Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Vantwins]

Fuck the MBE.

That is all.

It's only worth a 1/3 on the MD exam which I'm starting to think is a good thing for me.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Fuck the MBE.

That is all.

It's only worth a 1/3 on the MD exam which I'm starting to think is a good thing for me.

It's 50% in IL, and although I'm not doing poorly, some of these questions are fucking LOL-worthy sometimes.

[ndp1234]

Fuck the MBE.

That is all.

It's only worth a 1/3 on the MD exam which I'm starting to think is a good thing for me.

Your percentage will be higher on the actual MBE. I refuse to believe that there are so many possible fuckworthy questions in one exam.

[ultimolugar]

What's the goal on the MBE % overall?

Hi all. Checking back in. The ultimate goal on Themis MBE is 70.

[a_bowler_hat]

Property bro is killing it with the quips in the wills lectures.

i truly wish property bro taught every subject

[TLSModBot]

Fuck the MBE.

That is all.

It's only worth a 1/3 on the MD exam which I'm starting to think is a good thing for me.

Yes but if you're waiving into DC you still need, what, a 135?

[1down1togo]

I came to the realization yesterday that I am not going to pass the bar. I'm not proficient in enough of the MBE subjects to carry myself over my poor writing ability. What cemented it for me was the most recent crim law PQ session. I missed more questions than I got right. I just can't seem to get those questions right. It's particularly frustrating because I have been practicing criminal law professionally for the past 2 years (clinics/externships). My purpose for posting this is to get it out of my head, somewhere fairly anonymous, so I can get back to studying 15 hours a day, and hopefully squeak-by with one point above passing.

Hey man, I get your pain, I'm right there with you. I did three crim law internships in law school, plus a crim clinic, and I'm not killing crim questions either. Just keep drilling on them and you'll improve. I was doing horribly in civ pro questions (~ 30-40% in the first few PQs). I buckled down, re-studied civ pro, and started blazing through civ pro questions in a supplemental program. I'm hitting the high 70s/low 80s now. Improvement can come suddenly if you can grasp concepts and sort of learn the questions. Also, you still have five weeks, that's long enough to improve to get to 60% in every topic. If Michelle Bachmann can do it, so can you.

Completely unrelated, but Geis is back for Advanced Sales, and I'm so happy. I feel like I know contracts again, after like two weeks of completely forgetting.

Don't sweat it if you feel like your criminal law experience isn't helping. I'm a practicing prosecutor, and I don't have any special advantage there because the MBE uses a bunch of common law crimes that don't really exist anymore. In fact, after three years of practicing, the only advantage I have in anything is crim pro and evidence. But I've forgotten everything else. What's a civ pro?

[cleanhustle]

Finally did Milestone 2. Did terribly. Not sure what to do or think. Too annoyed to go through wrong answers right away.

[unidentifiable]

Finally did Milestone 2. Did terribly. Not sure what to do or think. Too annoyed to go through wrong answers right away.

feel you.

[Vantwins]

Fuck the MBE.

That is all.

It's only worth a 1/3 on the MD exam which I'm starting to think is a good thing for me.

Yes but if you're waiving into DC you still need, what, a 135?

I think so - I'm already barred in VA and DC, just don't want to commute.

[Rahviveh]

Don't know why people think their unpaid internships and paralegal experience would be relevant for the MBE

[ndp1234]

Don't know why people think their unpaid internships and paralegal experience would be relevant for the MBE

Because you're still doing legal work, even if it's unpaid. I can say that my experiences helped get an almost perfect score on the Con Law Set 4 because I had encountered some of those issues in my previous work experiences, even though that set was difficult for most based on the recent posts.

[Fivedham]

Don't know why people think their unpaid internships and paralegal experience would be relevant for the MBE

It's no less relevant than taking classes in law school. I've been getting every Takings Clause question right in the Con Law sets because I randomly took a class on natural resource law, where we read the whole case line about takings.

[bobbypin]

I cannot figure out what the difference is between these two questions about 3rd party beneficiaries as to why they would have different answers. Can you help?

[+] Spoiler

PRACTICE: Contracts & Sales MBE PQs Session 5 (34) Question ID#4374

A painter entered into a valid contract with a mayor to paint his portrait for $5,000. The contract provided that, rather than paying the painter, the mayor was to pay the $5,000 to the painter’s son. The contract also prohibited the assignment of any rights or duties arising under the contract without the permission of the other party.
Subsequently, the son, upon learning of the contract from his mother, decided to donate this money to a charity and transferred his rights under the contract to the charity without securing the permission of the mayor. The painter painted the portrait, but the mayor did not pay anyone. The charity filed suit against the mayor for breach of contract. The charity has taken no action nor incurred any expenses related to the contract.
Will the charity prevail in its action against the mayor?

A Yes, because the charity was an assignee of the son’s contractual rights.
B Yes, because the charity is a donee beneficiary of the contract.
C No, because the charity has not detrimentally relied on the mayor’s promise.
D No, because the contract prohibits assignments.

Answer choice A is correct. Generally, contract rights are assignable unless the assignment materially increases the duty or risk of the obligor or materially reduces the obligor’s chance of obtaining performance. Here, because the right assigned is the right to receive payment and the painter has performed his obligation under the contract by painting the portrait, this right may be assigned and enforced by the charity through a breach of contract action.
Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the charity does benefit from the contract by virtue of the son’s gratuitous assignment, the charity is not a donee beneficiary of the contract because the painter and mayor did not enter into contract with the intent to benefit the charity.
Answer choice C is incorrect because, as assignee of the son’s contractual right to receive payment from the mayor, the charity can enforce those rights without the need to establish that it detrimentally relied on the mayor’s promise.
Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the assignment of contractual rights in violation of a prohibition against the assignment of rights does constitute a breach of contract, prohibition is not enforceable against the assignee to prevent the assignee from enjoying the assigned rights.
 
Milestone Exam 1 Question 30

An attorney entered into a valid contract with a client to provide legal services for a set fee of $5,000. The contract provides that rather than paying the attorney, the client is to pay the fee to the attorney’s daughter. The daughter, upon learning of the contract from her father, decided to donate this money to a local animal shelter. She told the manager of a local animal shelter that she planned to donate $5,000 to the shelter. The manager, relying on this, purchased $5,000 worth of pet supplies and medicine. The lawyer rendered the legal services, but the client ultimately failed to pay the daughter, who in turn did not donate the money to the shelter. The animal shelter files suit against the client for breach of contract. Will the animal shelter prevail in its action against the client?

A Yes, because of the animal shelter’s detrimental reliance.
B Yes, because the shelter is a donee beneficiary.
C No, because the attorney had no intention to benefit the animal shelter.
D No, because delegation of duties is not permitted under a services contract.

Answer choice C is correct. A third party may recover on a contract if that third party is an intended beneficiary of the agreement. For a third party to be an intended beneficiary, there must be a contract between a promisee and another party, with the clear intent that the contract directly benefit the third party, a breach by either party to the contract, and damages sustained by the third party. Here, the promisee under the contract is the attorney, and the contract expressly provides that the intended beneficiary is the daughter. Because the attorney did not intend to benefit the animal shelter, the animal shelter is merely an incidental beneficiary and cannot enforce performance under the contract.
Answer choice A is incorrect because the animal shelter’s reliance was on the daughter’s promise to give the shelter $5,000, not on the client’s promise to pay that amount to the daughter.
Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the shelter was a donee beneficiary of the contract since the daughter intended to donate the $5,000 received from the client to the shelter, the shelter was not an intended beneficiary, but only an incidental beneficiary since the client was unaware of the daughter’s plans to donate the money to the shelter. In addition, the Second Restatement has done away with the distinction between creditor and donee beneficiaries.
Answer choice D is incorrect because, although duties may not be delegated when the other party to the contract has a substantial interest in having the delegating individual perform, there has been no delegation of duties in this case; the client has simply failed to perform the duty to pay the daughter.

[Kragoth180]

Did you guys do the graded MPT?

[Easy-E]

From ConLaw PQ 3 - no long hairs in sports

[+] Spoiler

A public co-ed high school has adopted a requirement that boys who play any school-sponsored sport cannot have hair longer than four inches. The school does not impose a similar requirement on girls who play a school-sponsored sport. A male student in the school challenges this requirement in federal court on the grounds that it interferes with his right to wear his hair as he pleases.

Why does this not trigger intermediate scrutiny? The explanation implies there is only strict scrutiny and rational basis...

The standard of review to which governmental action is subjected when challenged on substantive due process grounds depends on the right asserted by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is asserting a fundamental right, the government must establish that its requirement is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest. If a fundamental right is not involved, the plaintiff must show that the restriction does not bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Laws are presumed valid under this standard, so the burden is on the challenger to overcome this presumption by establishing that the law is arbitrary or irrational.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

From ConLaw PQ 3 - no long hairs in sports

[+] Spoiler

A public co-ed high school has adopted a requirement that boys who play any school-sponsored sport cannot have hair longer than four inches. The school does not impose a similar requirement on girls who play a school-sponsored sport. A male student in the school challenges this requirement in federal court on the grounds that it interferes with his right to wear his hair as he pleases.

Why does this not trigger intermediate scrutiny? The explanation implies there is only strict scrutiny and rational basis...

The standard of review to which governmental action is subjected when challenged on substantive due process grounds depends on the right asserted by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is asserting a fundamental right, the government must establish that its requirement is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest. If a fundamental right is not involved, the plaintiff must show that the restriction does not bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Laws are presumed valid under this standard, so the burden is on the challenger to overcome this presumption by establishing that the law is arbitrary or irrational.

[+] Spoiler

B/c he's not challenging on the grounds that the action discriminates on gender, he's challenging on the grounds that it infringes on his right to wear his hair the way he wants to. That's not a fundamental right, so rational basis. This is one of those stupid kinda "gotcha" questions if you don't read carefully.

[Kragoth180]

From ConLaw PQ 3 - no long hairs in sports

[+] Spoiler

A public co-ed high school has adopted a requirement that boys who play any school-sponsored sport cannot have hair longer than four inches. The school does not impose a similar requirement on girls who play a school-sponsored sport. A male student in the school challenges this requirement in federal court on the grounds that it interferes with his right to wear his hair as he pleases.

Why does this not trigger intermediate scrutiny? The explanation implies there is only strict scrutiny and rational basis...

The standard of review to which governmental action is subjected when challenged on substantive due process grounds depends on the right asserted by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is asserting a fundamental right, the government must establish that its requirement is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest. If a fundamental right is not involved, the plaintiff must show that the restriction does not bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Laws are presumed valid under this standard, so the burden is on the challenger to overcome this presumption by establishing that the law is arbitrary or irrational.

[+] Spoiler

This one got me too. He sued on a right to have long hair (lifestyle choice, not a fundamental right, rational basis); he did not sue because of gender discrimination (intermediate scrutiny).

[Chardee_MacDennis]

I cannot figure out what the difference is between these two questions about 3rd party beneficiaries as to why they would have different answers. Can you help?

[+] Spoiler

PRACTICE: Contracts & Sales MBE PQs Session 5 (34) Question ID#4374

A painter entered into a valid contract with a mayor to paint his portrait for $5,000. The contract provided that, rather than paying the painter, the mayor was to pay the $5,000 to the painter’s son. The contract also prohibited the assignment of any rights or duties arising under the contract without the permission of the other party.
Subsequently, the son, upon learning of the contract from his mother, decided to donate this money to a charity and transferred his rights under the contract to the charity without securing the permission of the mayor. The painter painted the portrait, but the mayor did not pay anyone. The charity filed suit against the mayor for breach of contract. The charity has taken no action nor incurred any expenses related to the contract.
Will the charity prevail in its action against the mayor?

A Yes, because the charity was an assignee of the son’s contractual rights.
B Yes, because the charity is a donee beneficiary of the contract.
C No, because the charity has not detrimentally relied on the mayor’s promise.
D No, because the contract prohibits assignments.

Answer choice A is correct. Generally, contract rights are assignable unless the assignment materially increases the duty or risk of the obligor or materially reduces the obligor’s chance of obtaining performance. Here, because the right assigned is the right to receive payment and the painter has performed his obligation under the contract by painting the portrait, this right may be assigned and enforced by the charity through a breach of contract action.
Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the charity does benefit from the contract by virtue of the son’s gratuitous assignment, the charity is not a donee beneficiary of the contract because the painter and mayor did not enter into contract with the intent to benefit the charity.
Answer choice C is incorrect because, as assignee of the son’s contractual right to receive payment from the mayor, the charity can enforce those rights without the need to establish that it detrimentally relied on the mayor’s promise.
Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the assignment of contractual rights in violation of a prohibition against the assignment of rights does constitute a breach of contract, prohibition is not enforceable against the assignee to prevent the assignee from enjoying the assigned rights.
 
Milestone Exam 1 Question 30

An attorney entered into a valid contract with a client to provide legal services for a set fee of $5,000. The contract provides that rather than paying the attorney, the client is to pay the fee to the attorney’s daughter. The daughter, upon learning of the contract from her father, decided to donate this money to a local animal shelter. She told the manager of a local animal shelter that she planned to donate $5,000 to the shelter. The manager, relying on this, purchased $5,000 worth of pet supplies and medicine. The lawyer rendered the legal services, but the client ultimately failed to pay the daughter, who in turn did not donate the money to the shelter. The animal shelter files suit against the client for breach of contract. Will the animal shelter prevail in its action against the client?

A Yes, because of the animal shelter’s detrimental reliance.
B Yes, because the shelter is a donee beneficiary.
C No, because the attorney had no intention to benefit the animal shelter.
D No, because delegation of duties is not permitted under a services contract.

Answer choice C is correct. A third party may recover on a contract if that third party is an intended beneficiary of the agreement. For a third party to be an intended beneficiary, there must be a contract between a promisee and another party, with the clear intent that the contract directly benefit the third party, a breach by either party to the contract, and damages sustained by the third party. Here, the promisee under the contract is the attorney, and the contract expressly provides that the intended beneficiary is the daughter. Because the attorney did not intend to benefit the animal shelter, the animal shelter is merely an incidental beneficiary and cannot enforce performance under the contract.
Answer choice A is incorrect because the animal shelter’s reliance was on the daughter’s promise to give the shelter $5,000, not on the client’s promise to pay that amount to the daughter.
Answer choice B is incorrect because, although the shelter was a donee beneficiary of the contract since the daughter intended to donate the $5,000 received from the client to the shelter, the shelter was not an intended beneficiary, but only an incidental beneficiary since the client was unaware of the daughter’s plans to donate the money to the shelter. In addition, the Second Restatement has done away with the distinction between creditor and donee beneficiaries.
Answer choice D is incorrect because, although duties may not be delegated when the other party to the contract has a substantial interest in having the delegating individual perform, there has been no delegation of duties in this case; the client has simply failed to perform the duty to pay the daughter.

[+] Spoiler

In the first Q, the K rights were assigned to the charity, so it can enforce. In the second Q, the intended beneficiary is the daughter, not the shelter. The shelter is only an incidental beneficiary; thus, no enforcement.

[Easy-E]

From ConLaw PQ 3 - no long hairs in sports

[+] Spoiler

A public co-ed high school has adopted a requirement that boys who play any school-sponsored sport cannot have hair longer than four inches. The school does not impose a similar requirement on girls who play a school-sponsored sport. A male student in the school challenges this requirement in federal court on the grounds that it interferes with his right to wear his hair as he pleases.

Why does this not trigger intermediate scrutiny? The explanation implies there is only strict scrutiny and rational basis...

The standard of review to which governmental action is subjected when challenged on substantive due process grounds depends on the right asserted by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is asserting a fundamental right, the government must establish that its requirement is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest. If a fundamental right is not involved, the plaintiff must show that the restriction does not bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Laws are presumed valid under this standard, so the burden is on the challenger to overcome this presumption by establishing that the law is arbitrary or irrational.

[+] Spoiler

B/c he's not challenging on the grounds that the action discriminates on gender, he's challenging on the grounds that it infringes on his right to wear his hair the way he wants to. That's not a fundamental right, so rational basis. This is one of those stupid kinda "gotcha" questions if you don't read carefully.

Ahh I see. So if the hypo had said "challenged on EPC grounds", then intermediate scrutiny. I gotta get better at slowing down and reading the question better. I usually miss 1-2 per session for overlooking things like this, and I always come in with plenty of time to spare (except property )

[Easy-E]

When you can answer based on the question alone, and don't actually need to read the facts:

[Fivedham]

Con Law MBE PQ 5 is officially the most difficult set of questions I've done so far in Themis.

[Easy-E]

Conlaw PQs suck. Cool Themis, a question that turns on what the 21st Amendment does beside repeal prohibition.

edit: I know we bitch about the PQs including too many exceptions, but this one in conlaw session #3 about shipping containers that has a six-part test that wasn't in the lecture. C'mon.

[Fivedham]

Conlaw PQs suck. Cool Themis, a question that turns on what the 21st Amendment does beside repeal prohibition.

edit: I know we bitch about the PQs including too many exceptions, but this one in conlaw session #3 about shipping containers that has a six-part test that wasn't in the lecture. C'mon.

And like, more Thirteenth Amendment questions than have literally ever been asked about it since 1865.

[kay2016]

What scores are we supposed to be getting on the essays?