California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

[Shaggier1]

Any other thoughts on this:

Multiple people have been implying that this test is curved. I know the MBE is scaled but are the PT's and essays curved? That is, in the event that the large majority of people bomb a PT (as seems very likely today), will that section actually be curved?

How does it work?

[mrpickles]

Anyone want to go over the con law and comm prop essay in more detail?

Let me know what I missed:

Con Law: talked about 13th amendment, said it was indentured servitude. Said there was no justification to put him there, state can't randomly round up boys and make them do gardening work for the state as basically a nonpaid state employee. Said there was no compelling reason to do this.

Also mentioned standing briefly, along with ripeness.

14th amendment due process: substantive due process and procedural due process. SDP: said there was a fundamental right to raise your kid how you see fit, no fundamental right to an education, fundamental right to travel (he can't travel if he's drafted). PDP: weighed the three factors (government interest in efficiency, interest in the entitlement, and value of the added procedures), said it was sorely lacking procedural due process because there was no opportunity to be heard or any notice mentioned. Was thinking of putting freedom of association, but thought it was a stretch.

EP: gender discrimination, age discrimination, status discrimination (drop outs). Intermediate and rational basis scrutinies applied..

SDP based on fundamental right for family members to live together.
I also threw in a random SDP he may make a claim his right to seek his calling/work and this is being deprived. It was just a trash throw-in at the end. I don't know why.
Also 13th Amend said can't subject someone to involuntary servitude without a criminal conviction.

[Reinhardt]

Realistically, I don't think they can punish 6000 July 2013 bartakers for the fact that that PT was impossible. The passrates fluctuate some but if they gave everyone a 50 on that thing then the passrate wouldn't even get above 50%.

Shoulda done right of family to live together but instead did choice of education, which I'm not sure is a fundamental right. I had both on there but eventually ran out of time deleted the few words I'd started writing on right of family to live together.

[deadlinguo]

The Santa Clara proctor (the one on the mic) was way too fucking loud. At least once he screamed into the mic so loud I actually jumped a bit. Towards the end of the PT, I think it was the 30 second warning.

[Old Gregg]

I also threw in a random SDP he may make a claim his right to seek his calling/work and this is being deprived. It was just a trash throw-in at the end. I don't know why.

Also threw in right to travel.

[DwightSchruteFarms]

WTF was up with today's PT!???

Instructions say DO NOT DISCUSS liability of directors owed to corp, DO NOT DISCUSS liability of directors to suits by the AG, but then every issue save the last dissolution issue could only be analyzed as the directors owing a duty to the corp and being liable to it. I AM SO CONFUSED. What am I missing?

And how was I supposed to use the Orange County case??? Was so confused.

Lol. I think either way you are fine. I read lots of old PT answers where the writers applied rules that were not applicable according to the instructions. I think that so many people end up doing what they shouldnt they end up having to take it as a valid answer. I think if you didn't do the director liability stuff as the instructions directed, I think you'll be fine too. Just my 2 cents.

Ya, that PT was insane. Also shout out to all the Stanford Law Students. Did you guys all call each other before the exam and coordinate your outfits? I saw probably 15 people with the same "Stanford Law School" black jacket.

[diddlydooda]

Dear God. Aaaaaaand I analyzed that entire PT based on director liability, with very few things about liability of the corporation. Barely had time for the second question. Felt solid (mostly) on the essays. Am I going to fail?

I am about to vomit.

[Old Gregg]

Ya, that PT was insane. Also shout out to all the Stanford Law Students. Did you guys all call each other before the exam and coordinate your outfits? I saw probably 15 people with the same "Stanford Law School" black jacket.

It's the common law school douche mentality. Let's show everyone one schools we go to!!!

[Old Gregg]

I initially analyzed the PT based on corporate liability, but with thirty minutes left decided to throw in the director liability because I thought I was doing something wrong by having an hour left. But now realize that I was wrong to even throw that stuff in.

Is it basic things like that that'll flunk me on the PT?

[softey]

In pasadena someone went out into the hall during PT to scream

[randomdandom]

Dear God. Aaaaaaand I analyzed that entire PT based on director liability, with very few things about liability of the corporation. Barely had time for the second question. Felt solid (mostly) on the essays. Am I going to fail?

I am about to vomit.

No, you are not going to fail based on one PT. Check out the spreadsheets over at http://lawprism.com/resources.php. They use the actual curve/data from prior years. It shows you just how low the bar is.

[TaipeiMort]

PT Test. I'm not sure if I did good or bad or horrible.

Did the library first. Stared at the library for close to two hours trying to figure out why there weren't more than two causes of action, and why so many cases weren't used, wrote my answer like this:

All 4 issues but that 900 tax form: Same exact standard, same remedies, discussed facts as they were different or the same as Orange, as Orange is an example where they dropped the hammer-- only gauge we had. Recommended they disclose and fix things in each instance to be safe (even though I don't know how they would for the cases of embezzlement).

900 tax form: Same standard as the other four plus specific fine and related relief.

Dissolution: Yeah it may apply, but they can just remedy it in the 30 days.

Receivership: The final case conclusion summarized and analogized.

Got stopped in the middle of my last sentence, didn't spellcheck.

[barrrrr]

How deep was your pdp analysis? I brought it up but dismissed it pretty quickly (in favor of a much larger sdp analysis) on the basis that as an act of a state legislature, there's inherently sufficient process involved (e.g. it wasn't an individual's blown hearing) ...is that completely off?

Anyone want to go over the con law and comm prop essay in more detail?

Let me know what I missed:

Con Law: talked about 13th amendment, said it was indentured servitude. Said there was no justification to put him there, state can't randomly round up boys and make them do gardening work for the state as basically a nonpaid state employee. Said there was no compelling reason to do this.

Also mentioned standing briefly, along with ripeness.

14th amendment due process: substantive due process and procedural due process. SDP: said there was a fundamental right to raise your kid how you see fit, no fundamental right to an education, fundamental right to travel (he can't travel if he's drafted). PDP: weighed the three factors (government interest in efficiency, interest in the entitlement, and value of the added procedures), said it was sorely lacking procedural due process because there was no opportunity to be heard or any notice mentioned. Was thinking of putting freedom of association, but thought it was a stretch.

EP: gender discrimination, age discrimination, status discrimination (drop outs). Intermediate and rational basis scrutinies applied..

SDP based on fundamental right for family members to live together.
I also threw in a random SDP he may make a claim his right to seek his calling/work and this is being deprived. It was just a trash throw-in at the end. I don't know why.
Also 13th Amend said can't subject someone to involuntary servitude without a criminal conviction.

[softey]

In pasadena someone went out into the hall during PT to scream

Also multiple people crying

[randomdandom]

Ya, that PT was insane. Also shout out to all the Stanford Law Students. Did you guys all call each other before the exam and coordinate your outfits? I saw probably 15 people with the same "Stanford Law School" black jacket.

It's the common law school douche mentality. Let's show everyone one schools we go to!!!

I didn't see much school gear aside from stanford. I don't think its that common for non-douches. Not that all stanford are douches by any means - all my acquaintances there are really down to earth - but the ones who are are extra douchey imho.

[uwb09]

PT Test. I'm not sure if I did good or bad or horrible.

Did the library first. Stared at the library for close to two hours trying to figure out why there weren't more than two causes of action, and why so many cases weren't used, wrote my answer like this:

All 4 issues but that 900 tax form: Same exact standard, same remedies, discussed facts as they were different or the same as Orange, as Orange is an example where they dropped the hammer-- only gauge we had. Recommended they disclose and fix things in each instance to be safe (even though I don't know how they would for the cases of embezzlement).

900 tax form: Same standard as the other four plus specific fine and related relief.

Dissolution: Yeah it may apply, but they can just remedy it in the 30 days.

Receivership: The final case conclusion summarized and analogized.

Got stopped in the middle of my last sentence, didn't spellcheck.

That sounds like a Treatise compared to the pile of crap I put in my answer, if it's possible to fail the bar based on one PT, I may have accomplished it

[Old Gregg]

Ya, that PT was insane. Also shout out to all the Stanford Law Students. Did you guys all call each other before the exam and coordinate your outfits? I saw probably 15 people with the same "Stanford Law School" black jacket.

It's the common law school douche mentality. Let's show everyone one schools we go to!!!

I didn't see much school gear aside from stanford. I don't think its that common for non-douches. Not that all stanford are douches by any means - all my acquaintances there are really down to earth - but the ones who are are extra douchey imho.

I don't think it's a stanford thing. I just think it comes from the same trait as the law student who feels the need to post a fb status update about getting an A in torts or whatever.

[mrpickles]

How deep was your pdp analysis? I brought it up but dismissed it pretty quickly (in favor of a much larger sdp analysis) on the basis that as an act of a state legislature, there's inherently sufficient process involved (e.g. it wasn't an individual's blown hearing) ...is that completely off?

Anyone want to go over the con law and comm prop essay in more detail?

Let me know what I missed:

Con Law: talked about 13th amendment, said it was indentured servitude. Said there was no justification to put him there, state can't randomly round up boys and make them do gardening work for the state as basically a nonpaid state employee. Said there was no compelling reason to do this.

Also mentioned standing briefly, along with ripeness.

14th amendment due process: substantive due process and procedural due process. SDP: said there was a fundamental right to raise your kid how you see fit, no fundamental right to an education, fundamental right to travel (he can't travel if he's drafted). PDP: weighed the three factors (government interest in efficiency, interest in the entitlement, and value of the added procedures), said it was sorely lacking procedural due process because there was no opportunity to be heard or any notice mentioned. Was thinking of putting freedom of association, but thought it was a stretch.

EP: gender discrimination, age discrimination, status discrimination (drop outs). Intermediate and rational basis scrutinies applied..

SDP based on fundamental right for family members to live together.
I also threw in a random SDP he may make a claim his right to seek his calling/work and this is being deprived. It was just a trash throw-in at the end. I don't know why.
Also 13th Amend said can't subject someone to involuntary servitude without a criminal conviction.

I mean obviously don't gauge or judge on anything I did. For all I know, I am failing the bar exam. I just made mine pretty short, my PDP suck anyway, I balanced their interests. I said his right to hearing for deprivation of his liberty was high so that he was entitled to notice and hearing before hand. I made that up. I have no fucking idea.

[1L1284]

In pasadena someone went out into the hall during PT to scream

Also multiple people crying

Didn't see that but heard all the swearing after the exam. Are the instructions going to be this long tomorrow and Thursday?

[Old Gregg]

Announcer in Santa Clara telling us not to talk sounded like someone telling kids to get off his lawn.

[uwb09]

Announcer in Santa Clara telling us not to talk sounded like someone telling kids to get off his lawn.

I especially loved how he kept talking to that girl with the mic on for a good 30 seconds... while we were going through PT hell

[Tangerine Gleam]

PT Test. I'm not sure if I did good or bad or horrible.

The fact that "if I did good" is even a possibility means that you're probably great. You're literally the first person I've heard who did not feel horrible about that PT. Also, your summary sounds very sensible.

[thrillerjesus]

In Ontario the cops came by after lunch and had the announcer tell us all to stop jaywalking because it was fucking up local traffic.

[mrpickles]

In pasadena someone went out into the hall during PT to scream

Also multiple people crying

Didn't see that but heard all the swearing after the exam. Are the instructions going to be this long tomorrow and Thursday?

I didn't know what to do. I ended up throwing in the fact that they'd only be liable for civil penalties and reimbursment to corp on something - I was trying to spin it and say "hey, while this is wrong, they are only liable for penalties and reimburs to you, but not something the AG can specifically do".
But I also tried to harp hard on the de facto trustees of charity funds when they "come into a position with power over funds for a charitable purpose" and said that when he took money out it was charitable purpose corp so blah blah.
I feel sick to my stomach. I've been nauseous since I got home.
Also, wtf with everyone wearing Stanford Law jacket? Seriously Was this planned?
Also, do other people around the state wear law school swag all the time? I don't know any of my friends that do, from any schools (T14 or not). Who knows. Maybe HYS do things differently.
But yeah, when do I sign up for Feb bar? Since with my luck, it's going to be CA Civ Pro, CA Evid, and something else fucked up on Thursday. I even saw the Pereira and Van Camp, said some BS about it, but got fucking confused since the fucking Husband working at the SP business was the "sole" reason it increased in value. WTF.
I'm screwed.
Also. got fucked and didn't finish a sentence when I accidentally deleted something at end of con law. So that fucking sucks.

[randomdandom]

Ya, that PT was insane. Also shout out to all the Stanford Law Students. Did you guys all call each other before the exam and coordinate your outfits? I saw probably 15 people with the same "Stanford Law School" black jacket.

It's the common law school douche mentality. Let's show everyone one schools we go to!!!

I didn't see much school gear aside from stanford. I don't think its that common for non-douches. Not that all stanford are douches by any means - all my acquaintances there are really down to earth - but the ones who are are extra douchey imho.

I don't think it's a stanford thing. I just think it comes from the same trait as the law student who feels the need to post a fb status update about getting an A in torts or whatever.

i've never seen anyone post a grade on fb. you a stanford student?