2019 February California Bar

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

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

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ThisTimeAround » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:18 am

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


Issue was that condo was QCP. I may have messed this up but said that property could have passed entirely to the son depending on wife's election choice. If not, wife likely tenants in common with son?!

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4412
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby rcharter1978 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:22 am

Good luck you guys! Even if you didn't feel great about today, you still got 50% of your grade out there! Go get 'em ligers!

flawedargument

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

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby flawedargument » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:23 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.


Rule out battery because there was a defense, or based on the elements..?

yukishirotomoe

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

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby yukishirotomoe » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:29 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 ran out of time even for negligence and strict liability issues. Didn't address assault though the word fear appeared in the facts -- it wasn't intentionally caused so I didn't think it's relevant enough to write it down, considering that I was really pressed for time.

edit: along the same line of thought, the confinement by the chimp was also unintentional. So may not be what is being tested here.

I addressed the bite and the antiseptic separately, and that's probably the reason why time became an issue for me (with lots of repetition of structures and "please see above for rules").

This one worries me too, and I'm not expecting anything above 60 (given the subjectivity of the graders).

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:42 am

flawedargument wrote:
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.


Rule out battery because there was a defense, or based on the elements..?


I mean I just said these are intentional torts. You can’t have a dog or a chimp doing them. Even with doctrines of transferred intent and the like you can’t really get back to intentional torts committed by animals, basically.

flawedargument

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

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby flawedargument » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:57 am

JakeTappers wrote:
flawedargument wrote:
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.


Rule out battery because there was a defense, or based on the elements..?


I mean I just said these are intentional torts. You can’t have a dog or a chimp doing them. Even with doctrines of transferred intent and the like you can’t really get back to intentional torts committed by animals, basically.


Oops. I wasn’t referring to dog or chimp’s conduct

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:10 am

Gotcha. Am I missing a way in which Dan the dog owner could have committed an assault or battery? With the antiseptic at least, the facts said mistakenly.

mycrookedwand

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:15 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby mycrookedwand » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:38 am

JakeTappers wrote:Gotcha. Am I missing a way in which Dan the dog owner could have committed an assault or battery? With the antiseptic at least, the facts said mistakenly.



I quickly mentioned battery for the solvent but dismissed it because *mistakenly*.

I didn’t bring up assault — I didn’t see anything in the facts to indicate she was put in apprehension if imminent battery.. and also obvi there was no intentional conduct by the dog owner.

Also, side note: aren’t animals legally chattel? They can’t commit torts.. the only way I see a battery from the puppy/chimp is if the dog owner intentionally caused the dog to bite/chimp attack, which wasn’t indicated in the facts.

mycrookedwand

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:15 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby mycrookedwand » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:41 am

JakeTappers wrote:Gotcha. Am I missing a way in which Dan the dog owner could have committed an assault or battery? With the antiseptic at least, the facts said mistakenly.



Oh just saw you just said the same thing above and I repeated it haha. Oops :D

Omgzomb

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 9:04 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Omgzomb » Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:51 am

Anyone cite the model Rule that suggest a chimp is biologically close enough to humans to form intent?












This is sarcasm.

User avatar
Atmosphere

Silver
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Atmosphere » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:48 am

JakeTappers wrote:Gotcha. Am I missing a way in which Dan the dog owner could have committed an assault or battery? With the antiseptic at least, the facts said mistakenly.


Voluntary act that causes harmful or offensive contsct right? The intent has to be act, i.e. pour the solvent, not to cause harmful or offensive contact

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:38 am

Atmosphere wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:Gotcha. Am I missing a way in which Dan the dog owner could have committed an assault or battery? With the antiseptic at least, the facts said mistakenly.


Voluntary act that causes harmful or offensive contsct right? The intent has to be act, i.e. pour the solvent, not to cause harmful or offensive contact


I guess I was thinking that only works for say, trespass, (ie volitional act v. Intentional act). Most of the definitions talk about mistake and negligent conduct not being enough. Either way it probably warranted analysis that I didn’t give, including possible mistake/defense/necessity arguments. Fuck

biglawl88

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:22 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby biglawl88 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:57 am

Atmosphere wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:Gotcha. Am I missing a way in which Dan the dog owner could have committed an assault or battery? With the antiseptic at least, the facts said mistakenly.


Voluntary act that causes harmful or offensive contsct right? The intent has to be act, i.e. pour the solvent, not to cause harmful or offensive contact



This one is tricky. I think the analysis above is correct for battery under criminal law because battery is a general intent crime. But in the context of torts, I believe that battery requires the intent to bring about harmful or offensive contact.

User avatar
Atmosphere

Silver
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Atmosphere » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:57 am

JakeTappers wrote:
Atmosphere wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:Gotcha. Am I missing a way in which Dan the dog owner could have committed an assault or battery? With the antiseptic at least, the facts said mistakenly.


Voluntary act that causes harmful or offensive contsct right? The intent has to be act, i.e. pour the solvent, not to cause harmful or offensive contact


I guess I was thinking that only works for say, trespass, (ie volitional act v. Intentional act). Most of the definitions talk about mistake and negligent conduct not being enough. Either way it probably warranted analysis that I didn’t give, including possible mistake/defense/necessity arguments. Fuck


It sounds like you’ve done great bro, just go kill it today

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:33 am

Was there anything about the call to 3–I think it said “special damages”—that requires additional analysis? I really just said if the breaches weren’t enough LL could recover, minus the time tenant couldn’t access or rights were otherwise infringed and mitigation.

Also wasn’t sure to make of the fact it was 9 month furnished. I know that gives rise to tort liability but there wasn’t really one here. Similarly, wasn’t sure the effect of the “sure if that’s how you feel” comment. Did nothing with it I don’t think

Pema

New
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Pema » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:50 am

Sound cliche, but this bar really does sound harder than most.

ThisTimeAround

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

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ThisTimeAround » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:51 am

JakeTappers wrote:Was there anything about the call to 3–I think it said “special damages”—that requires additional analysis? I really just said if the breaches weren’t enough LL could recover, minus the time tenant couldn’t access or rights were otherwise infringed and mitigation.

Also wasn’t sure to make of the fact it was 9 month furnished. I know that gives rise to tort liability but there wasn’t really one here. Similarly, wasn’t sure the effect of the “sure if that’s how you feel” comment. Did nothing with it I don’t think


The statement could mean she accepted surrender of the property and is estopped from arguing damages for future rent

maureenwct

New
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:34 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby maureenwct » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:52 pm

Ok, attorney applicant here, and I thought the questions were ideally suited to what I knew best - that said, I can't believe the number of issues I thought of when I finished each question - in the heat of the moment, it just doesn't flow as fast. I also found that I simply didn't have time on the questions to reach every issue: I was shocked at the sheer number of people who got up and walked to the restroom during the exam. I mean I barely had time to use a highlighter and a pen on the PT!

I also found, and this is a point significant to my poor eyesight, that the font kept defaulting on exam soft to 9 point! I kept trying to fix it to a larger and more readable size and that cost me too much time. I will just resolve, if I don't pass, not to reread my answers on the next-go around. I am so prone to make certain my responses in written form read and flow well, without errors, that it is almost impossible for me NOT to do so.

All in, I don't think I passed. I certainly got the right answer for the 1st Q, but my analysis was thin at best. My PR essay was rushed, and the issues are very jumbled with poor headings. My PT was likely the best submission - for a 90 minute brief, I thought it covered the issues well. The evidence question I answered well, but spent too much time with the first two calls (because I didn't think more were on the next page and didn't even look until I was almost done), leading me to do SMJ and the Gwen call in half the time I did the first two. UGH. Turn the page next time.

I wish you all the best and hope for passing for everyone. I met only one other individual besides myself who was a first time taker. I feel for anyone who needs to repeat this lovely experience.

maureenwct

New
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:34 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby maureenwct » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:54 pm

And UGH, I didn't pick up on the 9 month furnished rental point, but that means it is not 'caveat leasee" and the landlord's obligation with respect to the premises is higher than norm.

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:33 pm

maureenwct wrote:And UGH, I didn't pick up on the 9 month furnished rental point, but that means it is not 'caveat leasee" and the landlord's obligation with respect to the premises is higher than norm.


Man, I knew it had to be something. I was thinking tort liability and couldn’t see anything there. So I just said something like “in addition, this was a nine month furnished lease expanding landlords responsibilities”. Probably not enough for points and under no heading and no real section so probably lost on the grader.

User avatar
Atmosphere

Silver
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Atmosphere » Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:41 pm

biglawl88 wrote:
Atmosphere wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:Gotcha. Am I missing a way in which Dan the dog owner could have committed an assault or battery? With the antiseptic at least, the facts said mistakenly.


Voluntary act that causes harmful or offensive contsct right? The intent has to be act, i.e. pour the solvent, not to cause harmful or offensive contact



This one is tricky. I think the analysis above is correct for battery under criminal law because battery is a general intent crime. But in the context of torts, I believe that battery requires the intent to bring about harmful or offensive contact.


You’re totally right, I had them confused

User avatar
hatcrime

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby hatcrime » Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:14 pm

FinallyPassedTheBar wrote: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.

I don't think this is right. They say they "scale" the essays by assigning them MBE-style scores on the same distribution (curve) as the the MBE scores of California test-takers that day. For full exam applicants, the scaled essay score is averaged with their MBE score. For attorney applicants, your score is simply your scaled essay score.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... a-Bar-Exam
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... on/Scaling

An applicant’s total score is the scale MBE score (on the 2000-point scale) multiplied by .50 plus the converted score on the written section multiplied by .50. Scaling ensures the two portions of the examination carry the relative weights assigned to them: written (50 percent) and MBE (50 percent).

Attorney applicants who take the Attorneys’ Examination also have their scores on the written section placed on the same scale of measurement as general applicants, but as they are exempt from the MBE, their pass/fail status is based solely on the written section.


In other words, to pass the one-day test, you need to score in the top X percent of essays, where X is the same percent of MBEs that were 1440 or higher that day. So I don't think there is a disadvantage to taking the one-day test, unless you happen to personally do better on multiple-choice questions.

Anyway, that was a tough test! I'm glad it's over. Best of luck to everyone!

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:09 pm

hatcrime wrote:
FinallyPassedTheBar wrote: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.

I don't think this is right. They say they "scale" the essays by assigning them MBE-style scores on the same distribution (curve) as the the MBE scores of California test-takers that day. For full exam applicants, the scaled essay score is averaged with their MBE score. For attorney applicants, your score is simply your scaled essay score.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... a-Bar-Exam
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... on/Scaling

An applicant’s total score is the scale MBE score (on the 2000-point scale) multiplied by .50 plus the converted score on the written section multiplied by .50. Scaling ensures the two portions of the examination carry the relative weights assigned to them: written (50 percent) and MBE (50 percent).

Attorney applicants who take the Attorneys’ Examination also have their scores on the written section placed on the same scale of measurement as general applicants, but as they are exempt from the MBE, their pass/fail status is based solely on the written section.


In other words, to pass the one-day test, you need to score in the top X percent of essays, where X is the same percent of MBEs that were 1440 or higher that day. So I don't think there is a disadvantage to taking the one-day test, unless you happen to personally do better on multiple-choice questions.

Anyway, that was a tough test! I'm glad it's over. Best of luck to everyone!


There is a lot of conflicting info out there and on here about this. Hopefully I just passed the regular exam and don’t have to worry about it anymore but attorneys exam is even more of a black box than the exam in general. What I can say that sort of agrees with your point is that I was in the top 60% or so and didn’t pass and that lives with the overall pass rate. However, under that your premise, man does february get rough (assuming that, about 70 percent won’t be above 1440)

ThisTimeAround

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

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ThisTimeAround » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:42 pm

I was averaging 80% on adaptibar but honestly felt like I failed this MBE. Wtf

User avatar
thizzinmybrainsout

New
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby thizzinmybrainsout » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:28 pm

Yes, now that it's over, first of all - Congrats everyone. Kickback, chillout, and (try to) enjoy the fact that it's in the books. Hopefully the last time - but if not, use it as a learning experience and kick ass J19.

I was unsuccessful my first try in J18. My initial impressions - that seemed much tougher than July. And that's notwithstanding the fact that I prepared WAY MORE for this test than I did for July.

The MBE seemed to have an odd mix of seemingly "gimmie" questions and some really dense, oddly presented ones - for example, IMHO quite a few instances of "pick the least incorrect of the following 4 answers" where the (what I thought to be) correct choice was, like, nominally applicable.

I used every minute of the AM and PM sessions, and had to go faster than I would have liked to for the last ~5-10 each session. And I completed nearly 2k practice MBE Q's in preparation for Feb., and at the end of my prep was consistently 70%+ over the last 500 or so. In other words, I def considered MBE to be my strong suit heading in - largely because CA Essays can be such a mind-f*ck and the grading is, let's face it, stupidly inconsistent/ambiguous/unreliable to predict.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Necho2 and 19 guests