2019 February California Bar

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

Bronze
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Underoath » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:50 am

NikaneOkie wrote:So this is my 3rd bar exam (passed last two pretty easily) but I got anhilated today by the MPT. Since I took the attorney exam I am super concerned I didn't pass because of that. If I organized well and hit all the law statements well and ran out of time in fact application (only a few cursory fact sentences at the end of 3-4 sections) how screwed am I? Did ok on all the other essays pretty sure.


Were you taking the exam in San Diego? There was a guy near me talking about being licensed in two states already.

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:54 am

NikaneOkie wrote:So this is my 3rd bar exam (passed last two pretty easily) but I got anhilated today by the MPT. Since I took the attorney exam I am super concerned I didn't pass because of that. If I organized well and hit all the law statements well and ran out of time in fact application (only a few cursory fact sentences at the end of 3-4 sections) how screwed am I? Did ok on all the other essays pretty sure.


I failed the attorneys exam in the summer after passing others easily as well. I ran out of time on it as well in Kuly and got a 60. That’s not back breaking if you did well on the west and don’t get fucked on the scaling. The problem is that it’s worth double so getting a 65-70 really puts you in the driver seat. FWIW I did it first today spent like 2 hours on it and still just did

FACTS
LEGAL STANDARD
ARGUMENT
Not Mandatory Under Statute
Not required under Whatever Case
Since discretionary, all factors for forfeit
CONCLUSION

Really wasn’t that great and would’ve liked another 15 minutes to organize and show the use of all cases

Another FWIW, when I reviewed my 60 to the MODEL ANSWER i has the same headings verbatim, literally, and the same organization and most of the same topics. And it’s not like there was a really obvious structure. Still, 60. So can be capricious.

califormiagirl10

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:49 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby califormiagirl10 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:58 am

So question 1 and 2, can you guys share main issues you wrote? Definitely spent way too much time on Q1 and don't even know if I did it right! Got stumped on question 2...did I need to do analysis of negligence and strict liability? This is killing me, someone tell me?? How did we need to set up?

califormiagirl10

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:49 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby califormiagirl10 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:03 am

Help guys, what were the main issues in question 1 and 2? Definitely spent too long on question 1 and had no idea how to set up 2... Did we need to do 2 negligence and strict liability analysis? What were the issues ya'll wrote on these two?

FinallyPassedTheBar

Bronze
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:27 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby FinallyPassedTheBar » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:04 am

NikaneOkie wrote:So this is my 3rd bar exam (passed last two pretty easily) but I got anhilated today by the MPT. Since I took the attorney exam I am super concerned I didn't pass because of that. If I organized well and hit all the law statements well and ran out of time in fact application (only a few cursory fact sentences at the end of 3-4 sections) how screwed am I? Did ok on all the other essays pretty sure.





Note that when taking the abbreviated attys exam, the CA Bar automatically assigns the nationwide MBE average score to each examinee. But the nationwide average is usually a failing grade (under 140) in terms of the CA cut score. So in essence, those out-of-state attys must score higher than the minimum passing score on the essays (to make up for the failing MBE grade) in order to pass the exam.

This phenomenon is reflected in the pass rates for -out-of-state attys. Examinees taking the abbreviated atty exam have around a 32% passing rate. While out-of-state attys taking the full bar exam have a 50% passing rate.

yukishirotomoe

New
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby yukishirotomoe » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:08 am

My PT organization is more like:

FACTS
ARGUMENT
1. Forfeiture is appropriate because it is not mandated by the statute
2. Exoneration is not justified because Defendant willfully disappeared, Surety failed to attempt to locate Defendant, and the non-appearance was prejudicial to the State
- trial court has discretion
- state the factors and analyze each
CONCLUSION

I messed up essay 1 though...I guess not enough coffee in the morning, and I ended up not recognizing that the joint tenancy was invalid even though I correctly characterized the condo as QCP. This also led to the non-discussion of the omitted child issue.

mycrookedwand

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:15 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby mycrookedwand » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:11 am

Royally screwed myself on that CP/Wills/Trusts essay. Took one look and immediately skipped to the RP Q. Came back to it with 25 minutes left and proceeded to analyze the condo interest very incorrectly, only to realize after time was called. Yay! Praying for a 55 on that one, which is reaching.

Btw, did anyone else write a little blurb on nuisance for the RP essay re: the noise & disturbing the peace? I figured why not....

yukishirotomoe

New
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby yukishirotomoe » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:19 am

JakeTappers wrote:Ok tell me what I missed. Sure it’s a lot.

First: community property, quasi community property, doesn’t matter that his money and his name only. Condo is cp. only has 50 percent interest. Cant create joint tenancy. Wife takes it all.

First will is value due to COL, likely. Stan is sort of omitted child (talk about condo and trust). Codicil is invalid due to capacity maybe? Bill doesn’t take.

Trust seems valid even though revocable. Creditors Can’t get by CP still liable, etc.


Five: idk? All the normal stuff?


I already messed up the joint tenancy part, so the remaining doesn't matter much (maybe a difference between 50 and 55...) But I thought capacity of the court-appoint conservator would be enough?

I also wrote that creditors can reach SP regardless of the intent in this case because CP is exhausted (with a brief discussion of order of debt satisfaction).

User avatar
NikaneOkie

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby NikaneOkie » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:26 am

Underoath wrote:
NikaneOkie wrote:So this is my 3rd bar exam (passed last two pretty easily) but I got anhilated today by the MPT. Since I took the attorney exam I am super concerned I didn't pass because of that. If I organized well and hit all the law statements well and ran out of time in fact application (only a few cursory fact sentences at the end of 3-4 sections) how screwed am I? Did ok on all the other essays pretty sure.


Were you taking the exam in San Diego? There was a guy near me talking about being licensed in two states already.


Nope.

My outline and legal statements were fine I think. I even included a fact statement at the top of the outline (I thought I had more time than I did. Assumed I'd only need 90 min). Refernced cases and law properly. Summarized properly. At least conclusory stated that this was different than the main case in point with maybe one or two cursory fact references. Got through 3 of the 6 factors.

And then a pretty abrupt conclusory sentence.

Think I can scrape 100/200 from just that?
Last edited by NikaneOkie on Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

barexaminerssuck27

New
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:27 am

I know two people who claimed they finished session 1 EARLY. ONE HOUR EARLY. HOW THE FUCK??

Honestly, ONE OF THE TOUGHEST BAR EXAM EVER. ALL RACEHORSE

User avatar
NikaneOkie

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby NikaneOkie » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:28 am

barexaminerssuck27 wrote:I know two people who claimed they finished session 1 EARLY. ONE HOUR EARLY. HOW THE FUCK??

Honestly, ONE OF THE TOUGHEST BAR EXAM EVER. ALL RACEHORSE


Honestly, those peeps fail. They missed issues which is why they thought they were done.

There was a ton to write about.

Happy88

New
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:13 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Happy88 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:29 am

yukishirotomoe wrote:My PT organization is more like:

FACTS
ARGUMENT
1. Forfeiture is appropriate because it is not mandated by the statute
2. Exoneration is not justified because Defendant willfully disappeared, Surety failed to attempt to locate Defendant, and the non-appearance was prejudicial to the State
- trial court has discretion
- state the factors and analyze each
CONCLUSION

I messed up essay 1 though...I guess not enough coffee in the morning, and I ended up not recognizing that the joint tenancy was invalid even though I correctly characterized the condo as QCP. This also led to the non-discussion of the omitted child issue.


Oh wow The omitted child issue didn’t even cross my mind. fml.

AspiringLawyer8818

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:27 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby AspiringLawyer8818 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:30 am

NikaneOkie wrote:
Underoath wrote:
NikaneOkie wrote:So this is my 3rd bar exam (passed last two pretty easily) but I got anhilated today by the MPT. Since I took the attorney exam I am super concerned I didn't pass because of that. If I organized well and hit all the law statements well and ran out of time in fact application (only a few cursory fact sentences at the end of 3-4 sections) how screwed am I? Did ok on all the other essays pretty sure.


Were you taking the exam in San Diego? There was a guy near me talking about being licensed in two states already.


Nope.

My outline and legal statements were fine I think. I even included a fact statement at the top of the outline (I thought I had more time than I did. Assumed I'd only need 90 min). Refernced cases and law properly. Summarized properly. At least conclusory stated that this was different than the main case in point with maybe one or two cursory fact references. Got through 3 of the 6 factors.

And then a pretty abrupt conclusory sentence.

Think I can scrape 100/200 from just that?

Underoath

Bronze
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Underoath » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:32 am

Did anyone catch the typo in the PT? It was “you” and I think it was supposed to be “your”.

Happy88

New
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:13 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Happy88 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:49 am

What was everyone’s average character count?

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:52 am

Happy88 wrote:
yukishirotomoe wrote:My PT organization is more like:

FACTS
ARGUMENT
1. Forfeiture is appropriate because it is not mandated by the statute
2. Exoneration is not justified because Defendant willfully disappeared, Surety failed to attempt to locate Defendant, and the non-appearance was prejudicial to the State
- trial court has discretion
- state the factors and analyze each
CONCLUSION

I messed up essay 1 though...I guess not enough coffee in the morning, and I ended up not recognizing that the joint tenancy was invalid even though I correctly characterized the condo as QCP. This also led to the non-discussion of the omitted child issue.


Oh wow The omitted child issue didn’t even cross my mind. fml.


I caught it and blabbered a bit but to be fair i don't think its a huge issue. The kid was omitted from the will but was preexisting and otherwise taken care of, at least to some degree. I said that and about not falling under the parent exception and then basically was just like he still gets just the residuary trust, basically.

They hadn't tested CP 4 times in a row ever, so I really did not study for it AT ALL. Thinking back now, the condo was QCP, obviously, but who gets it? Doesn't W take the entirety? Same with the house in State X (unless the codicil was valid)?

User avatar
NikaneOkie

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby NikaneOkie » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:54 am

Happy88 wrote:
yukishirotomoe wrote:My PT organization is more like:

FACTS
ARGUMENT
1. Forfeiture is appropriate because it is not mandated by the statute
2. Exoneration is not justified because Defendant willfully disappeared, Surety failed to attempt to locate Defendant, and the non-appearance was prejudicial to the State
- trial court has discretion
- state the factors and analyze each
CONCLUSION

I messed up essay 1 though...I guess not enough coffee in the morning, and I ended up not recognizing that the joint tenancy was invalid even though I correctly characterized the condo as QCP. This also led to the non-discussion of the omitted child issue.


Oh wow The omitted child issue didn’t even cross my mind. fml.


Child has to be born after will created or T has to think child didn't exist. So I don't think you guys missed the omitted child issue. Kid was just child from prior marriage...

yukishirotomoe

New
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:58 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby yukishirotomoe » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:57 am

NikaneOkie wrote:
Child has to be born after will created or T has to think child didn't exist. So I don't think you guys missed the omitted child issue. Kid was just child from prior marriage...


That's correct, but it's worth mentioning to rule it out -- not a major issue as compared to the incorrect recognition of the joint tenancy.

ovcovc

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ovcovc » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:57 am

NikaneOkie wrote:
barexaminerssuck27 wrote:I know two people who claimed they finished session 1 EARLY. ONE HOUR EARLY. HOW THE FUCK??

Honestly, ONE OF THE TOUGHEST BAR EXAM EVER. ALL RACEHORSE


Honestly, those peeps fail. They missed issues which is why they thought they were done.

There was a ton to write about.



I agree, through negative experience. I finished early in the morning of July 2018 session. This was because I did not know what else to write. I failed.
This morning, I was completely out of time. Haha at least I hope it means I did better.
However.
I started out with the CP question by first outlining etc as they say to do (I am a hardwriter).
When I finally finished and it was all perfect, well, it was OK -there was an hour left.
Had to scribble the other two in a hurry, feel decent about the torts question, sort if - but the landlord and tenant, even though it was easy, I had like, 20 minutes left and all I could throw together was a list of issued and brief discussion, into which conclusions were jumbled, and a rather sudden section on damages tucked on in the end when i realised there were still 5 minutes left. When she said "30 Seconds left",. I was scribbling "Landlord has duty to mitigate - re-rent- damages reduced" (I had there versions of damages, for if there was a lease, for if there was or was not consent to terminate, or if there was a month to month, in case initial delay was not a modification but a failed lease).
It was a disaster.
Next time I am typing.
I can type much faster than this.
And, not being able to re-write things or move them around only works if you genuinely can first compose a draft on scratch. Once you do one, 2 hours are gone.

arrrgh

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:00 am

Not to belabor this but that torts one worries me. I addressed premises liability, negligence, and strict liability as to animals to both. Some additional analysis as to the antiseptic. Rule out batter/assault/whatever. Didn’t rule out false imprisonments but could have. I’m just not sure what the hell else to say. A weird one.

ovcovc

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ovcovc » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:06 am

JakeTappers wrote:
Happy88 wrote:
yukishirotomoe wrote:My PT organization is more like:

FACTS
ARGUMENT
1. Forfeiture is appropriate because it is not mandated by the statute
2. Exoneration is not justified because Defendant willfully disappeared, Surety failed to attempt to locate Defendant, and the non-appearance was prejudicial to the State
- trial court has discretion
- state the factors and analyze each
CONCLUSION

I messed up essay 1 though...I guess not enough coffee in the morning, and I ended up not recognizing that the joint tenancy was invalid even though I correctly characterized the condo as QCP. This also led to the non-discussion of the omitted child issue.


Oh wow The omitted child issue didn’t even cross my mind. fml.


I caught it and blabbered a bit but to be fair i don't think its a huge issue. The kid was omitted from the will but was preexisting and otherwise taken care of, at least to some degree. I said that and about not falling under the parent exception and then basically was just like he still gets just the residuary trust, basically.

They hadn't tested CP 4 times in a row ever, so I really did not study for it AT ALL. Thinking back now, the condo was QCP, obviously, but who gets it? Doesn't W take the entirety? Same with the house in State X (unless the codicil was valid)?


jaketappers i think you were right about these in your first post
in the end, wife gets everything
the kid has a future interest under the trust
bill gets nothing
creditors get nothing

EXCEPT in my version this result was reached because condo is CP, not QCP
There had to be a difference between the house in State X and the condo, and I figured it was because condo was in california. I wasnt even sure.
But IF the condo was QCP, the above result would not be reached. QCP = SP in life, CP at death. If condo was QCP then conveyance woudl be valid and Sid would take as a surviving JT.
The reason he does not take is that Hank had no right to make the conveyance, because it was CP. Already during his life. (NOT QCP).

State X house, however, is pure QCP. He would have had power to convey it in life, although he didn't. He also had power to will a half of it as his at-death CP share (QCP treated as CP at death), but he didnt and Sid's attempt fails because conservator, although he can technically sometimes execute a codicil, can't invent new beneficiaries. That's like the opposite of conserving)

+Why don't ya'll stop with the omitted kid, only a kid born afterwards is omitted and this was a pre-existing kid. You can disinherit whomever you want, if you do it knowingly.

ovcovc

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ovcovc » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:08 am

JakeTappers wrote:Not to belabor this but that torts one worries me. I addressed premises liability, negligence, and strict liability as to animals to both. Some additional analysis as to the antiseptic. Rule out batter/assault/whatever. Didn’t rule out false imprisonments but could have. I’m just not sure what the hell else to say. A weird one.



I know my posts do not get through because a moderator has to approve them ))) but i ve been yelling "negligent rescue" at you for hours )

ThisTimeAround

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:06 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ThisTimeAround » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:11 am

JakeTappers wrote:
Happy88 wrote:
yukishirotomoe wrote:My PT organization is more like:

FACTS
ARGUMENT
1. Forfeiture is appropriate because it is not mandated by the statute
2. Exoneration is not justified because Defendant willfully disappeared, Surety failed to attempt to locate Defendant, and the non-appearance was prejudicial to the State
- trial court has discretion
- state the factors and analyze each
CONCLUSION

I messed up essay 1 though...I guess not enough coffee in the morning, and I ended up not recognizing that the joint tenancy was invalid even though I correctly characterized the condo as QCP. This also led to the non-discussion of the omitted child issue.


Oh wow The omitted child issue didn’t even cross my mind. fml.


I caught it and blabbered a bit but to be fair i don't think its a huge issue. The kid was omitted from the will but was preexisting and otherwise taken care of, at least to some degree. I said that and about not falling under the parent exception and then basically was just like he still gets just the residuary trust, basically.

They hadn't tested CP 4 times in a row ever, so I really did not study for it AT ALL. Thinking back now, the condo was QCP, obviously, but who gets it? Doesn't W take the entirety? Same with the house in State X (unless the codicil was valid)?


I said wife and son took condo as tenants in common bc husband could only grant his share. She also took half with friend bc codicil likely valid. Missed ommitted child issue :(

flawedargument

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 2:37 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby flawedargument » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:11 am

What was the Joint Tenancy issue? Were the magic words for creating a JT used...?

ThisTimeAround

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:06 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ThisTimeAround » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:13 am

JakeTappers wrote:Not to belabor this but that torts one worries me. I addressed premises liability, negligence, and strict liability as to animals to both. Some additional analysis as to the antiseptic. Rule out batter/assault/whatever. Didn’t rule out false imprisonments but could have. I’m just not sure what the hell else to say. A weird one.


Yeah, I started to add odd issues like owner might have a claim for trespass when guy exceed scope of invitation and entered prohibited room



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests