2017 February California Bar Exam Forum

[LockBox]

Also sending out good vibes. A friend sent me the essay topics, but i'm not sure if we can share yet - so i'll keep it to myself. Good luck guys, you've done the heavy lifting, now all there is to do is show your work.

[Roupie]

Also sending out good vibes. A friend sent me the essay topics, but i'm not sure if we can share yet - so i'll keep it to myself. Good luck guys, you've done the heavy lifting, now all there is to do is show your work.

So how'd everybody do today?

[unclepete]

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

[Zebra]

it was shitty

[justanotheruser]

I feel like I quoted the library/etc. too much in the PT. Is this a problem?

[a male human]

I feel like I quoted the library/etc. too much in the PT. Is this a problem?

Probably not as long as you used the stuff you quoted.

[justanotheruser]

This might go without saying, but now that I know 3 topics are out of the way for essays, I should review fewer topics for essays on Thursday right?

[a male human]

This might go without saying, but now that I know 3 topics are out of the way for essays, I should review fewer topics for essays on Thursday right?

All subjects are still fair game, but yes, you can sort of exclude today's subjects from being the focus since they are much less likely to appear.

[RickSanchez]

What is the typical word count for a decent PT? I feel like I wrote way too little.

[sittin_pretty]

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.

[RickSanchez]

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.

I thought it was a contract misrepresentation fraud + remedies (bigger portion).

Just went over misrepresentation both intentional and negligent and other contract defenses.

Then did expectation damage, reliance damage (go for this), consequential damages, incidental damages, and punitive damages.

[shawn11h]

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.

I thought it was a contract misrepresentation fraud + remedies (bigger portion).

Just went over misrepresentation both intentional and negligent and other contract defenses.

Then did expectation damage, reliance damage (go for this), consequential damages, incidental damages, and punitive damages.

You can't have punitive damages for a claim of fraud under contracts.

[Zebra]

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.

I thought it was a contract misrepresentation fraud + remedies (bigger portion).

Just went over misrepresentation both intentional and negligent and other contract defenses.

Then did expectation damage, reliance damage (go for this), consequential damages, incidental damages, and punitive damages.

You can't have punitive damages for a claim of fraud under contracts.

You can where there's fraud

[rcharter1978]

I'm not taking your exam, but if there is fraud wouldn't the contract be voidable and you could potentially proceed with a tort claim.

Either way, doesn't that dude from bar secrets do a day 1 rundown/analysis?

[RickSanchez]

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.

I thought it was a contract misrepresentation fraud + remedies (bigger portion).

Just went over misrepresentation both intentional and negligent and other contract defenses.

Then did expectation damage, reliance damage (go for this), consequential damages, incidental damages, and punitive damages.

You can't have punitive damages for a claim of fraud under contracts.

You can where there's fraud

I think my answers were bit incoherent, but I made sure to hit all the issues and at least try to apply all the facts. If contract gets rescinded due to fraud you can claim punitive damage if it was wanton and willful, thus arising to independent tort. But I missed few issues and I am not worried because there is no way to hit every issue with the limited amount of time.

I am worried about my PT though since I only really had like 1800 words for it. I thought I had a pretty good essay but the lack of words scares me.

[lhanvt13]

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

[RickSanchez]

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

Professional Responsibilities + Corporations
Crim law + Crim Pro

Torts or Civ Pro

That's my prediction

[unclepete]

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.

Yeah my plan at the beginning was to do a Tort and a Contract analysis, followed by Remedies. But I ran out of time and was too confused by Remedies (do you call it compensatory? or expectation? what do you do about punitive if its just contract?) that I ended up just making the cause of action analysis ambiguous. Meaning, I just listed general "Fraud" elements (material misrepresentation, intent to defraud, reasonable reliance, damages) and just didn't answer whether it was Contracts or Tort. I feel like this was not the right way to go because if it was Contracts it should have included an analysis on contract formation, etc. and then Fraud as a defense (??) which didn't really fit the fact pattern. I just don't know.

[RickSanchez]

Are we allowed to talk about essays now? What did people think of #2?

Yes, please, let's talk about #2!!

Drove me CRAZY, trying to figure out if it was a triple-cross over.
Tort fraud (misrep) + contract fraud (inducement) + remedies??

Do they DO triple crossovers, like that? Over lunch break in Pasadena, no two people I talked to had approached it the same way. Some people treated it as tort fraud, some contract fraud, one guy even treated it a a pure property cause of action, still don't follow his logic on that one. Something about mergers and deeds.. .he was kinda out there. Me, I treated it as torts + contracts + remedies, but I'm not entirely confident that was right.

But really. I'd like to pinpoint whether it was JUST torts & remedies, or whether they also wanted us to do a contract analysis. Because that would help me figure out what to focus on in prepping for 4-6.

I think we can clearly count on torts being off the table... (and remedies and wills and evidence)... but contracts too?

(and was this property guy onto something?)

I got so caught up in trying to decide between torts and contracts, my remedies analysis suffered as a result. Wish I hadn't let #2 get to me like it did.

Yeah my plan at the beginning was to do a Tort and a Contract analysis, followed by Remedies. But I ran out of time and was too confused by Remedies (do you call it compensatory? or expectation? what do you do about punitive if its just contract?) that I ended up just making the cause of action analysis ambiguous. Meaning, I just listed general "Fraud" elements (material misrepresentation, intent to defraud, reasonable reliance, damages) and just didn't answer whether it was Contracts or Tort. I feel like this was not the right way to go because if it was Contracts it should have included an analysis on contract formation, etc. and then Fraud as a defense (??) which didn't really fit the fact pattern. I just don't know.

Yeah, the question had both contracts and torts elements and it was really hard to call it a "contract question" or a "torts question". It was really a hybrid and that was just confusing. I get the sense as long as you listed the elements of misrepresentation (fraud) and the remedies, you will be fine.

[rcharter1978]

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

OMG, i knew these fools were gonna hit you with a straight evidence question!

You're getting a PR question, be it a crossover or by itself.

[lhanvt13]

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

OMG, i knew these fools were gonna hit you with a straight evidence question!

You're getting a PR question, be it a crossover or by itself.

At least it was straight FRE! Just... so much typing.

[rcharter1978]

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

Professional Responsibilities + Corporations
Crim law + Crim Pro

Torts or Civ Pro

That's my prediction

I'd be surprised if you got civ pro.

I wasn't surprised by evidence because they did civ pro like this: General civ pro, skip an administration, then .CA civ pro. So, i figured evidence would be the opposite and it was; CA evidence, skip an administration, general evidence.

So, id be surprised if they have you civ pro again (not saying they can't or won't but I'd be surprised) you'll get a PR question though. I wonder if they will do a criminal law or con from pro question. I think it's been a while.

[rcharter1978]

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

OMG, i knew these fools were gonna hit you with a straight evidence question!

You're getting a PR question, be it a crossover or by itself.

At least it was straight FRE! Just... so much typing.

LOL, you are right on. You should have seen my face in February when it was a .CA evidence instruction. I was so mad!

[RickSanchez]

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

OMG, i knew these fools were gonna hit you with a straight evidence question!

You're getting a PR question, be it a crossover or by itself.

At least it was straight FRE! Just... so much typing.

LOL, you are right on. You should have seen my face in February when it was a .CA evidence instruction. I was so mad!

wow I honestly would have cried

[RickSanchez]

Wills trusts/CP
K/Rem
Evidence

So... I'm feeling corporations on Thursday... which I'm not thrilled about

Professional Responsibilities + Corporations
Crim law + Crim Pro

Torts or Civ Pro

That's my prediction

I'd be surprised if you got civ pro.

I wasn't surprised by evidence because they did civ pro like this: General civ pro, skip an administration, then .CA civ pro. So, i figured evidence would be the opposite and it was; CA evidence, skip an administration, general evidence.

So, id be surprised if they have you civ pro again (not saying they can't or won't but I'd be surprised) you'll get a PR question though. I wonder if they will do a criminal law or con from pro question. I think it's been a while.

Right on! This makes sense