Might actually fail the MPRE Forum

[corporatelaw87]

Frat boy question with prosecutor?
Lawyer settling case with no authority (I think question asked if other lawyer would in trouble for settling)?
Toxic Leak?
Opinion Letter to third party question?
Can lawyer give bank records without telling client?
Question where one of the answers included the att-client evidentiary privilege?
Judge made comment before he was judge, then a case came before him, even though he said he could be fair, can he hear the case?

Any other tough ones you guys can think of?

[Gamecubesupreme]

I can't remember a single question from the MPRE.

And I'm usually the type who can remember every question from a MC.

Not sure what this means.

[Slimpee]

Not sure what this means.

It means it's the MPRE and it's a stupid test

[de5igual]

Is the MPRE getting harder? I read these statements online about people only watching the barbri video and doing nothing else scoring over 100. I call absolute bullshit. There is no way in hell you could do that without studying the minute details of the model rules.

[traehekat]

Is the MPRE getting harder? I read these statements online about people only watching the barbri video and doing nothing else scoring over 100. I call absolute bullshit. There is no way in hell you could do that without studying the minute details of the model rules.

Yeah I felt there were a number questions that came down to something like, "Do xyz" or "Do xyz, but put z in writing."

[thesealocust]

If you guessed on every question, you'd get 25%. You can pass the exam with a score of like 53%. You literally don't have to improve your exam much better from blind guessing in order to pass.

The questions are hard, most people miss a fuckton of them, but it's still pretty easy to cobble together enough points to pass. That's how it always is.

[AntiHuman]

Someone needs to confirm this...is it 53 percent correct out of 60 or 50 questions?

So 37/60 would let me pass to get an 86 scaled score?

[thesealocust]

Someone needs to confirm this...is it 53 percent correct out of 60 or 50 questions?

So 37/60 would let me pass to get an 86 scaled score?

You need roughly 53% of the questions right. So technically what you need is 53% of the 50 questions that count, but since nobody knows which those will be people just talk about getting 53% of the 60 questions right and assume the percentage will be similar between the excluded and included questions.

32 questions correct out of 60 questions on the test is going to be roughly the threshold between passing/failing with roughly an ~85. It is probably a little different every year, and your report only tells you your score (from 50 to 150) and not the number of questions you got right.

[de5igual]

Someone needs to confirm this...is it 53 percent correct out of 60 or 50 questions?

So 37/60 would let me pass to get an 86 scaled score?

You need roughly 53% of the questions right. So technically what you need is 53% of the 50 questions that count, but since nobody knows which those will be people just talk about getting 53% of the 60 questions right and assume the percentage will be similar between the excluded and included questions.

32 questions correct out of 60 questions on the test is going to be roughly the threshold between passing/failing with roughly an ~85. It is probably a little different every year, and your report only tells you your score (from 50 to 150) and not the number of questions you got right.

are you sure about this? the barbri handout says 32/50 = 85

[I.P. Daly]

Someone needs to confirm this...is it 53 percent correct out of 60 or 50 questions?

So 37/60 would let me pass to get an 86 scaled score?

You need roughly 53% of the questions right. So technically what you need is 53% of the 50 questions that count, but since nobody knows which those will be people just talk about getting 53% of the 60 questions right and assume the percentage will be similar between the excluded and included questions.

32 questions correct out of 60 questions on the test is going to be roughly the threshold between passing/failing with roughly an ~85. It is probably a little different every year, and your report only tells you your score (from 50 to 150) and not the number of questions you got right.

are you sure about this? the barbri handout says 32/50 = 85

It's a scaled score, which is based on the measured difficulty of the version of the test taken. Only 50 of the 60 questions count.

[thesealocust]

If BarBRI told me the sky was blue, I'd get my eyes examined since I'd have learned the sky probably isn't actually blue.

[Cuz]

I'm so freaked out waiting on my mpre results! After talking to classmates, I'm certain I definitely missed 2 questions that I thought I had right!! It's driving me insane waiting 5 weeks! I left the exam feeling ok about it, but now I'm not sure AT ALL!! #nervous

[09042014]

I'm so freaked out waiting on my mpre results! After talking to classmates, I'm certain I definitely missed 2 questions that I thought I had right!! It's driving me insane waiting 5 weeks! I left the exam feeling ok about it, but now I'm not sure AT ALL!! #nervous

You can try two More times settle down.

[Big Shrimpin]

I'm so freaked out waiting on my mpre results! After talking to classmates, I'm certain I definitely missed 2 questions that I thought I had right!! It's driving me insane waiting 5 weeks! I left the exam feeling ok about it, but now I'm not sure AT ALL!! #nervous

Ya, the MPRE is designed to derp-screen. People who don't pass the MPRE fall into two categories:

1. those who spent absolutely 0 time studying (two days was overkill, IMO)
2. those who have no business being in law school in the first place

[thesealocust]

I'm so freaked out waiting on my mpre results! After talking to classmates, I'm certain I definitely missed 2 questions that I thought I had right!! It's driving me insane waiting 5 weeks! I left the exam feeling ok about it, but now I'm not sure AT ALL!! #nervous

Ya, the MPRE is designed to derp-screen. People who don't pass the MPRE fall into two categories:

1. those who spent absolutely 0 time studying (two days was overkill, IMO)
2. those who have no business being in law school in the first place

Oh, I'm sure it's broader than that. Anyone who approaches it from a "do the right thing / learn how to be a legal ethicist" angle could probably study a lot but still be doing it wrong, since it's really just a test of the application of the model rules and not of your moral fiber.

[Cuz]

I'm so freaked out waiting on my mpre results! After talking to classmates, I'm certain I definitely missed 2 questions that I thought I had right!! It's driving me insane waiting 5 weeks! I left the exam feeling ok about it, but now I'm not sure AT ALL!! #nervous

You can try two More times settle down.

You're right!

[Cuz]

I'm so freaked out waiting on my mpre results! After talking to classmates, I'm certain I definitely missed 2 questions that I thought I had right!! It's driving me insane waiting 5 weeks! I left the exam feeling ok about it, but now I'm not sure AT ALL!! #nervous

Ya, the MPRE is designed to derp-screen. People who don't pass the MPRE fall into two categories:

1. those who spent absolutely 0 time studying (two days was overkill, IMO)
2. those who have no business being in law school in the first place

Can't say that I agree!

[Cuz]

I'm so freaked out waiting on my mpre results! After talking to classmates, I'm certain I definitely missed 2 questions that I thought I had right!! It's driving me insane waiting 5 weeks! I left the exam feeling ok about it, but now I'm not sure AT ALL!! #nervous

Ya, the MPRE is designed to derp-screen. People who don't pass the MPRE fall into two categories:

1. those who spent absolutely 0 time studying (two days was overkill, IMO)
2. those who have no business being in law school in the first place

Oh, I'm sure it's broader than that. Anyone who approaches it from a "do the right thing / learn how to be a legal ethicist" angle could probably study a lot but still be doing it wrong, since it's really just a test of the application of the model rules and not of your moral fiber.

Now that, I agree with!

[Omerta]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

Yep. I had no idea what to do with that question.

The lawyer's duty of candor to the tribunal doesn't extend that far. The lawyer must correct misrepresentations he, his witness, or his client made. See Rule 3.3.

If the rule was otherwise, extend the proposition. This is the prosecutors burden. If the defense had to correct anytime the prosecutor made a misstatement of fact, they'd be responsible for prosecuting their own client. The prosecutor could make up anything and present it and the defense would have to correct it.

Whenever confronted by an unknown with the ethical rules, consider what effect the rule would have on the adversarial process and the lawyer-client relationship. We chip away at that to prevent a lawyer from allowing himself, his witness, or his client from lying but extend it no further.

There is a BarBri question somewhere right on point for this.

Edit: The consideration of the process/relationship is what leads to the "second best" ethical choice suggestion for many questions.

Edit 2: I think maybe where you are getting confused is that the lawyer does have to disclose if its controlling legal precedent. (And even then only if directly adverse to his position.) The idea being this shouldn't impair the lawyer/client relationship and would lead to overturns on appeal, etc.

Your answer is incorrect. R. 3.3(3) If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
Here a lawyer offered material evidence (this was for sentencing) and the lawyer knows of its falsity, so the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures, which certainly wouldn't include saying nothing.

edit: the MPRE is not a law exam, don't overthink it.

[JusticeHarlan]

Anyone get the question about the Def. Attorney who didn't corrett a Prosecutors when the P inncorrectly said the D had no prior convictins?

Yep. I had no idea what to do with that question.

The lawyer's duty of candor to the tribunal doesn't extend that far. The lawyer must correct misrepresentations he, his witness, or his client made. See Rule 3.3.

If the rule was otherwise, extend the proposition. This is the prosecutors burden. If the defense had to correct anytime the prosecutor made a misstatement of fact, they'd be responsible for prosecuting their own client. The prosecutor could make up anything and present it and the defense would have to correct it.

Whenever confronted by an unknown with the ethical rules, consider what effect the rule would have on the adversarial process and the lawyer-client relationship. We chip away at that to prevent a lawyer from allowing himself, his witness, or his client from lying but extend it no further.

There is a BarBri question somewhere right on point for this.

Edit: The consideration of the process/relationship is what leads to the "second best" ethical choice suggestion for many questions.

Edit 2: I think maybe where you are getting confused is that the lawyer does have to disclose if its controlling legal precedent. (And even then only if directly adverse to his position.) The idea being this shouldn't impair the lawyer/client relationship and would lead to overturns on appeal, etc.

Your answer is incorrect. R. 3.3(3) If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
Here a lawyer offered material evidence (this was for sentencing) and the lawyer knows of its falsity, so the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures, which certainly wouldn't include saying nothing.

No, he was right, you're wrong. The rule you quote is only about when a lawyer makes the misstatement of fact, that same lawyer has a duty to remedy. In the hypo, the opposing counsel made the misstatement. There's no duty to correct a misstatement of fact from opposing counsel. See Rule 3.3(d) - only time other time there's an obligation to provide material facts is when proceeding ex parte.

[Omerta]

No, he was right, you're wrong. The rule you quote is only about when a lawyer makes the misstatement of fact, that same lawyer has a duty to remedy. In the hypo, the opposing counsel made the misstatement. There's no duty to correct a misstatement of fact from opposing counsel. See Rule 3.3(d) - only time other time there's an obligation to provide material facts is when proceeding ex parte.

Really? The rule says if "a lawyer" and not "the lawyer" offers the evidence. I thought that extended to encompass misstatements by the other attorney, even if it's not an ex parte proceeding. Failing to correct the misrepresentation is equivalent to making an affirmative misrep IMO. It doesn't sound right that the prosecutor could lie (prompt did say prosecutor knew right? Fuck if I remember), have the lawyer NOT report the prosecutor, not inform the court, and not violate the model rules.
I find it hard to believe not saying anything avoids violating 3.3, 4.1, or 8.3 and 8.4.

[JusticeHarlan]

No, he was right, you're wrong. The rule you quote is only about when a lawyer makes the misstatement of fact, that same lawyer has a duty to remedy. In the hypo, the opposing counsel made the misstatement. There's no duty to correct a misstatement of fact from opposing counsel. See Rule 3.3(d) - only time other time there's an obligation to provide material facts is when proceeding ex parte.

Really? The rule says if "a lawyer" and not "the lawyer" offers the evidence. I thought that extended to encompass misstatements by the other attorney, even if it's not an ex parte proceeding.

You were looking at 3.3(a)(3), right? That says: "A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false."
The bolded "the" means that only the attorney whose side offered that evidence has the obligation to remedy when finding out it's false.

Failing to correct the misrepresentation is equivalent to making an affirmative misrep IMO.

You can feel that all you want, but it's not the case for facts. It's certainly odd, because there is such an obligation for controlling precedent, but notice how the rule describes the obligations for controlling precedent and for facts. Pretty clear there are different obligations.

It doesn't sound right that the prosecutor could lie (prompt did say prosecutor knew right? Fuck if I remember), have the lawyer NOT report the prosecutor, not inform the court, and not violate the model rules.
I find it hard to believe not saying anything avoids violating 3.3, 4.1, or 8.3 and 8.4.

I don't think it said the prosecutor lied, or that he knew. I think it was silent on that part. It wouldn't make sense for him to lie, because it helps with a harsher sentencing if he mentions the priors.

[Omerta]

You were looking at 3.3(a)(3), right? That says: "A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false."
The bolded "the" means that only the attorney whose side offered that evidence has the obligation to remedy when finding out it's false.

I don't "feel" that's what the rule should be, that's what I think the rule is. What is pretty clear is that "[t]here are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation" even if the rules don't expressly say when that occurs. R. 3.3 cmt. 3. This is one of the situations where not correcting the misstatement likely rises to an incorporation/adoption of that statement.

If you can, please point me to a case, question, or rule that says you don't have an obligation to correct misstatements of fact by opposing counsel. If you don't want to looking because this is a stupid argument over a stupid MPRE question, that's ok too.

The MPRE is supposed to be pretty cut and dry, so maybe I'm just missing something, but I find it hard to believe that the national ethics test would point out a situation where you're allowed to let something you know to be false skate past the judge without any repercussions to either you or the maker of the statement.

edit: maybe it's ok because apparently 1/2 the rules don't apply to criminal defense attorneys. I'll fully admit I basically tuned out to all of the crim-related portions in legal prof because I couldn't have less of an interest in practicing criminal law.

[JusticeHarlan]

If you can, please point me to a case, question, or rule that says you don't have an obligation to correct misstatements of fact by opposing counsel. If you don't want to looking because this is a stupid argument over a stupid MPRE question, that's ok too.

I'll just say I think it's covered by the first sentence of comment 14 to rule 3.3, but you're right, it's a silly argument. We can agree to let this test die from our memories finally

[HBK]

Any idea when scores will be released?