Texas Saloon- Feb. 2016 Texas Bar Forum

[Feb16Retaker]

Did anyone get a physical ticket mailed to them? Or is it just "go online and print out your ticket" this time? In July we got it mailed to us.

It's online exclusively, as far as I know. I remember seeing somewhere that the paper tickets will not be mailed out.

[Feb16Retaker]

Hey y'all, I just came across a strategy to answer one of those pesky "hearsay not within any exception" questions and I wanted to share. I apologize if you guys are already familiar with it but this type of question always tripped me because I'd start to think about ALL the hearsay exceptions to see if it's hearsay not within any exception. Lol. So I'm very excited about this strategy:

If the answer choice says “Hearsay not within any exception,” (1) make sure the evidence proffered is hearsay (2) If yes, look at other answer choices for the possible hearsay exceptions -- If the evidence doesn’t qualify as exception under any of them, then “hearsay not within any exception” is the correct answer! Ta-da!

[BVest]

Did anyone get a physical ticket mailed to them? Or is it just "go online and print out your ticket" this time? In July we got it mailed to us.

It's online exclusively, as far as I know. I remember seeing somewhere that the paper tickets will not be mailed out.

Yeah there seem to be a number of changes for this administration. One site, typeable P/E, online admission ticket, no taking the essay questions from the test site, etc.

[longhornlaw]

My allergies picked the worst fucking time to kick in.

Me right now:

[bluesplitter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb-cAJRZrlA

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

Hey y'all, I just came across a strategy to answer one of those pesky "hearsay not within any exception" questions and I wanted to share. I apologize if you guys are already familiar with it but this type of question always tripped me because I'd start to think about ALL the hearsay exceptions to see if it's hearsay not within any exception. Lol. So I'm very excited about this strategy:

If the answer choice says “Hearsay not within any exception,” (1) make sure the evidence proffered is hearsay (2) If yes, look at other answer choices for the possible hearsay exceptions -- If the evidence doesn’t qualify as exception under any of them, then “hearsay not within any exception” is the correct answer! Ta-da!

To add, one of the most helpful tips I've heard for these questions is to not look at it as "hearsay within any exception," but instead "hearsay not within any of the other 3 answer choices." Makes it way easier to answer!

[Feb16Retaker]

Hey y'all, I just came across a strategy to answer one of those pesky "hearsay not within any exception" questions and I wanted to share. I apologize if you guys are already familiar with it but this type of question always tripped me because I'd start to think about ALL the hearsay exceptions to see if it's hearsay not within any exception. Lol. So I'm very excited about this strategy:

If the answer choice says “Hearsay not within any exception,” (1) make sure the evidence proffered is hearsay (2) If yes, look at other answer choices for the possible hearsay exceptions -- If the evidence doesn’t qualify as exception under any of them, then “hearsay not within any exception” is the correct answer! Ta-da!

To add, one of the most helpful tips I've heard for these questions is to not look at it as "hearsay within any exception," but instead "hearsay not within any of the other 3 answer choices." Makes it way easier to answer!

Yes!

[mtyler19]

Here are the past 5 years of MPTs with Texas noted with a star (and parenthetical number)

SUMMARY:
7 (3) X Objective/Partner memo (including 2 (0 in Texas) that had an extra assignment (Arbitration clause language; Closing argument))
4 (3) X Brief/Arguments for brief
4 (3) X Client/Opinion Letter
1 (1) X Demand Letter
1 X Response Letter
1 X Contract Provisions Redraft
1 X Bench Memo
1 X Persuasive Legislative document

2015
July
Client Letter *
Client Letter
February
Objective Memo *
Response letter to regulatory agency

2014
July
Objective Memo
Demand Letter *
February
Brief for hearing appealing administrative decision *
Objective Memo

2013
July
Arguments for MSJ Brief *
Redraft contract provisions with notes as to why changes made
February
Opinion Letter *
Brief for Mot. to Transfer

2012
July
Bench Memo
Arguments for brief on preliminary injunction *
February
Persuasive document advocating legislation
Client letter for partner's signature *

2011
July
Objective memo re Arbitration clauses AND an arbitration clause
Objective memo *
February
Objective memo AND closing argument
Objective memo *

I forgot to thank you a ton, this is awesome I really appreciate it!

[BVest]

No problem.

[longhornlaw]

For y'all that received your essays back - how do they determine an essay is a 10 vs a 15 vs a 20 vs a 25?

It looks like, if you crank out a 15 of every essay and hit a 135 on the MBE, you can get a 2 on every P&E and get a 3 on the MPT and you'll still be well above passing.

[longhornlaw]

If anybody is looking for a Civ Pro outline for the MBE, a kind user shared this one. Ten pages long. They had a 152 on the MBE.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11BL ... tCMYM/edit

[Feb16Retaker]

Thank you. Very helpful.

[jamescastle]

Is there a chart of past consumer law questions and what they've been, i.e. DTPA, debt, DTPA+tie-in, etc.?

[mtyler19]

Can anyone explain piercing the corporate veil?? Idk why this is one of those subjects I keep coming back to.

[longhornlaw]

Can anyone explain piercing the corporate veil?? Idk why this is one of those subjects I keep coming back to.

Generally, a shareholder is not going to be personally liable for debts or other obligations of the corporation. However, in order to prevent fraud or achieve equity, the court can pierce the corporate veil. Typically it is done to close corporations and LLCs, but can be done to bigger corporations and their subsidiaries.

You have to show that the shareholder has abused the privilege of incorporating and fairness requires the piercing.

The main theory to show abuse of the privilege of incorporation is the Alter Ego theory. Look at the facts and see if the Shareholder is essentially treating the corporate assets as his own to the detriment of a third party. Some of the factors you can look at include a failure to observe corporate formalities, like annual meetings or issuing shareholder reports, or commingling of corporate funds in a personal bank account, or using corporate assets as personal assets, but the mere failure to observe a formality is not enough. You can also look at a subsidiary and see if it is merely an extension of the bigger corporation. For example, say you have Big Company Apples with subsidiary Bananas. The employees of Bananas are issued pay stubs from Apples. All of Bananas products are Apples products. The name on Bananas buildings is Apples. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but they named it a platypus, it's probably still a duck, and you can pierce Bananas to get to Apples.

The other theory is the Undercapitalization theory. This basically is that when the corporation was first capitalized, there was not enough invested to cover its prospective liabilities. This is usually done so if they have to declare bankruptcy, they've received the full value of goods or services and won't have to pay out the full value of what they received.

Of note - you can't simply make a claim for fraud against the corporation and get the veil pierced. You have to show that the shareholder made the corporation commit the fraud for their personal benefit.

[left shark]

Can anyone explain piercing the corporate veil?? Idk why this is one of those subjects I keep coming back to.

Generally, a shareholder is not going to be personally liable for debts or other obligations of the corporation. However, in order to prevent fraud or achieve equity, the court can pierce the corporate veil. Typically it is done to close corporations and LLCs, but can be done to bigger corporations and their subsidiaries.

You have to show that the shareholder has abused the privilege of incorporating and fairness requires the piercing.

The main theory to show abuse of the privilege of incorporation is the Alter Ego theory. Look at the facts and see if the Shareholder is essentially treating the corporate assets as his own to the detriment of a third party. Some of the factors you can look at include a failure to observe corporate formalities, like annual meetings or issuing shareholder reports, or commingling of corporate funds in a personal bank account, or using corporate assets as personal assets, but the mere failure to observe a formality is not enough. You can also look at a subsidiary and see if it is merely an extension of the bigger corporation. For example, say you have Big Company Apples with subsidiary Bananas. The employees of Bananas are issued pay stubs from Apples. All of Bananas products are Apples products. The name on Bananas buildings is Apples. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but they named it a platypus, it's probably still a duck, and you can pierce Bananas to get to Apples.

The other theory is the Undercapitalization theory. This basically is that when the corporation was first capitalized, there was not enough invested to cover its prospective liabilities. This is usually done so if they have to declare bankruptcy, they've received the full value of goods or services and won't have to pay out the full value of what they received.

Of note - you can't simply make a claim for fraud against the corporation and get the veil pierced. You have to show that the shareholder made the corporation commit the fraud for their personal benefit.

Now my fingers are crossed for a veil piercing question because the Apples and Bananas and PlatypusDuck will stick with me. Good timing, since it's business associations day for me. Thanks

[longhornlaw]

Can anyone explain piercing the corporate veil?? Idk why this is one of those subjects I keep coming back to.

Generally, a shareholder is not going to be personally liable for debts or other obligations of the corporation. However, in order to prevent fraud or achieve equity, the court can pierce the corporate veil. Typically it is done to close corporations and LLCs, but can be done to bigger corporations and their subsidiaries.

You have to show that the shareholder has abused the privilege of incorporating and fairness requires the piercing.

The main theory to show abuse of the privilege of incorporation is the Alter Ego theory. Look at the facts and see if the Shareholder is essentially treating the corporate assets as his own to the detriment of a third party. Some of the factors you can look at include a failure to observe corporate formalities, like annual meetings or issuing shareholder reports, or commingling of corporate funds in a personal bank account, or using corporate assets as personal assets, but the mere failure to observe a formality is not enough. You can also look at a subsidiary and see if it is merely an extension of the bigger corporation. For example, say you have Big Company Apples with subsidiary Bananas. The employees of Bananas are issued pay stubs from Apples. All of Bananas products are Apples products. The name on Bananas buildings is Apples. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but they named it a platypus, it's probably still a duck, and you can pierce Bananas to get to Apples.

The other theory is the Undercapitalization theory. This basically is that when the corporation was first capitalized, there was not enough invested to cover its prospective liabilities. This is usually done so if they have to declare bankruptcy, they've received the full value of goods or services and won't have to pay out the full value of what they received.

Of note - you can't simply make a claim for fraud against the corporation and get the veil pierced. You have to show that the shareholder made the corporation commit the fraud for their personal benefit.

Now my fingers are crossed for a veil piercing question because the Apples and Bananas and PlatypusDuck will stick with me. Good timing, since it's business associations day for me. Thanks

You're welcome!

From what I can tell, they haven't tested it at least in the last 4 years. Looks like they've tested a weird wrinkle of law in each of the past few administrations so it might be time for the veil to come out.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

The consumer law fact patters are so funny sometimes. Like "Bob was so distraught that his blender didn't work that he began experiencing intense nightmares and went into severe depression. He now must visit a psychiatrist once a week. Bob has sued Blenders-R-Us for damages."

[longhornlaw]

The consumer law fact patters are so funny sometimes. Like "Bob was so distraught that his blender didn't work that he began experiencing intense nightmares and went into severe depression. He now must visit a psychiatrist once a week. Bob has sued Blenders-R-Us for damages."

My smoothies were ruined! faints

[left shark]

Is there a chart of past consumer law questions and what they've been, i.e. DTPA, debt, DTPA+tie-in, etc.?

I know someone who does. As soon as they send it to me, I will post it.

[longhornlaw]

So how's everybody feeling today?

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

So how's everybody feeling today?

Okay. Still doing a bunch of essays, and having no idea what the answer is. Trying to pick up the P&E too. I've put that on the backburner till now. MBE stuff going fine.

[bluesplitter]

So how's everybody feeling today?

Feeling better than Friday, which was seeped with doubt....


Yet, today---feeling really good, because I know i put the work in,...and should be fine.

[tealeaf23]

So how's everybody feeling today?

Logically, feeling pretty good about the MBE. Working through essays this week but I feel I've reviewed/outlined a good amount.
Emotionally, trying to convince myself that I've put in the work and that I'll be fine when all I want to do is curl up into a ball and forget the Bar is next week

[Lemon Lyman]

For those feeling good about the MBE, what % in mixed practice sets are y'all shooting for? I've plateaued and am starting to worry.