2019 February California Bar

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

New
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:46 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby yespasscbx » Mon May 27, 2019 8:38 pm

ReasonablePersonSSC wrote:
surge2385 wrote:Is it better to do the PT first or last?


I did it last because I didn’t want to be tempted to spend more time on it at the expense of time on the other two essays. I passed the bar.


I agree. Besides, I stepped into the afternoon session with a fresh mind from which the rules I had memorized for essays were more easily elicited. PT requires stamina. Practice it after writing out one or two essays before the exam, so you know your brain will still be working after two essays during the exam.

Ciedam08

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:18 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Ciedam08 » Tue May 28, 2019 3:52 pm

Does anyone happen to have a current Adaptibar promo code? I have searched online and all of them are either invalid or expired. Thanks in advance!

User avatar
a male human

Partner
Posts: 2132
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby a male human » Tue May 28, 2019 3:59 pm

Ciedam08 wrote:Does anyone happen to have a current Adaptibar promo code? I have searched online and all of them are either invalid or expired. Thanks in advance!

I just sent you one via your post in the promo code thread. Should work!

hopefulCAatty

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 12:19 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby hopefulCAatty » Wed May 29, 2019 1:07 am

Bigslick90 wrote:Finally passed after 3 tries. This is exam is a beast. I’ve taken and passed 2 other state bar exams and finished in the top 10% of my class at a T20. This exam is by far the hardest. Don’t listen to the people who say the pass rate is only low because of the large number of unaccredited law schools.

The exam is hard because (a) essays are 1 hr vs 45 mins, which requires you to dig deeper into the topics, (b) higher passing score requirement, and (c) harder PT exam than in other states.

Few tips: 1. Study and leave yourself ample time to finish the PT section. Don’t make the same mistake I did the first two times of not studying the PT section. There seems to be more materials to review for California PT vs other states. 2. Study Professional Responsibility extremely hard. This section is tested almost every time. You need to be able to get this one down. 3. I used smartbarprep to study more efficiently. Smartbarprep materials give you a detail list of the issues that are most commonly tested so you can be efficient with your studying.



Why do you feel that the PT is harder than other states? Is there more material to go through and/or more issues to discuss in your answer?

justanotheruser

Bronze
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Wed May 29, 2019 2:18 am

surge2385 wrote:Is it better to do the PT first or last?


YMMV, but I failed the July 2017 bar by fewer than 30 points. Think my score was 1412 or something like that. I did the PTs last, but I ended up taking a little too long on Essays 4 + 5. As a result, I got a 50 on the PT. I passed Feb 2018 bar and I drilled over and over to finish the PT first (even allowing myself 10-15 additional minutes). The way I saw it, I could still write a decent essay in 48-52 minutes, but the chances were much lower I could write a decent PT with anything less than the full 90 minutes.

Kentshindig

New
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Kentshindig » Thu May 30, 2019 11:11 pm

yespasscbx wrote:
ReasonablePersonSSC wrote:
surge2385 wrote:Is it better to do the PT first or last?


I did it last because I didn’t want to be tempted to spend more time on it at the expense of time on the other two essays. I passed the bar.


I agree. Besides, I stepped into the afternoon session with a fresh mind from which the rules I had memorized for essays were more easily elicited. PT requires stamina. Practice it after writing out one or two essays before the exam, so you know your brain will still be working after two essays during the exam.


The nature of the PT is awkward. July 2018, you were asked to argue for a lawyer who purchased stock of a company where she was working (or merging). The only plausible argument was she was medicated and seemingly unaware of the merger. This was the opposite of a race horse, it was more like tilling the ground with a stubborn ox mentally. It was just slow going. February 2019 was slightly better, but once you wrapped your brain around a bond redemption hearing, the hour glass was running on empty. My guess is the people who passed received very high MBE scores because no one is blogging about all the issues most of us might have missed. The essay and PT are seemingly red herrings. Focus on the MBE.

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4531
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby rcharter1978 » Fri May 31, 2019 9:52 am

Kentshindig wrote:
yespasscbx wrote:
ReasonablePersonSSC wrote:
surge2385 wrote:Is it better to do the PT first or last?


I did it last because I didn’t want to be tempted to spend more time on it at the expense of time on the other two essays. I passed the bar.


I agree. Besides, I stepped into the afternoon session with a fresh mind from which the rules I had memorized for essays were more easily elicited. PT requires stamina. Practice it after writing out one or two essays before the exam, so you know your brain will still be working after two essays during the exam.


The nature of the PT is awkward. July 2018, you were asked to argue for a lawyer who purchased stock of a company where she was working (or merging). The only plausible argument was she was medicated and seemingly unaware of the merger. This was the opposite of a race horse, it was more like tilling the ground with a stubborn ox mentally. It was just slow going. February 2019 was slightly better, but once you wrapped your brain around a bond redemption hearing, the hour glass was running on empty. My guess is the people who passed received very high MBE scores because no one is blogging about all the issues most of us might have missed. The essay and PT are seemingly red herrings. Focus on the MBE.


Not focusing on an area that still accounts for fifty percent of your grade doesn't seem like solid advice.

An assigned PT that involved memo writing should be some points that are relatively easy to get.

I took the exam when it was a three day format, but I would have done the essays first because those require knowledge of black letter law and rule statements that you're hoping you've memorized over like two months, so I'd want to answer those questions first before I did an assignment where I had the benefit of having all the rules in front of me.

Blueplanet

New
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:16 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Blueplanet » Fri May 31, 2019 4:55 pm

I would recommend doing the PT first. Its worth double compared to an essay and therefore you will pick up more points for a good PT in comparison to an essay for the time spent. I spent 1:45 on the PT and took some time of the other two essays.

For what its worth I am a foreign qualified lawyer and prior to using Kaplan bar review had never studied US law. I used Kaplan for 2.5 months but I missed passing the CA bar on my first attempt by a small margin. I passed in Feb 2019 and in both exams that I took I did the PT first.

I didn't outline any essays or PT's as I considered that a waste of time. For my second attempt I ditched the lectures (time consuming) and ditched flash cards etc. All I used was the MBE questions, lecture outlines and I practiced around 20 essays and PT in total.

I practiced the essays by taking the sample answer for a subject and then writing it out. Then I completed an essay in the same area. By writing out the answers I got to understand the depth of answers required and considered both sides of any arguments.

mercury17

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:41 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby mercury17 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:08 pm

Hi,
For those of you who took the exam at Pasadena Convention center, would it be reasonable to Uber there in the morning of testing days? I am coming from Hancock park/Ktown area in Los Angeles. I am especially concerned if traffic gets too busy around the convention center or they block streets around the center so that cars cannot be pulled off around the center... Any advice please?

Pema

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Pema » Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:26 pm

Q on the PT-

On the essays, you read the facts and the issue is absolutely clear, you pull the applicable law from your head and know without a doubt the 3 elements are correct and that you've satisfied them by using each relevant fact.

I can read a PT for an hour and can't seem to establish beyond a doubt the correct answers to the partner's requests unequivocally. I see what looks like the answer or an answer. When I start writing a PT response I'm never certain I'm solving the issue. I feel like I'm convincing the reader, partner and myself through plausible arguments and puffery. i.e. a solid 60 at best.

You know how when you latch on to an answer, but don't have time to do anything except convince the reader it is the correct answer and you manage to find immaterial facts and incorrect case law and statutes to support it? That is my problem. How do I unequivocally know I'm right before I respond? I've read and reverse engineered so many model answers and practiced tons of PT's and I still don't know how they quickly found the correct file facts, law and statutes. I wonder if these respondents felt confident that everything was absolutely correct when they wrote it. In short, what is the correct answer on the PT? Actually, where is the correct answer on the PT? How do you know it is the correct answer without reading the model?

After tons of practice I'm good at mbe's and essays. I'm looking for a similar definitive answer to get good at PT's other than more practice, which isn't working. I need the right kind of practice. Each PT is sufficiently foreign that I don't even see a pattern in how they bury the material within the immaterial. Thanks.

Moabit

New
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 6:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Moabit » Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:24 pm

Pema wrote: I still don't know how they quickly found the correct file facts, law and statutes.

I do not know if I qualify to give advice. I have taken only three PTs in my life -- two during July '18 UBE and one during Feb '19 CA test. I passed both times. I had done no practice PTs, but I drafted a certain number of briefs and a few court decisions (during various law school internships). To me, writing your PT answer is just like doing your legal writing assignment. Since the law is given to you, start with reading the facts. Then go to three (of whatever the number is) authorities provided to you (a couple of cases, a statute, etc.). You need to identify 1) the rule the Court used to make its decision and 2) the factors that it established going with that rule. Then you need to pay attention how the Court applied the factors to its case and note which facts of your case are similar and how and which are different. These will be the most important facts of your case. Depending on what you are asked to do, you will emphasize either the similarities or the differences of your facts and the facts in the cases. You will not forget to address the factors that cut against you, but you will play them down ("Even though, according to the third factor... blah-blah, this does not change the result, because... (explain why the third factor is not very important/outweighed by factors 1,2,4/etc)." This part is important, so do not forget to face bad facts. This is where you gain points with the grader, even if you feel that you are not very convincing.

When you identify rule/factors, underline them. Briefly write the facts of your case in the margins and mark them as "same" or "different" (or with + and -). Again, these will be the facts you need to focus on.

ReasonablePersonSSC

New
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:14 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ReasonablePersonSSC » Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:48 pm

Pema wrote:Q on the PT-

On the essays, you read the facts and the issue is absolutely clear, you pull the applicable law from your head and know without a doubt the 3 elements are correct and that you've satisfied them by using each relevant fact.

I can read a PT for an hour and can't seem to establish beyond a doubt the correct answers to the partner's requests unequivocally. I see what looks like the answer or an answer. When I start writing a PT response I'm never certain I'm solving the issue. I feel like I'm convincing the reader, partner and myself through plausible arguments and puffery. i.e. a solid 60 at best.

You know how when you latch on to an answer, but don't have time to do anything except convince the reader it is the correct answer and you manage to find immaterial facts and incorrect case law and statutes to support it? That is my problem. How do I unequivocally know I'm right before I respond? I've read and reverse engineered so many model answers and practiced tons of PT's and I still don't know how they quickly found the correct file facts, law and statutes. I wonder if these respondents felt confident that everything was absolutely correct when they wrote it. In short, what is the correct answer on the PT? Actually, where is the correct answer on the PT? How do you know it is the correct answer without reading the model?

After tons of practice I'm good at mbe's and essays. I'm looking for a similar definitive answer to get good at PT's other than more practice, which isn't working. I need the right kind of practice. Each PT is sufficiently foreign that I don't even see a pattern in how they bury the material within the immaterial. Thanks.


I found it helpful to read the Point Sheets that are included with the past PTs on the NCBE website. They explain what examinees should be discovering and discussing. It gave me insight into the mysteries of the PT. And they are free downloads.

Pema

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Pema » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:12 pm

Moabit wrote:
Pema wrote: I still don't know how they quickly found the correct file facts, law and statutes.

I do not know if I qualify to give advice. I have taken only three PTs in my life -- two during July '18 UBE and one during Feb '19 CA test. I passed both times. I had done no practice PTs, but I drafted a certain number of briefs and a few court decisions (during various law school internships). To me, writing your PT answer is just like doing your legal writing assignment. Since the law is given to you, start with reading the facts. Then go to three (of whatever the number is) authorities provided to you (a couple of cases, a statute, etc.). You need to identify 1) the rule the Court used to make its decision and 2) the factors that it established going with that rule. Then you need to pay attention how the Court applied the factors to its case and note which facts of your case are similar and how and which are different. These will be the most important facts of your case. Depending on what you are asked to do, you will emphasize either the similarities or the differences of your facts and the facts in the cases. You will not forget to address the factors that cut against you, but you will play them down ("Even though, according to the third factor... blah-blah, this does not change the result, because... (explain why the third factor is not very important/outweighed by factors 1,2,4/etc)." This part is important, so do not forget to face bad facts. This is where you gain points with the grader, even if you feel that you are not very convincing.

When you identify rule/factors, underline them. Briefly write the facts of your case in the margins and mark them as "same" or "different" (or with + and -). Again, these will be the facts you need to focus on.


Thanks. I think the statutes and rules throw me more than anything. PT's often don't have recognizable (to me) law. If the task asks if C breached the duty of Z. I spend so much time trying to figure out what Z is then what the duties owed under Z are. Then, what act is a breach of Z. Finally, once I understand what Z is and how it is breached I go look in the file for facts indicating C breached Z. In some document in the file it states C did an act. I saw in case 2 of the library that D did the same thing and was guilty of breaching Z. That tells me my C breached Z. Now I have a good start, but these preliminary issues seem to take forever to figure out (for me).

I do like the idea of not omitting 1/2 the facts and library as immaterial and instead citing it and dismissing it on paper as not applicable per our facts. I had been working hard at finding and addressing only items that will affect the outcome and that are based on our facts only and omitting everything else since it doesn't seem to solve my task. But, all the items in the library that have nothing to do with our file facts may be arguments by opposing party and should be addressed as such. Meaning, everything we're given in the library is fair game and can be addressed even if it is facially immaterial. If it ties to our facts, great, it is material to solving our issue. If it is not tied to our facts and appears immaterial, great, use it as a plausible opposing argument and dispense with it not being applicable to our facts/case if argued by the other party. Is this correct? it really frees things up and allows for more of a narrative flow. Maybe I've been freezing/ i e too careful.

Pema

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Pema » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:17 pm

ReasonablePersonSSC wrote:
Pema wrote:Q on the PT-

On the essays, you read the facts and the issue is absolutely clear, you pull the applicable law from your head and know without a doubt the 3 elements are correct and that you've satisfied them by using each relevant fact.

I can read a PT for an hour and can't seem to establish beyond a doubt the correct answers to the partner's requests unequivocally. I see what looks like the answer or an answer. When I start writing a PT response I'm never certain I'm solving the issue. I feel like I'm convincing the reader, partner and myself through plausible arguments and puffery. i.e. a solid 60 at best.

You know how when you latch on to an answer, but don't have time to do anything except convince the reader it is the correct answer and you manage to find immaterial facts and incorrect case law and statutes to support it? That is my problem. How do I unequivocally know I'm right before I respond? I've read and reverse engineered so many model answers and practiced tons of PT's and I still don't know how they quickly found the correct file facts, law and statutes. I wonder if these respondents felt confident that everything was absolutely correct when they wrote it. In short, what is the correct answer on the PT? Actually, where is the correct answer on the PT? How do you know it is the correct answer without reading the model?

After tons of practice I'm good at mbe's and essays. I'm looking for a similar definitive answer to get good at PT's other than more practice, which isn't working. I need the right kind of practice. Each PT is sufficiently foreign that I don't even see a pattern in how they bury the material within the immaterial. Thanks.


I found it helpful to read the Point Sheets that are included with the past PTs on the NCBE website. They explain what examinees should be discovering and discussing. It gave me insight into the mysteries of the PT. And they are free downloads.


Thanks. I read these as well. Again, I don't see enough of a pattern on the different PT's to know if I'm hitting the issues real time though. Reverse engineering isn't working. Also, each PT appears (to me) to be so unique. I read the points and understand what I missed only for that PT.

Moabit

New
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 6:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Moabit » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:42 pm

Pema wrote:I do like the idea of not omitting 1/2 the facts and library as immaterial and instead citing it and dismissing it on paper as not applicable per our facts.

I do not do this (and I do not recite the facts). First, this takes time. You will get more points by focusing on showing off your reasoning skills. It will then be clear to the grader that you separated the most important facts from those that are less so. Also, imagine yourself as a client. Would you like to read a lot of stuff and then see it dismissed as irrelevant?

Pema wrote:But, all the items in the library that have nothing to do with our file facts may be arguments by opposing party and should be addressed as such. Meaning, everything we're given in the library is fair game and can be addressed even if it is facially immaterial. If it ties to our facts, great, it is material to solving our issue. If it is not tied to our facts and appears immaterial, great, use it as a plausible opposing argument and dispense with it not being applicable to our facts/case if argued by the other party. Is this correct? it really frees things up and allows for more of a narrative flow. Maybe I've been freezing/ i e too careful.

I think you are doing it backwards. You seem to start with your facts and sort the content of the library based on whether the content of the library has anything to do with your facts. Let me emphasize again, you read the library to figure out the rule/factors that go with the rule. You pay attention how the Court applied these to its facts. With the facts of your case already in your memory (from an earlier reading), you note similarities and differences.

Pema

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Pema » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:24 pm

Moabit wrote:
Pema wrote:With the facts of your case already in your memory (from an earlier reading), you note similarities and differences.



This is an issue for me. When I read the file facts first I can't tell material facts from immaterial. Then when I read the library, I have to revisit the file to insure I'm applying the relevant facts. When I read the library first, I don't know which rule, element or factor is at issue until I read the file facts. Cross referencing between material facts in the file and material law in the library is a constant struggle and time suck. It is not smooth. Maybe it will always be an uncomfortable exercise for me even if I score a 65. The PT feels like something that would take me 4 hours on to score an 80. No clue how they do they do it in 90 minutes? Thanks.

Moabit

New
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 6:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Moabit » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:17 am

Pema wrote:
This is an issue for me. When I read the file facts first I can't tell material facts from immaterial. Then when I read the library, I have to revisit the file to insure I'm applying the relevant facts. When I read the library first, I don't know which rule, element or factor is at issue until I read the file facts. Cross referencing between material facts in the file and material law in the library is a constant struggle and time suck. It is not smooth.

This is absolutely true. I am sure everyone feels this, perhaps to a different degree. With essays/MBE you already have a framework of law internalized, and you only need to place it upon the layer of facts. With PTs you need to internalize both at the same time. The best way, naturally, is to go back and forth between law and facts, each time getting a slightly more nuanced understanding of the law and a slightly better realization which facts are most important, in a kind of a spiral penetrating more and more each time. Everyone's brain works in this way, and often those who do this slower gain deeper understanding at the end than those who are faster but shallower.

During a bar exam, however, you need to cut corners. You will obviously have to figure out what works for you specifically. Here is my approach that might work for you or it might not, but try it out. Read facts first, and do it like you are reading a story. Do not try to guess which facts are important, which facts are less so, and which facts are red herrings. Just read it like a news article. It is better to read it slowly once than to do it fast and having to reread it because you couldn't focus. So do not rush and just visualize what you are reading. You will absorb more than you might think, because the story will have its own line and logic. (Do not memorize anything, not even dates, just noting the order of events will be enough at this point.) Then read the library and focus on -- I cannot repeat it too many times -- figuring out 1) the rule, 2) the factors, 3) the facts that the court applied the rule/factors to. Remember that you don't need your facts to do any of this. After you figured it out enough to tell in a few sentences the holding, the rule, and the analysis of the case, you will be able to apply it to your facts (using "similar/different" analysis) and you will not need to reread your facts (perhaps just occasionally consult them for a detail, or a date, etc.). Most importantly, you don't even need to sweat about whether the facts are relevant or irrelevant because if there is something that works in your favor (or against!) under one of the factors, then you must discuss it, and it will be relevant. This is where you are scoring most points quickly. If it is something that you cannot discuss, just let it go. This will be enough for a passing score. Once you have done the main analysis and have some time left, you may want to reread the facts with an eye on what else you might add. But that will be an icing. First go where the main points are.

Pema

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Pema » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:22 am

Moabit wrote:
Pema wrote:
This is an issue for me. When I read the file facts first I can't tell material facts from immaterial. Then when I read the library, I have to revisit the file to insure I'm applying the relevant facts. When I read the library first, I don't know which rule, element or factor is at issue until I read the file facts. Cross referencing between material facts in the file and material law in the library is a constant struggle and time suck. It is not smooth.

This is absolutely true. I am sure everyone feels this, perhaps to a different degree. With essays/MBE you already have a framework of law internalized, and you only need to place it upon the layer of facts. With PTs you need to internalize both at the same time. The best way, naturally, is to go back and forth between law and facts, each time getting a slightly more nuanced understanding of the law and a slightly better realization which facts are most important, in a kind of a spiral penetrating more and more each time. Everyone's brain works in this way, and often those who do this slower gain deeper understanding at the end than those who are faster but shallower.

During a bar exam, however, you need to cut corners. You will obviously have to figure out what works for you specifically. Here is my approach that might work for you or it might not, but try it out. Read facts first, and do it like you are reading a story. Do not try to guess which facts are important, which facts are less so, and which facts are red herrings. Just read it like a news article. It is better to read it slowly once than to do it fast and having to reread it because you couldn't focus. So do not rush and just visualize what you are reading. You will absorb more than you might think, because the story will have its own line and logic. (Do not memorize anything, not even dates, just noting the order of events will be enough at this point.) Then read the library and focus on -- I cannot repeat it too many times -- figuring out 1) the rule, 2) the factors, 3) the facts that the court applied the rule/factors to. Remember that you don't need your facts to do any of this. After you figured it out enough to tell in a few sentences the holding, the rule, and the analysis of the case, you will be able to apply it to your facts (using "similar/different" analysis) and you will not need to reread your facts (perhaps just occasionally consult them for a detail, or a date, etc.). Most importantly, you don't even need to sweat about whether the facts are relevant or irrelevant because if there is something that works in your favor (or against!) under one of the factors, then you must discuss it, and it will be relevant. This is where you are scoring most points quickly. If it is something that you cannot discuss, just let it go. This will be enough for a passing score. Once you have done the main analysis and have some time left, you may want to reread the facts with an eye on what else you might add. But that will be an icing. First go where the main points are.


Thanks. I'll try reading the file like that.
I think the task memo make's one narrow their focus in an almost paranoid way. For example a partner task may ask did C breach any duty in administering the land agreement? I feel compelled to scour the file for what could be construed as a breach of duty. Of course breaches are subtle. Every act or non action out of context can be a breach. Then when I read the library I see all the methods one can breach a duty in administering a land agreement (say 5 ways in Franklin). I don't remember C as having done any of those acts or non acts found in the library (because again breaches are subtle and impossible to see without context). So now, with context, I run back to the file to find a clear breach. There is no clear breach, but one sentence buried deep in the file says C got P's signature then hurried to the post office to mail the land agreement in time for tomorrow's closing. Turns out that one of the 5 ways to breach a duty in connection with a land agreement in Franklin is a failure to notarize after signature. If I didn't see the above sentence or didn't infer C's act of getting a signature and hurrying to the PO meant it wasn't notarized thus constituting a breach, its over. This is exactly what happens to me. I miss that sentence or fail to see the inference then write on all 5 breaches unconvincingly, using the other file facts, case law, statutes to convince the reader C did or did not breach each of the 5 duties in Franklin. But, C only breached the one duty (failure to notarize) and if you missed that one thing, the grader can see it immediately because your discussing 4 other breaches that have nothing to do with your client's case. This is my experience. Thanks again for your help. Its insightful. I'll keep practicing.

Moabit

New
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 6:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Moabit » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:05 pm

Thanks. I'll try reading the file like that.
I think the task memo make's one narrow their focus in an almost paranoid way. For example a partner task may ask did C breach any duty in administering the land agreement? I feel compelled to scour the file for what could be construed as a breach of duty.

Don't! At this point you don't have any idea how this damn state of Franklin may define breach of duty. Just read the story.
Then when I read the library I see all the methods one can breach a duty in administering a land agreement (say 5 ways in Franklin).

Great. If there are 5 ways one can breach, there are 5 elements that must be satisfied. You have them identified, that's what you need. Be on the lookout for factors that the court may have identified for some of those elements (factors guide your analysis with regards to whether a given element is satisfied).
I don't remember C as having done any of those acts or non acts found in the library (because again breaches are subtle and impossible to see without context). So now, with context, I run back to the file to find a clear breach. There is no clear breach, but one sentence buried deep in the file says C got P's signature then hurried to the post office to mail the land agreement in time for tomorrow's closing. Turns out that one of the 5 ways to breach a duty in connection with a land agreement in Franklin is a failure to notarize after signature. If I didn't see the above sentence or didn't infer C's act of getting a signature and hurrying to the PO meant it wasn't notarized thus constituting a breach, its over. This is exactly what happens to me. I miss that sentence or fail to see the inference then write on all 5 breaches unconvincingly, using the other file facts, case law, statutes to convince the reader C did or did not breach each of the 5 duties in Franklin. But, C only breached the one duty (failure to notarize) and if you missed that one thing, the grader can see it immediately because your discussing 4 other breaches that have nothing to do with your client's case.

I bet that from reading facts just as a news story, without hanging up on what you might think a breach of duty is, you will remember that C rushed to mail. So after you have the five elements identified, you will start wondering -- did C do all the formalities? hid he do everything in time? and so on. Now you can scan the facts quickly and check the elements one by one against the actions taken by C.

Lov65

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 5:22 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Lov65 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:11 pm

lexingtonhr wrote:
Ciedam08 wrote:
lexingtonhr wrote:

Thank you. I really appreciate the words of encouragement, because it is something that I really need to hear right now. I know these feelings will pass. I'm letting it all out as much as I can. I am motivated to do this again and figure out my weak areas. There was a girl that was top 2 of my class and she failed the first time. I found out she passed yesterday.

Anyways, I know its not an indicator of intelligence. A friend told me yesterday that he knows a successful attorney who has failed 4 times in CA but pass NV first time. It's strange, but I suppose once you get it down, you know how to beat the game. Once again, I have to dedicate 2 months of my life to this.. Putting my life on pause once again. It sucks.


It's comforting reading these comments. I wished we all could have passed, but its nice to know that my feelings are normal and I am not alone! I totally feel the way you feel! I had told myself that if I failed I was going to wait until next year, but now I feel like I should just try again and try and beat this damn test. I think I will need to get a tutor this time! I am just nervous of not knowing how to create a different study plan this time! I used Barbri the last two times, so now Im thinking thats not the way to go for me. AHHH!!! Good luck! I think we should create a thread for retakes for the July 2019 bar, so we can all support one another and try and beat this together!
[/quote][/quote][/quote]


I agree, that would be a good idea. I am thinking of getting a tutor as well, but I'm going to do more research to find the best one. I was using a private bar company with this tutor this past Feb. and it was not the best.[/quote]

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4531
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby rcharter1978 » Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:02 am

Lov65 wrote:
lexingtonhr wrote:
Ciedam08 wrote:
lexingtonhr wrote:

Thank you. I really appreciate the words of encouragement, because it is something that I really need to hear right now. I know these feelings will pass. I'm letting it all out as much as I can. I am motivated to do this again and figure out my weak areas. There was a girl that was top 2 of my class and she failed the first time. I found out she passed yesterday.

Anyways, I know its not an indicator of intelligence. A friend told me yesterday that he knows a successful attorney who has failed 4 times in CA but pass NV first time. It's strange, but I suppose once you get it down, you know how to beat the game. Once again, I have to dedicate 2 months of my life to this.. Putting my life on pause once again. It sucks.


It's comforting reading these comments. I wished we all could have passed, but its nice to know that my feelings are normal and I am not alone! I totally feel the way you feel! I had told myself that if I failed I was going to wait until next year, but now I feel like I should just try again and try and beat this damn test. I think I will need to get a tutor this time! I am just nervous of not knowing how to create a different study plan this time! I used Barbri the last two times, so now Im thinking thats not the way to go for me. AHHH!!! Good luck! I think we should create a thread for retakes for the July 2019 bar, so we can all support one another and try and beat this together!
[/quote][/quote]


I agree, that would be a good idea. I am thinking of getting a tutor as well, but I'm going to do more research to find the best one. I was using a private bar company with this tutor this past Feb. and it was not the best.[/quote][/quote]

If you're thinking of getting a tutor and you have certain parameters, you should contact and book them sooner rather than later. I really wanted a former bar grader as a tutor and by the time I decided to pull the trigger, my top two options were fully booked. The third one ended up working out well for me and he was less expensive, but I was shocked at how fast people got booked up.

If you don't have any specific parameters its probably easier to find someone

lexingtonhr

New
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:01 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby lexingtonhr » Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:54 am

rcharter1978 wrote:
Lov65 wrote:
lexingtonhr wrote:
Ciedam08 wrote:
lexingtonhr wrote:

Thank you. I really appreciate the words of encouragement, because it is something that I really need to hear right now. I know these feelings will pass. I'm letting it all out as much as I can. I am motivated to do this again and figure out my weak areas. There was a girl that was top 2 of my class and she failed the first time. I found out she passed yesterday.

Anyways, I know its not an indicator of intelligence. A friend told me yesterday that he knows a successful attorney who has failed 4 times in CA but pass NV first time. It's strange, but I suppose once you get it down, you know how to beat the game. Once again, I have to dedicate 2 months of my life to this.. Putting my life on pause once again. It sucks.


It's comforting reading these comments. I wished we all could have passed, but its nice to know that my feelings are normal and I am not alone! I totally feel the way you feel! I had told myself that if I failed I was going to wait until next year, but now I feel like I should just try again and try and beat this damn test. I think I will need to get a tutor this time! I am just nervous of not knowing how to create a different study plan this time! I used Barbri the last two times, so now Im thinking thats not the way to go for me. AHHH!!! Good luck! I think we should create a thread for retakes for the July 2019 bar, so we can all support one another and try and beat this together!
[/quote]


I agree, that would be a good idea. I am thinking of getting a tutor as well, but I'm going to do more research to find the best one. I was using a private bar company with this tutor this past Feb. and it was not the best.[/quote][/quote]

If you're thinking of getting a tutor and you have certain parameters, you should contact and book them sooner rather than later. I really wanted a former bar grader as a tutor and by the time I decided to pull the trigger, my top two options were fully booked. The third one ended up working out well for me and he was less expensive, but I was shocked at how fast people got booked up.

If you don't have any specific parameters its probably easier to find someone[/quote]

I decided not to get a tutor after all. Most of them dealt with writing/essay approach and I just need MBE help. So, I just bought the Finz book.I have S&T. I got Adaptibar again and I'm slowly answering and trying to figure out what I'm getting wrong. I also made an excel MBE tracker to track which subjects I'm having difficulty with. I'm nervous tbh. I don't know if this new approach to MBE's is going to carry me through the exam.

resipsastudent

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:25 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby resipsastudent » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:28 pm

Lov65 wrote:
lexingtonhr wrote:
Ciedam08 wrote:
lexingtonhr wrote:

Thank you. I really appreciate the words of encouragement, because it is something that I really need to hear right now. I know these feelings will pass. I'm letting it all out as much as I can. I am motivated to do this again and figure out my weak areas. There was a girl that was top 2 of my class and she failed the first time. I found out she passed yesterday.

Anyways, I know its not an indicator of intelligence. A friend told me yesterday that he knows a successful attorney who has failed 4 times in CA but pass NV first time. It's strange, but I suppose once you get it down, you know how to beat the game. Once again, I have to dedicate 2 months of my life to this.. Putting my life on pause once again. It sucks.


It's comforting reading these comments. I wished we all could have passed, but its nice to know that my feelings are normal and I am not alone! I totally feel the way you feel! I had told myself that if I failed I was going to wait until next year, but now I feel like I should just try again and try and beat this damn test. I think I will need to get a tutor this time! I am just nervous of not knowing how to create a different study plan this time! I used Barbri the last two times, so now Im thinking thats not the way to go for me. AHHH!!! Good luck! I think we should create a thread for retakes for the July 2019 bar, so we can all support one another and try and beat this together!
[/quote][/quote]


I agree, that would be a good idea. I am thinking of getting a tutor as well, but I'm going to do more research to find the best one. I was using a private bar company with this tutor this past Feb. and it was not the best.[/quote][/quote]

I would be wary of some of the private bar tutors out there. I have had some friends spend over $5k with literally no results. What's more important is to master the essay writing formula, which is very repetitive and you begin to notice a distinct pattern. Study former bar essays and model answers posted by bar examiners to start picking up on the way they want you answer the questions.

FinallyPassedTheBar

Bronze
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:27 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby FinallyPassedTheBar » Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:20 pm

lexingtonhr wrote:
I decided not to get a tutor after all. Most of them dealt with writing/essay approach and I just need MBE help. So, I just bought the Finz book.I have S&T. I got Adaptibar again and I'm slowly answering and trying to figure out what I'm getting wrong. I also made an excel MBE tracker to track which subjects I'm having difficulty with. I'm nervous tbh. I don't know if this new approach to MBE's is going to carry me through the exam.



Adaptibar has built-in analytics to help you pinpoint the exact substantive areas that need improvement.

resipsastudent

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:25 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby resipsastudent » Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:56 pm

Anyone know how many MBE questions Adapti Bar has? Worth buying? I just bought the cal bar bible materials and they are tremendously helping for the essays, but looking for something to strengthen my MBE game!!



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests