FLORIDA BAR - JULY 2014 Forum

[MoneyMay]

Man those essays overall... not what I was expecting, especially the first two. Very disappointed. And yeah if the second one was pure torts I am fucked.

[Hannibal]

How the fuck do you cheat on the bar?


Isn't that guaranteed C&F banishment?

The woman who was making the cellphone announcement (and all the announcements) sounded like the announcer in a dystopian city. "If you are caught with a cellphone after this, you will be summarily executed."

[MoneyMay]

What torts could have applied to the second question? I know fraud/ misrepresentation but was there much else?

Oh and FL just gave us the essay questions to take home so I assume we are permitted to discuss them.

[ConsiderMeMilesDavis]

- I was told by someone that the second essay was pure torts. If that is the case then I am fucked because I did not discuss a single one.

whoever told you this must have only written about 6 sentences in their response. Otherwise, they would be typing a thousand words of pure garbage. Although, I had ZERO clue how to approach it...

[Seminole_305]

- I was told by someone that the second essay was pure torts. If that is the case then I am fucked because I did not discuss a single one.

whoever told you this must have only written about 6 sentences in their response. Otherwise, they would be typing a thousand words of pure garbage. Although, I had ZERO clue how to approach it...

That's what I was thinking but I just nodded my head in agreement and proceeded to keep drinking.

[fsunoles88]

Dem Florida Multiple Choice tho...

[hous]

second was misrepresentation and warranties I think. And the PR part.

[hous]

Dem Florida Multiple Choice tho...

I know man. I read the Themis outline for Corps and Partnerships twice and I'm positive the vast majority of those questions WERE NOT in the outlines. Kind of doubly disappointed since it was one of our professors that did the lecture too...

[MoneyMay]

second was misrepresentation and warranties I think. And the PR part.

Which warranties? I think I know but not sure.

[Hannibal]

second was misrepresentation and warranties I think. And the PR part.

Which warranties? I think I know but not sure.

Express warranty regarding brand, and then it said "as is" in the contract. I argued that that only waives the implied warranties.

[MoneyMay]

second was misrepresentation and warranties I think. And the PR part.

Which warranties? I think I know but not sure.

Express warranty regarding brand, and then it said "as is" in the contract. I argued that that only waives the implied warranties.

Whew ok not feeling as shitty (but still pretty shitty).

[CheeseDiickGunners]

I had some kid tell me the second essay was all about "products liability" and not about warranties. I told him he was probably right and that he probably won the Bar this year.

[mikealao]

- I was told by someone that the second essay was pure torts. If that is the case then I am fucked because I did not discuss a single one.

I thought it was a clearly asking parol evidence rule/contract misrepresentation/waiver analysis. I figured that it probably fell into the tort of misrepresentation (fraud) so I wrote a paragraph about that and made up the elements since BARBRI guy didn't teach us that. Either way, there was a lot of contracts to talk about, much more than torts I thought.

Also, did they kick the people caught cheating out or what? Do they just drop a note? Crazy.

I think the reason it was all torts is because there was no contract with the material misrepresentation. Also, isn't fraud an exception to the parole evidence rule?

[MoneyMay]

- I was told by someone that the second essay was pure torts. If that is the case then I am fucked because I did not discuss a single one.

I thought it was a clearly asking parol evidence rule/contract misrepresentation/waiver analysis. I figured that it probably fell into the tort of misrepresentation (fraud) so I wrote a paragraph about that and made up the elements since BARBRI guy didn't teach us that. Either way, there was a lot of contracts to talk about, much more than torts I thought.

Also, did they kick the people caught cheating out or what? Do they just drop a note? Crazy.

I think the reason it was all torts is because there was no contract with the material misrepresentation. Also, isn't fraud an exception to the parole evidence rule?

I just read on some blog that it was Ks AND torts and this was the first time there was ever two Ks questions. So it seems the unofficial authorities on these things are saying it's Ks and torts.

[LegalEez]

the 2nd question began with an advertisement. there is no way it was all torts

[ConsiderMeMilesDavis]

For 2nd essay I started it as Ks analysis then somehow ended up taking about tort liability, but I'm sure the transition was a total disaster...I think I even discussed the economic loss rule at some point. When I was finished with that one, I began to consider retaking the LSAT

[333]

For 2nd essay I started it as Ks analysis then somehow ended up taking about tort liability, but I'm sure the transition was a total disaster...I think I even discussed the economic loss rule at some point. When I was finished with that one, I began to consider retaking the LSAT

I did the same thing. Not the thoughts about retaking the LSAT part. The K and then tort analysis part.

Does anyone know what the scores are like on the essays that the Bar provides as "samples"?

[mikealao]

I got WRECKED by the first two essays. Am seriously trying to figure out how fucked I am and if the MBE can even save me.

I actually felt the worst about the third one. I had no idea about the question about the AG's authority and I didn't know which of those provisions were valid. The first one was so complicated I'm 100% sure I fucked stuff up, but I'm also pretty sure everyone else did too.

PS Mods, they let us take the exam out with us and talk to people about it, so we could even type the whole thing here if we wanted. Not that I want to at all.

I made up the AG rules. The trustee stuff too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I did the exact same thing regarding the AG rule. I had like 3 minutes left to answer that question and it made sense that the AG would have that authority, because if not, who else to petition the court to enforce the trust provision regarding the charity?

Also, everyone effed stuff up, that's why a passing grade on an essay is only 50%.

[alicrimson]

- I was told by someone that the second essay was pure torts. If that is the case then I am fucked because I did not discuss a single one.

I thought it was a clearly asking parol evidence rule/contract misrepresentation/waiver analysis. I figured that it probably fell into the tort of misrepresentation (fraud) so I wrote a paragraph about that and made up the elements since BARBRI guy didn't teach us that. Either way, there was a lot of contracts to talk about, much more than torts I thought.

Also, did they kick the people caught cheating out or what? Do they just drop a note? Crazy.

I think the reason it was all torts is because there was no contract with the material misrepresentation. Also, isn't fraud an exception to the parole evidence rule?

I just read on some blog that it was Ks AND torts and this was the first time there was ever two Ks questions. So it seems the unofficial authorities on these things are saying it's Ks and torts.

I just read barofprofessors and that's how they described it. One of the commenters did a break down of their issues. For the most part, I discussed the same things (though, I disagree with their categorization of certain contracts issues as torts). I'm not worried about essay 2. It had to be mixed/heavy contracts, because, otherwise, there wouldn't be enough to write about.

http://barprofessors.wordpress.com/2014 ... -bar-exam/ Link for anyone who's curious.

[Hannibal]

Yeah, I disagreed with some of that too, also I thought the main issue with ethics is that the attorney would have to be a witness against his client in a proceeding.

[alicrimson]

Yeah, I disagreed with some of that too, also I thought the main issue with ethics is that the attorney would have to be a witness against his client in a proceeding.

I wrote about that as well. The whole, this wasn't protected by atty-client privilege because you saw it and could have to testify. C-O-I and and possibly having to disclose stuff to the court if guy tries to lie. The last one was a stretch, but it's what barbri wrote about, so I just tossed it in there.

[b.sunshine]

Yeah, I disagreed with some of that too, also I thought the main issue with ethics is that the attorney would have to be a witness against his client in a proceeding.

I wrote about that as well. The whole, this wasn't protected by atty-client privilege because you saw it and could have to testify. C-O-I and and possibly having to disclose stuff to the court if guy tries to lie. The last one was a stretch, but it's what barbri wrote about, so I just tossed it in there.

I talked about everything that was discussed but I also talked about how a lawyer should not take a case if it will assist the client in commiting a crime, which in this case is fraud. I then went onto to explain that this depends on when the fraud ended. If it ended when the the client sold the piano then the lawyer may take the case, however, if the fraud is ongoing untill the fraud is remedied then the lawyer can't take the case. I said the better answer is the later.

Only reason I thought of that was because that was one of my hypos during my P.R. class.

[alicrimson]

Yeah, I disagreed with some of that too, also I thought the main issue with ethics is that the attorney would have to be a witness against his client in a proceeding.

I wrote about that as well. The whole, this wasn't protected by atty-client privilege because you saw it and could have to testify. C-O-I and and possibly having to disclose stuff to the court if guy tries to lie. The last one was a stretch, but it's what barbri wrote about, so I just tossed it in there.

I talked about everything that was discussed but I also talked about how a lawyer should not take a case if it will assist the client in commiting a crime, which in this case is fraud. I then went onto to explain that this depends on when the fraud ended. If it ended when the the client sold the piano then the lawyer may take the case, however, if the fraud is ongoing untill the fraud is remedied then the lawyer can't take the case. I said the better answer is the later.

Only reason I thought of that was because that was one of my hypos during my P.R. class.

Haha I did the fraud/committing crimes stuff too! Mainly because barbri had it in most of their similar sample PR essay portions.

[SilverE2]

Yeah, I disagreed with some of that too, also I thought the main issue with ethics is that the attorney would have to be a witness against his client in a proceeding.

I wrote about that as well. The whole, this wasn't protected by atty-client privilege because you saw it and could have to testify. C-O-I and and possibly having to disclose stuff to the court if guy tries to lie. The last one was a stretch, but it's what barbri wrote about, so I just tossed it in there.

I talked about everything that was discussed but I also talked about how a lawyer should not take a case if it will assist the client in commiting a crime, which in this case is fraud. I then went onto to explain that this depends on when the fraud ended. If it ended when the the client sold the piano then the lawyer may take the case, however, if the fraud is ongoing untill the fraud is remedied then the lawyer can't take the case. I said the better answer is the later.

Only reason I thought of that was because that was one of my hypos during my P.R. class.

Haha I did the fraud/committing crimes stuff too! Mainly because barbri had it in most of their similar sample PR essay portions.

Yup, talked about this too. COMPLETELY forgot to talk about the parol evidence rule though. Oh well.

[MoneyMay]

I was re-reading through this thread and how the hell do you cheat on the bar? Did someone manage to get a cell phone in there? I don't think there's enough time to look crap up but what do I know.