Top Law Schools

Day 1 complete and not a Commercial Paper question to be seen!

Thoughts and reactions?

lionelhutz123 wrote:Day 1 complete and not a Commercial Paper question to be seen!

Thoughts and reactions?

Oh, did you not see the commercial paper issue?

But seriously, not much good can come of talking about this.

Other than MPT

NinerFan wrote:

lionelhutz123 wrote:Day 1 complete and not a Commercial Paper question to be seen!

Thoughts and reactions?

Oh, did you not see the commercial paper issue?

But seriously, not much good can come of talking about this.

Other than MPT

I agree. No possible benefit in talking about it. It will just make people freak out about the things they may have missed or misinterpreted.

And screw that MPT. Literally had no idea how to format that shit. Was making it up as I went along.

kaiser wrote:

NinerFan wrote:

lionelhutz123 wrote:Day 1 complete and not a Commercial Paper question to be seen!

Thoughts and reactions?

Oh, did you not see the commercial paper issue?

But seriously, not much good can come of talking about this.

Other than MPT

I agree. No possible benefit in talking about it. It will just make people freak out about the things they may have missed or misinterpreted.

And screw that MPT. Literally had no idea how to format that shit. Was making it up as I went along.

I know right? Maybe give us a track changes type option if you're gonna pull something like that.

I guess everyone's responses will be all over the board on that. So its not like they can say anyone really deviated from some template or anything. So I don't feel so bad about it. I mean, I had no clue whether they wanted like a word for word dissection, or like a discussion about the general concepts missing, and then just a proposed redraft at the end (hell, or maybe at the beginning would have worked also, who knows).

MPT went fine. Definitely a weird format, but I think it created a lot of opportunity for creativity.

I had no idea what to do with the joint bank accounts issue on the wills question. Someone explained it to me outside, but I couldn't jack about it on Themis outlines...

lionelhutz123 wrote:MPT went fine. Definitely a weird format, but I think it created a lot of opportunity for creativity.

I had no idea what to do with the joint bank accounts issue on the wills question. Someone explained it to me outside, but I couldn't jack about it on Themis outlines...

You aren't the only one. That was one of the areas where I literally couldn't come up with the rule they were looking for. Made up something about how a right of survivorship isn't necessarily inherent in an account, if you can show that such a right of survivorship wasn't intended, even if it was on the sig card. Sounded like something familiar, but totally pulled it out of my ass. Also interested if anyone can key me in to what they were looking for there.

Edit: Found the rule. Was in the trusts section of the BarBri CMR, page 5. Says a deposit into a right of survivorship account is irrevocable to the extent of 1/2. To create right of survivorship in joint bank account, specific words of survivorship must appear on signature card signed by both parties. The statutory presumption that a survivorship was intended can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that the account was opened as a matter of convenience.

So I guessed, and hopefully got a point out of it. Oh well.

kaiser wrote:I guess everyone's responses will be all over the board on that. So its not like they can say anyone really deviated from some template or anything. So I don't feel so bad about it. I mean, I had no clue whether they wanted like a word for word dissection, or like a discussion about the general concepts missing, and then just a proposed redraft at the end (hell, or maybe at the beginning would have worked also, who knows).

It was clearly all about identifying and explaining the misplaced comma.

I remember at least one CP question in the MC.

Also: Eavesdropping? Really?

bceagles182 wrote:I remember at least one CP question in the MC.

Also: Eavesdropping? Really?

I ain't be droppin' no Eaves, sir, honest.

What was the answer to that one? I figured it was ok because the woman consented.

lionelhutz123 wrote:

bceagles182 wrote:I remember at least one CP question in the MC.

Also: Eavesdropping? Really?

I ain't be droppin' no Eaves, sir, honest.

What was the answer to that one? I figured it was ok because the woman consented.

I said the same but I just looked it up: Need consent of both parties. -1 for me. The fact that it took me several minutes of googling to figure it out just shows how douchey it was to even ask.

bceagles182 wrote:I remember at least one CP question in the MC.

Also: Eavesdropping? Really?

Lol at the NYMC. Might as well have just guessed across the board to save time for the essays. Have no clue what constitutes eavesdropping. I guessed it was prohibited, but who the hell knows? Thats sort of been my motto for the NYMC: who the hell knows?

New account to protect identity. Realized after I got home that I'm pretty sure I put down my NCBE number instead of my BOLE ID number on my handwriting sample, at least in the afternoon and maybe in the morning. Or else mixed and matched (like first four numbers from BOLE, second four from NCBE or something). Am I totally screwed? Can't find any contact point for them that's active, figured I'd tell a proctor tomorrow morning unless anyone has contact info that works. (Their office closed at 5, called and got an answering machine.)

Also: Ugh, eavesdropping. Hoping that everyone else assumed you only need consent of one party, too.

NYbarmistake wrote:New account to protect identity. Realized after I got home that I'm pretty sure I put down my NCBE number instead of my BOLE ID number on my handwriting sample, at least in the afternoon and maybe in the morning. Or else mixed and matched (like first four numbers from BOLE, second four from NCBE or something). Am I totally screwed? Can't find any contact point for them that's active, figured I'd tell a proctor tomorrow morning unless anyone has contact info that works. (Their office closed at 5, called and got an answering machine.)

Also: Ugh, eavesdropping. Hoping that everyone else assumed you only need consent of one party, too.

i highly doubt a little mistake like that makes you "totally screwed," but i understand your panic.

I'm sure lots of people messed that up, especially when everyone is nervous before starting. Relax.

I think I made one dumb mistake that hopefully won't hurt me. Instead of using scrap, I would type up an outline of facts in ExamSoft, then write the answer below the bulletpointed facts, deleting the notes when I was done. I think I may have forgotten to chop out the notes in one of my responses. So my full question response would be on their page, but there would be those silly bulletpointed notes. Not like they would take points away or anything so long as the damn answer is still on the page, right?

NYbarmistake wrote:New account to protect identity. Realized after I got home that I'm pretty sure I put down my NCBE number instead of my BOLE ID number on my handwriting sample, at least in the afternoon and maybe in the morning. Or else mixed and matched (like first four numbers from BOLE, second four from NCBE or something). Am I totally screwed? Can't find any contact point for them that's active, figured I'd tell a proctor tomorrow morning unless anyone has contact info that works. (Their office closed at 5, called and got an answering machine.)

Also: Ugh, eavesdropping. Hoping that everyone else assumed you only need consent of one party, too.

I'm certain thats no big deal. When you get in touch tomorrow you can confirm, but I really wouldn't worry.

kaiser wrote:

NYbarmistake wrote:New account to protect identity. Realized after I got home that I'm pretty sure I put down my NCBE number instead of my BOLE ID number on my handwriting sample, at least in the afternoon and maybe in the morning. Or else mixed and matched (like first four numbers from BOLE, second four from NCBE or something). Am I totally screwed? Can't find any contact point for them that's active, figured I'd tell a proctor tomorrow morning unless anyone has contact info that works. (Their office closed at 5, called and got an answering machine.)

Also: Ugh, eavesdropping. Hoping that everyone else assumed you only need consent of one party, too.

I'm certain thats no big deal. When you get in touch tomorrow you can confirm, but I really wouldn't worry.

+1. This is why they make you put those labels on it. They can figure out who you are with the barcode.

bceagles182 wrote:I said the same but I just looked it up: Need consent of both parties. -1 for me. The fact that it took me several minutes of googling to figure it out just shows how douchey it was to even ask.

Pretty sure this is incorrect: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article250.htm#p250.05

"Mechanical overhearing of a conversation" means the intentional
overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the
consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat,
by means of any instrument, device or equipment

I can't believe that this is the extent of the discussion. I remember after the LSAT every single question in detail was discussed lol.

We grew up? NOT ME.

Should I not have fully justified my text in my essays and MPT. I learned that it was the appropriate method in legal text, and I did it today and now I am freaking out thinking I should not have. I can't believe that this post is for real, but it is.

No charge for eavesdropping if one party consents. NY Penal Law Section 250.00(2). Way to go Themis for including that one.

gonezo77 wrote:Should I not have fully justified my text in my essays and MPT. I learned that it was the appropriate method in legal text, and I did it today and now I am freaking out thinking I should not have. I can't believe that this post is for real, but it is.

does not matter

Thanks for the reassurance guys. I'm pretty sure it's okay, too, but good to know no one else thinks it's a big deal. I had a brief flash in my head where I thought they'd think I had someone else take the test for me or something.

Also, FYI to everyone, be careful with uploading your exam files. When I uploaded, SofTest said it had uploaded both AM and PM (and had a note that both were uploaded), but I only got the AM confirmation email. Sure enough, did the manual upload according to the directions in the email they sent earlier this afternoon, and the PM exam had not been properly uploaded despite SofTest saying it had been. Managed to get it uploaded via the manual system. So, triple and quadruple check!

You guys must have killed it if the only thing you're talking about is 1 piece of shit nymc

MPT wasn't bad at all. Wish I had 5 more minutes. Think I did well. Lack of direction in terms of format didn't bother me because I did ONE practice MPT this whole summer (never looked at that section again) which was In Re Emily Dunn in BarBri and they had the same exact question type haha. I used the same format as that.



As for NYE, complete shit show. I entirely made up my own set of laws today- Thinking about starting my own jurisdiction.

That feel when you guessed the eavesdropping question correctly.

That feel when you had no clue what to write about the partition essay question.

bceagles182 wrote:

lionelhutz123 wrote:

bceagles182 wrote:I remember at least one CP question in the MC.

Also: Eavesdropping? Really?

I ain't be droppin' no Eaves, sir, honest.

What was the answer to that one? I figured it was ok because the woman consented.

I said the same but I just looked it up: Need consent of both parties. -1 for me. The fact that it took me several minutes of googling to figure it out just shows how douchey it was to even ask.

Themis outline says:

"Eavesdropping: Eavesdropping is a general intent crime. To be convicted of eavesdropping in New York, a person must unlawfully engage in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation (intentional overhearing or recording of a communication without the consent of either the sender or receiver), or intercepting or accessing an electronic communication. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00; 250.05."

And from the source itself: 1. "Wiretapping" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a
telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender
or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or
receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.

Seems like consent of one person should be good enough, no?