California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[chicoalto0649]

Why couldn't a malpractice action analysis work on question 3?

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

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.

Count me in as another person who COMPLETELY messed up the organization of the performance test. Realized the mess with only 5 minutes left, and by then it was too late to clean it up. Thought I'd be complaining about the essays, but I really think it's the PT that did me in. Wasn't expecting that. Guess I must have been tired or something. What a bummer! Hellooooooo Februrary!

[thatcher780]

i talked about the tort of interference with business relations, 10b5, and malpractice liability, all seemed like a stretch though and none really matched up. Then again, no clear theories really matched to the facts on that question.

[pkt63]

Why couldn't a malpractice action analysis work on question 3?

Yeah, I meant to put that, too, but ran out of time. The 10b-5 misappropriation took priority for me, and I also spent 10 extra minutes on evidence so was running hot at the end of essay 3.

[dtl]

Why couldn't a malpractice action analysis work on question 3?

I included this in addition to the fed securities actions. I think it was fair to argue.

[pkt63]

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?

I think we're all good. Whatever you call it, if you did a misappropriation of information because of a duty owed to someone analysis, you are doing pretty good!

[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.

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" ...

I swear you and I must be the same person... Everything you said was true fo me too.

[FutureInLaw]

Anyone want to send me thoughts on the first claim of the PT? Curious what people did. Not sure if we can post...

[chicoalto0649]

Why couldn't a malpractice action analysis work on question 3?

I included this in addition to the fed securities actions. I think it was fair to argue.

Oh. It was the only thing that seemed completely obvious to me. Everyone looked at me cross eyes when I brought it up, but it was a pretty straight forward analysis (from a malpractice position). Thought about interference with business relations but some reason didn't fit.

Completely blanked on any securities issues.

[fish52]

Anyone want to send me thoughts on the first claim of the PT? Curious what people did. Not sure if we can post...

Also interested in this... Was there a test we were supposed to apply?! I just weighed the arguments...

[pkt63]

Anyone want to send me thoughts on the first claim of the PT? Curious what people did. Not sure if we can post...

Also interested in this... Was there a test we were supposed to apply?! I just weighed the arguments...

I applied the elements of the RV federal regulations, the RPT industry standards and the Oregon case "elements" which was mor of a public policy thing and then shot it down as not controlling and apparently having different public policy concerns/standards than we have here in Tehama County, Columbia.

[Apple Tree]

Is anyone reviewing MBE tonight? Feel like I should review my notes on past mistakes, but felt so beat...

[AguasAguas!]

Lasers, Jay Heizenburg... count me as +3. FML. That 3rd essay and PT effin threw me hard.

[lmr]

Anyone want to send me thoughts on the first claim of the PT? Curious what people did. Not sure if we can post...

Also interested in this... Was there a test we were supposed to apply?! I just weighed the arguments...

Section One? Went through the fed reg standards of what an RV is i think there were four cited in the Talley case. Then there was a statement about how the central standard was intended use based on the objective person standard (barely addressed that point but put in the legal portion of that argument). Then factual analysis both ways by looking @ newspaper article and county commissioner's report.

[Lasers]

Anyone want to send me thoughts on the first claim of the PT? Curious what people did. Not sure if we can post...

Also interested in this... Was there a test we were supposed to apply?! I just weighed the arguments...

I applied the elements of the RV federal regulations, the RPT industry standards and the Oregon case "elements" which was mor of a public policy thing and then shot it down as not controlling and apparently having different public policy concerns/standards than we have here in Tehama County, Columbia.

I applied that Oregon test too except totally forgot to even mention why it wasn't binding. Marked it down and forgot in my panic. Great. Just great. Hello February.

[Law-So-Hard]

darn it I totally forgot to mention it wasn't binding but persuasive that would have really helped my argument :\

does anyone else feel like they could have done a really good job on that PT if they had maybe another hour, or if it was a legit assignment and you had a day or half day to do it? grrr....it sucks feeling like you could have done so much better but couldn't because of the time and fatigue crunch

[FutureInLaw]

Anyone want to send me thoughts on the first claim of the PT? Curious what people did. Not sure if we can post...

Also interested in this... Was there a test we were supposed to apply?! I just weighed the arguments...

Section One? Went through the fed reg standards of what an RV is i think there were four cited in the Talley case. Then there was a statement about how the central standard was intended use based on the objective person standard (barely addressed that point but put in the legal portion of that argument). Then factual analysis both ways by looking @ newspaper article and county commissioner's report.

Pretty sure I fucked it up. I essentially only talked about how the TT court made its decision based on policy concerns and a liberal construction of its regulations to fit that concern. It essentially deferred to the gov't. But per the Building Dept. report, those concerns weren't present in our jurisdiction. Not sure if that made sense...and I totally left out, you know, the portion determining whether it was a structure or not. Fuck.

[Apple Tree]

Anyone want to send me thoughts on the first claim of the PT? Curious what people did. Not sure if we can post...

Also interested in this... Was there a test we were supposed to apply?! I just weighed the arguments...

Section One? Went through the fed reg standards of what an RV is i think there were four cited in the Talley case. Then there was a statement about how the central standard was intended use based on the objective person standard (barely addressed that point but put in the legal portion of that argument). Then factual analysis both ways by looking @ newspaper article and county commissioner's report.

Pretty sure I fucked it up. I essentially only talked about how the TT court made its decision based on policy concerns and a liberal construction of its regulations to fit that concern. It essentially deferred to the gov't. But per the Building Dept. report, those concerns weren't present in our jurisdiction. Not sure if that made sense...and I totally left out, you know, the portion determining whether it was a structure or not. Fuck.

This is exactly what I talked about. I felt like even though the court spent a lot of time talking about arguments from both sides, it didn't decide on those grounds because it just deferred to the government

[TitoSantana]

I'M TELLING YOU PEOPLE, 2ND AMENDMENT QUESTION THIS THURSDAY AND THE FACTS ARE GOING TO INCLUDE A MEXICAN WITH A LIMP, A HOMELESS GUY FROM MISSISSIPPI WITH ONE TOOTH AND A DONKEY. THE QUESTION MAY BE A CROSSOVER WITH MARITIME LAW. GET ON IT!

[dtl]

Anyone want to send me thoughts on the first claim of the PT? Curious what people did. Not sure if we can post...

Also interested in this... Was there a test we were supposed to apply?! I just weighed the arguments...

Section One? Went through the fed reg standards of what an RV is i think there were four cited in the Talley case. Then there was a statement about how the central standard was intended use based on the objective person standard (barely addressed that point but put in the legal portion of that argument). Then factual analysis both ways by looking @ newspaper article and county commissioner's report.

Pretty sure I fucked it up. I essentially only talked about how the TT court made its decision based on policy concerns and a liberal construction of its regulations to fit that concern. It essentially deferred to the gov't. But per the Building Dept. report, those concerns weren't present in our jurisdiction. Not sure if that made sense...and I totally left out, you know, the portion determining whether it was a structure or not. Fuck.

You basically said what I said about the oregon case and the CUP permit app.

[Carryon]

i talked about the tort of interference with business relations, 10b5, and malpractice liability, all seemed like a stretch though and none really matched up. Then again, no clear theories really matched to the facts on that question.

I talked about the tort of interference with business relations too. I wasn't too sure about it. I sort of forget how that worked. How did you analyze it?

[chicoalto0649]

For the hearsay statements did any one else get

1st: admit first statement (not offered to prove truth of the matter asserted)
2nd: exclude second statement (not a party opponent statement because absence of special relation
3rd: admit maintenance report (business record)

[pkt63]

For the hearsay statements did any one else get

1st: admit first statement (not offered to prove truth of the matter asserted)
2nd: exclude second statement (not a party opponent statement because absence of special relation
3rd: admit maintenance report (business record)

Wait why admit the first but not the second when they were both EEs of ABC?

As for the maintenance report, I can't remember what I put now about the inner hearsay. I think I said it might qualify as a contemporaneous statement IF custodian testified that the reports are written near the time of the events they report on. But that whole thing seems ridic to me now, and I'm super confused.

[lmr]

For the hearsay statements did any one else get

1st: admit first statement (not offered to prove truth of the matter asserted)
2nd: exclude second statement (not a party opponent statement because absence of special relation
3rd: admit maintenance report (business record)

Wait why admit the first but not the second when they were both EEs of ABC?

As for the maintenance report, I can't remember what I put now about the inner hearsay. I think I said it might qualify as a contemporaneous statement IF custodian testified that the reports are written near the time of the events they report on. But that whole thing seems ridic to me now, and I'm super confused.

Yeah vicarious admission-he was employed, made statement within scope of employment, etc. I thought that was clearer than the first statement considering other guy was a mechanic and 2nd man was a supervisor of the company.

[dtl]

For the hearsay statements did any one else get

1st: admit first statement (not offered to prove truth of the matter asserted)
2nd: exclude second statement (not a party opponent statement because absence of special relation
3rd: admit maintenance report (business record)

Wait why admit the first but not the second when they were both EEs of ABC?

As for the maintenance report, I can't remember what I put now about the inner hearsay. I think I said it might qualify as a contemporaneous statement IF custodian testified that the reports are written near the time of the events they report on. But that whole thing seems ridic to me now, and I'm super confused.

Yeah the first and second were basically the same guy with a different name. Why exclude 2?