California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[adonai]

My MBE scores are flat average all the time. Every time I learn trivia about Real Property I forget the trivia I learned about Contracts. Etc. The BarBri system seems totally disjointed to my way of learning.

Average is actually good, it is supposed to translate to a passing score supposedly. I noticed a lot of people in my barbri program and also in these forums lament the fact that they're getting 30-40 wrong, when that is like way above passing. You aren't battling to get the highest grade, people! Of course we should do our best and constantly try to improve, but I don't think it's anything to get frustrated or depressed about.

[a male human]

Typically how many MBE subjects are tested on the Essay portion, or how many essay questions involve MBE-tested issues? I don't really want to do the research myself...

3 to 4

It looks like it's now leaning towards two MBE subjects on essays w PR sometimes tied into a non-mbe subject.

Feb 2014: prop + con law
July 2013: con law + contracts
Feb 2013: torts + crim

July 2012: contracts/evidence/crim
Feb 2012: con law + prop+ evidence

It got a bit tricky in the last two administrations because freaking remedies came up both times, crossed with torts (July, Feb) and contracts (Feb).

[LSATNightmares]

Evidence is a lock. They haven't tested it for the last three administrations. Four administrations without it is a stretch ...

I would be prepared, but I wouldn't say it's a lock. Nothing is a lock. CA Civil Procedure has never been tested ever since they added it to the exam ten years ago.

[LSATNightmares]

My MBE scores are flat average all the time. Every time I learn trivia about Real Property I forget the trivia I learned about Contracts. Etc. The BarBri system seems totally disjointed to my way of learning.

That's nothing unusual. Mine tend to be average, slightly above average. Sometimes way below average if I'm tired. I don't think there's a big spread on these things.

[a male human]

Evidence is a lock. They haven't tested it for the last three administrations. Four administrations without it is a stretch ...

I would be prepared, but I wouldn't say it's a lock. Nothing is a lock. CA Civil Procedure has never been tested ever since they added it to the exam ten years ago.

CACP is such a hot potato. What are they thinking announcing it and never having it come up? Not even a test run before civ pro becomes an MBE subject?

[Carryon]

I am looking for a supplement to study for the performance tests. Has anybody had any luck with Flemings performance exam solutions for $105? Also, are there any other good supplements for pts?

[Mr. Pink]

Does anybody know how they grade you on the essays if you write something that is wrong or irrelevant? Do you only get points for correctly stating something, or do they start deducting points for irrelevant or wrong statements of law?

Curious about this as well. If it's like Barbri's checkboxes (and most law school exams) wrong answers don't deduct points, they just don't get you any points. If the Bar exam is like that as well, then I agree with your implication that we should write about any issues that might be borderline worth discussing or not. And if the essays in the Barbri CAT book are real past essays then I think you will have plenty of time to address all the issues, so there aren't any big concerns about spending time on borderline issues.

If you read some of the published answers, you will see that the some of the passing essays have incorrect rule statements. The rule statements are part of it, but mostly to help you as a guideline to writing the essay. The graders are looking for the Analysis part of IRAC.. that is the crucial part. Even if you are incorrect in applying the law, as long as you argue it on one side or the other, then you can get points... just not as many points as a correct rule statement and application.

I had one evidence essay that asked 3 or 4 interrogatories and asked to answer according the CEC, not FRE. I couldn't remember one of the distinctions between FRE and CEC for one of the questions so I just answered according to FRE and it was fine because I at least argued a side and applied my rule statement to the facts.

[pkt63]

Anyone with experience at the Oakland Convention Center - are there clocks in the examination room? I'm wondering about timing myself for MBE day. I don't really want to have to go out and buy an analog watch or whatever, but I guess I will if there's nothing else there to keep track with...

[ph14]

Does anybody know how they grade you on the essays if you write something that is wrong or irrelevant? Do you only get points for correctly stating something, or do they start deducting points for irrelevant or wrong statements of law?

Curious about this as well. If it's like Barbri's checkboxes (and most law school exams) wrong answers don't deduct points, they just don't get you any points. If the Bar exam is like that as well, then I agree with your implication that we should write about any issues that might be borderline worth discussing or not. And if the essays in the Barbri CAT book are real past essays then I think you will have plenty of time to address all the issues, so there aren't any big concerns about spending time on borderline issues.

If you read some of the published answers, you will see that the some of the passing essays have incorrect rule statements. The rule statements are part of it, but mostly to help you as a guideline to writing the essay. The graders are looking for the Analysis part of IRAC.. that is the crucial part. Even if you are incorrect in applying the law, as long as you argue it on one side or the other, then you can get points... just not as many points as a correct rule statement and application.

I had one evidence essay that asked 3 or 4 interrogatories and asked to answer according the CEC, not FRE. I couldn't remember one of the distinctions between FRE and CEC for one of the questions so I just answered according to FRE and it was fine because I at least argued a side and applied my rule statement to the facts.

If it's anything like Barbri's checkboxes, you get a significant amount of points from rule statements. Given the fact, though, that you need only a little bit more than half of the amount of points available on an essay, obviously you can still pass if you write incorrect rule statements or just answered according to the FRE rather than the CEC.

[james11]

Does anybody know how they grade you on the essays if you write something that is wrong or irrelevant? Do you only get points for correctly stating something, or do they start deducting points for irrelevant or wrong statements of law?

Curious about this as well. If it's like Barbri's checkboxes (and most law school exams) wrong answers don't deduct points, they just don't get you any points. If the Bar exam is like that as well, then I agree with your implication that we should write about any issues that might be borderline worth discussing or not. And if the essays in the Barbri CAT book are real past essays then I think you will have plenty of time to address all the issues, so there aren't any big concerns about spending time on borderline issues.

If you read some of the published answers, you will see that the some of the passing essays have incorrect rule statements. The rule statements are part of it, but mostly to help you as a guideline to writing the essay. The graders are looking for the Analysis part of IRAC.. that is the crucial part. Even if you are incorrect in applying the law, as long as you argue it on one side or the other, then you can get points... just not as many points as a correct rule statement and application.

I had one evidence essay that asked 3 or 4 interrogatories and asked to answer according the CEC, not FRE. I couldn't remember one of the distinctions between FRE and CEC for one of the questions so I just answered according to FRE and it was fine because I at least argued a side and applied my rule statement to the facts.

I disagree with this. Correct rule statements are paramount. I didn't pass the first time but passed the second time. My analysis was great the first time, long and comprehensive. I failed most of the essays. For the second time, I studied a ton of real graded essays that scored 65, 70, 75. Not the ones on the calbar website, because those just seemed ridiculously good, but average passing essays. What did I find? Many essays that scored 65-75 had short analysis, but hit all the issues and rule statements were SOLID. This is key. For those of you on baressays.com, you will see essays that scored 75 that are three pages, with very short analysis, but great IRAC, great rule statements (for both main issues AND subissues), clean formatting, hitting both major and minor issues. Do not assume you can "make up" the law and score high. It's just not true.

[ph14]

Does anybody know how they grade you on the essays if you write something that is wrong or irrelevant? Do you only get points for correctly stating something, or do they start deducting points for irrelevant or wrong statements of law?

Curious about this as well. If it's like Barbri's checkboxes (and most law school exams) wrong answers don't deduct points, they just don't get you any points. If the Bar exam is like that as well, then I agree with your implication that we should write about any issues that might be borderline worth discussing or not. And if the essays in the Barbri CAT book are real past essays then I think you will have plenty of time to address all the issues, so there aren't any big concerns about spending time on borderline issues.

If you read some of the published answers, you will see that the some of the passing essays have incorrect rule statements. The rule statements are part of it, but mostly to help you as a guideline to writing the essay. The graders are looking for the Analysis part of IRAC.. that is the crucial part. Even if you are incorrect in applying the law, as long as you argue it on one side or the other, then you can get points... just not as many points as a correct rule statement and application.

I had one evidence essay that asked 3 or 4 interrogatories and asked to answer according the CEC, not FRE. I couldn't remember one of the distinctions between FRE and CEC for one of the questions so I just answered according to FRE and it was fine because I at least argued a side and applied my rule statement to the facts.

I disagree with this. Correct rule statements are paramount. I didn't pass the first time but passed the second time. My analysis was great the first time, long and comprehensive. I failed most of the essays. I also got a 140 raw on my mbe. For the second time, I studied a ton of real graded essays that scored 65, 70, 75. Not the ones on the calbar website, because those just seemed ridiculously good, but average passing essays. What did I find? Many essays that scored 65-75 had short analysis, but hit all the issues and rule statements were SOLID. This is key. For those of you on baressays.com, you will see essays that scored 75 that are three pages, with very short analysis, but great IRAC, great rule statements (for both main issues AND subissues), clean formatting, hitting both major and minor issues. Do not assume you can "make up" the law and score high. It's just not true.

Also, there's a strict limit to how many points you can get through analysis given the checkbox grading rubric (assuming that Barbri's grading system mirrors the real grading system). It's different from a law school exam (depending on how your professor grades, obviously) where you might be able to score many points through thorough and sophisticated analysis.

[a male human]

I put good rule statements in July but still got failing scores. It's def not the only component.

[ph14]

I put good rule statements in July but still got failing scores. It's def not the only component.

No one has said anything to that effect, at all.

[a male human]

I put good rule statements in July but still got failing scores. It's def not the only component.

No one has said anything to that effect, at all.

I think my post follows from james11's.

You seem a bit upset?

[hyc9598]

MBE Qs

1. The owner of car brought action against the driver of another car alleging the driver was speeding and caused collision. The owner of parked car calls a witness to testify that the driver of the other had a reputation of reckless driver and was known was daredevil.

Is it admissible?
1. No, because the driver has not offered testimony of his own good character.
2. No, to show negligence.

Which one is the answer?

2. In a tort action, the first witness testified against the defendant. The defendant then called the second witness, who testified that the first witness had bad reputation for veracity The defendant then also called a third witness to testify that the first witness once perpetrated a hoax on the police.

Is it admissible?

1. No, because it is extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct.
2. No, because it is merely cumulative impeachment.

Which one is the answer?

[ph14]

MBE Qs

1. The owner of car brought action against the driver of another car alleging the driver was speeding and caused collision. The owner of parked car calls a witness to testify that the driver of the other had a reputation of reckless driver and was known was daredevil.

Is it admissible?
1. No, because the driver has not offered testimony of his own good character.
2. No, to show negligence.

Which one is the answer?

2. In a tort action, the first witness testified against the defendant. The defendant then called the second witness, who testified that the first witness had bad reputation for veracity The defendant then also called a third witness to testify that the first witness once perpetrated a hoax on the police.

Is it admissible?

1. No, because it is extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct.
2. No, because it is merely cumulative impeachment.

Which one is the answer?

For the first question I think it is 2, because this is a civil case (and not one of the civil exceptions that concern sexual assault). See FRE 404(a) and FRE 415.

RULE 404. CHARACTER EVIDENCE; CRIMES OR OTHER ACTS

(a) Character Evidence.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:

(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and

(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and

(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.

(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and

(B) do so before trial — or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.

RULE 415. SIMILAR ACTS IN CIVIL CASES INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT OR CHILD MOLESTATION

(a) Permitted Uses. In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation. The evidence may be considered as provided in Rules 413 and 414.

(b) Disclosure to the Opponent. If a party intends to offer this evidence, the party must disclose it to the party against whom it will be offered, including witnesses’ statements or a summary of the expected testimony. The party must do so at least 15 days before trial or at a later time that the court allows for good cause.

(c) Effect on Other Rules. This rule does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule.

For the second, I think that it is 1, because he's using extrinsic evidence of a specific instance of misconduct (that isn't a criminal conviction) to impeach the witness on truthfulness. See FRE 608(b).

RULE 608. A WITNESS

(a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked.

(b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:

(1) the witness; or

(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.

By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against self-incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness’s character for truthfulness.

Disclaimer: Evidence isn't my be subject so I could be wrong.

[FutureInLaw]

Anyone have simple flowcharts or something similar for evidence, particularly character evidence and prior (acts, statements, etc.)? It's killing me.

[Mr. Pink]

Does anybody know how they grade you on the essays if you write something that is wrong or irrelevant? Do you only get points for correctly stating something, or do they start deducting points for irrelevant or wrong statements of law?

Curious about this as well. If it's like Barbri's checkboxes (and most law school exams) wrong answers don't deduct points, they just don't get you any points. If the Bar exam is like that as well, then I agree with your implication that we should write about any issues that might be borderline worth discussing or not. And if the essays in the Barbri CAT book are real past essays then I think you will have plenty of time to address all the issues, so there aren't any big concerns about spending time on borderline issues.

If you read some of the published answers, you will see that the some of the passing essays have incorrect rule statements. The rule statements are part of it, but mostly to help you as a guideline to writing the essay. The graders are looking for the Analysis part of IRAC.. that is the crucial part. Even if you are incorrect in applying the law, as long as you argue it on one side or the other, then you can get points... just not as many points as a correct rule statement and application.

I had one evidence essay that asked 3 or 4 interrogatories and asked to answer according the CEC, not FRE. I couldn't remember one of the distinctions between FRE and CEC for one of the questions so I just answered according to FRE and it was fine because I at least argued a side and applied my rule statement to the facts.

I disagree with this. Correct rule statements are paramount. I didn't pass the first time but passed the second time. My analysis was great the first time, long and comprehensive. I failed most of the essays. For the second time, I studied a ton of real graded essays that scored 65, 70, 75. Not the ones on the calbar website, because those just seemed ridiculously good, but average passing essays. What did I find? Many essays that scored 65-75 had short analysis, but hit all the issues and rule statements were SOLID. This is key. For those of you on baressays.com, you will see essays that scored 75 that are three pages, with very short analysis, but great IRAC, great rule statements (for both main issues AND subissues), clean formatting, hitting both major and minor issues. Do not assume you can "make up" the law and score high. It's just not true.

I'm just telling you what I have heard from different graders and read on the published answers. The CalBar site has several answers with incorrect rule statements. And everyone I have talked to (graders and passers) have all said the same thing- analysis is the key. Now a good rule statement might be the difference in a 70 and a 75, but an incorrect rule statement isn't taking a 70 and dropping it to a failing essay.

The essays aren't about memorizing law, anyone can memorize definitions and rules; it's about thinking like a lawyer and analyzing facts. That's how you show at least minimum competency, not by remembering lines like an 8th grade play.

[hyc9598]

To all takers, I would really recommend a different course than Barbri for the California bar exam. I am not trying to exaggerate or intimidate people when I say that, from discussing it with others as well, the entire February exam seemed premised on evading any subject which Barbri placed emphasis on. Most of the essays were premised on points which took up approximately 4 sentences to 1 page of the 80 page Barbri subject outline. I literally do not think even one essay went over a major topic and most were based on the equivalent of a Barbri footnote. Anyways, I'd check with other takers but from one Barbri student, I'd highly advise looking elsewhere.

Problem is that Themis offers more detailed outlines (esp. MBE subjects). BUT Barbi offers better direction on good writing style. You don't need to know obscure topics to pass the CA bar if you can kill the MBE, nail the black letter law on CA essays with the common topics, and go a bit more shallow with decent analysis on the crazy stuff. The CA bar usually throws in something no one knows on the essays. Two exams ago it was slavery. This exam it was zoning. If you screw up on that one area, the worst you can do is maybe drop 5 points on one essay.

If you want to pass on the cheap, use Themis's course to do black letter law and MBE prep, buy Barbri's writing materials off of Ebay.

Barbri (Conviser (m) and Handouts (n)) all the way. But mainly substantive law for mbe subject for mbe and essay purpose, and non mbe subject for non mbe essay purpose only.

[james11]

I think you are saying that analysis is more important than correct rule statements. If that is your point, you are generally wrong, but I guess it depends on specifics. If you hit all the issues, hit all the subissues, have great irac, clean format, but the rule statements themselves are worded slightly off, you could do fine. If this is the point you are making, then I don't disagree with you.

The problem with people who don't memorize correct rule statements is that they tend to miss subissues. You might hit the main issue, but your rule statement is off, leading you to miss elements in the rule, leading you to miss subissues, leading your rule statements in your subissues to be off or completely missing, leading to a low score on your essay. In addition, when people aren't sure about the rules/issues, they try to make up for it with lengthy analysis, hoping the graders overlook the missed issues/rules. I've seen this on many essays that score 50-55. So my main point is that you need to have all of the correct elements of a rule to score high, even if the wording is a bit off, because you will need to hit all the subissues and define the subissues. Also, correct IRAC format is key. So maybe we don't disagree with each other.

I would caution you against relying on the calbar website and the words of "graders and passers." The calbar website provides very limited examples of essays and you can't compare these essays with a range of scores to see what was done right/wrong. Also, people who passed the first time do not know why they passed or what they did right/wrong. They could have killed the MBE and/or PTs and failed every essay. They don't know. People who passed after repeating are usually better at critically advising at what needs to be done because they were able to look at their scores, analyze their strengths/weaknesses, and make corrections.

[Mr. Pink]

I think you are saying that analysis is more important than correct rule statements. If that is your point, you are generally wrong, but I guess it depends on specifics. If you hit all the issues, hit all the subissues, have great irac, clean format, but the rule statements themselves are worded slightly off, you could do fine. If this is the point you are making, then I don't disagree with you.

The problem with people who don't memorize correct rule statements is that they tend to miss subissues. You might hit the main issue, but your rule statement is off, leading you to miss elements in the rule, leading you to miss subissues, leading your rule statements in your subissues to be off or completely missing, leading to a low score on your essay. In addition, when people aren't sure about the rules/issues, they try to make up for it with lengthy analysis, hoping the graders overlook the missed issues/rules. I've seen this on many essays that score 50-55. So my main point is that you need to have all of the correct elements of a rule to score high, even if the wording is a bit off, because you will need to hit all the subissues and define the subissues. Also, correct IRAC format is key. So maybe we don't disagree with each other.

I would caution you against relying on the calbar website and the words of "graders and passers." The calbar website provides very limited examples of essays and you can't compare these essays with a range of scores to see what was done right/wrong. Also, people who passed the first time do not know why they passed or what they did right/wrong. They could have killed the MBE and/or PTs and failed every essay. They don't know. People who passed after repeating are usually better at critically advising at what needs to be done because they were able to look at their scores, analyze their strengths/weaknesses, and make corrections.

We are pretty much in agreement then. Yes, if you still hit the issues then you will be fine. If you miss issues then you are setting yourself up for failure, but a correct rule statement does not necessarily mean you will hit all of the issues.

Completely agree with the lengthy answers not being the way to go. Just put yourself in the shoes of the graders- who wants to read a long drawn out essay when you have hundreds to review?

As to the published essays, I was only using that to reference that essays with incorrect rule statements can still be passing essays. They choose to publish certain ones for a reason, and I believe (and have been told by others) that they publish these to show that you can still have a passing essay even if the rule statement is wrong.

My main point is that, while a "perfect" rule statement will help you write a better essay, it is not detrimental to your success. Hit the issues like you mentioned, analyze and argue the facts, and a 60 is easily obtained.

[FutureInLaw]

My brain hurts after the Barbri simulated MBE.

[Mr. Pink]

My brain hurts after the Barbri simulated MBE.

I was exhausted after the Kaplan one. I need to build up the mental endurance because I know several of the incorrect answers were due to mental fatigue.

[LSATNightmares]

My brain hurts after the Barbri simulated MBE.

I felt miserable afterward. Definitely cruel and unusual punishment.

[charcop]

My brain hurts after the Barbri simulated MBE.

I felt miserable afterward. Definitely cruel and unusual punishment.

I just self-graded the simulated MBE and got a raw score of 111. Now I feel like taking a nap.