2018 February CA Bar Forum

[try try try again]

don't know that Free Speech is a direct issue (except with respect to religion of course). However, EPC, Establishment Clause and Free Exercise were important in my opinion.

Did not like the PT one bit. Felt like I knew what to do and organize but spent too much time arguing in one area and not enough on others.

[Got'eem]

Ran out of time and didn’t put the exclusionary rule for crim pro. Big deal?

[BrainToast]

Ran out of time and didn’t put the exclusionary rule for crim pro. Big deal?

In the bigger picture not really. In a time crunch, stuff like that happens. I forgot to discuss public use on the takings. But if the overall essay is good you will still get a passing score.

[bigballerbrand]

I think my biggest whiff/miss today was neglecting to do a free speech analysis on the Con Law question. I decided to do Due Process and EPC, but neglected free speech. Blegh.

Try harder. You’re a better troll than that, right?

No, I heard a few people talking about time/place/manner and doing a quick content-based regulation analysis.

If I'm wrong/incorrect for feeling like I goofed for not doing anything on free speech, then believe me I'm glad and not trying to troll here.

[febbartaker11]

Hi,
can someone please tell me the time we have to be there for tomorrow's session (preferably someone whose taking in Ontario) of course I cant remember the time.

Thank you!!!

[Doobydoobydoo]

I think my biggest whiff/miss today was neglecting to do a free speech analysis on the Con Law question. I decided to do Due Process and EPC, but neglected free speech. Blegh.

Try harder. You’re a better troll than that, right?

No, I heard a few people talking about time/place/manner and doing a quick content-based regulation analysis.

If I'm wrong/incorrect for feeling like I goofed for not doing anything on free speech, then believe me I'm glad and not trying to troll here.

Free speech was implicated as denial of religious books is both religious discrimination and content based restriction. Either way, subject to strict scrutiny, so don't worry.

[justanotheruser]

I think my biggest whiff/miss today was neglecting to do a free speech analysis on the Con Law question. I decided to do Due Process and EPC, but neglected free speech. Blegh.

Try harder. You’re a better troll than that, right?

No, I heard a few people talking about time/place/manner and doing a quick content-based regulation analysis.

If I'm wrong/incorrect for feeling like I goofed for not doing anything on free speech, then believe me I'm glad and not trying to troll here.

Free speech was implicated as denial of religious books is both religious discrimination and content based restriction. Either way, subject to strict scrutiny, so don't worry.

Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to squeeze in a "1st amendment - free speech" header with a "see above" note pointing back to my SS analysis under free exercise.

Oh well.

[justanotheruser]

Head proctor in Ontario was too slow on Tuesday so he decided to go extra fast with instructions today.

Makes sense...

[Yogagirl]

If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

[Element795]

[tweet][/tweet]

So, what were today’s subjects?

AM

Remedies/Crossover with PR
Con Law
Property/Torts

PM

Wills
Crim/Crimpro

Which part of Q3 did you think dealt with real property? I was short on time for it, so my cursory analysis of the facts indicated that the issues were nuisance, trespass to land and a taking. That'd be Con Law/Torts. Did I miss a real property issue?

Real Property/Con Law when it comes to those issues overlap so what is one persons Con Law is another persons Real Property. U are probably fine.

[Element795]

Ran out of time and didn’t put the exclusionary rule for crim pro. Big deal?

In the bigger picture not really. In a time crunch, stuff like that happens. I forgot to discuss public use on the takings. But if the overall essay is good you will still get a passing score.

They went with “Takings” again!?!?!?! WOW!

[barexaminerssuck27]

This is my 8th bar exam.

Here's something I've noticed so far....

Every SINGLE one of my friends who thought they "got all the issues" ended up failing the exam. On the other hand, while those who didn't get all the issues end up passing.......

I do believe it's substance rather quality.

I hope that will make some people at ease.

Good luck!

[barexaminerssuck27]

Yes, there was a real property. Prescriptive easement as a a defense

[tweet][/tweet]

So, what were today’s subjects?

AM

Remedies/Crossover with PR
Con Law
Property/Torts

PM

Wills
Crim/Crimpro

Which part of Q3 did you think dealt with real property? I was short on time for it, so my cursory analysis of the facts indicated that the issues were nuisance, trespass to land and a taking. That'd be Con Law/Torts. Did I miss a real property issue?

Real Property/Con Law when it comes to those issues overlap so what is one persons Con Law is another persons Real Property. U are probably fine.

[Element795]

[tweet][/tweet]

So, what were today’s subjects?

AM

Remedies/Crossover with PR
Con Law
Property/Torts

PM

Wills
Crim/Crimpro

Nothing “surprising.” Just a poopie group of subjects (blah)

[barexaminerssuck27]

This is my 8th bar exam.

Here's something I've noticed so far....

Every SINGLE one of my friends who thought they "got all the issues" ended up failing the exam. On the other hand, while those who didn't get all the issues end up passing.......

I do believe it's substance rather quantity.

I hope that will make some people at ease.

Good luck!

[LawQueen777]

So I’m freaking out a little bc I didn’t time myself appropriately for the first section of the MBE and zoomed through the last like 8 questions. I’m really bummed about it bc the MBE is my better skill set. I’m a repeat taker-in July I got a scaled score of 1539 and written 1323, and a scaled total score of 1441, so I was short by 9 points. I definitely feel better about my essays but I know I didn’t kill them. I just pray that those questions weren’t fatal to my chances of passing.

[barexaminerssuck27]

So I’m freaking out a little bc I didn’t time myself appropriately for the first section of the MBE and zoomed through the last like 8 questions. I’m really bummed about it bc the MBE is my better skill set. I’m a repeat taker-in July I got a scaled score of 1539 and written 1323, and a scaled total score of 1441, so I was short by 9 points. I definitely feel better about my essays but I know I didn’t kill them. I just pray that those questions weren’t fatal to my chances of passing.

Hi what do you use for MBES? Thank you

[BrainToast]

If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?

[LawQueen777]

So I’m freaking out a little bc I didn’t time myself appropriately for the first section of the MBE and zoomed through the last like 8 questions. I’m really bummed about it bc the MBE is my better skill set. I’m a repeat taker-in July I got a scaled score of 1539 and written 1323, and a scaled total score of 1441, so I was short by 9 points. I definitely feel better about my essays but I know I didn’t kill them. I just pray that those questions weren’t fatal to my chances of passing.

Hi what do you use for MBES? Thank you

The first time I used the Emanuel MBE book, AdaptiBar, and some of the Barbri simulated questions. Honestly this time I felt like the questions were harder than last time, but maybe it’s bc I focused more on essays this time since that was where I needed to improve. The released NCBE questions were the most helpful this time. I highly recommend those. There are a lot of areas of the law, particularly Civ Pro, where the examiners are testing nuanced questions that are not covered in any of the current major bar prep outlines. Because the released questions don’t have explanations, I had to read the actual FRCP or Westlaw for the answers bc I could not find the answers.

[Yogagirl]

I discussed both Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, including the Lemon Test.

[Doobydoobydoo]

If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?

I am drunk. As for this free speech analysis you mentioned, it's not totally wrong. There is case law to suggest that the government does have some free speech protection. See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The sign may have been protected, thus Constitutional, under the First Amendment. So free speech analysis wasn't irrelevant or a "wrong" way of looking at the problem. It should earn you some points.

[Mxmasterr]

I think standing was an issue to address in the PT. Definitely not the main crux, so don't stress if you didn't focus on it. That PT was one of the more difficult ones I've seen

I agree. The prompt said the attorney wanted to argue standing, so I threw out a paragraph on it and essentially I said it could be relevant to her argument but ... We'd need more info. I also did a paragragh saying this might be a trust cause the one case said anytime u give to a school for educational purposes it's a trust as a matter of law ... Which is what are facts were exactly. The prompt said what type of gift could it be so I said it could be a conditional gift and I believe a charitable trust

[Mxmasterr]

If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?

I am drunk. As for this free speech analysis you mentioned, it's not totally wrong. There is case law to suggest that the government does have some free speech protection. See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The sign may have been protected, thus Constitutional, under the First Amendment. So free speech analysis wasn't irrelevant or a "wrong" way of looking at the problem. It should earn you some points.

I don't think there was any free speech analysis to be done. It might be a defense, that the Gov can say things it wants, but that just begs the question if whether what it is saying violates the establishment clause. I guess you could have done a sentence on that.

Apparently there was a different level of scrutiny and test for restrictions on inmate free exercise rights that my bar review class did not mention at all. Apparently inmates have free exercise rights but they fall under a rational basis review with like 4 distinct elements weighed under the realities of incarceration needs. Also equal protection was implicated, and ... i missed that as well.

[Retakeorabust]

If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?

I am drunk. As for this free speech analysis you mentioned, it's not totally wrong. There is case law to suggest that the government does have some free speech protection. See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The sign may have been protected, thus Constitutional, under the First Amendment. So free speech analysis wasn't irrelevant or a "wrong" way of looking at the problem. It should earn you some points.

I don't think there was any free speech analysis to be done. It might be a defense, that the Gov can say things it wants, but that just begs the question if whether what it is saying violates the establishment clause. I guess you could have done a sentence on that.

Apparently there was a different level of scrutiny and test for restrictions on inmate free exercise rights that my bar review class did not mention at all. Apparently inmates have free exercise rights but they fall under a rational basis review with like 4 distinct elements weighed under the realities of incarceration needs. Also equal protection was implicated, and ... i missed that as well.

I agree with no free speech. Also think the epc was a stretch.

Anyone else invalidate the codicil for lack of capacity?

[Mxmasterr]

If anyone out there has any wisdom on this, please chime in. For the first question, I knew to write about First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but was so anxious and stressed when I started the exam, started writing about speech in the context of the stupid sign. I did an analysis on strict scrutiny and TMP restrictions (so the grader will see that I know what these are), but for some reason fell down a rabbit hole. Once I realized it was too late, did not want to erase. I needed to stay within a one hour time limit.

Regarding Takings Clause question, I put down a decent rule statement and analysis, but ran out of time and threw in a quick conclusion without a public use discussion. So to the other person who forgot to include this, you are not alone.

The PT was difficult.

Am I doomed?

You did not talk about Establishment and free exercise at all? That essay probably won’t pass. But you can make it up elsewhere. Did you nail any of the other essays?

I am drunk. As for this free speech analysis you mentioned, it's not totally wrong. There is case law to suggest that the government does have some free speech protection. See Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. The sign may have been protected, thus Constitutional, under the First Amendment. So free speech analysis wasn't irrelevant or a "wrong" way of looking at the problem. It should earn you some points.

I don't think there was any free speech analysis to be done. It might be a defense, that the Gov can say things it wants, but that just begs the question if whether what it is saying violates the establishment clause. I guess you could have done a sentence on that.

Apparently there was a different level of scrutiny and test for restrictions on inmate free exercise rights that my bar review class did not mention at all. Apparently inmates have free exercise rights but they fall under a rational basis review with like 4 distinct elements weighed under the realities of incarceration needs. Also equal protection was implicated, and ... i missed that as well.

I agree with no free speech. Also think the epc was a stretch.

Anyone else invalidate the codicil for lack of capacity?

Yea but i didn't even mention the EPC, it should have been mentioned. Also there was a strict liability argument in the dog tort thing, didnt raise that, it not a winner, but I think they wanted you to talk about it. I raised easement by prescription in it cause of the 10 years. Are you joking on lack of capacity for the codicil? I didn't see a capacity issue at all I thought the prompt said the codicil was valid explicitly, it said that about the will for sure.