Kaplan Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[shredderrrrrr]

What's really killing me is that we still have areas that aren't covered going into next Wednesday. I've talked to all my buddies doing Barbri and they're done with lectures and have been for a bit...WTF?!

Agreed! We're getting so close to test day and there are still topics I don't even know anything about, let alone having studied them!

[despina]

What's really killing me is that we still have areas that aren't covered going into next Wednesday. I've talked to all my buddies doing Barbri and they're done with lectures and have been for a bit...WTF?!

Agreed! We're getting so close to test day and there are still topics I don't even know anything about, let alone having studied them!

Hmm, I'm doing my last state-specific substantive stuff tomorrow, and technically I should have done it Tuesday if I had stuck to the schedule. Must vary a lot by state how many different topics there are?

As for the lectures / book ratio, I'm basically doing the same as robinhood and getting material mainly from the lecture and carefully filling out the bar notes, then supplementing when I see something unfamiliar or that I clearly didn't understand from the lecture.

[robinhoodOO]

What's really killing me is that we still have areas that aren't covered going into next Wednesday. I've talked to all my buddies doing Barbri and they're done with lectures and have been for a bit...WTF?!

Agreed! We're getting so close to test day and there are still topics I don't even know anything about, let alone having studied them!

Fuck it. I'm jumping ahead and finishing this weekend. No way I'm waiting until Wednesday...

[LAW813FL]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

[robinhoodOO]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

I actually really liked the Wills/Trusts lecturer for CA. Once of the few where I got a lot out of it. That said, her credentials were really good--unlike some of the other lecturers. So I wasn't surprised...Muy bueno

[shredderrrrrr]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

Did you guys all have Roosevelt (the Con Law guy) for Conflicts? I remember enjoying him for Con Law, but the Conflicts lecture was fucking awful for the very reason you mentioned--he just flew threw everything without ever repeating himself. I don't think I retained a thing from that lecture.

[LAW813FL]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

Did you guys all have Roosevelt (the Con Law guy) for Conflicts? I remember enjoying him for Con Law, but the Conflicts lecture was fucking awful for the very reason you mentioned--he just flew threw everything without ever repeating himself. I don't think I retained a thing from that lecture.

We don't have conflicts in Florida so Idk.

[robinhoodOO]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

Did you guys all have Roosevelt (the Con Law guy) for Conflicts? I remember enjoying him for Con Law, but the Conflicts lecture was fucking awful for the very reason you mentioned--he just flew threw everything without ever repeating himself. I don't think I retained a thing from that lecture.

We don't have conflicts in Florida so Idk.

Yup; no conflicts of law in CA, either.

Anyway, doesn't Iowa have reciprocity via admission by motion for prior practice? If I ever move back, hopefully I won't have to the bar there...

[fadedsunrise]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

I actually really liked the Wills/Trusts lecturer for CA. Once of the few where I got a lot out of it. That said, her credentials were really good--unlike some of the other lecturers. So I wasn't surprised...Muy bueno

Add me for liking the CA Wills/Trusts lady! She doesn't sound bored out of her mind like Community Property (skipped ahead to burn through the lectures in one go) and explained stuff relatively well.

Not sure if I'm just not seeing it, but can anyone explain the following to me in Federal Civil Procedure:
1. The difference between Rule and Statutory Interpleader.
2. The difference between motion for a new trial and motion to set aside the judgment(what Critical Pass seems to be calling it)/motion for relief from a judgment

Both of these seem like they have a lot of factors that overlap...

[robinhoodOO]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

I actually really liked the Wills/Trusts lecturer for CA. Once of the few where I got a lot out of it. That said, her credentials were really good--unlike some of the other lecturers. So I wasn't surprised...Muy bueno

Add me for liking the CA Wills/Trusts lady! She doesn't sound bored out of her mind like Community Property (skipped ahead to burn through the lectures in one go) and explained stuff relatively well.

Not sure if I'm just not seeing it, but can anyone explain the following to me in Federal Civil Procedure:
1. The difference between Rule and Statutory Interpleader.
2. The difference between motion for a new trial and motion to set aside the judgment(what Critical Pass seems to be calling it)/motion for relief from a judgment

Both of these seem like they have a lot of factors that overlap...

Yup; I hate the CP person. I skipped to doing CP today and her Bar Notes are a mess and the lecture is boring (just straight reading from her notes).

As for Interpleader Practice:

Statutory interpleader requires jurisdiction from the outset because it's essentially bringing a suit from scratch. Diversity for Statutory Interpleader requires Minimum Diversity: Disputed claim of $500 or more and at least 2 competing claims that are citizens of different states (with stakeholder's citizenship not mattering--who is the party who initiated the interpleader action).

Rule interpleader is brought after the fact where a party interpleads claim within an action where it is exposed to multiple or inconsistent liabilities. It requires regular diversity or Fed Q, and that means the interpleading party must have a different residence than the interplead parties (unlike Statutory).

There are other differences (i.e. statutory interpleader requires posting a bond and permits national service), but that probably won't be tested.

Make sense?

As for the Motion practice:

A motion for new trial must be brought within 28 days after entry and usually occurs where a party defended an action but the results were not in their favor. It can be brought because of (1) excessive damages, (2) verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, (3) procedural error or misconduct or (4) newly discovered evidence. If it fails, practically you'd appeal.

Motions for Relief are usually brought where a party didn't defend the action (but could be for other reasons). Also, the timing is different (a reasonable time or 1 year if brought to excuse for fraud, mistake, or inadvertence). It can be brought for (1) Mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect (usually to set aside a default where party didn't answer), (2) newly discovered evidence, (3) Judgment is void (i.e. there was no SMJ), (4) satisfaction of judgment, or (5) Court discretion/justified (catch all).

PM me if you want to discuss further. I've clerked at a firm that only does federal practice (i.e. ERISA, Bankruptcy, etc.), so Fed CivPro is much easier for me than CA stuff...

[orangecup]

What's the best way to memorize the law for the essays?

I've been doing pretty well on the MBEs (and I plan to continue to drill these), but I feel like I don't retain the rules in a way such that I can regurgitate them on essays.

I've started making flaschards to memorize topics (have done Wills, Fam Law, and Contracts so far), but it's an incredibly slow slog, and it feels unfeasible once I add on more subjects.

[fadedsunrise]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

I actually really liked the Wills/Trusts lecturer for CA. Once of the few where I got a lot out of it. That said, her credentials were really good--unlike some of the other lecturers. So I wasn't surprised...Muy bueno

Add me for liking the CA Wills/Trusts lady! She doesn't sound bored out of her mind like Community Property (skipped ahead to burn through the lectures in one go) and explained stuff relatively well.

Not sure if I'm just not seeing it, but can anyone explain the following to me in Federal Civil Procedure:
1. The difference between Rule and Statutory Interpleader.
2. The difference between motion for a new trial and motion to set aside the judgment(what Critical Pass seems to be calling it)/motion for relief from a judgment

Both of these seem like they have a lot of factors that overlap...

Yup; I hate the CP person. I skipped to doing CP today and her Bar Notes are a mess and the lecture is boring (just straight reading from her notes).

As for Interpleader Practice:

Statutory interpleader requires jurisdiction from the outset because it's essentially bringing a suit from scratch. Diversity for Statutory Interpleader requires Minimum Diversity: Disputed claim of $500 or more and at least 2 competing claims that are citizens of different states (with stakeholder's citizenship not mattering--who is the party who initiated the interpleader action).

Rule interpleader is brought after the fact where a party interpleads claim within an action where it is exposed to multiple or inconsistent liabilities. It requires regular diversity or Fed Q, and that means the interpleading party must have a different residence than the interplead parties (unlike Statutory).

There are other differences (i.e. statutory interpleader requires posting a bond and permits national service), but that probably won't be tested.

Make sense?

As for the Motion practice:

A motion for new trial must be brought within 28 days after entry and usually occurs where a party defended an action but the results were not in their favor. It can be brought because of (1) excessive damages, (2) verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, (3) procedural error or misconduct or (4) newly discovered evidence. If it fails, practically you'd appeal.

Motions for Relief are usually brought where a party didn't defend the action (but could be for other reasons). Also, the timing is different (a reasonable time or 1 year if brought to excuse for fraud, mistake, or inadvertence). It can be brought for (1) Mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect (usually to set aside a default where party didn't answer), (2) newly discovered evidence, (3) Judgment is void (i.e. there was no SMJ), (4) satisfaction of judgment, or (5) Court discretion/justified (catch all).

PM me if you want to discuss further. I've clerked at a firm that only does federal practice (i.e. ERISA, Bankruptcy, etc.), so Fed CivPro is much easier for me than CA stuff...

THANK YOU!! The interpleaders and the two motions were starting to bleed into each other because I pretty much blanked out trying to pay attention to Civ Pro dude and the factors kinda overlap, but it makes a lot of sense the way you're explaining it.

My only real life experience in Fed Civ Pro is removals...I'm actually sort of hoping for California Civ Pro over say, community property, but what are the chances.

[robinhoodOO]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

I actually really liked the Wills/Trusts lecturer for CA. Once of the few where I got a lot out of it. That said, her credentials were really good--unlike some of the other lecturers. So I wasn't surprised...Muy bueno

Add me for liking the CA Wills/Trusts lady! She doesn't sound bored out of her mind like Community Property (skipped ahead to burn through the lectures in one go) and explained stuff relatively well.

Not sure if I'm just not seeing it, but can anyone explain the following to me in Federal Civil Procedure:
1. The difference between Rule and Statutory Interpleader.
2. The difference between motion for a new trial and motion to set aside the judgment(what Critical Pass seems to be calling it)/motion for relief from a judgment

Both of these seem like they have a lot of factors that overlap...

Yup; I hate the CP person. I skipped to doing CP today and her Bar Notes are a mess and the lecture is boring (just straight reading from her notes).

As for Interpleader Practice:

Statutory interpleader requires jurisdiction from the outset because it's essentially bringing a suit from scratch. Diversity for Statutory Interpleader requires Minimum Diversity: Disputed claim of $500 or more and at least 2 competing claims that are citizens of different states (with stakeholder's citizenship not mattering--who is the party who initiated the interpleader action).

Rule interpleader is brought after the fact where a party interpleads claim within an action where it is exposed to multiple or inconsistent liabilities. It requires regular diversity or Fed Q, and that means the interpleading party must have a different residence than the interplead parties (unlike Statutory).

There are other differences (i.e. statutory interpleader requires posting a bond and permits national service), but that probably won't be tested.

Make sense?

As for the Motion practice:

A motion for new trial must be brought within 28 days after entry and usually occurs where a party defended an action but the results were not in their favor. It can be brought because of (1) excessive damages, (2) verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, (3) procedural error or misconduct or (4) newly discovered evidence. If it fails, practically you'd appeal.

Motions for Relief are usually brought where a party didn't defend the action (but could be for other reasons). Also, the timing is different (a reasonable time or 1 year if brought to excuse for fraud, mistake, or inadvertence). It can be brought for (1) Mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect (usually to set aside a default where party didn't answer), (2) newly discovered evidence, (3) Judgment is void (i.e. there was no SMJ), (4) satisfaction of judgment, or (5) Court discretion/justified (catch all).

PM me if you want to discuss further. I've clerked at a firm that only does federal practice (i.e. ERISA, Bankruptcy, etc.), so Fed CivPro is much easier for me than CA stuff...

THANK YOU!! The interpleaders and the two motions were starting to bleed into each other because I pretty much blanked out trying to pay attention to Civ Pro dude and the factors kinda overlap, but it makes a lot of sense the way you're explaining it.

My only real life experience in Fed Civ Pro is removals...I'm actually sort of hoping for California Civ Pro over say, community property, but what are the chances.

No worries! Good to see some of that Federal practice coming in handy for a change...I remember my first removed action, which was later interplead in a BK case. Boring stuff...

And, considering they've practically never tested CA CivPro in 20 years and love Community Property? Unlikely, but you never know

I've noticed they tend to focus on simpler Fed CivPro though, like Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel on essays. Interpleader will likely only ever come up via MBE (or, you'd think).

[despina]

Despina's Kaplan rant of the day:

What's with all these questions where we're just supposed to know which random laws apply to animals? I had one the other day about commercial misappropriation of likeness of a rabbit (legit cause of action apparently), and one today about admissibility of character evidence for a dog (turns out character evidence for animals has its own set of rules, not quite like for humans. Okay.).

[breeze3213]

Sorry but I need to rant about the Florida Wills/Trusts lady for Kaplan. She didn't repeat herself once for any of the outline and she read through it at the speed of light. I actually had to watch it on 1X. No bueno.

Kaplan, maybe next time tell her that we have to fill in the blanks as she is talking.

Did you guys all have Roosevelt (the Con Law guy) for Conflicts? I remember enjoying him for Con Law, but the Conflicts lecture was fucking awful for the very reason you mentioned--he just flew threw everything without ever repeating himself. I don't think I retained a thing from that lecture.

I felt the exact same way! I got so angry I didn't even finish Conflicts. I liked him for Con Law, but for Conflicts not so much. I think I'm just going to read the outline and pray. I can't believe we still have classes! I think Barbri is already done.

[breeze3213]

The countdown clock is seriously going to give me a heart attack. Does anyone have advice on how to finish essays in 40 mins? I cannot get my timing down without ending up with pure jumbled nonsense. Also, how any tips on how to manage studying all this material. Today I just focused on reviewing all of the Biz Orgs classes and Family Law and skipped the CPLR lecture (which I am about to start now.) I need to figure this out! This is just awful.

[shredderrrrrr]

What's the best way to memorize the law for the essays?

I've been doing pretty well on the MBEs (and I plan to continue to drill these), but I feel like I don't retain the rules in a way such that I can regurgitate them on essays.

I've started making flaschards to memorize topics (have done Wills, Fam Law, and Contracts so far), but it's an incredibly slow slog, and it feels unfeasible once I add on more subjects.

I have the same problem. I can remember the law enough to make selections based on it when presented with different options, but I have frequently have no clue without options to pick from.

Personally, I have just recently started taking every one of my outlines and condensing them into bare-minimum, one-page outlines to then just repeatedly study, hoping I retain what they say. But I imagine flashcards would have a similar benefit (I just prefer using an outline of sorts because, in my head, I remember the actual document when I recall memorized information).

[despina]

I have the same problem, and have started doing the 1-2 page thing as well. I've found it helpful.

My state's essays are 36 minutes, and so far even when I spot all the issues, I have trouble thoroughly writing them all out in that time frame. What I've done for a few is focus my time on the couple of issues that I am most confident on -- I figure better to get a solid 4-5 than to try to half-ass my way to a 7 and end up with a 2/3? Then if I have extra time at the end I quickly try to capture the other few issues.

...and sometimes I juuust don't spot the issues. Did a practice contracts / agency essay where I talked all about why the modification was valid and why the employees had the authority to bind their companies to the modification. Kicked ass on that, but totally forgot to talk about why the original contract was valid, what it required, and how it had been breached. Wound up with a Kaplan score of 3. Oops.

[ETA my state's essays are graded out of 7, I guess this isn't universal]

[robinhoodOO]

I have the same problem, and have started doing the 1-2 page thing as well. I've found it helpful.

My state's essays are 36 minutes, and so far even when I spot all the issues, I have trouble thoroughly writing them all out in that time frame. What I've done for a few is focus my time on the couple of issues that I am most confident on -- I figure better to get a solid 4-5 than to try to half-ass my way to a 7 and end up with a 2/3? Then if I have extra time at the end I quickly try to capture the other few issues.

...and sometimes I juuust don't spot the issues. Did a practice contracts / agency essay where I talked all about why the modification was valid and why the employees had the authority to bind their companies to the modification. Kicked ass on that, but totally forgot to talk about why the original contract was valid, what it required, and how it had been breached. Wound up with a Kaplan score of 3. Oops.

[ETA my state's essays are graded out of 7, I guess this isn't universal]

36 minutes? That seems bizarre...How can you review and write something of substance in 36 minutes...Which state?

[robinhoodOO]

Okay, now that lectures are coming to a close, curious as to who everyone liked the most. I've personally preferred Bracci. You have to speed him up, but he's definitely teaching the material for the purpose of the CBX, knows his shit, and has decent bar notes.

[orangecup]

Personally, I have just recently started taking every one of my outlines and condensing them into bare-minimum, one-page outlines to then just repeatedly study, hoping I retain what they say. But I imagine flashcards would have a similar benefit (I just prefer using an outline of sorts because, in my head, I remember the actual document when I recall memorized information).

That's not a bad idea. So you're basically just sticking to the elements of each rule, without diving into the sub-elements?

For instance, I've been memorizing that acceptance of a non-conforming tender may be done in 4 ways: by telling the seller, by taking the nonconforming goods, by failing to properly reject, and by taking an action that is inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods. Whereas, my impression is that your outline is more along the lines of "when confronted with a non-conforming tender, the buyer may accept, reject, or accept in part and reject in part."

[shredderrrrrr]

Personally, I have just recently started taking every one of my outlines and condensing them into bare-minimum, one-page outlines to then just repeatedly study, hoping I retain what they say. But I imagine flashcards would have a similar benefit (I just prefer using an outline of sorts because, in my head, I remember the actual document when I recall memorized information).

That's not a bad idea. So you're basically just sticking to the elements of each rule, without diving into the sub-elements?

For instance, I've been memorizing that acceptance of a non-conforming tender may be done in 4 ways: by telling the seller, by taking the nonconforming goods, by failing to properly reject, and by taking an action that is inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods. Whereas, my impression is that your outline is more along the lines of "when confronted with a non-conforming tender, the buyer may accept, reject, or accept in part and reject in part."

It really depends, but I generally still include sub-elements (to be clear, some of my sheets are not necessarily only "one" page). My approach is based on how I best recall large amounts of data.

What I do is open up a blank document as well as the outline I created for a particular subject from the lecture/questions. I then go page-by-page of the outline and type and format into my new document everything that I feel is absolutely essential to know from the outline, excluding all the merely explanatory information, redundancies, superfluous language, and the like. If it is a subject I really suck at, I'm likely to have more information--if I really know something, I'll likely just put a word or two to remind me where it fits in. For instance, under my "Pre-Incorporation Liability" heading in my condensed Corporations outline, I have a line for both "Before" and "After" formation. For the "After" bullet, I just have "C liable only if novation." Since I remember this topic pretty well, that alone is all I need to recall to remember that the promoter is still liable for Ks entered into prior to incorporation, that promoter can indemnify C (my shorthand for Corporation) if C is liable, that novation/acceptance should be referenced rather than ratification, that novation can be express or implied, and what exactly novation is. If I didn't know all that stuff, I would've added more to the bullet point. All I'm really looking for is a recollection trigger I suppose.

My goal is to have a document where I can not only study what I need to know (i.e. both the general rule and the sub-elements you mentioned), but do so in a way where I can visually recall it. So using your example, I would likely have (I haven't done one for K yet) a heading of "Acceptance" and somewhere below it a subheading of "Non-Conforming Tender" with four bullet points of "1. Tell seller," "2. Taking goods," "3. Improper rejection," and "4. Action inconsistent with S ownership." Come test day, I would ideally be able to recall the information without any struggle. In the likely event that doesn't happen, however, I would be able to visualize my outline and know that I (obviously) have a non-conforming acceptance section. My brain works as such that I would be able to visualize that section and know there were 4 bullet points, all of which were pretty short. At a minimum, this gives me something to work with. Normally I can think of, say, one of the sub-elements and then, when combining that with the visualization, work out what the others are.

This is just what works for me (or at least has in the past) though and I'd recommend tailoring it for yourself. If you visually retain things, make it condensed and visually distinct so you can recall things that way. If you care more about just rote memorization, focus on just cutting the bullshit and putting everything you need to know (simply to maximize your studying efficiency).

[despina]

I have the same problem, and have started doing the 1-2 page thing as well. I've found it helpful.

My state's essays are 36 minutes, and so far even when I spot all the issues, I have trouble thoroughly writing them all out in that time frame. What I've done for a few is focus my time on the couple of issues that I am most confident on -- I figure better to get a solid 4-5 than to try to half-ass my way to a 7 and end up with a 2/3? Then if I have extra time at the end I quickly try to capture the other few issues.

...and sometimes I juuust don't spot the issues. Did a practice contracts / agency essay where I talked all about why the modification was valid and why the employees had the authority to bind their companies to the modification. Kicked ass on that, but totally forgot to talk about why the original contract was valid, what it required, and how it had been breached. Wound up with a Kaplan score of 3. Oops.

[ETA my state's essays are graded out of 7, I guess this isn't universal]

36 minutes? That seems bizarre...How can you review and write something of substance in 36 minutes...Which state?

MA, and yeah, it's bananas. Five essays in the morning (3 hours) and five in the afternoon (another 3 hours). Kaplan's recommendation is to spend 12 minutes sloooowly reading the question and picking out issues, and 24 minutes keyboard mashing. Supposedly most of the questions only have like 5-8 key issues, but a lot of times they're mixed (a contracts problem that has an agency issue and a professional responsibility issue, or a domestic relations question with a property issue and a torts issue, etc). I really need to speed up my recall of rules in order to race through these efficiently.

[orangecup]

It really depends, but I generally still include sub-elements (to be clear, some of my sheets are not necessarily only "one" page). My approach is based on how I best recall large amounts of data.

Thx for the tips!

Ugh, I feel utterly incompetent at the essays. Like, even for subjects I've "memorized". I open up a family law essay, and the topics feel like they're side-issues we barely even covered. If I'm presented with this in the exam, how am I supposed to even proceed?

[robinhoodOO]

It really depends, but I generally still include sub-elements (to be clear, some of my sheets are not necessarily only "one" page). My approach is based on how I best recall large amounts of data.

Thx for the tips!

Ugh, I feel utterly incompetent at the essays. Like, even for subjects I've "memorized". I open up a family law essay, and the topics feel like they're side-issues we barely even covered. If I'm presented with this in the exam, how am I supposed to even proceed?

Can you provide an example of which essay and what issues you missed? Maybe we can provide a bit of guidance on tackling a CP essay...