2017 February California Bar Exam Forum

[armenianBEAUTY]

What issues did people discuss for PR. Feel like I forced some. I went:

Attorney agreements
Contingency fees
Confidence
Competence
Diligence
Conflict
Concurrent conflict
Representation despite
Permissive withdrawal
Mandatory withdrawal

I agree w/ the need for "pushing" on this one. I felt like there weren't enough issues. The largest paragraph was all literally just L's attempts to communicate w/ C.

Anyway, my topics:

* I skipped fee agreement bc it said "valid agreement."
* Competence -- personal injury attorney doing slip & fall... no violation
* Keep client property safely -- dumbo stored clothes in his office closet... violation
* Duty not to obstruct access to evidence -- ruined clothes
* Duty to communicate
* Close relationship w/ opposing counsel
* Permissive withdrawal -- repugnant course of action
* Mandatory withdrawal -- possibly fraud using attorneys services
* (Non)duty to take cases (i.e. when C begged L to not "fire" her after L had already given notice of withdrawal)
* Post withdrawal, inform client of withdrawal
* Post withdrawal, must return all client's property to client so she can continue w/ case... problematic here bc property is damaged and will prejudice her

[Roupie]

How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense

I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?

For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply

Defense of entrapment requires two elements:
1) that the criminal design originate w/ law enforcement
2) that the ∆ not be predisposed to the crime being charged

Here, even though the informant was an unreliable one, the info got to law enforcement causing them to organize the sting operation. When Bob called Debbie, she did not act surprised or confused as to why someone would call, claim they are Ivan's friend, and want to do the "job" for her. From that, I said that it did not sound like the criminal design was by law enforcement. Rather, it sounded like law enforcement continued to set into motion what Debbie likely started. It could be argued that Debbie was merely playing along... that she initially did not have a goal to kill her husband but agreed to go along with the idea when Bob called. OKay, unlikely, but the second element is likely still not satisfied (and thus, the defense is not available). She genuinely considered the idea-- whether or not the idea was her's initially. Would someone who has absolutely no intention to kill her husband be convinced that soon-- in an exchange of a mere 3-4 sentences? Would that be enough for most people to turn over $200 to have time to think about whether you want a complete stranger to run a hit on your husband? Likely not. She prob was predisposed to the idea of killing her husband.

Hence, no entrapment defense available.

I don't think the initial meeting Ivan set up between Debbie and Bob was the major issue under entrapment (it's clear at this point she was predisposed to the crime) so entrapment defense wouldn't work.

However was she still "predisposed" when Debbie said "I've changed my mind". It seemed she was set on abandoning the plan which means she was arguably no longer predisposed. Bobs statements "that's silly..." seem to pressure her back into the plan and this is where the entrapment issue came in.

[osuna911]

How did you guys organize PTB??? What did you say the likely outcome of the Immunity?

Mostly likely City was acting as a traditional government function rather than propriety market participant /completely lacked authority to contract because of the strict construction of the City Charter and Also no substantial performance applied

Also for the second call I literally filled in facts for the quantum meruit elements....

And for the Damages it was super brief and made up a bunch of jibberish

Section one immunity

Government or proprietary function (concluded proprietary)

Ultra virus (concluded no, but hedged saying close)

Section two

Just the elements. Went through them. Said likely valid claim.

Section three damages

Brief.

Conclusion - suggested they negotiate and attempt to make use of the work to seek other grants. Bla.

OH Fuccccckkk did the Boss ask for a "suggestion"??? I completely missed it

Nooo. I just didn't no how to conclude after having said the city was fucked basically lol. Think you could go other way with it and then not need a softer conclusion.

Haha I almost got a heart attack! I think PTB was a lot work to parse through, I didn't enough facts into my analysis just a lot of law and rule statements .... oh well

[clockguy]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

[sittin_pretty]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

There wasn't.

[armenianBEAUTY]

How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense

I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?

For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply

Defense of entrapment requires two elements:
1) that the criminal design originate w/ law enforcement
2) that the ∆ not be predisposed to the crime being charged

Here, even though the informant was an unreliable one, the info got to law enforcement causing them to organize the sting operation. When Bob called Debbie, she did not act surprised or confused as to why someone would call, claim they are Ivan's friend, and want to do the "job" for her. From that, I said that it did not sound like the criminal design was by law enforcement. Rather, it sounded like law enforcement continued to set into motion what Debbie likely started. It could be argued that Debbie was merely playing along... that she initially did not have a goal to kill her husband but agreed to go along with the idea when Bob called. OKay, unlikely, but the second element is likely still not satisfied (and thus, the defense is not available). She genuinely considered the idea-- whether or not the idea was her's initially. Would someone who has absolutely no intention to kill her husband be convinced that soon-- in an exchange of a mere 3-4 sentences? Would that be enough for most people to turn over $200 to have time to think about whether you want a complete stranger to run a hit on your husband? Likely not. She prob was predisposed to the idea of killing her husband.

Hence, no entrapment defense available.

I don't think the initial meeting Ivan set up between Debbie and Bob was the major issue under entrapment (it's clear at this point she was predisposed to the crime) so entrapment defense wouldn't work.

However was she still "predisposed" when Debbie said "I've changed my mind". It seemed she was set on abandoning the plan which means she was arguably no longer predisposed. Bobs statements "that's silly..." seem to pressure her back into the plan and this is where the entrapment issue came in.

We can agree to disagree I guess. In my humble opinion though, with entrapment, you have to look to the root of it all-- who was the source of the organization of the crime? Either she was predisposed to committing the crime or she was not. Whether she was predisposed does not change no matter what she says later on (for ex: "I've changed my mind"). Even if she said, "No. What was I thinking!?" -- this would still not change whether she was predisposed to committing the crime. Either she has it in her or she does not. As I said, I think she did because someone who was not predisposed to killing her husband would not be convinced when a hitman exchanges 3 sentences with her.

[osuna911]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time

[RickSanchez]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time

Honestly, people shouldn't worry too much about PTs, it's more about how you wrote them than what you wrote.

[osuna911]

Or my aderrall didn't kick in on time and I was imagining things....

[RickSanchez]

Or my aderrall didn't kick in on time and I was imagining things....

Can I has some please

edit: actually i dont need it any more!

[cal_pushed]

How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense

I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?

For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply

Defense of entrapment requires two elements:
1) that the criminal design originate w/ law enforcement
2) that the ∆ not be predisposed to the crime being charged

Here, even though the informant was an unreliable one, the info got to law enforcement causing them to organize the sting operation. When Bob called Debbie, she did not act surprised or confused as to why someone would call, claim they are Ivan's friend, and want to do the "job" for her. From that, I said that it did not sound like the criminal design was by law enforcement. Rather, it sounded like law enforcement continued to set into motion what Debbie likely started. It could be argued that Debbie was merely playing along... that she initially did not have a goal to kill her husband but agreed to go along with the idea when Bob called. OKay, unlikely, but the second element is likely still not satisfied (and thus, the defense is not available). She genuinely considered the idea-- whether or not the idea was her's initially. Would someone who has absolutely no intention to kill her husband be convinced that soon-- in an exchange of a mere 3-4 sentences? Would that be enough for most people to turn over $200 to have time to think about whether you want a complete stranger to run a hit on your husband? Likely not. She prob was predisposed to the idea of killing her husband.

Hence, no entrapment defense available.

I don't think the initial meeting Ivan set up between Debbie and Bob was the major issue under entrapment (it's clear at this point she was predisposed to the crime) so entrapment defense wouldn't work.

However was she still "predisposed" when Debbie said "I've changed my mind". It seemed she was set on abandoning the plan which means she was arguably no longer predisposed. Bobs statements "that's silly..." seem to pressure her back into the plan and this is where the entrapment issue came in.

We can agree to disagree I guess. In my humble opinion though, with entrapment, you have to look to the root of it all-- who was the source of the organization of the crime? Either she was predisposed to committing the crime or she was not. Whether she was predisposed does not change no matter what she says later on (for ex: "I've changed my mind"). Even if she said, "No. What was I thinking!?" -- this would still not change whether she was predisposed to committing the crime. Either she has it in her or she does not. As I said, I think she did because someone who was not predisposed to killing her husband would not be convinced when a hitman exchanges 3 sentences with her.

Said she was predisposed because she agreed to meet a complete stranger on the basis of a telephone conversation where he states he heard she was looking to kill her husband. Lol. Talked about the other facts. But... how do you meet a stranger at a bar, who's first contact with you is on the subject of "heard you wanted to kill your husband" and not have a continued interest/ disposition in continuing with that interest

[ledv]

For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply

there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?

Solicitation merges into conspiracy?

........ missed that hahaha damn

I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...

Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....

I read the call 3 times and could've sworn it specifically asked whether entrapment was a valid defense. Nothing about solicitation or murder but I guess that's what you have to make that mental leap

[RickSanchez]

How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense

I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?

For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply

Defense of entrapment requires two elements:
1) that the criminal design originate w/ law enforcement
2) that the ∆ not be predisposed to the crime being charged

Here, even though the informant was an unreliable one, the info got to law enforcement causing them to organize the sting operation. When Bob called Debbie, she did not act surprised or confused as to why someone would call, claim they are Ivan's friend, and want to do the "job" for her. From that, I said that it did not sound like the criminal design was by law enforcement. Rather, it sounded like law enforcement continued to set into motion what Debbie likely started. It could be argued that Debbie was merely playing along... that she initially did not have a goal to kill her husband but agreed to go along with the idea when Bob called. OKay, unlikely, but the second element is likely still not satisfied (and thus, the defense is not available). She genuinely considered the idea-- whether or not the idea was her's initially. Would someone who has absolutely no intention to kill her husband be convinced that soon-- in an exchange of a mere 3-4 sentences? Would that be enough for most people to turn over $200 to have time to think about whether you want a complete stranger to run a hit on your husband? Likely not. She prob was predisposed to the idea of killing her husband.

Hence, no entrapment defense available.

I don't think the initial meeting Ivan set up between Debbie and Bob was the major issue under entrapment (it's clear at this point she was predisposed to the crime) so entrapment defense wouldn't work.

However was she still "predisposed" when Debbie said "I've changed my mind". It seemed she was set on abandoning the plan which means she was arguably no longer predisposed. Bobs statements "that's silly..." seem to pressure her back into the plan and this is where the entrapment issue came in.

We can agree to disagree I guess. In my humble opinion though, with entrapment, you have to look to the root of it all-- who was the source of the organization of the crime? Either she was predisposed to committing the crime or she was not. Whether she was predisposed does not change no matter what she says later on (for ex: "I've changed my mind"). Even if she said, "No. What was I thinking!?" -- this would still not change whether she was predisposed to committing the crime. Either she has it in her or she does not. As I said, I think she did because someone who was not predisposed to killing her husband would not be convinced when a hitman exchanges 3 sentences with her.

Said she was predisposed because she agreed to meet a complete stranger on the basis of a telephone conversation where he states he heard she was looking to kill her husband. Lol. Talked about the other facts. But... how do you meet a stranger at a bar, who's first contact with you is on the subject of "heard you wanted to kill your husband" and not have a continued interest/ disposition in continuing with that interest

Problem is, she said she doesn't want to do it because it was "too risky" not that she loved her husband now. She was predisposed to murder her husband given she had a way to get away with it. And the fact she gave Bob the $200 kinda shows that she was still thinking about it, and didn't want to just withdraw.

But the other side will argue that Debbie was too scared to just flat out say no since she was talking to a real killer. She would say she gave Bob the $200 just so he doesn't get made at her for withdrawing and kill her.

It could really go either way, so it's find as long as you apply the facts.

[RickSanchez]

I read the call 3 times and could've sworn it specifically asked whether entrapment was a valid defense. Nothing about solicitation or murder but I guess that's what you have to make that mental leap

Right, BUT in order for the entrapment defense to succeed you need to prove that she was not predisposed to SOLICIT MURDER not the murder itself. So solicitation does matter here.

[clockguy]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time

In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...

[cal_pushed]

Maybe they down payment was just that sneaky felonious chick's way of feeling out the situation.

Also, when doing the PC for the arrest, anyone raise the solicitation for murder or talk about attempt? Since pc is ... for which a crime, or an attempt to commit, etc... idk.

[osuna911]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time

In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...

Third case quoted another case about a tow yard storing cars, it said the contract was within the exceptions...

Yeah exactly, could've used the dissent argument to make a case for Blanchard... to be more "objective" coulda woulda hadda

[Roupie]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time

In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...

Third case quoted another case about a tow yard storing cars, it said the contract was within the exceptions...

Yeah exactly, could've used the dissent argument to make a case for Blanchard... to be more "objective" coulda woulda hadda

Not sure what the accomadations schedule looks like, but are there people scheduled for PTB tomorrow?

[osuna911]

Btw did Barbri ever lecture on Entrapment? Or was I zoned out lol

[cal_pushed]

Anyone feel the am session of MBE was easier than pm? Like significantly?

[Roupie]

Anyone feel the am session of MBE was easier than pm? Like significantly?

Yeah, but wasn't sure if it was because the questions were harder or because I was fatiguing. Lol

[osuna911]

Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?

[osuna911]

Anyone feel the am session of MBE was easier than pm? Like significantly?

I felt like I was doing a Property and CivPro MBE lol

[cal_pushed]

Anyone feel the am session of MBE was easier than pm? Like significantly?

Yeah, but wasn't sure if it was because the questions were harder or because I was fatiguing. Lol

Some people had complete opposite experience. Think has to be experimentals mixed into different sessions? Idk. Afternoon was distinctively different from morning.

Also, if I have some bad ass kids and higher a babysitter..

[cal_pushed]

Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?

It being a letter I think you can go without headers