2018 July California Bar

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

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:42 pm

mathandthelaw wrote: I put that it was more likely that Stan would win because he didn't anticipatorily repudiate and the further assurances request by Best did not give reasonable time. I forgot to say that further assurances need to be a writing. I said that Best likely was the one who breached by refusing to accept delivery and going with someone else. One the other hand, I recognized that one could argue Best asked for further assurances (albeit giving him only three days) and Stan not responding until June 10 could potentially be an anticipatory repudiation. I just thought Stan was more likely to win.


That's the crux of my answer as well. Likewise, didn't mention that adequate assurance had to be in writing. Similar to yourself, I also think I called the principle "further assurances" instead of adequate assurances. Further assurances is the technical term referring to the future covenant whereby the grantor will help a grantee perfect title whereas adequate assurances is the UCC obligation involved in Q 1. Hopefully the examiners are not that particular, I made the same error.

I think I hit most of the issues Bar Secrets mentioned, even the more ancillary stuff like impossibility, frustration, impracticability and consequential damages. Also briefly discussed formation and what Best's damages could be if somehow they won. Really looking forward to the CP and Evidence breakdown.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:39 pm

MBernard wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote: I put that it was more likely that Stan would win because he didn't anticipatorily repudiate and the further assurances request by Best did not give reasonable time. I forgot to say that further assurances need to be a writing. I said that Best likely was the one who breached by refusing to accept delivery and going with someone else. One the other hand, I recognized that one could argue Best asked for further assurances (albeit giving him only three days) and Stan not responding until June 10 could potentially be an anticipatory repudiation. I just thought Stan was more likely to win.


That's the crux of my answer as well. Likewise, didn't mention that adequate assurance had to be in writing. Similar to yourself, I also think I called the principle "further assurances" instead of adequate assurances. Further assurances is the technical term referring to the future covenant whereby the grantor will help a grantee perfect title whereas adequate assurances is the UCC obligation involved in Q 1. Hopefully the examiners are not that particular, I made the same error.

I think I hit most of the issues Bar Secrets mentioned, even the more ancillary stuff like impossibility, frustration, impracticability and consequential damages. Also briefly discussed formation and what Best's damages could be if somehow they won. Really looking forward to the CP and Evidence breakdown.


Oops, I totally called it further assurances. Hopefully my rule statement salvages the fact that I labeled it wrong!

Yeah I did the UCC damages analysis as well.

I also discussed impossibility, frustration, impract, and consequential damages as ancillary and briefly. I mentioned restitution and rejected it.

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:08 pm

I haven't yet (and I don't know that I will) looked at the released questions or the bar secrets analysis. We'll see. Other than remembering general issues overall, I don't remember a lot of the details or specifics of what I wrote. As for this first essay I discussed Adequate Assurances but neglected to state that under the UCC it had to be in writing.

mellymel1122

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:11 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mellymel1122 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:16 am

Because this was governed by UCC, I still quickly hit QTIPS (quantity = 5,000 bushels, time = July 1 delivery, ID = Stan and Best, price = $100/bushel, and subject = tomatoes). I quickly hit SOF defense formation since 5,000 bushels x $100 = $500K, which exceeds $500, so UCC requires in writing, but here valid written K, so that defense will fail.

I don't think that was necessary, but I did talk about it really quick.

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:19 pm

Bar Secrets just posted the analysis for Q-2. I remember hitting a lot of the points they brought up but I think I was too cursory. Definitely missed the prior statement exception for the 911 call. Also mentioned spousal privilege briefly but negated the possibility because they were not married. For Sam's character evidence I know I brought up habit and immediately discounted it. Almost positive I mentioned MIMIC as well, really hope so but this is probably the one question where I've forgotten the most about what I wrote. For the computer record I discussed the business records exception only I'm pretty sure. Definitely banking on this one being a weak one for me (if not the weakest), mentioned a lot of the points they brought up but I feel like my analysis was too cursory and I missed a few items. If I had to guess I'd say 55-60 is where I fall on this one : /.

User avatar
Auxilio

Silver
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Auxilio » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:37 pm

MBernard wrote:Bar Secrets just posted the analysis for Q-2. I remember hitting a lot of the points they brought up but I think I was too cursory. Definitely missed the prior statement exception for the 911 call. Also mentioned spousal privilege briefly but negated the possibility because they were not married. For Sam's character evidence I know I brought up habit and immediately discounted it. Almost positive I mentioned MIMIC as well, really hope so but this is probably the one question where I've forgotten the most about what I wrote. For the computer record I discussed the business records exception only I'm pretty sure. Definitely banking on this one being a weak one for me (if not the weakest), mentioned a lot of the points they brought up but I feel like my analysis was too cursory and I missed a few items. If I had to guess I'd say 55-60 is where I fall on this one : /.


I forget a lot of what I wrote, but I think I missed a lot of the smaller issues they mentioned. Hoping for a 60.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:47 pm

Auxilio wrote:
MBernard wrote:Bar Secrets just posted the analysis for Q-2. I remember hitting a lot of the points they brought up but I think I was too cursory. Definitely missed the prior statement exception for the 911 call. Also mentioned spousal privilege briefly but negated the possibility because they were not married. For Sam's character evidence I know I brought up habit and immediately discounted it. Almost positive I mentioned MIMIC as well, really hope so but this is probably the one question where I've forgotten the most about what I wrote. For the computer record I discussed the business records exception only I'm pretty sure. Definitely banking on this one being a weak one for me (if not the weakest), mentioned a lot of the points they brought up but I feel like my analysis was too cursory and I missed a few items. If I had to guess I'd say 55-60 is where I fall on this one : /.


I forget a lot of what I wrote, but I think I missed a lot of the smaller issues they mentioned. Hoping for a 60.


I didn't mention the hearsay analysis for the print out because I immediately thought it was self-authenticating non-hearsay. :/

JakeTappers

New
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:41 pm

How does it affect scoring if everyone misses certain things? I took attorney exam only but don’t really know scaling or whatever. Just seems to me that this question is going to be a tough one for a lot of people - particularly the computer record. Would be shocked if many people answered that exactly how the graders hoped.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:52 pm

JakeTappers wrote:How does it affect scoring if everyone misses certain things? I took attorney exam only but don’t really know scaling or whatever. Just seems to me that this question is going to be a tough one for a lot of people - particularly the computer record. Would be shocked if many people answered that exactly how the graders hoped.


On second read, I really think the print out is an authentication issue versus a hearsay issue. She offered a printout of a computer-generated manifest. Even though she herself created the files, it was the computer that created the manifest.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:54 pm

I'm also surprised bar secrets didn't pick up on CA's rape shield equivalent for domestic violence victims. Or the OJ exception.

This makes me doubt their analysis, frankly, for this essay as well as the rest.

diatribe

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:04 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby diatribe » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:09 pm

estefanchanning wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:How does it affect scoring if everyone misses certain things? I took attorney exam only but don’t really know scaling or whatever. Just seems to me that this question is going to be a tough one for a lot of people - particularly the computer record. Would be shocked if many people answered that exactly how the graders hoped.


On second read, I really think the print out is an authentication issue versus a hearsay issue. She offered a printout of a computer-generated manifest. Even though she herself created the files, it was the computer that created the manifest.


estefanchanning wrote:I'm also surprised bar secrets didn't pick up on CA's rape shield equivalent for domestic violence victims. Or the OJ exception.

This makes me doubt their analysis, frankly, for this essay as well as the rest.


This. A California criminal evidence question with a 911 DV call? The OJ exception should've been the first California evidence distinction in people's minds right after "Truth in Evidence"

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:13 pm

diatribe wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:How does it affect scoring if everyone misses certain things? I took attorney exam only but don’t really know scaling or whatever. Just seems to me that this question is going to be a tough one for a lot of people - particularly the computer record. Would be shocked if many people answered that exactly how the graders hoped.


On second read, I really think the print out is an authentication issue versus a hearsay issue. She offered a printout of a computer-generated manifest. Even though she herself created the files, it was the computer that created the manifest.


estefanchanning wrote:I'm also surprised bar secrets didn't pick up on CA's rape shield equivalent for domestic violence victims. Or the OJ exception.

This makes me doubt their analysis, frankly, for this essay as well as the rest.


This. A California criminal evidence question with a 911 DV call? The OJ exception should've been the first California evidence distinction in people's minds right after "Truth in Evidence"


Geez. That's true, the OJ Exception (Section 1370) was definitely in play. You've jogged my memory now and I remember mentioning it as to the recording. Still pretty sure this one was a bust for me, but yeah that is weird and kinda casts some doubt on their analysis. Nobody's going to catch everything but section 1370 seems to be really pertinent (as a disclaimer Ca Evidence is by far my weakest though).

I felt like their Contracts analysis was spot on, guess I'll have to wait until they hit PR and Con Law. I'm extremely confident on those latter two and feel as though I'd know immediately if they left issues out

Nightcrawler

Bronze
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:02 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Nightcrawler » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:38 pm

JakeTappers wrote:How does it affect scoring if everyone misses certain things? I took attorney exam only but don’t really know scaling or whatever. Just seems to me that this question is going to be a tough one for a lot of people - particularly the computer record. Would be shocked if many people answered that exactly how the graders hoped.


Reading on their website on how grading works, it seems a good thing if a lot of people missed a lot of issues in a given essay. You can find more details googling or searching here “calibration sessions”. Basically, unlike for the MBE, the essays follow something similar to a law school curve where it’s a good thing if everybody sucked. The problem with this is that in July there are more prepared candidates than in February, so it’s less likely that that many people made a mistake. So exhausted of waiting...

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:28 pm

MBernard wrote:
diatribe wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:How does it affect scoring if everyone misses certain things? I took attorney exam only but don’t really know scaling or whatever. Just seems to me that this question is going to be a tough one for a lot of people - particularly the computer record. Would be shocked if many people answered that exactly how the graders hoped.


On second read, I really think the print out is an authentication issue versus a hearsay issue. She offered a printout of a computer-generated manifest. Even though she herself created the files, it was the computer that created the manifest.


estefanchanning wrote:I'm also surprised bar secrets didn't pick up on CA's rape shield equivalent for domestic violence victims. Or the OJ exception.

This makes me doubt their analysis, frankly, for this essay as well as the rest.


This. A California criminal evidence question with a 911 DV call? The OJ exception should've been the first California evidence distinction in people's minds right after "Truth in Evidence"


Geez. That's true, the OJ Exception (Section 1370) was definitely in play. You've jogged my memory now and I remember mentioning it as to the recording. Still pretty sure this one was a bust for me, but yeah that is weird and kinda casts some doubt on their analysis. Nobody's going to catch everything but section 1370 seems to be really pertinent (as a disclaimer Ca Evidence is by far my weakest though).

I felt like their Contracts analysis was spot on, guess I'll have to wait until they hit PR and Con Law. I'm extremely confident on those latter two and feel as though I'd know immediately if they left issues out


Idk if their contracts was that good either. They didn't discuss buyer's potential damages (even though the call of the question specifically asked for us to discuss both) or the first oral modification of the contract or whether orally asking for further assurances was acceptable as course dealings.

I know the above is tenuous, but if they are touting themselves as bar exam instructors, I expect more attention to detail.

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:41 am

estefanchanning wrote: Idk if their contracts was that good either. They didn't discuss buyer's potential damages (even though the call of the question specifically asked for us to discuss both) or the first oral modification of the contract or whether orally asking for further assurances was acceptable as course dealings.

I know the above is tenuous, but if they are touting themselves as bar exam instructors, I expect more attention to detail.


They mentioned the first oral modification of the K (discussion starts at the 6:40 mark). It was really brief though and they also added could also take it as an anticipatory repudiation (which they focused more on). Also, they did mention that the request for assurances must be in writing (10:30 mark), I didn't hear that the first time I listened to the vid. I missed the latter point in my own answer discussion on the test. Their damage analysis though only concerned Stan's, which I think would be fine if you were to argue that only Best was the breaching party. The question seemed to indicate, at least to me, that if you only found just one party to be in breach then just do one damage analysis. I think the safer option is to include both though. My analysis was that Best was in breach but I nonetheless added a damage calculation for what Best could receive if Stan was found in breach.

I think its fair to say they definitely go over some important points too fast and it'd be cool if they just gave a pdf of their answers lol. But it's free and I really don't want to go through the UCC myself at this time haha.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:57 am

MBernard wrote:
estefanchanning wrote: Idk if their contracts was that good either. They didn't discuss buyer's potential damages (even though the call of the question specifically asked for us to discuss both) or the first oral modification of the contract or whether orally asking for further assurances was acceptable as course dealings.

I know the above is tenuous, but if they are touting themselves as bar exam instructors, I expect more attention to detail.


They mentioned the first oral modification of the K (discussion starts at the 6:40 mark). It was really brief though and they also added could also take it as an anticipatory repudiation (which they focused more on). Also, they did mention that the request for assurances must be in writing (10:30 mark), I didn't hear that the first time I listened to the vid. I missed the latter point in my own answer discussion on the test. Their damage analysis though only concerned Stan's, which I think would be fine if you were to argue that only Best was the breaching party. The question seemed to indicate, at least to me, that if you only found just one party to be in breach then just do one damage analysis. I think the safer option is to include both though. My analysis was that Best was in breach but I nonetheless added a damage calculation for what Best could receive if Stan was found in breach.

I think its fair to say they definitely go over some important points too fast and it'd be cool if they just gave a pdf of their answers lol. But it's free and I really don't want to go through the UCC myself at this time haha.


I'm def thankful it's free. I guess I'm just saying that if I failed the bar this time around, I wouldn't want to take bar secrets for my second time based, partially, on the way they answered Evidence. I don't want to sound harsh but these are my feelings. :oops:

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:27 am

estefanchanning wrote: I'm def thankful it's free. I guess I'm just saying that if I failed the bar this time around, I wouldn't want to take bar secrets for my second time based, partially, on the way they answered Evidence. I don't want to sound harsh but these are my feelings. :oops:


No worries, I feel the same. I agree with you on the evidence vid. I don't really know enough about their program to say strongly either way but I prefer self study. I'm sure you passed though sounds like you're on track with your essay analysis.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:58 am

As for Question 1 Contracts:
-Don't worry too much guys if they didn't discuss enough one issue or another. You can see how the question was asked and you know you answered it. They said their method isn't the only way to go about it. So I think the way people approached the contracts essay will have variety, so long as you spotted the anticipatory repudiation/adequate assurances/breach/damages. I'm kicking myself for calling it "further assurances" and forgetting that the rule requires a writing.
-Nevertheless, I still believe I wrote a passing essay. Stay confident friends.

As for Question 2 Evidence:
-BarSecrets missed the OJ exception. I had it in there too guys. I know people who analyzed it too. So we'll get those points.
-I didn't get into bus records just noted that it was stipulated but that the double hearsay means we have to do a hearsay analysis for the victim's statements on the call. An ongoing emergency, and he must be available for cross (it was prosecution's case in chief).
-I don't remember whether I put both spontaneous statement or contemporaneous statement I think I did. I just hope I wasn't dumb and got it in under contemporaneous because that'll hurt me.
-I remember I discussed character and I forget whether I discussed MIMIC for the second question. And got the statement with Party Admission/OJ.
-As for the computer print out, I said she authenticated it on the stand sufficient to sustain a finding by explaining how she obtained the print out. However, I thought it was nonhearsay because I thought the computer printout was date and time stamps and not something she compiled herself. However, I could see how BarSecrets would think it is possible that she manipulated it and that it would be hearsay and inadmissible. Doesn't matter if you argued both in my opinion, arguing either or would be fine as long as the bar graders can tell you understand the different between hearsay and nonhearsay with machine print outs.

Overall, I found BarSecrets thus far has been pretty on point with some areas in which I think to be a bit flexible. Seems like most of the commenters on here were in the right direction. Geez all you smart people making the curve hard. Anyway, doesn't matter. If you got it, you pass the essay.

lnu1992

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby lnu1992 » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:49 pm

I keep getting anxious about results. I graduated in the top 5% of my class and I studied really hard. I feel like there’s always a few students every year at my school who don’t pass even though they did well in law school. I finished the written sessions probably 15 min early. I know I missed some stuff in evidence but I couldn’t think of anything else to write for the other essays. Anyone else finish early? I know a lot of people ran out of time so that is why I’m nervous.

I also screwed up the pension analysis for CP. anyone know of a good bar score calculator to ease my mind? I was scoring 75-80% accuracy on MBEs so hoping that I can get a few 60s or 55s on my essays and still pass.

Hoping we can overcome the statistics this year.

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:33 am

lnu1992 wrote:I keep getting anxious about results. I graduated in the top 5% of my class and I studied really hard. I feel like there’s always a few students every year at my school who don’t pass even though they did well in law school. I finished the written sessions probably 15 min early. I know I missed some stuff in evidence but I couldn’t think of anything else to write for the other essays. Anyone else finish early? I know a lot of people ran out of time so that is why I’m nervous.

I also screwed up the pension analysis for CP. anyone know of a good bar score calculator to ease my mind? I was scoring 75-80% accuracy on MBEs so hoping that I can get a few 60s or 55s on my essays and still pass.

Hoping we can overcome the statistics this year.


If you're a top student plus you studied hard, more likely than not you passed. Typically the explanation for why those people who perform well academically but don't pass lies with how they studied. I have a friend who was succeeded in law school (USC) but failed the CBX and I have a friend from out of state who did poorly in law school but still passed Ca. These kinds of stories are somewhat common, what separated them I believe was the the time they spent engaging with the material. If you know you studied hard then you probably did.

Finishing early could be a good sign as well, when I took Texas I finished early for the two essay sections and I know for the CBX I also finished both sections early. Evidence really was the only one that I stalled on and gave me trouble. As for Community property, I think I passed but I want to hear the BarSecrets analysis on it because I've heard differing opinions on how the analysis should have gone (some opinions seem viable but others are kind of out there).

Anyway, I definitely have my own set of doubts as well but I'm relying on how hard I've studied plus the analysis from BarSecrets has reassured me somewhat as well. I'm no expert on the CBX grading but I can say from past bar exam experience (Texas) that typically one bad essay or a few mistakes is not going to be fatal.

I'm using the bar calculator posted by jseperac (link - https://ubeessays.com/california-score-calculator/). Best of luck man.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:01 pm

MBernard wrote:
lnu1992 wrote:I keep getting anxious about results. I graduated in the top 5% of my class and I studied really hard. I feel like there’s always a few students every year at my school who don’t pass even though they did well in law school. I finished the written sessions probably 15 min early. I know I missed some stuff in evidence but I couldn’t think of anything else to write for the other essays. Anyone else finish early? I know a lot of people ran out of time so that is why I’m nervous.

I also screwed up the pension analysis for CP. anyone know of a good bar score calculator to ease my mind? I was scoring 75-80% accuracy on MBEs so hoping that I can get a few 60s or 55s on my essays and still pass.

Hoping we can overcome the statistics this year.


If you're a top student plus you studied hard, more likely than not you passed. Typically the explanation for why those people who perform well academically but don't pass lies with how they studied. I have a friend who was succeeded in law school (USC) but failed the CBX and I have a friend from out of state who did poorly in law school but still passed Ca. These kinds of stories are somewhat common, what separated them I believe was the the time they spent engaging with the material. If you know you studied hard then you probably did.

Finishing early could be a good sign as well, when I took Texas I finished early for the two essay sections and I know for the CBX I also finished both sections early. Evidence really was the only one that I stalled on and gave me trouble. As for Community property, I think I passed but I want to hear the BarSecrets analysis on it because I've heard differing opinions on how the analysis should have gone (some opinions seem viable but others are kind of out there).

Anyway, I definitely have my own set of doubts as well but I'm relying on how hard I've studied plus the analysis from BarSecrets has reassured me somewhat as well. I'm no expert on the CBX grading but I can say from past bar exam experience (Texas) that typically one bad essay or a few mistakes is not going to be fatal.

I'm using the bar calculator posted by jseperac (link - https://ubeessays.com/california-score-calculator/). Best of luck man.


Realistically, it's hard to know whether we passed the bar or not. However, from the postings of the essays/PT, we can determine based on what we remember we wrote, if we were on the right track with our essays and PT. Too bad I'll have no idea how my PT was because I remember writing so fast that I don't remember much of what I said (besides her lack of memory not fitting the definition of moral turpitude, the fact that the impending merger was well known and she had evidence to prove there was research online she had conducted, etc.).

This officially marks the 1 month mark. I'm worried about the MBEs more because at least with the essays they are giving us the fact patterns. I

Sometimes I get worried about what other people put, like for example in the Con law essay I didn't talk about sovereign immunity because the fact pattern said they filed suit IN state x and not against state x and didn't say who was sued. Additionally, the questions asked what claims Peter and Corporation could make. On the other hand, it would have been prudent of me to quickly analyze sovereign immunity in 2 sentences, but I didn't see it being the main issue like I heard some people saying. I did not talk about the contracts clause, but did standing, DCC, P&I (for Peter only), and EQP. I thought the crux was the market participant/discrimination against out of staters, but the contracts clause I think would be a good secondary claim to make.

I'm really hoping for the CP one I got right that the pension lump sum was likely SP but the monthly installments were CP. I also thought the house was the CP proration rule, and there was no transmutation. Also Wilma commingled and Harry's account was CP. The personal injury is CP unless interests of justice say otherwise until divorce SP. But I forgot if I wrote that because my analysis on that part was short.

I thought the PR one was pretty easy so this one I hope they aren't strict with the curve because most people would pass: reasonable fees, contingency fees, competency, retainer requirements, and conflicts of interest.

bacillusanthracis

New
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:30 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby bacillusanthracis » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:32 pm

estefanchanning wrote:I'm also surprised bar secrets didn't pick up on CA's rape shield equivalent for domestic violence victims. Or the OJ exception.

This makes me doubt their analysis, frankly, for this essay as well as the rest.


Yep. This was a California evidence exam and the "OJ rule" is unique to California. I only knew that rule by sheer luck when two days before the exam I ran across it and wrote it several times. If that rule wasn't supposed to be tested, then there was a serious fuck-up in selecting that fact pattern.

JohnnieSockran

Bronze
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 1:07 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby JohnnieSockran » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:42 pm

lnu1992 wrote:I keep getting anxious about results. I graduated in the top 5% of my class and I studied really hard. I feel like there’s always a few students every year at my school who don’t pass even though they did well in law school. I finished the written sessions probably 15 min early. I know I missed some stuff in evidence but I couldn’t think of anything else to write for the other essays. Anyone else finish early? I know a lot of people ran out of time so that is why I’m nervous.

I also screwed up the pension analysis for CP. anyone know of a good bar score calculator to ease my mind? I was scoring 75-80% accuracy on MBEs so hoping that I can get a few 60s or 55s on my essays and still pass.

Hoping we can overcome the statistics this year.


For what it's worth, law school grades have historically been the best predictor of bar exam success. LSAT scores, the ranking of your law school or your undergrad GPA doesn't usually correlate with passing the bar, but law school grades have been a good predictor of bar exam success. So, since you have top grades and you studied hard, you probably passed.

https://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/whats-t ... -the-lsat/

http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/g ... tudy-finds

User avatar
MBernard

New
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:28 pm

mathandthelaw wrote: Sometimes I get worried about what other people put, like for example in the Con law essay I didn't talk about sovereign immunity because the fact pattern said they filed suit IN state x and not against state x and didn't say who was sued. Additionally, the questions asked what claims Peter and Corporation could make. On the other hand, it would have been prudent of me to quickly analyze sovereign immunity in 2 sentences, but I didn't see it being the main issue like I heard some people saying. I did not talk about the contracts clause, but did standing, DCC, P&I (for Peter only), and EQP. I thought the crux was the market participant/discrimination against out of staters, but the contracts clause I think would be a good secondary claim to make.


The Con Law question was pretty much a verbatim repeat from February 2005 (Question 6). If you have an Ca essay book that contains older essay answers I'd take a look at it. The only real difference is that I feel as though with this question you could mention Standing and Sovereign Immunity. Didn't talk about Contracts Clause myself, but that might be a good idea as well. Mentioned the same points as yourself but also included a Due Process Claim as well as the Sovereign Immunity Claim (both are more ancillary I feel). Probably we're both safe on that one.

mathandthelaw wrote: I'm really hoping for the CP one I got right that the pension lump sum was likely SP but the monthly installments were CP. I also thought the house was the CP proration rule, and there was no transmutation. Also Wilma commingled and Harry's account was CP. The personal injury is CP unless interests of justice say otherwise until divorce SP. But I forgot if I wrote that because my analysis on that part was short.

I thought the PR one was pretty easy so this one I hope they aren't strict with the curve because most people would pass: reasonable fees, contingency fees, competency, retainer requirements, and conflicts of interest.


Noticed a significant amount of people conflicted on the characterization of the monthly installments. I have the typed lecture for Barbri's 2016 Community Property discussion and Prof. Waterstone (lecturer) stated that unlike Pension benefits, disability and worker's comp are classified according to when they are received not when earned. So based on that I'd assume that the monthly payments would constitute SP because they were earned by the wife prior to when she was married. I don't think the wage replacement rule is applicable to Pension but maybe I'm wrong...

As for the townhouse, I wrote up an analysis for the CP portion (e.g. principle debt reduction attributable to CP / Purchase Price).

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:51 pm

MBernard wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote: Sometimes I get worried about what other people put, like for example in the Con law essay I didn't talk about sovereign immunity because the fact pattern said they filed suit IN state x and not against state x and didn't say who was sued. Additionally, the questions asked what claims Peter and Corporation could make. On the other hand, it would have been prudent of me to quickly analyze sovereign immunity in 2 sentences, but I didn't see it being the main issue like I heard some people saying. I did not talk about the contracts clause, but did standing, DCC, P&I (for Peter only), and EQP. I thought the crux was the market participant/discrimination against out of staters, but the contracts clause I think would be a good secondary claim to make.


The Con Law question was pretty much a verbatim repeat from February 2005 (Question 6). If you have an Ca essay book that contains older essay answers I'd take a look at it. The only real difference is that I feel as though with this question you could mention Standing and Sovereign Immunity. Didn't talk about Contracts Clause myself, but that might be a good idea as well. Mentioned the same points as yourself but also included a Due Process Claim as well as the Sovereign Immunity Claim (both are more ancillary I feel). Probably we're both safe on that one.

mathandthelaw wrote: I'm really hoping for the CP one I got right that the pension lump sum was likely SP but the monthly installments were CP. I also thought the house was the CP proration rule, and there was no transmutation. Also Wilma commingled and Harry's account was CP. The personal injury is CP unless interests of justice say otherwise until divorce SP. But I forgot if I wrote that because my analysis on that part was short.

I thought the PR one was pretty easy so this one I hope they aren't strict with the curve because most people would pass: reasonable fees, contingency fees, competency, retainer requirements, and conflicts of interest.


Noticed a significant amount of people conflicted on the characterization of the monthly installments. I have the typed lecture for Barbri's 2016 Community Property discussion and Prof. Waterstone (lecturer) stated that unlike Pension benefits, disability and worker's comp are classified according to when they are received not when earned. So based on that I'd assume that the monthly payments would constitute SP because they were earned by the wife prior to when she was married. I don't think the wage replacement rule is applicable to Pension but maybe I'm wrong...

As for the townhouse, I wrote up an analysis for the CP portion (e.g. principle debt reduction attributable to CP / Purchase Price).


You are right, the pension is when earned, so even the monthly payments wouldn't count. Thanks for letting us know. I improperly used the time rule but the pension was earned prior to the marriage. So it should all have been SP but Wilma still commingled with the freelance work. Luckily it didn't change affect my analysis too much with the townhouse (proration rule) and motorboat (title was in her name but it was not presumed to be a gift to Wilma). And neither would get reimbursed for the expenses.

So I think community property was my worst essay based upon getting the pension wrong. I'm hoping for a 60 on it.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: smile0751 and 11 guests