California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[lithoman]

I was also not sure of the other PR ones. If a client wants you to deny a reasonable extension purely out of bad faith, I assume you have to refuse and you also may withdraw because your client is insisting on unethical conduct.

If a client makes a depo excuse in bad faith, it seems like you must withdraw because you know your client is using a litigation tactic for the sole purpose of harassment and because you know continued employment will result in an ethical violation (material misstatement to opposing counsel for purpose of harassment). It also seems like you may be allowed to violate the A/C privilege under the fraud exception. (This issue was pretty unclear to me because I'm not sure whether knowing the client postponed a depo in bad faith really involved your employment/assistance, in which case there would be only permissive withdrawal and no disclosure.)

[EZ as AsDf]

Hm. Just realized I wrote:

Illegally obtained evidence. Subject to a balance w/ potential to deter officer conduct and indiduals interest.

Don't know where that came from. Is it an absolute bar?

[Teoeo]

Hm. Just realized I wrote:

Illegally obtained evidence. Subject to a balance w/ potential to deter officer conduct and indiduals interest.

Don't know where that came from. Is it an absolute bar?

Just because evidence is obtained illegally doesn't necessarily mean it will be thrown out. The exclusionary rule is subject to the "good faith" exception (which I think is what you are talking about) where a balancing test is used to determine whether exclusion is appropriate given the circumstances and subjective belief of the officer.

Note: I took the bar last July, so my memory on this is definitely not perfect, but I am 100 percent positive that illegally obtaining evidence does not automatically absolute bar its admissibility.

[gyarados]

Am I the only one who thinks it makes a LOT more sense to read the file FIRST and then the library? Everyone has told me to do it the other way around. I took the advice and read the library first for the first PT exam, and completely messed up, and ran out of time... but for the 2nd PT, I read the file first, and then the library and found that it made a ton more sense to become familiar with the details of the case before looking for the rules. Feel HORRIBLE about the first PT, really good about the 2nd one! Won't be enough to make up for the damage done on Tuesday though... or those horrid MBEs that were nothing like the previous NBCE questions I did!

I agree. Read library first in PT-A because that's what the barbri guy said and felt afterwards that reading the file first would have been better. Read file first in PT-B and felt great about that order.

[AguasAguas!]

So here's some questions i'm already pretty sure i got wrong...damn it.

question about purchasing 20% of an interest in a 500 acre development -- answer was that no material mistake was present so cant rescind
question about native american land and religion -- answer was something about they didnt plead it intent
question about stealing a bell after getting fired from a repair co -- ans was larceny by trick
contracts question about damages - not sure if answer was 100k or 40k
the federal hud question -- no idea
there was a crim question about deviation from minimum sentencing or something -- no idea
a defeamation question regarding a candidate -- i think correct answer was its an opinion, but i think i put no liable cause hes a candidate
con law question about making military tribunals -- answer was commander in chief power is source. fuck.

Are you sure about the larceny trick one? Because I put that but then in hindsight had wished I put false pretenses...




Hope I still passed...might have scored 120. And definitely bombed the first pt. feel good on everything else. Don't know how I'm gonna wait 4 months. Don't wanna get fired from my job if i don't pass. please god help me. shit.

[AguasAguas!]

jesus did we need to have separate headings for sub-issues? If so, yeah, I'm definitely screwed bc I had only 4 headings total. FML.

Me too. That PT was a beast. Took me longer than any practice one to get through the materials and organize before I could starting writing. At the end I was just copying and pasting my outline with a really weak analysis.

[Biotech]

I think my headings in PT b were wrong. I only included rules not facts. PT a was ok I finished it. I pretty much only talked about hearsay in evidence. Formation of a trust trustee powers and quasi community property in the trusts essay. I don't know. I missed it by two points last time with a 65 and 60 on my PTs. If I bomb PT b this time I don't think I have a chance.

[TitoSantana]

I can't believe I spent two months learning about the second amendment and maritime law. I'm felling pretty solid on three MBE questions.

[jarofsoup]

Only one of the issues had a subheading

[lmr]

Hm. Just realized I wrote:

Illegally obtained evidence. Subject to a balance w/ potential to deter officer conduct and indiduals interest.

Don't know where that came from. Is it an absolute bar?

Are you referring to the crim pro essay and the D's statement? I think the point was for Miranda violations his statement was still admissible to impeach him if he planned to perjure himself.

[Snape]

The Crim question did not say to apply CA law. Thus, based on the directions on first page to apply general laws (ABA) unless explicitly told to apply CA any analysis of CA ethics about testifying was not relevant or appropriate to the question.

[Jay Heizenburg]

The Crim question did not say to apply CA law. Thus, based on the directions on first page to apply general laws (ABA) unless explicitly told to apply CA any analysis of CA ethics about testifying was not relevant or appropriate to the question.

My approach and answer was more in line with this.

[lmr]

The Crim question did not say to apply CA law. Thus, based on the directions on first page to apply general laws (ABA) unless explicitly told to apply CA any analysis of CA ethics about testifying was not relevant or appropriate to the question.

It didn't even ask you to address ethics at all ABA or CA. So for people who wrote about ethics CA or ABA don't see how they would get hurt discussing both or none at all. Plus the lawyer wasn't planning on having the guy testify so a proper analysis regarding the distinctions bw ABA and CA was not necessary.

[Jay Heizenburg]

I was also not sure of the other PR ones. If a client wants you to deny a reasonable extension purely out of bad faith, I assume you have to refuse and you also may withdraw because your client is insisting on unethical conduct.

If a client makes a depo excuse in bad faith, it seems like you must withdraw because you know your client is using a litigation tactic for the sole purpose of harassment and because you know continued employment will result in an ethical violation (material misstatement to opposing counsel for purpose of harassment). It also seems like you may be allowed to violate the A/C privilege under the fraud exception. (This issue was pretty unclear to me because I'm not sure whether knowing the client postponed a depo in bad faith really involved your employment/assistance, in which case there would be only permissive withdrawal and no disclosure.)

So, she was pretty much in violation on all 3 issues (a-c), correct?

[lithoman]

The Crim question did not say to apply CA law. Thus, based on the directions on first page to apply general laws (ABA) unless explicitly told to apply CA any analysis of CA ethics about testifying was not relevant or appropriate to the question.

It didn't even ask you to address ethics at all ABA or CA. So for people who wrote about ethics CA or ABA don't see how they would get hurt discussing both or none at all. Plus the lawyer wasn't planning on having the guy testify so a proper analysis regarding the distinctions bw ABA and CA was not necessary.

This is all well and good. I am just personally curious what the correct answer is under CA and ABA law when you know your client is about to falsely testify.

[lmr]

The Crim question did not say to apply CA law. Thus, based on the directions on first page to apply general laws (ABA) unless explicitly told to apply CA any analysis of CA ethics about testifying was not relevant or appropriate to the question.

It didn't even ask you to address ethics at all ABA or CA. So for people who wrote about ethics CA or ABA don't see how they would get hurt discussing both or none at all. Plus the lawyer wasn't planning on having the guy testify so a proper analysis regarding the distinctions bw ABA and CA was not necessary.

This is all well and good. I am just personally curious what the correct answer is under CA and ABA law when you know your client is about to falsely testify.

CA: have him testify in a narrative fashion. Cannot encourage it can't use it in closing argument. emphasis on client's con right to testify in his defense.
ABA: (i) good faith effort not to perjure himself; (II) withdraw if fails (III) tell judge

[lithoman]

CA: have him testify in a narrative fashion. Cannot encourage it can't use it in closing argument. emphasis on client's con right to testify in his defense.
ABA: (i) good faith effort not to perjure himself; (II) withdraw if fails (III) tell judge

OK, so the idea is that even though there is mandatory withdrawal in CA for "continued employment resulting in ethical violations," Sixth Amendment rights of a criminal defendant trump that. I assume you are still allowed to permissively withdraw in CA if possible?

[lmr]

CA: have him testify in a narrative fashion. Cannot encourage it can't use it in closing argument. emphasis on client's con right to testify in his defense.
ABA: (i) good faith effort not to perjure himself; (II) withdraw if fails (III) tell judge

OK, so the idea is that even though there is mandatory withdrawal in CA for "continued employment resulting in ethical violations," due process rights of a criminal defendant trump that. I assume you are still allowed to permissively withdraw in CA if possible?

I think the basic idea is that you can't disclose to the judge that you want to withdraw bc your client plans to perjure himself i guess if you can convince a judge wo breaking confidence that you have good cause to wdraw then i don't see why you wouldn't be able to wdraw under insistence of client of pursuing an imprudent or objectionable tactics.

[TitoSantana]

All your legal questions can be answered by watching an episode of Judge Judy. I just caught an episode and boy was it a duzy!

[glitter178]

I didn't finish the first PT. I've been reading some websites that basically say not finishing a pt basically means I fail the bar.

Help.

[LSATNightmares]

The Crim question did not say to apply CA law. Thus, based on the directions on first page to apply general laws (ABA) unless explicitly told to apply CA any analysis of CA ethics about testifying was not relevant or appropriate to the question.

It didn't even ask you to address ethics at all ABA or CA. So for people who wrote about ethics CA or ABA don't see how they would get hurt discussing both or none at all. Plus the lawyer wasn't planning on having the guy testify so a proper analysis regarding the distinctions bw ABA and CA was not necessary.

Ditto on this. It was a criminal procedure question.

[lmr]

I didn't finish the first PT. I've been reading some websites that basically say not finishing a pt basically means I fail the bar.

Help.

How much didn't you finish by?

[kerryconverse]

I think my headings in PT b were wrong. I only included rules not facts. PT a was ok I finished it. I pretty much only talked about hearsay in evidence. Formation of a trust trustee powers and quasi community property in the trusts essay. I don't know. I missed it by two points last time with a 65 and 60 on my PTs. If I bomb PT b this time I don't think I have a chance.

Jesus are you saying you failed in february with a 1338? Wow that's painful. Hope you passed this time. I'm dreading the possibility of getting something like a 1338 myself this time. I bombed PT A and feel horrible about the mbe despite scoring 145+ on barbri

[kerryconverse]

So here's some questions i'm already pretty sure i got wrong...damn it.

question about purchasing 20% of an interest in a 500 acre development -- answer was that no material mistake was present so cant rescind
question about native american land and religion -- answer was something about they didnt plead it intent
question about stealing a bell after getting fired from a repair co -- ans was larceny by trick
contracts question about damages - not sure if answer was 100k or 40k
the federal hud question -- no idea
there was a crim question about deviation from minimum sentencing or something -- no idea
a defeamation question regarding a candidate -- i think correct answer was its an opinion, but i think i put no liable cause hes a candidate
con law question about making military tribunals -- answer was commander in chief power is source. fuck.

Are you sure about the larceny trick one? Because I put that but then in hindsight had wished I put false pretenses...




Hope I still passed...might have scored 120. And definitely bombed the first pt. feel good on everything else. Don't know how I'm gonna wait 4 months. Don't wanna get fired from my job if i don't pass. please god help me. shit.

Yes I'm pretty sure the correct answer is larceny by trick. I wrongly put false pretenses.


There was also a contracts question about rescission after 6 months becuase of fraudulent misrepresentation. Correct answer was can't rescind (b/c of laches). I put could rescind. wtf was i thinking.

[gyarados]

I didn't finish the first PT. I've been reading some websites that basically say not finishing a pt basically means I fail the bar.

Help.

That's nuts as long as you wrote something significant. Even if you get a bad grade it's only 13% and won't have that much of an impact on your overall score.

If you wrote so little that they'd dock points for not fully responding, then maybe.