July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[Underoath]

How confident are you guys with Wills/Trusts, Comm Prop, or Business popping up...because I know none of those well ahhahaa

[robinhoodOO]

How confident are you guys with Wills/Trusts, Comm Prop, or Business popping up...because I know none of those well ahhahaa

TBH, those are a few of the subjects I would love to see--especially CP

[Underoath]

How confident are you guys with Wills/Trusts, Comm Prop, or Business popping up...because I know none of those well ahhahaa

TBH, those are a few of the subjects I would love to see--especially CP

NO NO NO NO AND NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ugh!!! lol

crim law/crim pro
evidence
con law

prof resp.
remedies
torts or even real property

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

For the Barbri takers: are the essays in the essay book ordered from easiest to most difficult? I've been going through all the essay number 4's for each subject and I'm finding them to be kinda tough.

[fadedsunrise]

How confident are you guys with Wills/Trusts, Comm Prop, or Business popping up...because I know none of those well ahhahaa

TBH, those are a few of the subjects I would love to see--especially CP

Yes to Wills/Trusts and Business! CP...mixed feelings. Business, from the essays I did, doesn't seem that complicated. There aren't that many multifactoral rules to spit out. Same for Wills/Trusts imo, if you forget shit you can stick to "what /really/ is the intent of the testator/settlor?" And there are handy mnemonics for the requirements to set up a will/trust, duties, etc.

CP though...

[Hermione]

In fed crim cases, the D must open the door before Victim can offer character evidence of Victim. Does this rule apply to California as well? (I know it definitely does for character evidence of defendant)

FRCP: The D must first offer V's CE before the door is opened and P can introduce the same character trait against the D. Exception is if the D is relying on self-defense in a homicide case, in which case the P can first introduce CE of the V's peacefulness.

CA: Prop 8 allows for introduction of V's character if relevant, but I don't know if it's saying that P can FIRST introduce V's CE or if it's after D has opened the door.

That's kinda important. Does anyone know for sure?

Prop 8 doesn't apply for character evidence, so under CA, it's the same rule as in the FRE. In other words, prosecution can only bring in victim's character to rebut the victim character evidence offered by the defendant.

There's no exception for homicide cases, as far as I know.

[brotherdarkness]

What's the main effect of prop 8? What comes in under it that wouldn't under the FRE?

[Hermione]

What's the main effect of prop 8? What comes in under it that wouldn't under the FRE?

Basically, Prop 8 makes all evidence in a criminal trial admissible as long as it's relevant. However, it doesn't apply to objections based on the constitution (confrontation clause), hearsay, privilege, character evidence, secondary evidence rule, and against anything that is substantially more prejudicial than probative (the equivalent of the FRE 403 objection).

Which basically means, it pretty much never applies. Apart from bringing in evidence for impeachment. For example, under CEC, misdemeanor convictions can never be introduced. However, if you're introducing a misdemeanor conviction for impeachment purposes in a criminal trial, you can use Prop 8 to defeat the CEC hurdle. That means it can be admissible as long as it's not more prejudicial than probative.

[brotherdarkness]

What's the main effect of prop 8? What comes in under it that wouldn't under the FRE?

Basically, Prop 8 makes all evidence in a criminal trial admissible as long as it's relevant. However, it doesn't apply to objections based on the constitution (confrontation clause), hearsay, privilege, character evidence, secondary evidence rule, and against anything that is substantially more prejudicial than probative (the equivalent of the FRE 403 objection).

Which basically means, it pretty much never applies. Apart from bringing in evidence for impeachment. For example, under CEC, misdemeanor convictions can never be introduced. However, if you're introducing a misdemeanor conviction for impeachment purposes in a criminal trial, you can use Prop 8 to defeat the CEC hurdle. That means it can be admissible as long as it's not more prejudicial than probative.

Hm okay. So basically write a blurb about what Prop 8 does (makes shit admissible in crim case if relevant) and then move on. I can do that.

[sopranorleone]

Anyone down to do a group haka right outside the exam room before it begins? I'll be in Century City

[redblueyellow]

In fed crim cases, the D must open the door before Victim can offer character evidence of Victim. Does this rule apply to California as well? (I know it definitely does for character evidence of defendant)

FRCP: The D must first offer V's CE before the door is opened and P can introduce the same character trait against the D. Exception is if the D is relying on self-defense in a homicide case, in which case the P can first introduce CE of the V's peacefulness.

CA: Prop 8 allows for introduction of V's character if relevant, but I don't know if it's saying that P can FIRST introduce V's CE or if it's after D has opened the door.

That's kinda important. Does anyone know for sure?

Prop 8 doesn't apply for character evidence, so under CA, it's the same rule as in the FRE. In other words, prosecution can only bring in victim's character to rebut the victim character evidence offered by the defendant.

There's no exception for homicide cases, as far as I know.

Hmm, this is what Leansheets says about CA in relation to crim cases and introducing CE of victim:

"Prop 8: if relevant, V's character is admissible, subject to balance."

For homicide cases, that's just for FRE. "Exception: in a homicide case, if D alleges self-defense, P may offer evidence of V's character for peacefulness." (leansheets)

[Underoath]

Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

[redblueyellow]

Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

No, this thread is for the US Bar Exam, not Canada.

[robinhoodOO]

Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

No, this thread is for the US Bar Exam, not Canada.

God I hope you're being facetious primary colors

BTW, great film

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

I am. What do you wanna know?

[acronyx]

Isn't the problem here that the spouse was using time and skill during the marriage to keep the business going. Since time and skill during the marriage are CP, then there would need to be some sort of asset allocation to the other spouse if there was a dissolution of the marriage.

I think you would then need to determine whether the business was labor intensive (Pereira) or whether it was not the greater factor (Van Camp). At least that's how I would argue it. Then I would just lay down my head and cry.

Anyone else taking the test at the Santa Clara location? If so, how are you planning on packing a lunch for the hellish exam? Packed lunch in a supposed bag we can keep up against the wall?? Can anyone weigh in on this??

Barbri #4 has a business one spouse started with SP. Has 1.5pp of VC/P analysis.

I'll be at Santa Clara. I was going to leave my lunch in the car so I can go sob/eat during the break.

Kidding. Maybe. No promises.

[acronyx]

ABA MR: Duty of Confidentiality can be violated to avoid serious bodily injury/death and to avoid great financial harm
CA: no great financial harm exception

CA also says you need to talk to your client first, try to convince them not to do it and let them know you're going to rat them out. I remember this one as part of CA being big on confidentiality and (the lecturer said) allowing ANY violation of the duty of confidentiality is relatively new.

[brotherdarkness]

ABA Prof Resp -- You're an attorney for a corporation. You catch wind of something shady. You report up the chain -- first within the legal dept, then to the board if necessary. If no action is taken, you may disclose confidential information to an outside party.

CA Prof Resp -- You're an attorney for a corporation. You catch wind of something shady. You report up the chain -- first within the legal dept, then to the board if necessary. If no action is taken, you may not disclose confidential information to an outside party. Exception if some federal statute overrides (I'm guessing an example of this would be if the company is engaging in securities fraud; in that case, I would argue that you could report to a federal agency such as the SEC).

[BuenAbogado]

ABA Prof Resp -- You're an attorney for a corporation. You catch wind of something shady. You report up the chain -- first within the legal dept, then to the board if necessary. If no action is taken, you may disclose confidential information to an outside party.

CA Prof Resp -- You're an attorney for a corporation. You catch wind of something shady. You report up the chain -- first within the legal dept, then to the board if necessary. If no action is taken, you may not disclose confidential information to an outside party. Exception if some federal statute overrides (I'm guessing an example of this would be if the company is engaging in securities fraud; in that case, I would argue that you could report to a federal agency such as the SEC).

Awesome!!

If you haven't contributed a CEC/Cal Civ Pro/CRPC distinction set today, feel free to do so.

All who have, feel free to give another set tomorrow.

Who knows, maybe YOU will be the one that provided the one that will be tested. You will get a lot of respect on either Tuesday or Thursday. Nothing else, though, just online respect.

[Underoath]

Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

I am. What do you wanna know?

Hi...hahaha just askin...I'm staying at the Double Tree.

[brotherdarkness]

I'm sure everyone knows this, but:

ABA Model Rules -- Duty of loyalty provides that a lawyer cannot have sex with a client unless the sexual relationship preexisted the attorney-client relationship.

CA Prof Resp -- Duty of loyalty does not prohibit a lawyer from having sex with a client unless he uses his position as her attorney to pressure the client into having sex, the sexual relationship interferes with his professional judgment, blah blah. Note that CA rules also contain the exception for preexisting sexual relationships.

[sopranorleone]

I'm sure everyone knows this, but:

ABA Model Rules -- Duty of loyalty provides that a lawyer cannot have sex with a client unless the sexual relationship preexisted the attorney-client relationship.

CA Prof Resp -- Duty of loyalty does not prohibit a lawyer from having sex with a client unless he uses his position as her attorney to pressure the client into having sex, the sexual relationship interferes with his professional judgment, blah blah. Note that CA rules also contain the exception for preexisting sexual relationships.

God, I love this state

[robinhoodOO]

Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

I am. What do you wanna know?

Hi...hahaha just askin...I'm staying at the Double Tree.

Sending good Karma to SoCal from NorCal for this bitch

[robinhoodOO]

I'm sure everyone knows this, but:

ABA Model Rules -- Duty of loyalty provides that a lawyer cannot have sex with a client unless the sexual relationship preexisted the attorney-client relationship.

CA Prof Resp -- Duty of loyalty does not prohibit a lawyer from having sex with a client unless he uses his position as her attorney to pressure the client into having sex, the sexual relationship interferes with his professional judgment, blah blah. Note that CA rules also contain the exception for preexisting sexual relationships.

You forgot to mention the Elder Law exception. If you practice any kind of Elder Law, you can't have sex with your clients (period).

[brotherdarkness]

Can someone explain the bare bones of what I need to know about anti-SLAPP / First Amendment issues?