speak, is because it requires a certain thinking process that you have to tune back into and sync with. It also requires a ridiculous amount of material to be immediately accessible, which is not what any of us do in any line of work or in anything else in life. So at least for me, when I'm not required to think that way and retain that much information, it just evaporates.

So I stay in tune.

Regarding contracts, my adequate assurances analysis was short and I didn't even discuss the writing requirement because I totally forgot about it, and I forgot about the 30 days reasonableness time (I just said a reasonable time). I think and hope the rest of my essay made up for that omission and that I still passed it or at least got a 60. I don't know if ascribing the writing requirement to the wrong party would cause you to get a 50 (I assume you mean Stan had to provide writing instead of Best, and Best only called to seek adequate assurances). It just depends on how the rest of your essay was.

I'd totally forgotten the names of the parties. But I do remember that getting that rule wrong destroys the rest of the essay. I don't pretend to be hopeful that bar graders will be merciful. They're not (see my Wills essay that got an initial 80 but was downgraded to 60). So I'm assuming a 50 and failure overall.

Also, the MBE was brutal. Barbri blows at writing good approximations of MBE questions (and I was so high on my 80%+ on Barbri going into the exam). Also, Adaptibar uses older, much easier questions. The NCBE's practice tests are far better, except they don't have any civ pro questions, there's a limited number and they're like $50 each (but still worth it IMO). The last few weeks, if need be, I'm going to use nothing but NCBE materials and Emmanuel civ pro questions.

If I somehow did pass this time, the thing that will have put me over the top is my kickass PT (because it really was kickass). But I'm not counting on it. My notice of failure in November will nothing more than a small bump in the road because I'm already preparing to take the February exam.

[mathandthelaw]

The witness was on the stand in the prosecutor's case in chief. However, the hearsay statement were his statements in the 911 call that were out of court. The 911 call statements would likely be considered an ongoing emergency, not testimonial, so then the conclusion is that CC would not bar such statements of 911 call evidence from going to the truth of the matter asserted in prosecutor's case in chief. Witness is also available for cross anyway. So, no CC issue.

So if you talked about marital privilege (I did), and rejected it, as I did, then I think that's an issue as well.

Again, not material in my opinion because the confrontation clause wouldn't bar the evidence from coming in. I just wouldn't say CC was not an issue at all. I could be wrong but that's my opinion.

Sorry, I don't mean to keep going back and forth because it's moot at this point. But I think you did very well by not mentioning CC. There is no way it applied. For CC, otherwise admissible hearsay is inadmissible if 1) statement offered in criminal case 2) declarant is unavailable 3) statement is testimonial and 4) accused had no opportunity to cross D’s testimonial S prior to trial.

Here, the declarant is on the stand, therefore CC is not implicated. Davis v. Washington squarely deals with this issue. If we adopt your interpretation, then CC would be triggered in every single case where a statement was made out of court.

Then it sounds to me like we agree CC would not bar the 911 statements. And CC is actually triggered in every case where a statement was made out of court that is testimonial (can be argued 2 minutes later is not an ongoing emergency) and seeks to admit the truth of the matter asserted in a criminal case. It is admissible for the truth so long as there is a right to confront the witness. As we discussed, the witness is here regardless of its testimonial or non-testimonial nature. Likely still an ongoing emergency is not testimonial. I think though, CC should be in the back of the mind of every defense lawyer when a hearsay statement comes in for its truth.

To me, it's like the fact that the marital privilege wouldn't apply in the end because they were live in boyfriends and not spouses. I think it wouldn't hurt to cite the rule, analyze and reject the privilege, and then move on quickly.

All I'm saying is that I mentioned it and analyzed it. I don't think it hurts if it was not analyzed at all IMO. But those who talked about it didn't waste their time, in my opinion, so long as they concluded correctly.

Big issues in the Evidence essay in my opinion were: hearsay spontaneous statement and contemporaneous statement, OJ exception, party admission, character propensity, MIMIC character exception, hearsay non-hearsay computer print out machine v human and authentication of the print out. I may be missing something here.

I just realized that the prior identification issue that Barsecrets mentioned was actually not asked in the question. The questions asked for the 911 tape, Sam's testimony and the computer print out. It seems like they didn't ask whether his identification in court was admissible and its unrelated to the tape. Phew, I feel so much better about not talking about prior identification. Good thing we discuss these amongst ourselves!

[justanotheruser]

how is everyone dealing with the stress of waiting? personally I can't remember a thing from the exam and can't contribute to these discussions. all i'm doing is having intermittent panic attacks.

do most firms allow a second chance at the bar exam? it hasn't been explicitly discussed for me but it feels as if i won't be afforded a second chance here.

I failed the damn thing 5 times, before finally passing the Feb 2018 exam in May.

FWIW, I think we all focus only on what could go wrong. I know I did the same, convincing myself I failed for the 6th time. In hindsight, I think the fact that I was that self-critical was a reflection of how hard I prepared/studied for the exam (especially the essays).

Turns out I caused unnecessary stress on myself. I went from thinking I was going to hit rock bottom for the 6th time in May to having 10 job interviews over the next 2.5 weeks. Things will be okay and they will get better. Hang in there, everyone.

[longlivewho]

i'm sitting for the 2019 July California Bar exam... Passed other state first time but California is another beast!

to people waiting: just remember what's done is done..

[mathandthelaw]

how is everyone dealing with the stress of waiting? personally I can't remember a thing from the exam and can't contribute to these discussions. all i'm doing is having intermittent panic attacks.

do most firms allow a second chance at the bar exam? it hasn't been explicitly discussed for me but it feels as if i won't be afforded a second chance here.

I failed the damn thing 5 times, before finally passing the Feb 2018 exam in May.

FWIW, I think we all focus only on what could go wrong. I know I did the same, convincing myself I failed for the 6th time. In hindsight, I think the fact that I was that self-critical was a reflection of how hard I prepared/studied for the exam (especially the essays).

Turns out I caused unnecessary stress on myself. I went from thinking I was going to hit rock bottom for the 6th time in May to having 10 job interviews over the next 2.5 weeks. Things will be okay and they will get better. Hang in there, everyone.

Congratulations on being persistent and staying strong! You passed.

Just curious regarding 10 job interviews, congrats on that as well. Am I missing something, or should I be applying for associate positions now? I was waiting for bar results and then planning to apply places if I passed. I of course, am at a Post-bar at a law firm right now.

[mathandthelaw]

how is everyone dealing with the stress of waiting? personally I can't remember a thing from the exam and can't contribute to these discussions. all i'm doing is having intermittent panic attacks.

do most firms allow a second chance at the bar exam? it hasn't been explicitly discussed for me but it feels as if i won't be afforded a second chance here.

I failed the damn thing 5 times, before finally passing the Feb 2018 exam in May.

FWIW, I think we all focus only on what could go wrong. I know I did the same, convincing myself I failed for the 6th time. In hindsight, I think the fact that I was that self-critical was a reflection of how hard I prepared/studied for the exam (especially the essays).

Turns out I caused unnecessary stress on myself. I went from thinking I was going to hit rock bottom for the 6th time in May to having 10 job interviews over the next 2.5 weeks. Things will be okay and they will get better. Hang in there, everyone.

Congratulations on being persistent and staying strong! You passed.

Just curious regarding 10 job interviews, congrats on that as well. Am I missing something, or should I be applying for associate positions now? I was waiting for bar results and then planning to apply places if I passed. I of course, am at a Post-bar at a law firm right now.

Btw sorry I know you already pass and I haven't yet. But I'm just wondering if it's a good idea to apply for other post-bar that would lead to associate positions now? I feel like there is going to be an influx after bar results.

[MBernard]

BarSecrets analysis for the CP question is now available. Definitely, boosted my confidence (assuming their answers are accurate). Apparently I did way better on this one then I thought. Short of it: Townhouse Community gets pro rata share via Moore rule; Motorboat is SP; Tort Payment is probably SP given the statutory exception despite the fact the injury accrued during the marriage.

[mathandthelaw]

BarSecrets analysis for the CP question is now available. Definitely, boosted my confidence (assuming their answers are accurate). Apparently I did way better on this one then I thought. Short of it: Townhouse Community gets pro rata share via Moore rule; Motorboat is SP; Tort Payment is probably SP given the statutory exception despite the fact the injury accrued during the marriage.

Nice! CP was my worst. I got the pro rata for the townhouse despite messing up on my pension analysis. I didn't get the motorboat right, thought it was CP due to messing up on commingling and messing up on my exhaustion of CP funds analysis, as I did not think CP funds were exhausted oh well. I also analyzed that it could be considered a gift to the community if they both used it too, which apparently was wrong. Got personal injury. I think though despite all of those mistakes I may still end up with a 60 just because I was clearly on the right track and spotted all the issues and showed my work. But who knows, depends on the grader. I'd be okay with a 60 if this was my only bad essay.

[MBernard]

BarSecrets analysis for the CP question is now available. Definitely, boosted my confidence (assuming their answers are accurate). Apparently I did way better on this one then I thought. Short of it: Townhouse Community gets pro rata share via Moore rule; Motorboat is SP; Tort Payment is probably SP given the statutory exception despite the fact the injury accrued during the marriage.

Nice! CP was my worst. I got the pro rata for the townhouse despite messing up on my pension analysis. I didn't get the motorboat right, thought it was CP due to messing up on commingling and messing up on my exhaustion of CP funds analysis, as I did not think CP funds were exhausted oh well. I also analyzed that it could be considered a gift to the community if they both used it too, which apparently was wrong. Got personal injury. I think though despite all of those mistakes I may still end up with a 60 just because I was clearly on the right track and spotted all the issues and showed my work. But who knows, depends on the grader. I'd be okay with a 60 if this was my only bad essay.

I still think that CP and Evidence are my worst just that my scores are probably 60s as compared to 55s which I originally thought possible. Definitely satisfied as it’s possible to survive a 60 or two. Probably going to skip the BarSecret’s analysis for the PT and Con Law. Con Law I’m really confident on and I barely remember anything pertaining to the PT except that I felt it wasn’t that bad. You sound like you’re going to be in good shape though overall, wouldn’t sweat a 60. Best of luck, math!

[mathandthelaw]

I still think that CP and Evidence are my worst just that my scores are probably 60s as compared to 55s which I originally thought possible. Definitely satisfied as it’s possible to survive a 60 or two. Probably going to skip the BarSecret’s analysis for the PT and Con Law. Con Law I’m really confident on and I barely remember anything pertaining to the PT except that I felt it wasn’t that bad. You sound like you’re going to be in good shape though overall, wouldn’t sweat a 60. Best of luck, math!

That's great! And even so, they could still be passing essays! We really don't know. And my CP could be a 50 for all I know.

I am with you on Con Law, thought it was straightforward. The only issue I didn't discuss was the contracts clause and that would only be applicable if the two claimants had already contracted with those customers they said they lost, and the facts were unclear about whether they were existing contracts. I think it was still a missed issue on my part.

The PT is uncertain for me. I just don't know how great my analysis and organization was, although I analyzed everything I could. I also didn't conclude, but no time for it. I had an intro at least make my point that she did not meet the moral turpitude standard and that she should not be disbarred.

Best of luck to you as well, mbernard. We'll miss your analyses!

[What'sUP?]

I still think that CP and Evidence are my worst just that my scores are probably 60s as compared to 55s which I originally thought possible. Definitely satisfied as it’s possible to survive a 60 or two. Probably going to skip the BarSecret’s analysis for the PT and Con Law. Con Law I’m really confident on and I barely remember anything pertaining to the PT except that I felt it wasn’t that bad. You sound like you’re going to be in good shape though overall, wouldn’t sweat a 60. Best of luck, math!

That's great! And even so, they could still be passing essays! We really don't know. And my CP could be a 50 for all I know.

I am with you on Con Law, thought it was straightforward. The only issue I didn't discuss was the contracts clause and that would only be applicable if the two claimants had already contracted with those customers they said they lost, and the facts were unclear about whether they were existing contracts. I think it was still a missed issue on my part.

The PT is uncertain for me. I just don't know how great my analysis and organization was, although I analyzed everything I could. I also didn't conclude, but no time for it. I had an intro at least make my point that she did not meet the moral turpitude standard and that she should not be disbarred.

Best of luck to you as well, mbernard. We'll miss your analyses!

I haven't yet reviewed the CP analysis and am not sure I will. Generally, I don't remember too much detail on my ultimate conclusions/outcomes for the essays. Although, I do remember what I missed. Like, portions of rules that I missed, and issues that I neglected to write about. Like you, I did not discuss Contracts Clause on the Con Law exam, and see how that could have been an issue to write about. So I missed that. And, again, on Evidence did not discuss the Confrontation Clause. I missed some details about Adequate Assurances in the Contracts essay (i.e., time frames, writing requirement). Don't remember a lot of CP or PR. The PT seems like a blur -- and I had no intro (hope that does not screw me). I just remember thinking, "Wow, what little I feel like I wrote seemed to take EVERY second of time." I mean if there is something I would have thought of to write about at the last minute, there is no way I could have because there was no "last minute."

[estefanchanning]

I still think that CP and Evidence are my worst just that my scores are probably 60s as compared to 55s which I originally thought possible. Definitely satisfied as it’s possible to survive a 60 or two. Probably going to skip the BarSecret’s analysis for the PT and Con Law. Con Law I’m really confident on and I barely remember anything pertaining to the PT except that I felt it wasn’t that bad. You sound like you’re going to be in good shape though overall, wouldn’t sweat a 60. Best of luck, math!

That's great! And even so, they could still be passing essays! We really don't know. And my CP could be a 50 for all I know.

I am with you on Con Law, thought it was straightforward. The only issue I didn't discuss was the contracts clause and that would only be applicable if the two claimants had already contracted with those customers they said they lost, and the facts were unclear about whether they were existing contracts. I think it was still a missed issue on my part.

The PT is uncertain for me. I just don't know how great my analysis and organization was, although I analyzed everything I could. I also didn't conclude, but no time for it. I had an intro at least make my point that she did not meet the moral turpitude standard and that she should not be disbarred.

Best of luck to you as well, mbernard. We'll miss your analyses!

I haven't yet reviewed the CP analysis and am not sure I will. Generally, I don't remember too much detail on my ultimate conclusions/outcomes for the essays. Although, I do remember what I missed. Like, portions of rules that I missed, and issues that I neglected to write about. Like you, I did not discuss Contracts Clause on the Con Law exam, and see how that could have been an issue to write about. So I missed that. And, again, on Evidence did not discuss the Confrontation Clause. I missed some details about Adequate Assurances in the Contracts essay (i.e., time frames, writing requirement). Don't remember a lot of CP or PR. The PT seems like a blur -- and I had no intro (hope that does not screw me). I just remember thinking, "Wow, what little I feel like I wrote seemed to take EVERY second of time." I mean if there is something I would have thought of to write about at the last minute, there is no way I could have because there was no "last minute."

You guys are stressing me out. How in the world does contracts clause apply? There was no mention of a contract in the fact pattern. Nor was there any retroactive impairment.

[mathandthelaw]

I still think that CP and Evidence are my worst just that my scores are probably 60s as compared to 55s which I originally thought possible. Definitely satisfied as it’s possible to survive a 60 or two. Probably going to skip the BarSecret’s analysis for the PT and Con Law. Con Law I’m really confident on and I barely remember anything pertaining to the PT except that I felt it wasn’t that bad. You sound like you’re going to be in good shape though overall, wouldn’t sweat a 60. Best of luck, math!

That's great! And even so, they could still be passing essays! We really don't know. And my CP could be a 50 for all I know.

I am with you on Con Law, thought it was straightforward. The only issue I didn't discuss was the contracts clause and that would only be applicable if the two claimants had already contracted with those customers they said they lost, and the facts were unclear about whether they were existing contracts. I think it was still a missed issue on my part.

The PT is uncertain for me. I just don't know how great my analysis and organization was, although I analyzed everything I could. I also didn't conclude, but no time for it. I had an intro at least make my point that she did not meet the moral turpitude standard and that she should not be disbarred.

Best of luck to you as well, mbernard. We'll miss your analyses!

I haven't yet reviewed the CP analysis and am not sure I will. Generally, I don't remember too much detail on my ultimate conclusions/outcomes for the essays. Although, I do remember what I missed. Like, portions of rules that I missed, and issues that I neglected to write about. Like you, I did not discuss Contracts Clause on the Con Law exam, and see how that could have been an issue to write about. So I missed that. And, again, on Evidence did not discuss the Confrontation Clause. I missed some details about Adequate Assurances in the Contracts essay (i.e., time frames, writing requirement). Don't remember a lot of CP or PR. The PT seems like a blur -- and I had no intro (hope that does not screw me). I just remember thinking, "Wow, what little I feel like I wrote seemed to take EVERY second of time." I mean if there is something I would have thought of to write about at the last minute, there is no way I could have because there was no "last minute."

You guys are stressing me out. How in the world does contracts clause apply? There was no mention of a contract in the fact pattern. Nor was there any retroactive impairment.

It's not a major issue at all, and I think someone could get an 80 and not discuss the contracts clause. The facts are unclear as to whether the customers that the claimants allegedly lost (economic injury) were customers they had existing contracts with. That would be the only way for the contracts clause to apply. And I think it would be a short analysis, stating the rule, and mentioning that we would need clarity on that issue of the relationship with those customers and any existing contracts.

I didn't discuss it, but I'm not worried about the fact that I didn't discuss the contracts clause. Don't stress about it at all, I really think that you passed the bar estefanchanning as you have a good understanding on the law.

I personally talked about standing, DCC, P&I, and equal protection. Some people discussed substantive due process regarding fundamental rights/economic due process and rejected them. I don't think SDP fundamental rights was necessary except for equal protection. Lots of people thought sovereign immunity was a huge issue. I didn't discuss it. I wish I put one sentence about the fact that they would need to sue the agency not the state, but again the question asked what CLAIMS Peter and the corporation can make.

[What'sUP?]

I still think that CP and Evidence are my worst just that my scores are probably 60s as compared to 55s which I originally thought possible. Definitely satisfied as it’s possible to survive a 60 or two. Probably going to skip the BarSecret’s analysis for the PT and Con Law. Con Law I’m really confident on and I barely remember anything pertaining to the PT except that I felt it wasn’t that bad. You sound like you’re going to be in good shape though overall, wouldn’t sweat a 60. Best of luck, math!

That's great! And even so, they could still be passing essays! We really don't know. And my CP could be a 50 for all I know.

I am with you on Con Law, thought it was straightforward. The only issue I didn't discuss was the contracts clause and that would only be applicable if the two claimants had already contracted with those customers they said they lost, and the facts were unclear about whether they were existing contracts. I think it was still a missed issue on my part.

The PT is uncertain for me. I just don't know how great my analysis and organization was, although I analyzed everything I could. I also didn't conclude, but no time for it. I had an intro at least make my point that she did not meet the moral turpitude standard and that she should not be disbarred.

Best of luck to you as well, mbernard. We'll miss your analyses!

And. . .this is the biggest. On the evidence question, while I did discuss Prop. 8, and it was clear I was writing about CA evidence, I know that some of my headings were applicable to the FRE, and that I discuessed the FRE as well. So, that has me concerned.

[JakeTappers]

I still think that CP and Evidence are my worst just that my scores are probably 60s as compared to 55s which I originally thought possible. Definitely satisfied as it’s possible to survive a 60 or two. Probably going to skip the BarSecret’s analysis for the PT and Con Law. Con Law I’m really confident on and I barely remember anything pertaining to the PT except that I felt it wasn’t that bad. You sound like you’re going to be in good shape though overall, wouldn’t sweat a 60. Best of luck, math!

That's great! And even so, they could still be passing essays! We really don't know. And my CP could be a 50 for all I know.

I am with you on Con Law, thought it was straightforward. The only issue I didn't discuss was the contracts clause and that would only be applicable if the two claimants had already contracted with those customers they said they lost, and the facts were unclear about whether they were existing contracts. I think it was still a missed issue on my part.

The PT is uncertain for me. I just don't know how great my analysis and organization was, although I analyzed everything I could. I also didn't conclude, but no time for it. I had an intro at least make my point that she did not meet the moral turpitude standard and that she should not be disbarred.

Best of luck to you as well, mbernard. We'll miss your analyses!

I haven't yet reviewed the CP analysis and am not sure I will. Generally, I don't remember too much detail on my ultimate conclusions/outcomes for the essays. Although, I do remember what I missed. Like, portions of rules that I missed, and issues that I neglected to write about. Like you, I did not discuss Contracts Clause on the Con Law exam, and see how that could have been an issue to write about. So I missed that. And, again, on Evidence did not discuss the Confrontation Clause. I missed some details about Adequate Assurances in the Contracts essay (i.e., time frames, writing requirement). Don't remember a lot of CP or PR. The PT seems like a blur -- and I had no intro (hope that does not screw me). I just remember thinking, "Wow, what little I feel like I wrote seemed to take EVERY second of time." I mean if there is something I would have thought of to write about at the last minute, there is no way I could have because there was no "last minute."

You guys are stressing me out. How in the world does contracts clause apply? There was no mention of a contract in the fact pattern. Nor was there any retroactive impairment.

I haven't gone back and read it at all so I could be wrong - and I don't think its a huge issue - but wasn't there a line about how they were giving up reserved space? That's how I tied it in as giving up reserved space implied they had already reserved it (likely by contract) and giving it up = retroactive. Seems to make sense, no?

[estefanchanning]

I haven't gone back and read it at all so I could be wrong - and I don't think its a huge issue - but wasn't there a line about how they were giving up reserved space? That's how I tied it in as giving up reserved space implied they had already reserved it (likely by contract) and giving it up = retroactive. Seems to make sense, no?

I mean I guess I see it...but that I feel like that is so far fetched that idk if the bar wanted us to talk about it? Like, I could have argued emotional distress because plaintiffs lost significant business, but I don't think that was the point of the Q. Idk maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better lol.

This is what I have for CC: In Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (1978), the Court invalidated state pension reform legislation which increased the obligation of companies under preexisting pension plans to employees who previously had terminated their work for the company or who
previously had retired from employment with the company. Because the legislation constituted a substantial impairment of contract by changing
the compensation for work already completed and because it was not necessary to remedy an important social problem in the nature of an emergency, it was held to be a violation of the Contract Clause.

Here, I don't see the terms of a contract being impaired. Sure, they had to give up reserved space, but when I make a reservation at a restaurant that doesn't mean I entered into a contract.

Seriously, if the bar wanted us to talk about this, then fuck them. That is such a roundabout way of testing our knowledge.

[mathandthelaw]

Not everyone is going to discuss every relevant issue for every essay. In my opinion, there are two categories of relevant issues: material and non-material issues. Material issues are issues that need to be thoroughly analyzed to receive a passing grade, and non-material issues are bonuses and may or may not lead to extra points.

For example, in the Con Law essay, Dormant Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities were material issues. Contracts clause was a non-material issue. Meaning that it MAY garner extra points, or it MAY NOT garner any points. My understanding of bar graders is that if a significant amount of people discussed and analyzed an issue similarly, the bar graders may decide to attribute bonus points to it, or they may choose not to.

I personally don't see the point in worrying or stressing over non-material issues because literally no one could have discussed every single relevant issue within the time constraints.

[AspiringAspirant]

Not everyone is going to discuss every relevant issue for every essay. In my opinion, there are two categories of relevant issues: material and non-material issues. Material issues are issues that need to be thoroughly analyzed to receive a passing grade, and non-material issues are bonuses and may or may not lead to extra points.

For example, in the Con Law essay, Dormant Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities were material issues. Contracts clause was a non-material issue. Meaning that it MAY garner extra points, or it MAY NOT garner any points. My understanding of bar graders is that if a significant amount of people discussed and analyzed an issue similarly, the bar graders may decide to attribute bonus points to it, or they may choose not to.

I personally don't see the point in worrying or stressing over non-material issues because literally no one could have discussed every single relevant issue within the time constraints.

There are also non-issues - i.e., issues that would be relevant if some amount of hypothetical facts were true, but are in fact not relevant because those facts were not presented and the question did not otherwise allude to said issue. Importantly, those who raised these issues would really like to believe they got points for doing so, and so they often convince themselves that these non-issues were actually "non-material issues."

Several of the issues I've seen mentioned in the last page or so fit this category

[MBernard]

One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.

[mathandthelaw]

One question I have is whether or not it’s possible to earn a 65 despite missing a salient or material issue. Barbri’s Scoring guide for their essay book (2016 edition) seems to show you could make up the lost points either via very thorough analysis of the other material issues and picking up points via ancillary issues that were awarded points. I’d be curious is anyone were to know if this were so (maybe there’s a returned essay that missed something important but still got a 65?).

I guess it might be possible to go through past graded essays to figure this one out but it seems like a lot of work haha.

Good question. Although I can't answer definitively obviously, based upon all of the past graded exams I've reviewed, I really think it depends on the essay. Some essays garner many many issues (like Evidence, Professional Responsibility, and Community Property I thought in J18), while others can be very pointed (such as the Contracts and Con Law in J18). I believe missing an issue in Professional Responsibility could still be a passing essay because there were so many issues to discuss, that I would have to think most people missed at least one issue, but spotted the others and had thorough analysis. I think though, for contracts, missing Anticipatory repudiation and/or further assurances would be detrimental and would make it hard to pass the essay. Again, these are my opinions.

I've read some essays I thought were good that were only given a 60 and they spotted all the material issues. But their rule statements were not that great. So it depends on the essay as a whole. But I think a grader who is generally very thorough and accurate in their rule statements and analysis can likely get away with missing an issue, so long as it wasn't the most important piece of the puzzle.