2018 July California Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
lnu1992

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby lnu1992 » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:03 am

estefanchanning wrote:we find out in 2 weeks guys :cry:



Whats everyone doing the day of bar results????? I am definitely taking the day off work. Just curious how everyone is going to waste time on that day. :)

User avatar
MBernard

Bronze
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:27 am

lnu1992 wrote:
estefanchanning wrote:we find out in 2 weeks guys :cry:



Whats everyone doing the day of bar results????? I am definitely taking the day off work. Just curious how everyone is going to waste time on that day. :)


Such a good question. Night before I’ll be at a bar and it’s possible the night of I’ll probably be at a bar as well haha. I’ll definitely be alone as I’d rather take everything in myself before letting others know.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:14 pm

I wish I could take work off release day. Can't. Already had to take a few days off when I got sick. Plus I told them I would take off the day when you get sworn in if I passed.

In a sense, it's good to be kept busy so I can be distracted during the day. I'll be with my family at 6pm on that day. But I told my boyfriend I'd call him. I'm too scared to fail in front of him!

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:46 pm

AspiringAspirant wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote: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


People were presenting their insights on what they thought about the essay.

Contracts clause could definitely have been talked about in con law. I didn't discuss it, although I wish I had. Barsecrets went into a thorough analysis using a few of the facts actually: i.e. lost all of their customers because he can no longer guarantee delivery (meaning these are longstanding customers and he had guaranteed delivery times-possible contract that already existed). Also, they repeatedly gave us reserved seats to have room for State X manufacturers. It can be seen as a retroactive impairment of existing contracts and an intermediate scrutiny analysis to determine whether it is met. It's clearly not as good of an argument as DCC or P&I because of its facial discrimination. Same with sovereign immunity, the question asked for what claims can they make, but still some brownie points if mentioned I think and as Barsecrets said.

A few of us also discussed how confrontation clause wasn't really a material issue to be discussed after we went through the analysis. In evidence, the stipulated bus record, double hearsay one level is stipulated, spontaneous statement, party admissions, character/MIMIC, authentication/nonhearsay were the main issues in my opinion. But I could see also discussing: OJ exception, contemporaneous statement, prior identification.

I get the idea that it can become a vicious cycle of issue spotting when we start reading too deep into the fact patterns. I agree with that, but you made a really blanket statement regarding what people have mentioned on here in the last few pages, as merely hypothetical.

Although I was a bit offended by your post, I still wish you the best of luck to you on your bar results.

lnu1992

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby lnu1992 » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:34 am

Does the state bar release the chosen sample answers before results come out or is it after results??? One week from today!!! I am getting excited for this to be over.

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:13 pm

lnu1992 wrote:Does the state bar release the chosen sample answers before results come out or is it after results??? One week from today!!! I am getting excited for this to be over.



they release them like a month after results.

User avatar
Auxilio

Silver
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Auxilio » Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:19 pm

Does anyone know how long after the 16th before we can get sworn in? I'm not in California so just going to do it with my Judge, but Dad is visiting for a bit and would love to do it while he's here if possible.

C&F etc. all cleared.

This all assumes we pass of course.

xonimi

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby xonimi » Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:22 pm

Auxilio wrote:Does anyone know how long after the 16th before we can get sworn in? I'm not in California so just going to do it with my Judge, but Dad is visiting for a bit and would love to do it while he's here if possible.

C&F etc. all cleared.

This all assumes we pass of course.


My school is having its swearing-in ceremony on December 3. Last year, my friends got sworn in on December 1st. So I'm assuming that the first week of December is when most, if not all, bar passers get sworn in.

bacillusanthracis

Bronze
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:30 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby bacillusanthracis » Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:03 pm

mathandthelaw wrote:People were presenting their insights on what they thought about the essay.

Contracts clause could definitely have been talked about in con law. I didn't discuss it, although I wish I had. Barsecrets went into a thorough analysis using a few of the facts actually: i.e. lost all of their customers because he can no longer guarantee delivery (meaning these are longstanding customers and he had guaranteed delivery times-possible contract that already existed). Also, they repeatedly gave us reserved seats to have room for State X manufacturers. It can be seen as a retroactive impairment of existing contracts and an intermediate scrutiny analysis to determine whether it is met. It's clearly not as good of an argument as DCC or P&I because of its facial discrimination. Same with sovereign immunity, the question asked for what claims can they make, but still some brownie points if mentioned I think and as Barsecrets said.

A few of us also discussed how confrontation clause wasn't really a material issue to be discussed after we went through the analysis. In evidence, the stipulated bus record, double hearsay one level is stipulated, spontaneous statement, party admissions, character/MIMIC, authentication/nonhearsay were the main issues in my opinion. But I could see also discussing: OJ exception, contemporaneous statement, prior identification.

I get the idea that it can become a vicious cycle of issue spotting when we start reading too deep into the fact patterns. I agree with that, but you made a really blanket statement regarding what people have mentioned on here in the last few pages, as merely hypothetical.

Although I was a bit offended by your post, I still wish you the best of luck to you on your bar results.


I write trial briefs for lawyers and get paid shit for it. But that's not important (I just like to bitch). Anyway, what's abundantly clear is that to solve even a basic legal problem in a respectable P&A/brief takes many hours. And during those hours, I chase down different theories and cases, many of which turn out to be unusable, but which nonetheless still need to be explored so that my lawyer doesn't get blown up at trial, and so that the client doesn't lose their ass.

But bar exam essays, and law school essays for that matter, demand silliness. I personally think the Contracts Clause belonged in the Conlaw essay, but I forgot to include it. I realized it in a sudden hair-raising flash, about 30 seconds after they called time. It was a boneheaded mistake on my part because I had written a note in my outline to include at least a mention of it, should this exact essay topic arise. I'd missed it in a practice essay and didn't want to make that same mistake again.

In the real world, I wouldn't have missed that. Or, if I would have somehow forgotten to include it, and then remembered an hour after finishing it, I certainly wouldn't allow it to be filed. I'd fix the damn thing first.

And if the OJ rule wasn't right, then I don't know what gave the Evidence essay any real "California-ness" so to speak. I do see how one could still easily get a passing score without knowing that rule though. God, I hope so anyway.

But for the sake of discussion, how much weight was given to that rule? Is it an "alternative" analysis? If they didn't want to see it, was it a waste of time to write about it? The only reason I knew it was because I stumbled across it the Saturday or Sunday night before the exam and found it actually interesting. IOW, it was sheer luck. Or, if they didn't want to see it, it was sheer bad luck that I ran across it and memorized it at the last minute. Or maybe they didn't want it referred to as the "OJ Rule." Might that be offensive? Who knows! Lol.

If I have a point, it's that there is lots of room for reasonable disagreement about what could have been written and why. And I think we all understand that. The problem is, the graders don't see it that way. Or at least the discouraging lack of transparency and thuggish grading system personally gives me that perception.

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:16 pm

bacillusanthracis wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:People were presenting their insights on what they thought about the essay.

Contracts clause could definitely have been talked about in con law. I didn't discuss it, although I wish I had. Barsecrets went into a thorough analysis using a few of the facts actually: i.e. lost all of their customers because he can no longer guarantee delivery (meaning these are longstanding customers and he had guaranteed delivery times-possible contract that already existed). Also, they repeatedly gave us reserved seats to have room for State X manufacturers. It can be seen as a retroactive impairment of existing contracts and an intermediate scrutiny analysis to determine whether it is met. It's clearly not as good of an argument as DCC or P&I because of its facial discrimination. Same with sovereign immunity, the question asked for what claims can they make, but still some brownie points if mentioned I think and as Barsecrets said.

A few of us also discussed how confrontation clause wasn't really a material issue to be discussed after we went through the analysis. In evidence, the stipulated bus record, double hearsay one level is stipulated, spontaneous statement, party admissions, character/MIMIC, authentication/nonhearsay were the main issues in my opinion. But I could see also discussing: OJ exception, contemporaneous statement, prior identification.

I get the idea that it can become a vicious cycle of issue spotting when we start reading too deep into the fact patterns. I agree with that, but you made a really blanket statement regarding what people have mentioned on here in the last few pages, as merely hypothetical.

Although I was a bit offended by your post, I still wish you the best of luck to you on your bar results.


I write trial briefs for lawyers and get paid shit for it. But that's not important (I just like to bitch). Anyway, what's abundantly clear is that to solve even a basic legal problem in a respectable P&A/brief takes many hours. And during those hours, I chase down different theories and cases, many of which turn out to be unusable, but which nonetheless still need to be explored so that my lawyer doesn't get blown up at trial, and so that the client doesn't lose their ass.

But bar exam essays, and law school essays for that matter, demand silliness. I personally think the Contracts Clause belonged in the Conlaw essay, but I forgot to include it. I realized it in a sudden hair-raising flash, about 30 seconds after they called time. It was a boneheaded mistake on my part because I had written a note in my outline to include at least a mention of it, should this exact essay topic arise. I'd missed it in a practice essay and didn't want to make that same mistake again.

In the real world, I wouldn't have missed that. Or, if I would have somehow forgotten to include it, and then remembered an hour after finishing it, I certainly wouldn't allow it to be filed. I'd fix the damn thing first.

And if the OJ rule wasn't right, then I don't know what gave the Evidence essay any real "California-ness" so to speak. I do see how one could still easily get a passing score without knowing that rule though. God, I hope so anyway.

But for the sake of discussion, how much weight was given to that rule? Is it an "alternative" analysis? If they didn't want to see it, was it a waste of time to write about it? The only reason I knew it was because I stumbled across it the Saturday or Sunday night before the exam and found it actually interesting. IOW, it was sheer luck. Or, if they didn't want to see it, it was sheer bad luck that I ran across it and memorized it at the last minute. Or maybe they didn't want it referred to as the "OJ Rule." Might that be offensive? Who knows! Lol.

If I have a point, it's that there is lots of room for reasonable disagreement about what could have been written and why. And I think we all understand that. The problem is, the graders don't see it that way. Or at least the discouraging lack of transparency and thuggish grading system personally gives me that perception.


I did not disucss the Contracts clause either, and in hindsight see it as an issue that could have been raised.

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:19 pm

bacillusanthracis wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:People were presenting their insights on what they thought about the essay.

Contracts clause could definitely have been talked about in con law. I didn't discuss it, although I wish I had. Barsecrets went into a thorough analysis using a few of the facts actually: i.e. lost all of their customers because he can no longer guarantee delivery (meaning these are longstanding customers and he had guaranteed delivery times-possible contract that already existed). Also, they repeatedly gave us reserved seats to have room for State X manufacturers. It can be seen as a retroactive impairment of existing contracts and an intermediate scrutiny analysis to determine whether it is met. It's clearly not as good of an argument as DCC or P&I because of its facial discrimination. Same with sovereign immunity, the question asked for what claims can they make, but still some brownie points if mentioned I think and as Barsecrets said.

A few of us also discussed how confrontation clause wasn't really a material issue to be discussed after we went through the analysis. In evidence, the stipulated bus record, double hearsay one level is stipulated, spontaneous statement, party admissions, character/MIMIC, authentication/nonhearsay were the main issues in my opinion. But I could see also discussing: OJ exception, contemporaneous statement, prior identification.

I get the idea that it can become a vicious cycle of issue spotting when we start reading too deep into the fact patterns. I agree with that, but you made a really blanket statement regarding what people have mentioned on here in the last few pages, as merely hypothetical.

Although I was a bit offended by your post, I still wish you the best of luck to you on your bar results.


I write trial briefs for lawyers and get paid shit for it. But that's not important (I just like to bitch). Anyway, what's abundantly clear is that to solve even a basic legal problem in a respectable P&A/brief takes many hours. And during those hours, I chase down different theories and cases, many of which turn out to be unusable, but which nonetheless still need to be explored so that my lawyer doesn't get blown up at trial, and so that the client doesn't lose their ass.

But bar exam essays, and law school essays for that matter, demand silliness. I personally think the Contracts Clause belonged in the Conlaw essay, but I forgot to include it. I realized it in a sudden hair-raising flash, about 30 seconds after they called time. It was a boneheaded mistake on my part because I had written a note in my outline to include at least a mention of it, should this exact essay topic arise. I'd missed it in a practice essay and didn't want to make that same mistake again.

In the real world, I wouldn't have missed that. Or, if I would have somehow forgotten to include it, and then remembered an hour after finishing it, I certainly wouldn't allow it to be filed. I'd fix the damn thing first.

And if the OJ rule wasn't right, then I don't know what gave the Evidence essay any real "California-ness" so to speak. I do see how one could still easily get a passing score without knowing that rule though. God, I hope so anyway.

But for the sake of discussion, how much weight was given to that rule? Is it an "alternative" analysis? If they didn't want to see it, was it a waste of time to write about it? The only reason I knew it was because I stumbled across it the Saturday or Sunday night before the exam and found it actually interesting. IOW, it was sheer luck. Or, if they didn't want to see it, it was sheer bad luck that I ran across it and memorized it at the last minute. Or maybe they didn't want it referred to as the "OJ Rule." Might that be offensive? Who knows! Lol.

If I have a point, it's that there is lots of room for reasonable disagreement about what could have been written and why. And I think we all understand that. The problem is, the graders don't see it that way. Or at least the discouraging lack of transparency and thuggish grading system personally gives me that perception.


I did not write about the Contracts Clause, and in hindsight see how it could have been raised.

lawschool11111111

New
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 12:19 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby lawschool11111111 » Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:50 pm

mathandthelaw wrote:
MBernard wrote:
lnu1992 wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:
lnu1992 wrote:A person's ability to handle the anxiety and stress of the exam is also huge. Even though I was a top student, I blanked during parts of the exam. Like I am 99% sure I did not write about the market participant exception in the Con Law essay even though I am sure it was triggered. There are so many factors that play into whether a person passes. I felt absolutely awful after the proctor called time on that Wednesday. However, I ended up doing the best on final exams that I felt awful about. Who knows...maybe feeling bad about it is a good thing? I know a lot of people who felt confident after taking the bar but ended up not passing.


That's also a good point. Some people get really bad test anxiety and blank out or don't perform when it matters most. I know a girl who was on our school's Law Review and she didn't pass because she stressed herself out too much.

My best law school exam was the one I knew I did decently on, but there was a part of an analysis that I forgot to discuss that I knew was important. That thought of omitting it ate me alive. But, I got the highest grade in that class, even though I was thinking I'd get like an A-. Moral of that story is that sometimes when you really know your stuff you focus on the parts you knew you can do better on. But even CalBar understands the pressure of time and the test implications means that most people will make a mistake or two or leave something out.

Regarding essays, I am pretty sure most bartakers missed at least one important issue out of all of the essays they wrote. It rarely occurs that a bartaker got all the important issues for every single essay correct. For example, I made two big mistakes: completely fucked up my Pension analysis in CP, called Adequate Assurances further assurances and did not discuss that it needed a writing in contracts, didn't discuss sovereign immunity although I think it wasn't a big issue in Con law but would likely get you some points.


I made all the same mistakes as you except I did not call adequate assurances "further assurances." I do not think you would get docked for that. I also missed a few issues on the Evidence essay (assuming Bar Secrets was correct). I think I passed Contracts, PR, and maybe the PT. The PT I was so tired by the time I took it. I felt like I was repeating myself a bit in the different sections of the PT. Trying to stay positive. Hopefully I performed better than I think I did. :D


One thing to take into account is that it's way easier to focus on mistakes as opposed to the essays or issues you completely nailed. Like if you go back and look at some of the older CBX threads you'll see examinees mention they botched two essays but still end up passing either because made up the point deficit via other essays or the MBE. I completely screwed up the CP analysis for the Motorboat and I'm pretty sure Evidence is going to be bad (so maybe like a 55 and a 60 or hopefully two 60s) but I think the higher scores I'll get in PR, Contracts and Con Law will balance things out for the essays. As for the PT, I'm pretty sure I did what I needed to but I included an intro and a closing. The intro was just like "here is the argument for your brief"; no idea if I'll get hit hard for that. Probably the MBE will be a make or break for me.


Yeah, I think it's simply selective memory. We are focusing on what we know we could have improved upon because of how hard we studied and what we know. Based upon what others have said, and based upon review of some past essay answers, I think CBX grades essays reasonably hard, but if the grader can tell you understand the material overall (despite maybe a mistake or two), you will probably still pass the essay or be close to passing. We just need to average a 62.5 on each essay/PT and average around 130 multiple choice questions correct. That does leave room for mental errors/omissions, in my opinion. I also think a really strong essay can put you at a 70 (or above), which even increases your margin of error. And anyone who is a strong multiple choice testtaker (I would say averaging 140 and above questions correct), then you can definitely pass with a 55/60 or two or maybe even three.

Regarding the PT, I was generally making the same arguments for both prongs. I tried my best to distinguish the facts that related to the guilty plea and the hearing, but it sort of overlapped I feel like. Many classmates I spoke too found themselves doing the same. I didn't have time to conclude, although I did have an introduction.


This provides some solace, because I too faced the same exact issue. I tried my best to distinguish the facts that related to the guilty plea and the hearing. For Prong 1 I found myself citing to the hearing testimony, in addition to the plea, since the testimony referenced the plea. I figured that doing so would add context to my arguments in Prong 1 and make them stronger. However, BARSECRETS seemed to focus solely on the plea when discussing Prong 1, which has me worried.

I feel like my analysis in Prong 1 outweighed my analysis in Prong 2 ... for example, in Prong 2 I found myself on numerous occasions saying "as previously discussed ... etc. etc."

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:06 pm

bacillusanthracis wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:People were presenting their insights on what they thought about the essay.

Contracts clause could definitely have been talked about in con law. I didn't discuss it, although I wish I had. Barsecrets went into a thorough analysis using a few of the facts actually: i.e. lost all of their customers because he can no longer guarantee delivery (meaning these are longstanding customers and he had guaranteed delivery times-possible contract that already existed). Also, they repeatedly gave us reserved seats to have room for State X manufacturers. It can be seen as a retroactive impairment of existing contracts and an intermediate scrutiny analysis to determine whether it is met. It's clearly not as good of an argument as DCC or P&I because of its facial discrimination. Same with sovereign immunity, the question asked for what claims can they make, but still some brownie points if mentioned I think and as Barsecrets said.

A few of us also discussed how confrontation clause wasn't really a material issue to be discussed after we went through the analysis. In evidence, the stipulated bus record, double hearsay one level is stipulated, spontaneous statement, party admissions, character/MIMIC, authentication/nonhearsay were the main issues in my opinion. But I could see also discussing: OJ exception, contemporaneous statement, prior identification.

I get the idea that it can become a vicious cycle of issue spotting when we start reading too deep into the fact patterns. I agree with that, but you made a really blanket statement regarding what people have mentioned on here in the last few pages, as merely hypothetical.

Although I was a bit offended by your post, I still wish you the best of luck to you on your bar results.


I write trial briefs for lawyers and get paid shit for it. But that's not important (I just like to bitch). Anyway, what's abundantly clear is that to solve even a basic legal problem in a respectable P&A/brief takes many hours. And during those hours, I chase down different theories and cases, many of which turn out to be unusable, but which nonetheless still need to be explored so that my lawyer doesn't get blown up at trial, and so that the client doesn't lose their ass.

But bar exam essays, and law school essays for that matter, demand silliness. I personally think the Contracts Clause belonged in the Conlaw essay, but I forgot to include it. I realized it in a sudden hair-raising flash, about 30 seconds after they called time. It was a boneheaded mistake on my part because I had written a note in my outline to include at least a mention of it, should this exact essay topic arise. I'd missed it in a practice essay and didn't want to make that same mistake again.

In the real world, I wouldn't have missed that. Or, if I would have somehow forgotten to include it, and then remembered an hour after finishing it, I certainly wouldn't allow it to be filed. I'd fix the damn thing first.

And if the OJ rule wasn't right, then I don't know what gave the Evidence essay any real "California-ness" so to speak. I do see how one could still easily get a passing score without knowing that rule though. God, I hope so anyway.

But for the sake of discussion, how much weight was given to that rule? Is it an "alternative" analysis? If they didn't want to see it, was it a waste of time to write about it? The only reason I knew it was because I stumbled across it the Saturday or Sunday night before the exam and found it actually interesting. IOW, it was sheer luck. Or, if they didn't want to see it, it was sheer bad luck that I ran across it and memorized it at the last minute. Or maybe they didn't want it referred to as the "OJ Rule." Might that be offensive? Who knows! Lol.

If I have a point, it's that there is lots of room for reasonable disagreement about what could have been written and why. And I think we all understand that. The problem is, the graders don't see it that way. Or at least the discouraging lack of transparency and thuggish grading system personally gives me that perception.


Agree with you.

I talked about the OJ exception as well. I was surprised Bar secrets didn't talk about it, and I think they just missed it. I thought OJ exception fit better than Spontaneous statement for the statements in the 911 call. I thought it was debatable whether it was a startled reaction to being beaten or merely reporting after. I argued the immediate timing after would likely get it in. Just thought OJ hit it on the money. I may be naive, but I have a hard time believing that the bar is going to knock me for getting it in on OJ rather than spontaneous statement. The second question I think they wanted us to just see party admission and character for the most party. I also tried to through in some non-hearsay effect on the listener, but idk if that was necessary. I tried to get it in on MIMIC, common plan/scheme, intent, or identity, but who knows.

The reason I think Contracts Clause is helpful is because the market participant exception makes it in my opinion difficult for the corporation to win because at least Peter has Privileges and immunities and will win that. The market participation exception might excuse the blatant discrimination and we all know how rational basis is. The contracts clause I think is also difficult to win under immediate scrutiny, but the corporation needed it to have a chance. I know the 2005 essay on the state commerce clause issues had CC in there. Again, didn't write about the contracts clause!

My woes: Also completely screwed up my pension analysis for CP, and thought the motorboat was a gift. So forget about community property. And contracts, I didn't talk about adequate assurances writing requirement.

I just have to think positively. Whatever happens, happens. It's really hard to get all of these issues in the moment. I have to think the bar is a bit forgiving, some people do pass this thing after all!

estefanchanning

Bronze
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby estefanchanning » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:15 pm

I forgot my exact con law arguments, but I remember saying something along the lines that by owning 70% of the railroads, the state no longer qualified for "market participant" because there was no market to participate in because it had a monopoly.

Or maybe I didn't say exactly that, but I remember the 70% was an issue I kept going back to, lol.

ynwa_sd

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:15 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby ynwa_sd » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:34 pm

mathandthelaw wrote:Agree with you.

I talked about the OJ exception as well. I was surprised Bar secrets didn't talk about it, and I think they just missed it. I thought OJ exception fit better than Spontaneous statement for the statements in the 911 call. I thought it was debatable whether it was a startled reaction to being beaten or merely reporting after. I argued the immediate timing after would likely get it in. Just thought OJ hit it on the money. I may be naive, but I have a hard time believing that the bar is going to knock me for getting it in on OJ rather than spontaneous statement. The second question I think they wanted us to just see party admission and character for the most party. I also tried to through in some non-hearsay effect on the listener, but idk if that was necessary. I tried to get it in on MIMIC, common plan/scheme, intent, or identity, but who knows.

The reason I think Contracts Clause is helpful is because the market participant exception makes it in my opinion difficult for the corporation to win because at least Peter has Privileges and immunities and will win that. The market participation exception might excuse the blatant discrimination and we all know how rational basis is. The contracts clause I think is also difficult to win under immediate scrutiny, but the corporation needed it to have a chance. I know the 2005 essay on the state commerce clause issues had CC in there. Again, didn't write about the contracts clause!

My woes: Also completely screwed up my pension analysis for CP, and thought the motorboat was a gift. So forget about community property. And contracts, I didn't talk about adequate assurances writing requirement.

I just have to think positively. Whatever happens, happens. It's really hard to get all of these issues in the moment. I have to think the bar is a bit forgiving, some people do pass this thing after all!


During Barbri, they kept mentioning that the best essays are the ones that capture all the issues, including issues that don't necessarily end up being applied. The OJ exception is the perfect example of this. It was a CA evidence essay, so clearly multiple CA specific evidence issues were going to be triggered. The OJ exception was one of the main ones in my opinion but after you ran through the analysis, it was clear that it didn't apply because in order for the OJ exception to apply, the witness must be unavailable, but more specifically, dead.

Second big CA issue on the evidence question that I haven't seen mentioned a lot on this discussion board is that if the defendant is charged with California domestic violence then the prosecutor may introduce evidence that she has committed similar crimes in the past, which was the case here.

User avatar
MBernard

Bronze
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby MBernard » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:11 pm

mathandthelaw wrote: My woes: Also completely screwed up my pension analysis for CP, and thought the motorboat was a gift. So forget about community property. And contracts, I didn't talk about adequate assurances writing requirement.

I just have to think positively. Whatever happens, happens. It's really hard to get all of these issues in the moment. I have to think the bar is a bit forgiving, some people do pass this thing after all!


Pretty much this. I missed a few material issues. Co-mingling for the motor boat; writing req. for adequate assurances; plus I’m starting to think I missed the disclosure (blood relationship between Lou and that other person) issue in PR despite nailing every other single thing in that essay : /. Also I think my Evidence essay is wonky.

Hopefully my PT and a high MBE will make up for the point deficit, just have to wait and see.
Last edited by MBernard on Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

slowned

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby slowned » Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:24 pm

I'm in the same boat...hoping my PT and MBE scores are solid. These last few days of waiting are the worst!

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:36 pm

ynwa_sd wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:Agree with you.

I talked about the OJ exception as well. I was surprised Bar secrets didn't talk about it, and I think they just missed it. I thought OJ exception fit better than Spontaneous statement for the statements in the 911 call. I thought it was debatable whether it was a startled reaction to being beaten or merely reporting after. I argued the immediate timing after would likely get it in. Just thought OJ hit it on the money. I may be naive, but I have a hard time believing that the bar is going to knock me for getting it in on OJ rather than spontaneous statement. The second question I think they wanted us to just see party admission and character for the most party. I also tried to through in some non-hearsay effect on the listener, but idk if that was necessary. I tried to get it in on MIMIC, common plan/scheme, intent, or identity, but who knows.

The reason I think Contracts Clause is helpful is because the market participant exception makes it in my opinion difficult for the corporation to win because at least Peter has Privileges and immunities and will win that. The market participation exception might excuse the blatant discrimination and we all know how rational basis is. The contracts clause I think is also difficult to win under immediate scrutiny, but the corporation needed it to have a chance. I know the 2005 essay on the state commerce clause issues had CC in there. Again, didn't write about the contracts clause!

My woes: Also completely screwed up my pension analysis for CP, and thought the motorboat was a gift. So forget about community property. And contracts, I didn't talk about adequate assurances writing requirement.

I just have to think positively. Whatever happens, happens. It's really hard to get all of these issues in the moment. I have to think the bar is a bit forgiving, some people do pass this thing after all!


During Barbri, they kept mentioning that the best essays are the ones that capture all the issues, including issues that don't necessarily end up being applied. The OJ exception is the perfect example of this. It was a CA evidence essay, so clearly multiple CA specific evidence issues were going to be triggered. The OJ exception was one of the main ones in my opinion but after you ran through the analysis, it was clear that it didn't apply because in order for the OJ exception to apply, the witness must be unavailable, but more specifically, dead.

Second big CA issue on the evidence question that I haven't seen mentioned a lot on this discussion board is that if the defendant is charged with California domestic violence then the prosecutor may introduce evidence that she has committed similar crimes in the past, which was the case here.


That is what Barbri said. I hope that's right!

Oh yeah your right about OJ exception, they have to be unavailable (not dead). I remember now, I just hope I remembered on exam day. Man if I have to take this again, I'll have to review a few things! Now I don't remember what I said with the OJ exception, lol. And yeah there is a California domestic violence rule for character. I missed that, totally forget the prosecution can introduce that in their own case in chief. That's gets it in automatically for domestic violence, rather than resorting to non-character exceptions.

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:39 pm

estefanchanning wrote:I forgot my exact con law arguments, but I remember saying something along the lines that by owning 70% of the railroads, the state no longer qualified for "market participant" because there was no market to participate in because it had a monopoly.

Or maybe I didn't say exactly that, but I remember the 70% was an issue I kept going back to, lol.


Sounds like a good argument. I wish I could remember my analysis for market participant. The 70% was the key to that though. The bar would probably not worry too much about the conclusion for that in my opinion, sounds like you had the right analysis.

bacillusanthracis

Bronze
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:30 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby bacillusanthracis » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:46 pm

mathandthelaw wrote:That is what Barbri said. I hope that's right!

Oh yeah your right about OJ exception, they have to be unavailable (not dead). I remember now, I just hope I remembered on exam day ... I'll have to review a few things! Now I don't remember what I said with the OJ exception...


I barely remember the test either. And I don't really care because either 1) I passed, and don't have to worry about it, or 2) I failed, and those same topics won't be on the next one, so I don't have to worry about learning them now.

Like a couple of other people said, I'm relying on my PT and the MBE to carry me through.

The MBE just felt bad though. I went in with ~80% on Barbri and came out thinking that Barbri really doesn't know how to write MBE style questions...

But I feel confident I wrote a good PT. :roll:

mathandthelaw

New
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby mathandthelaw » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:04 am

bacillusanthracis wrote:
mathandthelaw wrote:That is what Barbri said. I hope that's right!

Oh yeah your right about OJ exception, they have to be unavailable (not dead). I remember now, I just hope I remembered on exam day ... I'll have to review a few things! Now I don't remember what I said with the OJ exception...


I barely remember the test either. And I don't really care because either 1) I passed, and don't have to worry about it, or 2) I failed, and those same topics won't be on the next one, so I don't have to worry about learning them now.

Like a couple of other people said, I'm relying on my PT and the MBE to carry me through.

The MBE just felt bad though. I went in with ~80% on Barbri and came out thinking that Barbri really doesn't know how to write MBE style questions...

But I feel confident I wrote a good PT. :roll:


Yeah that's true that the next bar exam you can probably not spend too much time on Cal Evidence or Community Property since it likely wouldn't get tested twice in a row. All of the same subjects with the various topics will not be tested on the essays in February.

I would consistently get anywhere from 60-75s on my graded essays in Barbri. I have no idea if Barbri graders grade like the actual graders. I was hoping my essays would be a strength. At this point I don't know when I totally bombed CP.

I think my PT was decent and worth two essays which is good, but I have no idea about the MBE. I agree that Barbri wrote a different style of questions. I thought Barbri was helpful for learning all of the nuanced rules, but I don't think it helped with the MBE which required picking the best of all options available. I felt like it was a different exam than I had prepared for, which could either work to my advantage or disadvantage. Sometimes I'm good at handling a challenging situation that catches people off-guard. I almost felt like during the MBE sometimes I was less focused on applying the rule and more focused on trying to answer the question with a general knowledge of the law. Also, I was at 70% in MBE with Barbri, which is not too comforting and not as great as some of my peers. For Adaptibar I was like 80% though.

Happy88

New
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:13 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Happy88 » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:55 am

At this moment, I don’t remember anything.

3 days left and the anticipation is killing me.

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:44 pm

Wishing the best for everyone. When I think of the exam, I feel like I can generally remember what I didn't write about for some of the essays, and it seems like others also made similar errors and omissions.

-- Contracts: Forgot writing requirement for ade. ass.
-- Evidence: Mis-labelled contemporaneous statement/did not discuss confrontation/missed domestic violence exception for char. evid.
-- Con Law: Missed contracts clause/didn't pick up on the 70% interest so not sure about my MP exception analysis
-- PR: Don't remember
-- Comm Prop: Don't remember
--PT: Who knows?!?! I mean I remember trying to stay really organized and the analysis for both prongs did seem repetitive
-- MBE: Who knows, at least I finished!

And, at this point who knows what else.

I have seen model answers where one may have discussed an issue that was not mentioned in the other model answer.

maga

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:32 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby maga » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:38 pm

What'sUP? wrote:Wishing the best for everyone. When I think of the exam, I feel like I can generally remember what I didn't write about for some of the essays, and it seems like others also made similar errors and omissions.

-- Contracts: Forgot writing requirement for ade. ass.
-- Evidence: Mis-labelled contemporaneous statement/did not discuss confrontation/missed domestic violence exception for char. evid.
-- Con Law: Missed contracts clause/didn't pick up on the 70% interest so not sure about my MP exception analysis
-- PR: Don't remember
-- Comm Prop: Don't remember
--PT: Who knows?!?! I mean I remember trying to stay really organized and the analysis for both prongs did seem repetitive
-- MBE: Who knows, at least I finished!

And, at this point who knows what else.

I have seen model answers where one may have discussed an issue that was not mentioned in the other model answer.



I feel like I made the mistake of indulging in too much essay excavations. My confident self has died now and instead of being 80% confident, I'm at about 10% levels.

If I fail and fail because of MBEs, I'm gonna kick myself for leaving exam 30-40 minutes early.

Get-it-done

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:53 am

Re: 2018 July California Bar

Postby Get-it-done » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:12 am

Auxilio wrote:Does anyone know how long after the 16th before we can get sworn in? I'm not in California so just going to do it with my Judge, but Dad is visiting for a bit and would love to do it while he's here if possible.

C&F etc. all cleared.

This all assumes we pass of course.


You can get sworn in right away. Law schools swear in students during the month of December simply so they don’t have to pay license fees. If you swear in on Nov, you have to pay half of the annual fee.

Good luck!



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests