California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[Anonnn]

I failed everything except remedies and maybe evidence. That last PR question was brutal. Didn't include 10b5 because I didn't think there was fraud but talked about insider trading...stupid stupid. None of the duties really fit...ugh.

PT was a mess. Didn't know how to organize it besides the two charges. Just threw in random facts and then random factor tests. Wow.

Fuck February bar.

Aww yeah, just looked at the 10b5 stuff. Welp fucked that up royally. COME ON GETTING ENOUGH POINTS ON THE REST OF THE QUESTION TO STILL PASS (it worked on the Barbri self-grading )

[chicoalto0649]

Was it short?? The library seemed short, true, but the file was long, there were like 7 or eight things in there! Granted, some of them were like 1 paragraph. I did not use that second newspaper article at all by the way. How was it supposed to be used?

Maybe it's because I did a lot of practice PTs, but I thought it was short. It was at least 1/3 shorter than a normal PT.

I just checked the testing history for remedies. This is the 5th straight time remedies has been tested. It is basically the new PR.

Even if it was shorter it definitely had more facts than the couple PTs I looked at.

The second issue, 541 seemed a lot more lopsided in favor of our client. Not a lot of facts to support finding of transformative non-conforming use or w.e.

Also thought response was too short ~2k words

[lmr]

I failed everything except remedies and maybe evidence. That last PR question was brutal. Didn't include 10b5 because I didn't think there was fraud but talked about insider trading...stupid stupid. None of the duties really fit...ugh.

PT was a mess. Didn't know how to organize it besides the two charges. Just threw in random facts and then random factor tests. Wow.

Fuck February bar.

A lot of competent people didn't put 10b-I put insider trading and a couple of my friends did too. 16B was my instinct but it just didn't fit so I said fk it and left it out bc it would take too much "If-ing"

[adonai]

I just hope they don't pull another fast one with us with community property.

[JJDancer]

not uploading!!

[Lasers]

I failed everything except remedies and maybe evidence. That last PR question was brutal. Didn't include 10b5 because I didn't think there was fraud but talked about insider trading...stupid stupid. None of the duties really fit...ugh.

PT was a mess. Didn't know how to organize it besides the two charges. Just threw in random facts and then random factor tests. Wow.

Fuck February bar.

A lot of competent people didn't put 10b-I put insider trading and a couple of my friends did too. 16B was my instinct but it just didn't fit so I said fk it and left it out bc it would take too much "If-ing"

That was me exactly. I thought 16b initially because short swing profits but it clearly didn't work. 10b5 didn't but I should have included it. Probably failed but I like to be surprised.

[lmr]

Was it short?? The library seemed short, true, but the file was long, there were like 7 or eight things in there! Granted, some of them were like 1 paragraph. I did not use that second newspaper article at all by the way. How was it supposed to be used?

Maybe it's because I did a lot of practice PTs, but I thought it was short. It was at least 1/3 shorter than a normal PT.

I just checked the testing history for remedies. This is the 5th straight time remedies has been tested. It is basically the new PR.

Even if it was shorter it definitely had more facts than the couple PTs I looked at.

The second issue, 541 seemed a lot more lopsided in favor of our client. Not a lot of facts to support finding of transformative non-conforming use or w.e.

Also thought response was too short ~2k words

What response was 2k words? Yours? Now i'm freaking out-I thought the opposite. I thought she exceeded the use allowed and cited to County guys arguments under his non-conforming use critique-his analogy to hotels/motels/trailer park and how they aren't movable like RVs but permanent fixtures on land. Blanking out on other crap i wrote under that area but i definitely concluded she was exceeding it bc of the second factor of the test that Los Banos court outlined. Blanking on that factor

[lmr]

I failed everything except remedies and maybe evidence. That last PR question was brutal. Didn't include 10b5 because I didn't think there was fraud but talked about insider trading...stupid stupid. None of the duties really fit...ugh.

PT was a mess. Didn't know how to organize it besides the two charges. Just threw in random facts and then random factor tests. Wow.

Fuck February bar.

A lot of competent people didn't put 10b-I put insider trading and a couple of my friends did too. 16B was my instinct but it just didn't fit so I said fk it and left it out bc it would take too much "If-ing"

That was me exactly. I thought 16b initially because short swing profits but it clearly didn't work. 10b5 didn't but I should have included it. Probably failed but I like to be surprised.

Why should you have included it? I don't get it? Why isn't insider trading enough? She had privileged information breached her duty of confidentiality to her client used that information for an improper benefit? Isn't that enough to show the bar that you are competent. I'm so over this-i heard people afterwards say all they mentioned under that question was limited liability of partner Bob. It'll be okay that question was BS for everyone esp the PR portion.

[FutureInLaw]

The second issue, 541 seemed a lot more lopsided in favor of our client. Not a lot of facts to support finding of transformative non-conforming use or w.e.

Also thought response was too short ~2k words[/quote]

What response was 2k words? Yours? Now i'm freaking out-I thought the opposite. I thought she exceeded the use allowed and cited to County guys arguments under his non-conforming use critique-his analogy to hotels/motels/trailer park and how they aren't movable like RVs but permanent fixtures on land. Blanking out on other crap i wrote under that area but i definitely concluded she was exceeding it bc of the second factor of the test that Los Banos court outlined. Blanking on that factor[/quote]

Haha. I came out on her side for both issues. God that question.

[pkt63]

What response was 2k words? Yours? Now i'm freaking out-I thought the opposite. I thought she exceeded the use allowed and cited to County guys arguments under his non-conforming use critique-his analogy to hotels/motels/trailer park and how they aren't movable like RVs but permanent fixtures on land. Blanking out on other crap i wrote under that area but i definitely concluded she was exceeding it bc of the second factor of the test that Los Banos court outlined. Blanking on that factor

Don't worry! There are many things to be scared of on this test, but if there's anything I feel like I know it is that there are some things that you can come to the opposite conclusion on as long as you made a reasonable analysis and used the facts! Now, how to tell if your analysis is reasonable and if you used the facts? unfortunately, that is still hard to tell, but don't automatically count yourself out at least. If you applied the Los Banos three factors (as well as the Land Dev Regs) you have a mighty good start.

[pkt63]

I failed everything except remedies and maybe evidence. That last PR question was brutal. Didn't include 10b5 because I didn't think there was fraud but talked about insider trading...stupid stupid. None of the duties really fit...ugh.

PT was a mess. Didn't know how to organize it besides the two charges. Just threw in random facts and then random factor tests. Wow.

Fuck February bar.

A lot of competent people didn't put 10b-I put insider trading and a couple of my friends did too. 16B was my instinct but it just didn't fit so I said fk it and left it out bc it would take too much "If-ing"

That was me exactly. I thought 16b initially because short swing profits but it clearly didn't work. 10b5 didn't but I should have included it. Probably failed but I like to be surprised.

Why should you have included it? I don't get it? Why isn't insider trading enough? She had privileged information breached her duty of confidentiality to her client used that information for an improper benefit? Isn't that enough to show the bar that you are competent. I'm so over this-i heard people afterwards say all they mentioned under that question was limited liability of partner Bob. It'll be okay that question was BS for everyone esp the PR portion.

But she wasn't an insider to that corp...

[LSATNightmares]

I'm also having trouble with ExamSoft. I thought the essays were weird, like I was missing something. But after reading some of the comments, maybe it wasn't too bad.

Yeah, the PT did seem shorter than usual. Though for the first 1 hour, I was like "Noooo! Variance?! I haven't reviewed the February 2014 exam, so I don't know what that is!" But it wasn't too bad once you forced yourself through.

[Carryon]

I failed everything except remedies and maybe evidence. That last PR question was brutal. Didn't include 10b5 because I didn't think there was fraud but talked about insider trading...stupid stupid. None of the duties really fit...ugh.

PT was a mess. Didn't know how to organize it besides the two charges. Just threw in random facts and then random factor tests. Wow.

Fuck February bar.

A lot of competent people didn't put 10b-I put insider trading and a couple of my friends did too. 16B was my instinct but it just didn't fit so I said fk it and left it out bc it would take too much "If-ing"

That was me exactly. I thought 16b initially because short swing profits but it clearly didn't work. 10b5 didn't but I should have included it. Probably failed but I like to be surprised.

Why should you have included it? I don't get it? Why isn't insider trading enough? She had privileged information breached her duty of confidentiality to her client used that information for an improper benefit? Isn't that enough to show the bar that you are competent. I'm so over this-i heard people afterwards say all they mentioned under that question was limited liability of partner Bob. It'll be okay that question was BS for everyone esp the PR portion.

16b is for the directors. The attorney was not a director. There was no 10b5 fraud just breach of fiduciary duty. It was insider trading, but insider trading is 10b5. I don't know. I ran out of time on that question.

[Lasers]

But she wasn't an insider to that corp...

I don't think insider trading requires you to be an insider to the corp. Could be wrong though. Using real world knowledge which isn't conducive to passing the bar.

[lmr]

What response was 2k words? Yours? Now i'm freaking out-I thought the opposite. I thought she exceeded the use allowed and cited to County guys arguments under his non-conforming use critique-his analogy to hotels/motels/trailer park and how they aren't movable like RVs but permanent fixtures on land. Blanking out on other crap i wrote under that area but i definitely concluded she was exceeding it bc of the second factor of the test that Los Banos court outlined. Blanking on that factor

Don't worry! There are many things to be scared of on this test, but if there's anything I feel like I know it is that there are some things that you can come to the opposite conclusion on as long as you made a reasonable analysis and used the facts! Now, how to tell if your analysis is reasonable and if you used the facts? unfortunately, that is still hard to tell, but don't automatically count yourself out at least. If you applied the Los Banos three factors (as well as the Land Dev Regs) you have a mighty good start.

I'm guessing that means you also favored her under the scope argument? Ugh I argued her points and her defense then i went to county's guys response and then concluded that it will be challenging for her to overcome bc she's not really keeping it consistent w campground purposes-it's a filled w extravagant crap that people don't need/use when they go camping. RV owners get to dictate when they come and go and have control over their vehicles-RTP's in her campground don't. This isn't consistent use?

Whatever, I used both cases, had good use of facts and made decent counter arguments-not analytically challenging just scared that i picked the weaker position.

[dtl]

I am starting to feel bad for Examsoft. Their twitter feed might be the most vitriolic thing I have seen in a long time. Bar takers with no sleep on the east coast, past the upload deadline, just mindlessly yelling at their PR person on twitter. It is kind of a spectacle.

https://twitter.com/ExamSoft/status/494308664329515008


Also, what is the bar policy on talking about essays with other takers?

[jarofsoup]

But she wasn't an insider to that corp...

I don't think insider trading requires you to be an insider to the corp. Could be wrong though. Using real world knowledge which isn't conducive to passing the bar.

It is the O'Hagen case.

[pkt63]

What response was 2k words? Yours? Now i'm freaking out-I thought the opposite. I thought she exceeded the use allowed and cited to County guys arguments under his non-conforming use critique-his analogy to hotels/motels/trailer park and how they aren't movable like RVs but permanent fixtures on land. Blanking out on other crap i wrote under that area but i definitely concluded she was exceeding it bc of the second factor of the test that Los Banos court outlined. Blanking on that factor

Don't worry! There are many things to be scared of on this test, but if there's anything I feel like I know it is that there are some things that you can come to the opposite conclusion on as long as you made a reasonable analysis and used the facts! Now, how to tell if your analysis is reasonable and if you used the facts? unfortunately, that is still hard to tell, but don't automatically count yourself out at least. If you applied the Los Banos three factors (as well as the Land Dev Regs) you have a mighty good start.

I'm guessing that means you also favored her under the scope argument? Ugh I argued her points and her defense then i went to county's guys response and then concluded that it will be challenging for her to overcome bc she's not really keeping it consistent w campground purposes-it's a filled w extravagant crap that people don't need/use when they go camping. RV owners get to dictate when they come and go and have control over their vehicles-RTP's in her campground don't. This isn't consistent use?

Whatever, I used both cases, had good use of facts and made decent counter arguments-not analytically challenging just scared that i picked the weaker position.

I did conclude for her side, but to be honest, I worried that I was not being objective enough in tone. I did try to keep saying "the County will say…" and do point-counterpoint, so yes, I made the argument that it wasn't like normal camping, but ultimately I just went the other way, and hope I did enough analysis and use of facts. I think it could be argued either way, in my super valuable opinion.

[lmr]

But she wasn't an insider to that corp...

I don't think insider trading requires you to be an insider to the corp. Could be wrong though. Using real world knowledge which isn't conducive to passing the bar.

Misappropriation theory is a subset of insider trading-either way i made the point. Seen plenty of crappy essays with passing scores.

[sambeber]

Classical theory, lawyer as constructive/temporary insider, 10b-5 insider trading.

[a male human]

I am starting to feel bad for Examsoft. Their twitter feed might be the most vitriolic thing I have seen in a long time. Bar takers with no sleep on the east coast, past the upload deadline, just mindlessly yelling at their PR person on twitter. It is kind of a spectacle.

https://twitter.com/ExamSoft/status/494308664329515008

There is still someone capable of feeling bad for ExamSoft in Anno domini 2014.

this thread will be very interesting tonight, that I predict.

Depends on whether you are an examinee who gave up and left the exam early

One of your favorites was a pt question. Nonconforming use.

I bet you, male human, would have loved to answer that pt. Rv and RPGs on campgrounds.

Oh man, I would have rather seen it in July 2013 then Feb 2014 so I could actually answer it in the essays. PTs are great for learning the law. I didn't discuss variance or nonconforming use at all in Feb.

Fuck remedies. Fuck essay 3. Fuck the PT. And fuck Examsoft (PS -- the support number is busy so I'm guessing lots of people are having problems).

Now we're talking post-bar anxiety.

[jarofsoup]

In a lighter note. Any one in Santa Clara know what time we have to be in the test center?

[a male human]

Seems like remedies is a shitty yet popular topic these days, i.e., past few administrations. Future bar examinees would be well advised to get down remedies pat.

And some obscure property concepts too? I still don't know what variance is.

[lmr]

Classical theory, lawyer as constructive/temporary insider, 10b-5 insider trading.

Stressing me out w semantics? You put insider trading in the heading you get an extra point than you would have had you not, right? Isn't that the point?

[Jay Heizenburg]

I failed everything except remedies and maybe evidence. That last PR question was brutal. Didn't include 10b5 because I didn't think there was fraud but talked about insider trading...stupid stupid. None of the duties really fit...ugh.

PT was a mess. Didn't know how to organize it besides the two charges. Just threw in random facts and then random factor tests. Wow.

Fuck February bar.

This ... So this ...

I fuckin' completely whiffed on essay 3, question 2 ... "Information Misappropriation?" ... Lol, what the fuck is that? I conjured up some complete bullshit to finish that essay. I couldn't even get mad at myself ... like, "whatever" ...

That PT hurt though. I fuckin' lost my bearings ... I just pulled out two tests and tried to apply the facts. I noticed toward the end my tone grew more persuasive though ... Smh, big mistake. Lol, done in by some motherfuckin' "Glampers" ...