California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

[Emma.]

anyone trying to study for the MBE tomorrow, but nothing is sticking and now you feel like you've forgotten everything?

Fuck no. I'm drinking.

[Old Gregg]

Like 150 of the kids in our class own that jacket. It's warm, it's comfortable. For a lot of us, it's the most comfortable warm sweatshirt-y thing we own that isn't a hoodie (which they basically say you can't wear).

TBF I actually didn't see any Stanford Law jackets. Saw a few Harvard Law t-shirts and SLS t-shirts. Resisted the urge to buy a People's College of Law T-Shirt, and then went about my way.

The shitty PT has a way of equalizing everything. Doesn't matter what school you went to or where you're working or clerking, you still fill like shit after that.

[Old Gregg]

And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb,

I don't think it's normal at all. I hate it.

You do realize that the bar exam, for a three days, is the biggest concentration of douchebags in the world?

good point. didn't think about it that way. I wonder if the douchebaggery-per-capita is worse in CA or NY (or any other state for that matter).

Same everywhere, I'm sure.

[randomdandom]

Like 150 of the kids in our class own that jacket. It's warm, it's comfortable. For a lot of us, it's the most comfortable warm sweatshirt-y thing we own that isn't a hoodie (which they basically say you can't wear).

The biggest douches in the exam room were the ones who wrote that fucking PT.

where does it say no sweatshirts/hoodies? and was it given to you guys for free?

and on an unrelated topic, are we allowed to bring a pillow tomorrow? (I love how he read the list like 8 times and I still can't recall)

[mrpickles]

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

No, no. I'm saying I'm sure it's not something Stanford students do by having gone to Stanford. I think it's a trait general to any law student at any law school. It's just in our nature to do these acts on some level.

And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb, more than likely you are surrounded by people who do that sort of douchey thing and thats why i asked if you go to stanford.

I'm not trying to start anything or put you down or anyting like. I'm just saying its not normal and it isn't okay imho.

Like 150 of the kids in our class own that jacket. It's warm, it's comfortable. For a lot of us, it's the most comfortable warm sweatshirt-y thing we own that isn't a hoodie (which they basically say you can't wear).

The biggest douches in the exam room were the ones who wrote that fucking PT.

I call BS. Everyone in the Bay Area has 3+ North Face zip-ups, most likely black full zips.
I'll wear my USAO jacket tomorrow. Just to top the douche level to a new level.

Also, I was unaware - are we not supposed to swear sweatshirts? I had no notice of this...I guess the 200 other people with them didn't either. However, no separate eraser tomorrow? WTF? I heard someone ask a proctor if we could bring mechanical pencils tomorrow and she said no. Fuck that, I'm bringing some. Erasers on wood pencil are trash.

[Reinhardt]

In my experience wood pencil erasers are generally good enough for scantron erasing. Though admittedly some probably suck.

[deadlinguo]

Sooo, how'd you use all those statutes in the beginning?

Also, that sounds awesome, what you just said. Wish I wrote that.

thanks, although i'm actually organizing the argument more intelligently here than i did on the exam since i had time to reflect on it.

the statutes in the beginning about self-dealing define what it means for a director to treat corporate assets like a personal ATM. because even though it was obvious from the facts that vernon was abusing the hell out of corporate assets, it's still necessary to find a basis in law for why. allowing the director to abuse assets that much = corporation breached its duty to the trust to spend its assets for their intended purpose.

[Old Gregg]

I got it out of my system earlier today. Was on the phone in an elevator and someone was wearing a Chicago Law t-shirt. As I walked out I loudly said, "hey guess what some douche is wearing a chicago law sweatshirt."

I probably got negative karma from that, but dang it felt good.

[diddlydooda]

I used a mechanical pencil today and no one said a word. I think it'll be fine.

[Old Gregg]

allowing the director to abuse assets that much = corporation breached its duty to the trust to spend its assets for their intended purpose.

Yeah, but that was where the analysis of ratification came in IMO. The only other law that was analogous was the holding in the Sidley case, which I used for the very last question.

[randomdandom]

I call BS. Everyone in the Bay Area has 3+ North Face zip-ups, most likely black full zips.
I'll wear my USAO jacket tomorrow. Just to top the douche level to a new level.

Also, I was unaware - are we not supposed to swear sweatshirts? I had no notice of this...I guess the 200 other people with them didn't either.

thanks for saying what i felt i couldn't. I think ill have to wear my NDCal polo and my firm north face to join the club.

[a male human]

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.

About A13, is that true? Didn't talk about criminal conviction.

For SDP, I only talked about right to private education (is that even a fundamental right?). Shit! I did not expect A13-14 to come up nor did I study for them.

[deadlinguo]

allowing the director to abuse assets that much = corporation breached its duty to the trust to spend its assets for their intended purpose.

Yeah, but that was where the analysis of ratification came in IMO. The only other law that was analogous was the holding in the Sidley case, which I used for the very last question.

What do you mean by ratification? Like when self-interested transactions are OKed by a majority of non-interested directors?

[Old Gregg]

allowing the director to abuse assets that much = corporation breached its duty to the trust to spend its assets for their intended purpose.

Yeah, but that was where the analysis of ratification came in IMO. The only other law that was analogous was the holding in the Sidley case, which I used for the very last question.

What do you mean by ratification? Like when self-interested transactions are OKed by a majority of non-interested directors?

Yeah that process (though in whatever language/elements the statute stated). Basically I felt it could be argued both ways (which is what I did).

[Old Gregg]

I did not expect A13-14 to come up nor did I study for them.

Dude, no one, not even Lord Conviser himself, thought the 13th Amendment would come up anywhere. That's why everyone's freaking out.

[Tangerine Gleam]

Does anyone have a clue what the "average" (i.e., super rough ballpark approximation/range) answer length is for these CA essays?

[Old Gregg]

I call BS. Everyone in the Bay Area has 3+ North Face zip-ups, most likely black full zips.
I'll wear my USAO jacket tomorrow. Just to top the douche level to a new level.

Also, I was unaware - are we not supposed to swear sweatshirts? I had no notice of this...I guess the 200 other people with them didn't either.

thanks for saying what i felt i couldn't. I think ill have to wear my NDCal polo and my firm north face to join the club.

All I brought with me is my Wachtell jockstrap, but how can I make sure people know I'm wearing it?

[Old Gregg]

Does anyone have a clue what the "average" (i.e., super rough ballpark approximation/range) answer length is for these CA essays?

Curious about this too.

[TaipeiMort]

There are 20% of people who are passing no matter what, 20% of people who are screwed walking in, and the other 60% of us are going to pass or fail depending upon which graders we get.

[deadlinguo]

allowing the director to abuse assets that much = corporation breached its duty to the trust to spend its assets for their intended purpose.

Yeah, but that was where the analysis of ratification came in IMO. The only other law that was analogous was the holding in the Sidley case, which I used for the very last question.

What do you mean by ratification? Like when self-interested transactions are OKed by a majority of non-interested directors?

Yeah that process (though in whatever language/elements the statute stated). Basically I felt it could be argued both ways (which is what I did).

Oh yeah, I did do that analysis for some of the abusive acts. Like the cruise vacation, I thought that violated the rule because it wasn't disclosed to the board.

[Tangerine Gleam]

There are 20% of people who are passing no matter what, 20% of people who are screwed walking in, and the other 60% of us are going to pass or fail depending upon which graders we get.

Very grateful that the MBE has no graders. Time to watch TV and have a beer. Goodnight all.

[Old Gregg]

Oh yeah, I did do that analysis for some of the abusive acts. Like the cruise vacation, I thought that violated the rule because it wasn't disclosed to the board.

Yeah, but then there was that exception for expenditures that were less than 10% of revenue. Thought it was arguable since the cruise was 75k and SIA had $1 million in reserves.

Anyways, no need to discuss more. I'm sure we're stressing everyone here out about this.

[Foosters Galore]

And what I was saying is that if you think its normal for law students to wear the gear to the bar exam and you think its normal to show off by posting grades on fb,

I don't think it's normal at all. I hate it.

You do realize that the bar exam, for a three days, is the biggest concentration of douchebags in the world?

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. That I chose the wrong field/profession if this shit bothers me.

Some guy in Pasadena, as soon as time was called on each section, immediately put on his aviators and just sat there for like 30 mins.

And no, there was not a hole in the roof allowing sunlight in.

[TaipeiMort]

I did not expect A13-14 to come up nor did I study for them.

Dude, no one, not even Lord Conviser himself, thought the 13th Amendment would come up anywhere. That's why everyone's freaking out.

Stupid to freak out on this one. 80% BSed on it and missed five points here. 80% of us also probably missed ten points on Professional Responsibility or CP by missing out on two CA/US distinctions.

[deadlinguo]

Oh yeah, I did do that analysis for some of the abusive acts. Like the cruise vacation, I thought that violated the rule because it wasn't disclosed to the board.

Yeah, but then there was that exception for expenditures that were less than 10% of revenue. Thought it was arguable since the cruise was 75k and SIA had $1 million in reserves.

Anyways, no need to discuss more. I'm sure we're stressing everyone here out about this.

Nice, I missed that. But good call on stopping. My memory is getting more and more unreliable with each beer, anyway.