California February 2016 Bar Exam (Westside For Life) Forum

[BrokenMouse]

.

[legalize-it]

Yeah let's talk about essay 4 for a sec here. Having reflected on that one for a good week or so, I believe that was some cheapshot by the bar graders to use "cross complaint" in a fact pattern, when clearly it was testing federal rules and law. All that does is make us waste 15 minutes trying to double check it was not a civ pro question. We should only have to worry about and prepare for lawyering skills or something that is related to the practice of law, not some test taking skill. I saw a few proud posters here who took the bait and laid out California civ pro subject matter jrx analysis. I lost a good 15-20 minutes trying to make sure I am answering the call of the question and that in fact question 4 and 6 were not the same subjects being tested twice. It sucks having to worry about the format/topic of the essay rather than the content of the essay. It does not in any way test any relevant skills related to law. It's just another bar examiner's pathetic attempt at decking points outside of lawyering skills.

I was reviewing a few contract questions after the exam and noticed that they've done this before. Some poor souls had double contracts questions in July 2008. They tested a full blown Common Law Contract question and then another contracts/remedy question later. During the exam, I freaked out wondering if it was possible that they were testing 2 K questions. The joke was on us! I had to run through each subject to see what they were testing and then settled on Remedies -(contracts) because there were not enough facts for Civ Pro. As I continued setting it up, it finally sank that it was purely Contract/Remedies. But, the others were not alone, it was tricky just figuring out what they were testing.

BTW- although the question referred to Reformation/Rescission, and it is standard to discuss unclean hands, latches, fraud, misrep. etc., were we supposed to discuss Specific Performance along with reformation?

[Jimmyg08]

I did not see specific performance and while working with my tutor focused on just specifically answering the call of the question. I became familiar with the acronyms good dog for rescission and very good dog for reformation.

For rescission all I go through is grounds for rescission and defense unclean hands/ laches.

For reformation when I practiced I would walk through quickly if there was a valid contract - then grounds then defenses.

Hypothetically speaking If I was just asked about those two I would walk through just the approaches laid out and consider it a job well done.

[rcharter1978]

Yeah let's talk about essay 4 for a sec here. Having reflected on that one for a good week or so, I believe that was some cheapshot by the bar graders to use "cross complaint" in a fact pattern, when clearly it was testing federal rules and law. All that does is make us waste 15 minutes trying to double check it was not a civ pro question. We should only have to worry about and prepare for lawyering skills or something that is related to the practice of law, not some test taking skill. I saw a few proud posters here who took the bait and laid out California civ pro subject matter jrx analysis. I lost a good 15-20 minutes trying to make sure I am answering the call of the question and that in fact question 4 and 6 were not the same subjects being tested twice. It sucks having to worry about the format/topic of the essay rather than the content of the essay. It does not in any way test any relevant skills related to law. It's just another bar examiner's pathetic attempt at decking points outside of lawyering skills.

I had no idea that was even bait, but I was impressed by how detail oriented people are. I figure if you have the facts down that cold about ca civ pro to even find that "question" you're probably a boss who crushed essay 4.

[rcharter1978]

I did not see specific performance and while working with my tutor focused on just specifically answering the call of the question. I became familiar with the acronyms good dog for rescission and very good dog for reformation.

For rescission all I go through is grounds for rescission and defense unclean hands/ laches.

For reformation when I practiced I would walk through quickly if there was a valid contract - then grounds then defenses.

Hypothetically speaking If I was just asked about those two I would walk through just the approaches laid out and consider it a job well done.

how did you like your tutor?

[Jimmyg08]

I did not see specific performance and while working with my tutor focused on just specifically answering the call of the question. I became familiar with the acronyms good dog for rescission and very good dog for reformation.

For rescission all I go through is grounds for rescission and defense unclean hands/ laches.

For reformation when I practiced I would walk through quickly if there was a valid contract - then grounds then defenses.

Hypothetically speaking If I was just asked about those two I would walk through just the approaches laid out and consider it a job well done.

how did you like your tutor?

It was very helpful. I failed the July ca bar exam by 5 points and after the stupid reread they lowered dam near every score so I ended up being 25 points away from passing.

I knew that I needed to do something different the second time so I hired a tutor from barexam toolbox and we spent 3 weeks writing and solidifying the basics. I am a much better writer now and hope it was enough to push me over the top to pass this time. I felt ready to tackle almost any essay and pt - I was consistent on my pts this time where in July I got an 80 and 55. I know my essays were better this time I was just screwed for time on q. 3 and q 6. So we shall see.

[rcharter1978]

I did not see specific performance and while working with my tutor focused on just specifically answering the call of the question. I became familiar with the acronyms good dog for rescission and very good dog for reformation.

For rescission all I go through is grounds for rescission and defense unclean hands/ laches.

For reformation when I practiced I would walk through quickly if there was a valid contract - then grounds then defenses.

Hypothetically speaking If I was just asked about those two I would walk through just the approaches laid out and consider it a job well done.

how did you like your tutor?

It was very helpful. I failed the July ca bar exam by 5 points and after the stupid reread they lowered dam near every score so I ended up being 25 points away from passing.

I knew that I needed to do something different the second time so I hired a tutor from barexam toolbox and we spent 3 weeks writing and solidifying the basics. I am a much better writer now and hope it was enough to push me over the top to pass this time. I felt ready to tackle almost any essay and pt - I was consistent on my pts this time where in July I got an 80 and 55. I know my essays were better this time I was just screwed for time on q. 3 and q 6. So we shall see.

good luck, I'm hesitant to get another tutor, but if I do, I'll pull the trigger early

[Raiden]

I did not see specific performance and while working with my tutor focused on just specifically answering the call of the question. I became familiar with the acronyms good dog for rescission and very good dog for reformation.

For rescission all I go through is grounds for rescission and defense unclean hands/ laches.

For reformation when I practiced I would walk through quickly if there was a valid contract - then grounds then defenses.

Hypothetically speaking If I was just asked about those two I would walk through just the approaches laid out and consider it a job well done.

I am starting to forget what issues I listed now, but I did not mention specific performance, I wasn't a unique good or real property at issue, and I don't remember any facts really warranting it. The mistake was an issue, along with misunderstanding. For reformation, I just talked about the court being able to correct the document if it was a clerical mistake (don't remember if I mentioned good dog).

For rescission, I didn't use the good dog thing. I just made up a rule of when a party could rescind a contract, (the other party breaches, impossibility, etc.) And I also talked about modification, and accord and satisfaction. Did anyone else talk about modification and accord and satisfaction? I felt Modification was a big issue, along with Parol Evidence Rule.

[BrokenMouse]

.

[BrokenMouse]

.

[legalize-it]

How many tries are you guys willing to give before you move on to another career?

IMO - it would depend on an individual's circumstances to weigh the factors one way or the other:
1) if someone took the exam during a time of extraordinary stress, i.e., death in family, divorce, etc.
2) if there is room for improvement b/c the person didn't take bar prep courses, no tutor, barely studied, etc., and if making changes to previous study program would improve the outcome.
3) if the person may have issues that (s)he is not aware of like auditory reading problems.
4) how strong a passion one has for the practice of law.

[gangstar]

..................

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

What about for those of us who didn't realize Essay 4 was a Remedies essay and just answered it like a regular contracts essay? For some reason I didn't think it was strange that we were asked two contracts questions and didn't see the rescission/reformation part because I was in such a hurry and did essay 4 last -- so I answered it like a regular contracts essay :-/

FML

I think an answer for essay #4 that did not touch upon remedies can only get a score of 60 at the highest. Most likely 55 or 50. Because the question specifically asked to discuss remedies. Just giving my honest opinion. But it's not fatal overall if you did good on PT. Because one really good PT can make up for 2 bad essays

[BrokenMouse]

.

[Zebra]

What about for those of us who didn't realize Essay 4 was a Remedies essay and just answered it like a regular contracts essay? For some reason I didn't think it was strange that we were asked two contracts questions and didn't see the rescission/reformation part because I was in such a hurry and did essay 4 last -- so I answered it like a regular contracts essay :-/

FML

I did #4 last too, and totally forgot to talk about contracts like (common law governs, valid K rule, modification, etc.) and just talked bout Remedies... and defenses.... Is this gonna cost a lot of points?

[Zebra]

What about for those of us who didn't realize Essay 4 was a Remedies essay and just answered it like a regular contracts essay? For some reason I didn't think it was strange that we were asked two contracts questions and didn't see the rescission/reformation part because I was in such a hurry and did essay 4 last -- so I answered it like a regular contracts essay :-/

FML

I think an answer for essay #4 that did not touch upon remedies can only get a score of 60 at the highest. Most likely 55 or 50. Because the question specifically asked to discuss remedies. Just giving my honest opinion. But it's not fatal overall if you did good on PT. Because one really good PT can make up for 2 bad essays

I agree but in fairness the question just asked whether the claims by each party will succeed. The fact pattern above the call of the question said party 1 sued for rescission and party 2 sued for reformation. So I can see why some people may have missed it.

How about failing to discuss contracts? I just discussed remedies and defenses... no contracts :/

[Jimmyg08]

What about for those of us who didn't realize Essay 4 was a Remedies essay and just answered it like a regular contracts essay? For some reason I didn't think it was strange that we were asked two contracts questions and didn't see the rescission/reformation part because I was in such a hurry and did essay 4 last -- so I answered it like a regular contracts essay :-/

FML

I think an answer for essay #4 that did not touch upon remedies can only get a score of 60 at the highest. Most likely 55 or 50. Because the question specifically asked to discuss remedies. Just giving my honest opinion. But it's not fatal overall if you did good on PT. Because one really good PT can make up for 2 bad essays

I agree but in fairness the question just asked whether the claims by each party will succeed. The fact pattern above the call of the question said party 1 sued for rescission and party 2 sued for reformation. So I can see why some people may have missed it.

How about failing to discuss contracts? I just discussed remedies and defenses... no contracts :/

Well for reformation you need to take about contracts and for rescission you needed to talk about mistake or misrepresentation which is contacts also.

But given that a lot of people struggled with it - th should help those that did bad and good.

But I wrote some horrible essays in July and got 55's so your good.

I will take it as many times as I need to but this was my best shot because I will not be able to take Time off next time

Two passing pts - good essay 2, 5 and 4 - ok on 3 but ran out of time. Either passing or horrible on q 1 - shitty on 6 because of time.

[Raiden]

What about for those of us who didn't realize Essay 4 was a Remedies essay and just answered it like a regular contracts essay? For some reason I didn't think it was strange that we were asked two contracts questions and didn't see the rescission/reformation part because I was in such a hurry and did essay 4 last -- so I answered it like a regular contracts essay :-/

FML

I think an answer for essay #4 that did not touch upon remedies can only get a score of 60 at the highest. Most likely 55 or 50. Because the question specifically asked to discuss remedies. Just giving my honest opinion. But it's not fatal overall if you did good on PT. Because one really good PT can make up for 2 bad essays

I agree but in fairness the question just asked whether the claims by each party will succeed. The fact pattern above the call of the question said party 1 sued for rescission and party 2 sued for reformation. So I can see why some people may have missed it.

I think the second part of the question asked for remedies? I could be wrong though. I do remember discussing expectation damages, but perhaps that was on q6. Btw already saw a dream last night that I failed the first day lol.

[BrokenMouse]

.

[BrokenMouse]

.

[Jimmyg08]

How heavy was q 1 in relation to wills?

I focuses on the trusts created in both testamentary instruments.

The other questions regarding the son refuse to be a trustee seemed like a walk in the park.

Breach of duties was a slam dunk as well. However I did it fast because of time.

The first part regarding the interests of the daughter and son and sister and frank.


I almost thought it was a real property cross over but I avoided that idea when I went forward.

Because the will and trust were valid I did not spend too much time discussing that and all of my time on whether the settlor revoked trust 1. Any other insight would be good.


Also if I got into too many details let me know and I will remove this

[Raiden]

How heavy was q 1 in relation to wills?

I focuses on the trusts created in both testamentary instruments.

The other questions regarding the son refuse to be a trustee seemed like a walk in the park.

Breach of duties was a slam dunk as well. However I did it fast because of time.

The first part regarding the interests of the daughter and son and sister and frank.


I almost thought it was a real property cross over but I avoided that idea when I went forward.

Because the will and trust were valid I did not spend too much time discussing that and all of my time on whether the settlor revoked trust 1. Any other insight would be good.


Also if I got into too many details let me know and I will remove this

Essay 1 I felt was my worst essay, so not sure how to tackle it. Though I bet it was easier and less complicated then we imagined it to be, as is often the case with most if not all essays. Essays aren't designed to be tricky like MBE.

[comet_halley]

Looks like the mods deleted the original thread because some of us could not stop violating the US Copyright Law. Don't be a turd. Don't discuss specific questions. It is really not necessary to quote a specific question to ask a question or even to make a point. Just ask about a particular concept generally or answer them generally. Besides, it's more interesting to talk about what we plan to do until we pass the bar and how to maintain our psychological and emotional health until then.

Discussing questions breaks the NDA rather than copyright law.

[Raiden]

Guys, I got to stop hanging out around these forums and thinking about the bar. I am going to go pick up a hobby. I am going to go publish an eBook on a fictional universe. Wish me luck in writing a book, be back making millions, millions.

[Zebra]

.