BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[Neff]

Love to you all.

[ash0117]

I took two days off and let me tell you, I was so much more productive today after my break. I was so burned out I couldn't retain anything, it was all a waste of time. Today, I was able to hit the books for seven hours, my longest study day in over two weeks.

[kyle010723]

Yup, that's my plan for this weekend; take it slow, and get back to work next week.

[jamescastle]

Plan is to do half-days Friday and Saturday while I see my family and SO one last time before I bunker in for the last days.

[jamescastle]

Also for the curious: The all-nighter to readjust my sleep schedule totally failed. lmao.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Also for the curious: The all-nighter to readjust my sleep schedule totally failed. lmao.

[kyle010723]

Also for the curious: The all-nighter to readjust my sleep schedule totally failed. lmao.

lol, oh well, as long as you can get up for the bar, you'll be fine

[xChiTowNx]

Also for the curious: The all-nighter to readjust my sleep schedule totally failed. lmao.

Currently 6 hours away from the 24 hour mark. Nothing like a notification of a free drink at Starbucks to keep you going

[941law]

Setting my alarm early from here on out. Also doing essays all weekend but then making the switch back to MBE.

[kmp127]

I found myself wishing I had more time... but that means more of THIS. self hate meter slowly increases...

[charlesxavier]

I found myself wishing I had more time... but that means more of THIS. self hate meter slowly increases...

I just want this thing to be over. I feel like most of us here are preparing to the best of our abilities and that's what is important (assuming we're all moderately intelligent). Whenever I hear about people failing they talk about going into the exam knowing that they could have done significantly more studying, memorizing, practicing, etc. or they honestly didn't know what they were supposed to be doing. Really, most of the "What I Did Differently to Pass the Second Time" articles say "I did practice essays," "I spent time memorizing the law," or "I organized my answers and analyzed the issues." I think most of us are not in that situation, we're putting in the time and practicing. Right now I'm nervous because I don't know what is going to be on the page when I open my essay questions, but no amount of studying can overcome that. It's like I've been running 10 miles a day and to pass I'll only need to run 6, but I'm afraid I'll trip at the starting line or get a cramp at mile 2. Just do it [Insert ShiaLaBeouf.gif].

[Good Guy Gaud]

Yea, the essay portion is the scariest part for sure. With the MBE, we have an idea of what to expect, generally know all of the rules [and/or can narrow down incorrect answer choices] and will probably score within a set range.

With the essays, I just... I just don't know. And it doesn't make it any more calming when I go through prior essays and am thinking, "oh, shit, if I had that question on test day I'd be screwed!"

Can only HOAP for the best.

[rickgrimes69]

So because I've apparently forgotten everything I learned about Evidence, I don't understand the answer to question # 10395 (set 6 Q #11).

A witness testified against a defendant in a contract action. The defendant then called a friend to the stand, who testified that the witness had a bad reputation for truth and veracity. The defendant then also called the witness's employee to testify that the witness once perpetrated a hoax on an insurance company, for which she was convicted.

The employee's testimony is:

I said it was admissible because a hoax is indicative of untruthfulness, but Barbri says it is inadmissible because it was extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct.

I know that generally a witness's character for truthfulness can only be shown by reputation or opinion evidence and not by instances of specific bad acts, but I was under the impression that criminal convictions of crimen falsi crimes were an exception to that rule. Section VI.E.C of the CMR explicitly says a witness can be impeached by proof of a conviction and the court has no discretion to bar impeachment by a crimen falsi conviction. Am I missing something really obvious here?

[victortsoi]

I found myself wishing I had more time... but that means more of THIS. self hate meter slowly increases...

I just want this thing to be over. I feel like most of us here are preparing to the best of our abilities and that's what is important (assuming we're all moderately intelligent). Whenever I hear about people failing they talk about going into the exam knowing that they could have done significantly more studying, memorizing, practicing, etc. or they honestly didn't know what they were supposed to be doing. Really, most of the "What I Did Differently to Pass the Second Time" articles say "I did practice essays," "I spent time memorizing the law," or "I organized my answers and analyzed the issues." I think most of us are not in that situation, we're putting in the time and practicing. Right now I'm nervous because I don't know what is going to be on the page when I open my essay questions, but no amount of studying can overcome that. It's like I've been running 10 miles a day and to pass I'll only need to run 6, but I'm afraid I'll trip at the starting line or get a cramp at mile 2. Just do it [Insert ShiaLaBeouf.gif].

I dunno. I guess at this point its safe to say that I've really dedicated a ton of time to the MBE, including learning mbe related rules. Haven't looked at the mpt yet. Read a lot of essay answers but haven't really done the whole write em out thing...

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Seems like no one else has started this thread, so here goes. Talk about anything related to bar prep or BarBri. Opening question for everyone: Are you doing anything other than what BarBri assigns, like making flash cards?

I have flash cards for all the MBE subjects and also for NY Practice and Corporations
I have short outlines for the other subjects
i am studying two subjects a day with paired subjects (Torts with Agency/Partnership, Trusts with Wills)
Every day I am reviewing the flash cards/outline, doing practice essays and questions (usually overdue assignments on Barbri or future assignments), then grading the essay/MC, reading model answer
It is working pretty well to internalize the rules

[kykiske]

Seems like no one else has started this thread, so here goes. Talk about anything related to bar prep or BarBri. Opening question for everyone: Are you doing anything other than what BarBri assigns, like making flash cards?

I have flash cards for all the MBE subjects and also for NY Practice and Corporations
I have short outlines for the other subjects
i am studying two subjects a day with paired subjects (Torts with Agency/Partnership, Trusts with Wills)
Every day I am reviewing the flash cards/outline, doing practice essays and questions (usually overdue assignments on Barbri or future assignments), then grading the essay/MC, reading model answer
It is working pretty well to internalize the rules

I have made no outlines. I've just been hitting the practice questions hard. In law school, the best way for me to learn was through application--i.e. practice exams.

I made the mistake of outlining for the MPRE and just reading the outline--instead of doing practice problems--and failed it once. I told myself that would not happen for the bar.

So, I've skipped past the outlining phase and hopped directly into practice problems. I'd guess I've done over 2,000 MBE questions and written around 30 essays.

Still, even with substantial preparation, speculative fear runs rampant in my mind.

[victortsoi]

Seems like no one else has started this thread, so here goes. Talk about anything related to bar prep or BarBri. Opening question for everyone: Are you doing anything other than what BarBri assigns, like making flash cards?

I have flash cards for all the MBE subjects and also for NY Practice and Corporations
I have short outlines for the other subjects
i am studying two subjects a day with paired subjects (Torts with Agency/Partnership, Trusts with Wills)
Every day I am reviewing the flash cards/outline, doing practice essays and questions (usually overdue assignments on Barbri or future assignments), then grading the essay/MC, reading model answer
It is working pretty well to internalize the rules

I have made no outlines. I've just been hitting the practice questions hard. In law school, the best way for me to learn was through application--i.e. practice exams.

I made the mistake of outlining for the MPRE and just reading the outline--instead of doing practice problems--and failed it once. I told myself that would not happen for the bar.

So, I've skipped past the outlining phase and hopped directly into practice problems. I'd guess I've done over 2,000 MBE questions and written around 30 essays.

Still, even with substantial preparation, speculative fear runs rampant in my mind.

full write out?

[kykiske]

Seems like no one else has started this thread, so here goes. Talk about anything related to bar prep or BarBri. Opening question for everyone: Are you doing anything other than what BarBri assigns, like making flash cards?

I have flash cards for all the MBE subjects and also for NY Practice and Corporations
I have short outlines for the other subjects
i am studying two subjects a day with paired subjects (Torts with Agency/Partnership, Trusts with Wills)
Every day I am reviewing the flash cards/outline, doing practice essays and questions (usually overdue assignments on Barbri or future assignments), then grading the essay/MC, reading model answer
It is working pretty well to internalize the rules

I have made no outlines. I've just been hitting the practice questions hard. In law school, the best way for me to learn was through application--i.e. practice exams.

I made the mistake of outlining for the MPRE and just reading the outline--instead of doing practice problems--and failed it once. I told myself that would not happen for the bar.

So, I've skipped past the outlining phase and hopped directly into practice problems. I'd guess I've done over 2,000 MBE questions and written around 30 essays.

Still, even with substantial preparation, speculative fear runs rampant in my mind.

full write out?

Yes. I just cannot for the life of me "outline" an answer. I just write it out.

[musicfor18]

So because I've apparently forgotten everything I learned about Evidence, I don't understand the answer to question # 10395 (set 6 Q #11).

A witness testified against a defendant in a contract action. The defendant then called a friend to the stand, who testified that the witness had a bad reputation for truth and veracity. The defendant then also called the witness's employee to testify that the witness once perpetrated a hoax on an insurance company, for which she was convicted.

The employee's testimony is:

I said it was admissible because a hoax is indicative of untruthfulness, but Barbri says it is inadmissible because it was extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct.

I know that generally a witness's character for truthfulness can only be shown by reputation or opinion evidence and not by instances of specific bad acts, but I was under the impression that criminal convictions of crimen falsi crimes were an exception to that rule. Section VI.E.C of the CMR explicitly says a witness can be impeached by proof of a conviction and the court has no discretion to bar impeachment by a crimen falsi conviction. Am I missing something really obvious here?

I think this can't come in as impeachment by prior conviction because of the way it was introduced. I think you can only impeach by prior conviction by eliciting an admission from the witness you're impeaching or offering an actual record of conviction (as opposed to bringing another witness up to testify that the other witness was convicted). Anyone else know the answer to this?

[rickgrimes69]

So because I've apparently forgotten everything I learned about Evidence, I don't understand the answer to question # 10395 (set 6 Q #11).

A witness testified against a defendant in a contract action. The defendant then called a friend to the stand, who testified that the witness had a bad reputation for truth and veracity. The defendant then also called the witness's employee to testify that the witness once perpetrated a hoax on an insurance company, for which she was convicted.

The employee's testimony is:

I said it was admissible because a hoax is indicative of untruthfulness, but Barbri says it is inadmissible because it was extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct.

I know that generally a witness's character for truthfulness can only be shown by reputation or opinion evidence and not by instances of specific bad acts, but I was under the impression that criminal convictions of crimen falsi crimes were an exception to that rule. Section VI.E.C of the CMR explicitly says a witness can be impeached by proof of a conviction and the court has no discretion to bar impeachment by a crimen falsi conviction. Am I missing something really obvious here?

I think this can't come in as impeachment by prior conviction because of the way it was introduced. I think you can only impeach by prior conviction by eliciting an admission from the witness you're impeaching or offering an actual record of conviction (as opposed to bringing another witness up to testify that the other witness was convicted). Anyone else know the answer to this?

I also thought that might be the case, but if it is, the CMR doesn't say anything about it. The answer explanation didn't indicate that was the reason either - it just said that on cross examination you can't use extrinsic evidence to prove specific instances of bad acts.

[scaliaantics]

At this point, I'm jst reading the essays and saying rule statements out loud in my head and then going to the answer. Is that bad?

[Tiago Splitter]

The big outline says "The fact that a witness has been convicted of a crime may usually be proved by either eliciting an admission on direct or cross or by the record of the conviction."


Sounds like the answer explanation was SPS but it seems to be true that you can't bring up a different witness to say the last one committed a crime.

[victortsoi]

At this point, I'm jst reading the essays and saying rule statements out loud in my head and then going to the answer. Is that bad?

i think the majority of people don't write out so many essays. not to say that they don't, but there just isn't that much time. Reading several answers is definetely better than struggling to do one in the same time.

[felonious monk]

Short time lurker, long time Barbri sufferer...

/

I know this has been done to death but some of the reasoning behind the answers are just daft. Srsly.

I want to ruthlessly cut down whoever drafted them.

[BarbriSlave]

Short time lurker, long time Barbri sufferer...

/

I know this has been done to death but some of the reasoning behind the answers are just daft. Srsly.

I want to ruthlessly cut down whoever drafted them.

Totally agree with you. I feel like BarBri makes up another exception to every rule that they never mentioned existed before.