2019 July California Bar

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

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Pema » Thu May 16, 2019 12:30 pm

hastingsgal wrote:
Pema wrote:
chickenb00b wrote:Hi! I'm an CA essay grader for a major bar prep company. We're trained by those who were past bar exam graders. Additionally, I also have experience with many of the supplements, including Critical Flash, Adaptibar, SmartBarPrep, Barbri conviser, (the one page supplement that I can't seem to remember the name off the top of my head), Emanuel MBEs (Tactics and Strats(?)), etc. etc.

Since I'm waiting for the bar study season to start in late May, I thought I'd offer some opinion/suggestion/advice here. If you have any questions (and there are no dumb ones), or need guidance, then ask and I'll offer my opinion.

I do ask that you quote this so I can see the notification and respond. Good luck studying folks!!!


I asked a Q earlier, but I don't see it posted.
I'm reading essay answers from CA Bar site, Barbri and baressays.com. For Con Law Q with a call that says WHAT ARGUMENTS CAN P MAKE UNDER EP AND DP? The CA Bar and Barbri answers don't discuss Standing/Justiciability, 11th, 10th. Baressays answers-90% do for the same Q.

For Contracts Call: Can P recover from D? + the facts state P and D entered into a written K for...(all terms present) - CA Bar and Barbri responses-no formation or SOF discussion. Baressays answers 90% discuss formation + SOF for the same Q.

I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.


I think standing and formation are standard for these types of questions almost all the time. Even if they aren't necessary for some of the questions, you certainly will not lose points for mentioning them. The barbri answers aren't real or graded, so hard to say whether they write the way the bar examiners want. The CA Bar answers are the best in the state, and sometimes the state wants you to see different approaches to the same question (I think).

BarEssays is usually the most reliable for thinking about something like this. When you see people write standing and formation and they got scores of 65+ you know that it may have helped and certainly did not hurt.



I understand your point on tradition, but how do we know those 65's would not have been 70's if they used discernment?
I just looked up the essay instructions:
“Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in question, to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. + “Your answer should be complete, but you should not volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem.


It seems discernment is critical. As such, if the facts state "P and D entered into a valid written contract," writing on formation and SOF is a failure - "to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns." + it does this as well: "volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem."

Same with Standing in many instances. Just my opinion. I need to shave of a few minutes since I'm run out of time. Anything will help. Thanks.

User avatar
a male human

Partner
Posts: 2129
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Thu May 16, 2019 12:32 pm

One advantage of S&T is that you can actually learn something from the author's explanations. Each subject gets an introductory primer also.

hastingsgal

New
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 2:08 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby hastingsgal » Thu May 16, 2019 10:00 pm

Pema wrote:
hastingsgal wrote:
Pema wrote:
chickenb00b wrote:Hi! I'm an CA essay grader for a major bar prep company. We're trained by those who were past bar exam graders. Additionally, I also have experience with many of the supplements, including Critical Flash, Adaptibar, SmartBarPrep, Barbri conviser, (the one page supplement that I can't seem to remember the name off the top of my head), Emanuel MBEs (Tactics and Strats(?)), etc. etc.

Since I'm waiting for the bar study season to start in late May, I thought I'd offer some opinion/suggestion/advice here. If you have any questions (and there are no dumb ones), or need guidance, then ask and I'll offer my opinion.

I do ask that you quote this so I can see the notification and respond. Good luck studying folks!!!


I asked a Q earlier, but I don't see it posted.
I'm reading essay answers from CA Bar site, Barbri and baressays.com. For Con Law Q with a call that says WHAT ARGUMENTS CAN P MAKE UNDER EP AND DP? The CA Bar and Barbri answers don't discuss Standing/Justiciability, 11th, 10th. Baressays answers-90% do for the same Q.

For Contracts Call: Can P recover from D? + the facts state P and D entered into a written K for...(all terms present) - CA Bar and Barbri responses-no formation or SOF discussion. Baressays answers 90% discuss formation + SOF for the same Q.

I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.


I think standing and formation are standard for these types of questions almost all the time. Even if they aren't necessary for some of the questions, you certainly will not lose points for mentioning them. The barbri answers aren't real or graded, so hard to say whether they write the way the bar examiners want. The CA Bar answers are the best in the state, and sometimes the state wants you to see different approaches to the same question (I think).

BarEssays is usually the most reliable for thinking about something like this. When you see people write standing and formation and they got scores of 65+ you know that it may have helped and certainly did not hurt.



I understand your point on tradition, but how do we know those 65's would not have been 70's if they used discernment?
I just looked up the essay instructions:
“Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in question, to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. + “Your answer should be complete, but you should not volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem.


It seems discernment is critical. As such, if the facts state "P and D entered into a valid written contract," writing on formation and SOF is a failure - "to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns." + it does this as well: "volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem."

Same with Standing in many instances. Just my opinion. I need to shave of a few minutes since I'm run out of time. Anything will help. Thanks.


Because you will also see 75s and 80s on BarEssays that talk about formation and standing. It's just not something the graders will deduct points for. If you talk about a con law issue in a contracts question (and I saw some essays on BarEssays that did things like this), then yes that would get you a low score.

Pema

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Pema » Fri May 17, 2019 11:06 am

hastingsgal wrote:
Pema wrote:
hastingsgal wrote:
Pema wrote:
chickenb00b wrote:Hi! I'm an CA essay grader for a major bar prep company. We're trained by those who were past bar exam graders. Additionally, I also have experience with many of the supplements, including Critical Flash, Adaptibar, SmartBarPrep, Barbri conviser, (the one page supplement that I can't seem to remember the name off the top of my head), Emanuel MBEs (Tactics and Strats(?)), etc. etc.

Since I'm waiting for the bar study season to start in late May, I thought I'd offer some opinion/suggestion/advice here. If you have any questions (and there are no dumb ones), or need guidance, then ask and I'll offer my opinion.

I do ask that you quote this so I can see the notification and respond. Good luck studying folks!!!


I asked a Q earlier, but I don't see it posted.
I'm reading essay answers from CA Bar site, Barbri and baressays.com. For Con Law Q with a call that says WHAT ARGUMENTS CAN P MAKE UNDER EP AND DP? The CA Bar and Barbri answers don't discuss Standing/Justiciability, 11th, 10th. Baressays answers-90% do for the same Q.

For Contracts Call: Can P recover from D? + the facts state P and D entered into a written K for...(all terms present) - CA Bar and Barbri responses-no formation or SOF discussion. Baressays answers 90% discuss formation + SOF for the same Q.

I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.



I think standing and formation are standard for these types of questions almost all the time. Even if they aren't necessary for some of the questions, you certainly will not lose points for mentioning them. The barbri answers aren't real or graded, so hard to say whether they write the way the bar examiners want. The CA Bar answers are the best in the state, and sometimes the state wants you to see different approaches to the same question (I think).

BarEssays is usually the most reliable for thinking about something like this. When you see people write standing and formation and they got scores of 65+ you know that it may have helped and certainly did not hurt.



I understand your point on tradition, but how do we know those 65's would not have been 70's if they used discernment?
I just looked up the essay instructions:
“Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in question, to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. + “Your answer should be complete, but you should not volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem.


It seems discernment is critical. As such, if the facts state "P and D entered into a valid written contract," writing on formation and SOF is a failure - "to tell the difference between material and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns." + it does this as well: "volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines which are not pertinent to the solution of the problem."

Same with Standing in many instances. Just my opinion. I need to shave of a few minutes since I'm run out of time. Anything will help. Thanks.


Because you will also see 75s and 80s on BarEssays that talk about formation and standing. It's just not something the graders will deduct points for. If you talk about a con law issue in a contracts question (and I saw some essays on BarEssays that did things like this), then yes that would get you a low score.


Timing is my biggest problem in practice. I'll have to make it brief and gratuitous then. 2 or 3 of those types of issues and I can't finish writing on the material issues. In fact, I'm going to start a new thread on timing v issue spotting v rule-element memorization v analysis.

chickenb00b

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:58 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby chickenb00b » Sun May 19, 2019 3:16 am

Pema wrote:I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.


I'll try to answer as well as I can. If you discussed both material and immaterial facts, it's fine--as long as material facts were in fact discussed. However, too much immaterial facts might suggest to me that 1) you're not recognizing how to analyze the problem, or 2) you're really nervous and think spitting out anything and everything is the right move.

Issue spotting is, and has always been, triggered by facts, or a combination of facts. It might be simple (A and B contracted to buy apples), or more complicated (A asked B for apples at 2$ each, B didn't respond but sent apples to A anyways. A thought they were free and don't pay), or more... (A made B an offer to buy apples. Two days later A bought it from C. The next day B ships the usual amount to A. A argues offer lapsed. B argues it was never revoked; two days is not a reasonable time; A never made B aware that he bought it from C; A never said it was conditional on prior to his purchase of other apples.). Based on your example, if the facts say that there's already a contract formed, then all you need to say is 1) issue is X; 2) X requires an enforceable contract; 3) enforceable contract exist based on facts.

But in short, yes the ability to spot material issues and facts is important. I tell all my students to imagine yourself as a real lawyer. A client comes in and tells you there's an enforceable contract and that it was later breached, brings you a copy of the contract, that's been used for 10 years by the client and the opposing party. Your first move is to analyze offer acceptance and consideration and bill your client 30 hours for it?

Pema

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Pema » Sun May 19, 2019 3:42 pm

chickenb00b wrote:
Pema wrote:I believe a big part of the CA bar Q's are the limiting factors. They are testing discernment and materiality by limiting the call (sometimes very subtly).
That said, they suck you in to discussing non material items because the (juicy) facts beg for it, while the call doesn't. Is this your experience? I ask 1) because I think they mark you down for lack of discernment and the inability to recognize material v immaterial facts (per call) and 2) I run out of time and can't afford to address standing and formation (and other preliminary considerations) if not at issue. Thanks.


I'll try to answer as well as I can. If you discussed both material and immaterial facts, it's fine--as long as material facts were in fact discussed. However, too much immaterial facts might suggest to me that 1) you're not recognizing how to analyze the problem, or 2) you're really nervous and think spitting out anything and everything is the right move.

Issue spotting is, and has always been, triggered by facts, or a combination of facts. It might be simple (A and B contracted to buy apples), or more complicated (A asked B for apples at 2$ each, B didn't respond but sent apples to A anyways. A thought they were free and don't pay), or more... (A made B an offer to buy apples. Two days later A bought it from C. The next day B ships the usual amount to A. A argues offer lapsed. B argues it was never revoked; two days is not a reasonable time; A never made B aware that he bought it from C; A never said it was conditional on prior to his purchase of other apples.). Based on your example, if the facts say that there's already a contract formed, then all you need to say is 1) issue is X; 2) X requires an enforceable contract; 3) enforceable contract exist based on facts.

But in short, yes the ability to spot material issues and facts is important. I tell all my students to imagine yourself as a real lawyer. A client comes in and tells you there's an enforceable contract and that it was later breached, brings you a copy of the contract, that's been used for 10 years by the client and the opposing party. Your first move is to analyze offer acceptance and consideration and bill your client 30 hours for it?



"Based on your example, if the facts say that there's already a contract formed, then all you need to say is 1) issue is X; 2) X requires an enforceable contract; 3) enforceable contract exist based on facts."

Thanks for the response. Makes sense and saves time.

culooche

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:27 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby culooche » Mon May 20, 2019 3:38 pm

Private tutoring question:

Has anyone used or heard of bar exam toolbox's private tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com)? Specifically with Ariel Salzer?

Satoshi

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 20, 2019 4:47 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Satoshi » Mon May 20, 2019 5:02 pm

So.... Do we have any recommendations on what the essays questions will be on for the July 2019 CA Bar?

nappingwolf

New
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:15 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby nappingwolf » Mon May 20, 2019 11:56 pm

I know some of you are just getting started this week, but I'm a gap repeater working ft so I got a little head start. That said, I feel like everything I thought I learned weeks ago is simply vanishing. When I read through an outline and practice mbe/essay Qs right away I'm golden. But after a few days it's like I never even touched the subject. I can spot a handful of issues but when I peek at the answer there's usually like 5+ that I missed. I'm looking back at my essays from years ago (when I simply rote memorized... passed the essay portion but bombed the mbes) and am marveling at how I was able to come up with the things that I wrote. Anyone commiserate? I am now attempting to create a rule-based attack outline for each subject as I go, and work through it until the rules merge with my brain permanently. Welcome any tips or words of encouragement to sprinkle on my anxiety. Thanks.

Blueplanet

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

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Blueplanet » Tue May 21, 2019 7:47 am

I reckon Prof Responsibility and Evidence are highly likely.

onemoretimenow

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 12:13 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby onemoretimenow » Tue May 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Took a peruse through TLS again after a long gap since my law school application days. Just wanted to drop in and say to keep a chin up for all the repeaters.

I will be repeating as a practicing attorney barred in NY (first time passer) and from a T30. I did self study while working FT. I did the two day general exam as I thought the objective MBE would offset subjective grading on the essays and I am usually better on multiple choice than essays. I found out that I would have passed with the essays alone on the 1-day attorney exam, but my MBE dragged me back below the cut score. Ugh.

Time to get it all out of my system, refocus on the black letter law and MBEs, and hopefully get it done in July. Maybe it was because I didn't have three months of Barbri like when I graduated, but I definitely thought the CA essays were harder than NY way back when.

Ciedam08

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:18 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Ciedam08 » Tue May 21, 2019 1:23 pm

ATTN: Anyone that has passed the CA bar using Adaptibar and BarEssays and the S&T.

What did your study schedule look like? I used Barbri twice and failed. I only failed the MBE section this last time. I feel like I didn't get in enough practice for MBE or do enough essays. This last time I failed by a few points, so now I am just using the conviser mini review and my outlines for the BLL and going to use Adaptibar and BarEssays and also bought the Emmanuel S&T book. I just don't know how to make a study schedule. I am horrible with organizing myself. Did you focus on one subject at a time? If so, how many days did you spend on a subject? Lastly, did you try to write out rules and memorize as well? I am having a hard time trying to make my own study plan, because I am the worst at being organized. So any suggestions on how to attack this is greatly appreciated! Thank you!!!!

Ciedam08

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:18 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Ciedam08 » Tue May 21, 2019 4:05 pm

Satoshi wrote:So.... Do we have any recommendations on what the essays questions will be on for the July 2019 CA Bar?


Dr. Sacuzzo just posted his predictions... contracts/remedies, crimes, PR, Business Association, Con law... wild card: Property distribution rules.

Repeattaker123456

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 11:13 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Repeattaker123456 » Tue May 21, 2019 4:08 pm

Has anyone signed up for BarEssays.com's premium function? If so, can you share if you find it helpful? I really want to check out their model answers. Thanks!

cosmic12

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:08 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby cosmic12 » Wed May 22, 2019 5:24 pm

[July CA Bar 2019]
Hi, I am a repeater and looking for someone who can study together for timed practice essay or MBE for once or twice per a week. I live near Park La Brea area in LA. Please email me if you are interested in :) My email is hirowme@gmail.com

lexingtonhr

New
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:01 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby lexingtonhr » Wed May 22, 2019 7:56 pm

Does anybody have a good study schedule that they're working with? I'm trying to configure mine, but to no avail, I don't know what to study. I'm a scramble mess.

UmaThurman

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 3:45 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby UmaThurman » Wed May 22, 2019 11:17 pm

chickenb00b wrote:Hi! I'm an CA essay grader for a major bar prep company. We're trained by those who were past bar exam graders. Additionally, I also have experience with many of the supplements, including Critical Flash, Adaptibar, SmartBarPrep, Barbri conviser, (the one page supplement that I can't seem to remember the name off the top of my head), Emanuel MBEs (Tactics and Strats(?)), etc. etc.

Since I'm waiting for the bar study season to start in late May, I thought I'd offer some opinion/suggestion/advice here. If you have any questions (and there are no dumb ones), or need guidance, then ask and I'll offer my opinion.

I do ask that you quote this so I can see the notification and respond. Good luck studying folks!!!


Hi! What do you think about SmartBarPrep essay rules vs. Barbri Conviser? Does it make sense to use both, or Conviser will be enough for the rules?

el1259

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 10:34 am

Cal Bar July 2019

Postby el1259 » Sat May 25, 2019 10:44 am

Hi,

I am a practicing lawyer at a biglaw based in NYC who passed the NY bar in 2011. I am currently on maternity leave and it suddenly occurred to me today that I should take advantage of my time off and take the cal bar in July. I noticed that the final filing deadline is June 3, 2019, and before I can register for the bar exam, I am required to register with the state bar, which may take some time to process. Does anyone know how long it takes to process an application to register with the state bar?

Thank you in advance.

Bingo_Bongo

Bronze
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:25 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Bingo_Bongo » Sat May 25, 2019 10:48 pm

A piece of advice for anyone relying solely on BarEssays and Adaptibar...

California tests Professional Responsibility as either a full essay or cross-over on every exam (they're required to), and California JUST changed their PR rules to more closely conform to the ABA Rules, and there are A LOT of big changes. I believe this will be the first time the new CA Rules are tested, so if you're relying on prior essays on BarEssays to teach you the rules, you're probably going to be learning some really wrong stuff. Like really wrong. The rules changed that much.

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4502
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby rcharter1978 » Sun May 26, 2019 12:45 am

nappingwolf wrote:I know some of you are just getting started this week, but I'm a gap repeater working ft so I got a little head start. That said, I feel like everything I thought I learned weeks ago is simply vanishing. When I read through an outline and practice mbe/essay Qs right away I'm golden. But after a few days it's like I never even touched the subject. I can spot a handful of issues but when I peek at the answer there's usually like 5+ that I missed. I'm looking back at my essays from years ago (when I simply rote memorized... passed the essay portion but bombed the mbes) and am marveling at how I was able to come up with the things that I wrote. Anyone commiserate? I am now attempting to create a rule-based attack outline for each subject as I go, and work through it until the rules merge with my brain permanently. Welcome any tips or words of encouragement to sprinkle on my anxiety. Thanks.


I'm not in your position, but maybe you'd have better success if you constantly cycled subjects. So if you went over property first, focus on it for a couple days, move onto another subject, but after a week, do some mbe property questions and try to issue spot a property essay. I'm just brainstorming here so maybe it doesn't make sense.

I told someone else this, and it's silly, but for me, information sticks so much better if I write it. Its how I studied in law school, and I ignored it the first time I studied for the bar, to my detriment. I outlined and wrote out rule statements for MBE questions I got wrong the second time and I think it helped me pass the exam overall. MBE questions were never my problem, but writing rule statements for mbes helped me to have them for the essays too.

Anyways, it's not a surprise that you came up with good stuff on game day. No matter how many practice exams you do, nothing pushes your brain more than the actual exam.

Pema

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Pema » Sun May 26, 2019 2:38 pm

Ciedam08 wrote:
Satoshi wrote:So.... Do we have any recommendations on what the essays questions will be on for the July 2019 CA Bar?


Dr. Sacuzzo just posted his predictions... contracts/remedies, crimes, PR, Business Association, Con law... wild card: Property distribution rules.


No Civ Pro or Evidence? Property distribution meaning Wills/Trusts/CP? Thanks.

Underoath

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

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Underoath » Sun May 26, 2019 3:02 pm

I live in Sherman oaks area. Does anyone want my Themis material free of charge? Just have to meet me at a Starbucks or other public location in Sherman oaks.

hastingsgal

New
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 2:08 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby hastingsgal » Sun May 26, 2019 3:42 pm

Bingo_Bongo wrote:A piece of advice for anyone relying solely on BarEssays and Adaptibar...

California tests Professional Responsibility as either a full essay or cross-over on every exam (they're required to), and California JUST changed their PR rules to more closely conform to the ABA Rules, and there are A LOT of big changes. I believe this will be the first time the new CA Rules are tested, so if you're relying on prior essays on BarEssays to teach you the rules, you're probably going to be learning some really wrong stuff. Like really wrong. The rules changed that much.


The rules didn't change THAT much. You're overstating it. Don't scare people about it. This is a list of the significant changes:

https://www.aherninsurance.com/comprehe ... -1st-2018/

Keep note of these few changes and you'll be fine in the (unlikely) scenario they test these things so soon. I wouldn't use this at all to dissuade anyone from studying prior essays, which was probably the main reason I believe I improved and passed this last exam (I failed the essays in July 18 and passed Feb 19).

Bingo_Bongo

Bronze
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:25 pm

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby Bingo_Bongo » Sun May 26, 2019 4:17 pm

hastingsgal wrote:
Bingo_Bongo wrote:A piece of advice for anyone relying solely on BarEssays and Adaptibar...

California tests Professional Responsibility as either a full essay or cross-over on every exam (they're required to), and California JUST changed their PR rules to more closely conform to the ABA Rules, and there are A LOT of big changes. I believe this will be the first time the new CA Rules are tested, so if you're relying on prior essays on BarEssays to teach you the rules, you're probably going to be learning some really wrong stuff. Like really wrong. The rules changed that much.


The rules didn't change THAT much. You're overstating it. Don't scare people about it. This is a list of the significant changes:

https://www.aherninsurance.com/comprehe ... -1st-2018/

Keep note of these few changes and you'll be fine in the (unlikely) scenario they test these things so soon. I wouldn't use this at all to dissuade anyone from studying prior essays, which was probably the main reason I believe I improved and passed this last exam (I failed the essays in July 18 and passed Feb 19).


I disagree. The Bar wants you to discuss BOTH the California and ABA rules for every issue, comparing and contrasting them. The CA Rules prior to the adoption of the new rules were much more scant than the ABA rules, so your analysis will be off for almost every issue when you compare/contrast if you rely on the old rules.

Additionally, the Conflict of Interest analysis (which is on EVERY exam) has changed substantially.

I'm not trying to "scare" people, or "dissuade" anyone from using prior essays. You're the one overstating that. What I'm doing is simply warning people about the changes so when they're looking at old PR essays (and I mean PR essays only), they know that a lot of what they're reading now has the possibility of being completely wrong (either the analysis, the conclusion, or both).

It's a reasonable warning, not scare tactics. If you're reading old "model answers", there is a decent possibility that things in those answers will now be flat wrong. It's a reasonable warning to give.

hastingsgal

New
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 2:08 am

Re: 2019 July California Bar

Postby hastingsgal » Sun May 26, 2019 6:10 pm

Bingo_Bongo wrote:
hastingsgal wrote:
Bingo_Bongo wrote:A piece of advice for anyone relying solely on BarEssays and Adaptibar...

California tests Professional Responsibility as either a full essay or cross-over on every exam (they're required to), and California JUST changed their PR rules to more closely conform to the ABA Rules, and there are A LOT of big changes. I believe this will be the first time the new CA Rules are tested, so if you're relying on prior essays on BarEssays to teach you the rules, you're probably going to be learning some really wrong stuff. Like really wrong. The rules changed that much.


The rules didn't change THAT much. You're overstating it. Don't scare people about it. This is a list of the significant changes:

https://www.aherninsurance.com/comprehe ... -1st-2018/

Keep note of these few changes and you'll be fine in the (unlikely) scenario they test these things so soon. I wouldn't use this at all to dissuade anyone from studying prior essays, which was probably the main reason I believe I improved and passed this last exam (I failed the essays in July 18 and passed Feb 19).


I disagree. The Bar wants you to discuss BOTH the California and ABA rules for every issue, comparing and contrasting them. The CA Rules prior to the adoption of the new rules were much more scant than the ABA rules, so your analysis will be off for almost every issue when you compare/contrast if you rely on the old rules.

Additionally, the Conflict of Interest analysis (which is on EVERY exam) has changed substantially.

I'm not trying to "scare" people, or "dissuade" anyone from using prior essays. You're the one overstating that. What I'm doing is simply warning people about the changes so when they're looking at old PR essays (and I mean PR essays only), they know that a lot of what they're reading now has the possibility of being completely wrong (either the analysis, the conclusion, or both).

It's a reasonable warning, not scare tactics. If you're reading old "model answers", there is a decent possibility that things in those answers will now be flat wrong. It's a reasonable warning to give.


Not sure how much we are disagreeing here. I agree that people need to be aware of PR changes when reading older PR model answers and sample graded essays. I provided a link outlining the significant changes, so it will be pretty easy for someone to take note of the changes and be aware of them when reviewing on adaptibar and/or BarEssays. I just don't think it's as massive of a deal as you make it out to be because these PR changes can be learned pretty quickly. But, yes, you're right that people need to be aware of the PR changes.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: barryzee and 55 guests