July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[robinhoodOO]

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

Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public matter; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.

[BuenAbogado]

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).

Because it's gross, or because it's prohibited?

[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).

Because it's gross, or because it's prohibited?

It's part of the Lawyer's Bro-Code

[gaagoots]

.

[BuenAbogado]

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

Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public manner; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.

I did my Law Review Note on Anti-SLAPP. I focused on how Jihadists attempt to intimidate bloggers from writing negative things about Extreme Islam and the problems it raises under the guise of defamation, but pushing clearly meritless suits that would still nonetheless cost the bloggers a lot of time and money. Point would be to chill speech. Anti-SLAPP lets you bitch slap them.

[robinhoodOO]

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

Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public manner; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.

I did my Law Review Note on Anti-SLAPP. I focused on how Jihadists attempt to intimidate bloggers from writing negative things about Extreme Islam and the problems it raises under the guise of defamation, but pushing clearly meritless suits that would still nonetheless cost the bloggers a lot of time and money. Point would be to chill speech. Anti-SLAPP lets you bitch slap them.

I encourage everyone to use that example on test day!!! Haha; that's great and, ya, basically the point...Don't file meritless BS related to someone else's speech.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Anyone here taking it in Ontario?

I am. What do you wanna know?

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

No doubt...good luck; I'm in the Holiday Inn. Just a warning, since I'm a failure at life and also took it in Ontario in Feb: the temperature in the convention center was ridiculously cold for two days, and insanely warm for the third.

[gaagoots]

.

[smokeylarue]

Is the MBE all on one scantron? Or do they give you 1 scantron in the morning, and a new scantron in the afternoon?

[gaagoots]

.

[smokeylarue]

Is the MBE all on one scantron? Or do they give you 1 scantron in the morning, and a new scantron in the afternoon?

One new one each session.

Thanks. That sounds annoyoing so we gotta rebubble whatever introductory information I'm assuming.

Anyone in Ontario who is retaking remember how much time they legitimately had for lunch after all the papers were collected and stuff?

[redblueyellow]

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

Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public matter; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.

So let's say that P sues D for defamation and IIED or something else.

D responds and says that the cause of action is basically for his protected speech in a public forum or is related to a public matter.

Then what happens? P has to prevail on the defamation cause to defeat the anti-slapp measures? Does he have to prevail on the IIED as well? Or at all?

In other words, how would you do the analysis after the you get to the "So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over" portion?

Unless that's our cue to show that the D has protected speech under the 1st Amendment? And if the D can prove his speech was protected, how do you address the rest of the anti-slapp motion?

[gaagoots]

.

[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.

No doubt...good luck; I'm in the Holiday Inn. Just a warning, since I'm a failure at life and also took it in Ontario in Feb: the temperature in the convention center was ridiculously cold for two days, and insanely warm for the third.

you are not a failure at life. That was a hard exam. I wouldn't have passed either had I sat for that!! Thanks for the heads up.

[Underoath]

I fly out of LAX on Thursday right after the bar exam. Flight is at 9:20, I really don't want to take my laptop or leave it in my car. is it possible to drop it off at home in Riverside and still make it to LAX on time? How long does it take on the last day to get out of exam? Roughly...

[gaagoots]

.

[Underoath]

I fly out of LAX on Thursday right after the bar exam. Flight is at 9:20, I really don't want to take my laptop or leave it in my car. is it possible to drop it off at home in Riverside and still make it to LAX on time? How long does it take on the last day to get out of exam? Roughly...

Well I think Thursday we ran late, it was after 5:00. Then you deal with the sea of people getting out. I can only imagine it's twice the size in July. I don't envy you having to go to Riverside and to LAX after the bar. I'm meeting friends after to drink lol I didn't plan on driving anywhere my brain was shot.

ugh...I''ll just leave my laptop in my car then. Thanks

[BuenAbogado]

I fly out of LAX on Thursday right after the bar exam. Flight is at 9:20, I really don't want to take my laptop or leave it in my car. is it possible to drop it off at home in Riverside and still make it to LAX on time? How long does it take on the last day to get out of exam? Roughly...

Well I think Thursday we ran late, it was after 5:00. Then you deal with the sea of people getting out. I can only imagine it's twice the size in July. I don't envy you having to go to Riverside and to LAX after the bar. I'm meeting friends after to drink lol I didn't plan on driving anywhere my brain was shot.

ugh...I''ll just leave my laptop in my car then. Thanks

Nice, nice. Soooo what kind of car do you drive? Color? And by any chance do you know where you plan to park it?

[robinhoodOO]

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

Sure, here is the quick down and dirty:

Basically, if a suit attempts to regulate/seek damages related to speech (i.e. extortion, defamation, etc.), you can file an anti-SLAPP motion that the claim/case attempts to seek damages for otherwise permissible/protected speech.

There are 4 bases: (1) The claim seeks damages for speech made during a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (2) It seeks damages for speech relating to a legislative, judicial, or executive proceeding; (3) (THE MOST COMMON) It seeks damages for speech given in a public forum or related to a public matter; or (4) (CATCH ALL) It seeks damages for speech otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over.

If you prevail and it is determined the that the action was reckless or malicious, you may file a SLAPP-back action for punitives and damages.

So let's say that P sues D for defamation and IIED or something else.

D responds and says that the cause of action is basically for his protected speech in a public forum or is related to a public matter.

Then what happens? P has to prevail on the defamation cause to defeat the anti-slapp measures? Does he have to prevail on the IIED as well? Or at all?

In other words, how would you do the analysis after the you get to the "So, basically a Constitution/1st Amendment cross-over" portion?

Unless that's our cue to show that the D has protected speech under the 1st Amendment? And if the D can prove his speech was protected, how do you address the rest of the anti-slapp motion?

That's what I'm saying, I think it forces you into a First Amendment analysis. For example, you're being sued for hate speech. Can the gov grant a judgment in favor of party seeking damages for injurious hate speech?

You start with the procedure and discuss the basis to strike the Complaint: Anti-SLAPP.

Then, discuss First Amendment application for the substantive Q.

Then, SLAPP-back--which requires moving party to prove the original action was meritless/malicious.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?

[brotherdarkness]

CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?

If it's within the arrestee's wingspan, it can be seized. Whether or not related to the crime. Reason? Policy. Police are searching for anything and everything that could put them in danger during the course of the arrest (I find that knowing the policy helps me remember the rule).

[robinhoodOO]

CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?

The majority test is "Wingspan." May search whatever is in D's wingspan or reach at time of arrest.

Alternatively, if arrested in a home, may perform a cursory search of the entire home IF reasonable suspicion of other criminals.

[brotherdarkness]

CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?

The majority test is "Wingspan." May search whatever is in D's wingspan or reach at time of arrest.

Alternatively, if arrested in a home, may perform a cursory search of the entire home IF reasonable suspicion of other criminals.

Interesting. During the cursory search of the home, are they limited to "plain view" evidence, or can they go digging?

[robinhoodOO]

CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?

The majority test is "Wingspan." May search whatever is in D's wingspan or reach at time of arrest.

Alternatively, if arrested in a home, may perform a cursory search of the entire home IF reasonable suspicion of other criminals.

Interesting. During the cursory search of the home, are they limited to "plain view" evidence, or can they go digging?

Very cursory. Like maybe open a large closet at most (Where someone would likely/reasonably be in hiding). Anything other than that would likely be unlawful and violate 4th

Same deal, though: If they are performing a lawful cursory search and see something in plain view, it can provide PC for more searching. So, you'd start at the top and work your way down through any exceptions

[robinhoodOO]

CrimPro Question:
In a search incident to an arrest that doesn't include a car, what kind of evidence can be seized? I know the purpose is to look for weapons or evidence that the arrestee may have tried to destroy or hide, but what if the cops find something completely unrelated to the crime for which the arrest was made?

The majority test is "Wingspan." May search whatever is in D's wingspan or reach at time of arrest.

Alternatively, if arrested in a home, may perform a cursory search of the entire home IF reasonable suspicion of other criminals.

Interesting. During the cursory search of the home, are they limited to "plain view" evidence, or can they go digging?

I found the case just in case you thought I was making shit up. I had this come up in when taking CrimPro in LS: Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990): "This "sweep" is not to be a full-blown, "top-to-bottom" search, but only "a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found.""

It'd be a great MBE too