July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[OutoftheWoods]

sssnuggles, you're way above a 60. I know more than 10 people who definitely did not get anything close to some of your answers lol. i don't think any of my friends know what a transitory action is. i'm hoping for a 60 on that...counting on everyone's answers being shitty.

[rpupkin]

Also, do you have any evidence that some readers COULD be looking at this thread and HAVE NOT taken the exam yet?

No. I've never heard of such a thing, but I'm no expert on accommodations. I know of folks who have received extra time and/or have taken the bar exam in separate rooms, but they did so on the same day as everyone else.

[RationalAthiest]

Good luck to everyone tomorrow!

[sssnuggles]

NOTICE: If you are an accommodation test taker and are benefiting from this, please let us know so we can ALL apply this goodwill and charitable gesture to our 2016 tax returns as a deduction.

[RationalAthiest]

fixed

[sssnuggles]

This was posted on a "MBE 2016" Thread.

"Keep the talk to areas of law, not specific fact patterns or answer choices.

**Please be advised that discussion or solicitation (including, but not limited to, PMs and online chatrooms) of any questions or answers from the recent bar examinations with anything more than an extremely broad level of specificity will result in a temporary or permanent ban. This may include a permanent ban on your IPs if necessary, which will block you from even viewing the TLS forums. Permanent IP address bans for bar question discussion have been issued in the past."

[a_bowler_hat]

late to the party, but anyone else think that PT was wayyyy different from any you did for practice?

[OutoftheWoods]

The PT seemed different only that for a persuasive thing, why they gave us something that was soooo clearly in favor of the side we were arguing against was odd. I mean, one of the two cases was not helpful at all. I made the worst distinction ever on the basis of public safety as opposed to public parks lol.

It was the one time when reading the FILE was way more helpful than the actual CASES.

[poundcr]

The PT seemed different only that for a persuasive thing, why they gave us something that was soooo clearly in favor of the side we were arguing against was odd. I mean, one of the two cases was not helpful at all. I made the worst distinction ever on the basis of public safety as opposed to public parks lol.

It was the one time when reading the FILE was way more helpful than the actual CASES.

Interesting because i thought we clearly had the winning argument. Good thing it is more about how you analyze and not conclusions.

[sssnuggles]

[a_bowler_hat]

It was the one time when reading the FILE was way more helpful than the actual CASES.

lol i thought the same thing. it's almost as if they're TRYING to screw with all the prep companies and their strategies.

[sssnuggles]

[poundcr]

It was straightforward persuasive writing... BUT I agree about the "it didn't seem in our favor." Which made it very hard to put something together. Also, the verbiage was somewhat confusing to me (probably as intended) and it very difficult to get me focused and actually dedicated to writing something out.

i agree, something about the verbiage kept making me pause and I had to remind myself not to panic. I have to disagree that it wasn't' in our favor but it's hard to explain why without posting something that could get banned.

[rcharter1978]

Any predictions for the essays yet?

Maybe you have seen this?
http://www.barsecrets.com/predictions

Take it all with a pinch of salt...
From what I can see, their system is merely a prediction of the two subjects which will NOT be on the exam (i.e. the two which will be used for the PT's). So they are calling Civ Pro and Trusts as NOT coming up. (Remedies is not listed but he throws it in during the audio).
Not sure how helpful that is.

I think there will be a CA Civ Pro in the next few administrations. Maybe this one.

Civ Pro in July '15, CA Evidence in Feb '16.....I think they may go there soon.

I don't know how often they test subjects back to back, but if they don't....than perhaps it means that you won't see the subjects from Feb '16 on this exam, right?

Well look at me! I might sprain my arm trying to pat myself on the back!

[unclepete]

what did you all put down for the contracts question? Excuse for non performance mostly?

I analyzed anticipatory repudiation for both parties and found B in breach and D not. Gave termination to D and nothing to B in terms of damages.

Ditto. Anticipatory repudiation, B is screwed, and D discharged for impracticability.

Well there was definitely legal impossibility. Thats why the law was in the fact pattern.

BUT there was no anticipatory repudiation. Dirk said "i don't know when I can begin. Then Builder terminated. The statement by Dirk was not unequivocal. It was "I don't know when" not a "I will not do it" Also consider that the contract was for performance to be completed by September 1. There was no statement that he wouldn't be able to complete by then.

Legal impossibility was definitely a discussible issue, but I concluded it wasn't a valid defense because case law directs that the impossibility needs to be extreme, and this was only a 35% increase in cost. Hope that was right...

[sssnuggles]

[DELETED BECAUSE SOME ACCOMODATION TESTSTERS HAVE NOT TAKEN THE PT]

[rcharter1978]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

For a minimum competency exam, they sure try to mind F you.

OF COURSE IT WAS CA. It did have federal analysis of course as well but everything happened in the Superior Court of California there is no way that you could analyze it without bringing CA law, there was no diversity (<$50,000), no fed qs so..... how on earth do you analyze it without bringing up CA law?
I loved the mexican student who went to eat shrooms to a festival SF hehehe

Seems weird that it wouldn't say: “Answer according to California law.”

The instructions are very clear: only use Ca law when it is specified in the question. As is wasn't then, no Ca law analysis. At least that's what I understood. Also, the essay was totally doable only using FRCP.

If thats the case, I think that they would give people points for doing either. My feeling is that where there are two reasonable interpretations they don't want a lot of people complaining so they will just give credit for either interpretation. In this case, it seems like there are two reasonable interpretations....the fact pattern makes you think to apply CA Civ.....but the CBX instructions make you think that unless its specifically stated you need to apply Federal law.

People already complain about the CBX anyways, the last thing I think they want is a situation where a significant number of people complain and are shown to perhaps have a valid point.

[rcharter1978]

is PTA or PTB supposed to be more difficult? Is there an order? Or it can be either? I didn't think PTA was that bad.

Both times I took the exam I remember feeling like one day had harder essays and an easier PT, and the third day had easier essays and a harder PT.

[unclepete]

Guys. It was ABSOLUTELY CA Civ Pro. While you can still get a 65 if you did FRCP, to deny that they wanted you to apply CA law to a CA Superior Court case is just lying to yourself.

Though I think they knew we'd freak at a pure CA Civ Pro essay so they threw in the SMJ and PJ (which is the same via our long arm statute) for good measure. Thank God I knew the service of process distinctions, but the venue distinctions I didn't know at all.

[unclepete]

late to the party, but anyone else think that PT was wayyyy different from any you did for practice?

Definitely harder than the practice PTs I'd done. For the first solid hour I didn't know what the hell I was reading or where my argument would go.

[rpupkin]

People already complain about the CBX anyways, the last thing I think they want is a situation where a significant number of people complain and are shown to perhaps have a valid point.

It's not a valid point. If you're applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a California court, you're fundamentally confused about something that no lawyer should be confused about.

[sssnuggles]

I am 99% sure that the CA Civ Pro question was a play off of the most recent rule that changed "General Jurisdiction" under the Relatedness analysis of PJ. Check out Daimler AG v. Bauman when you are hungover on Friday...... Argentinians suing a German corp for activities in the forum state of CA.

[rcharter1978]

People already complain about the CBX anyways, the last thing I think they want is a situation where a significant number of people complain and are shown to perhaps have a valid point.

It's not a valid point. If you're applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a California court, you're fundamentally confused about something that no lawyer should be confused about.

It becomes valid when enough people complain and the wording can be open to multiple interpretations/confusion.

Its not even how much sense it makes, I think its more how many people may have used the FRCP because there was no clear instruction to use California rules, and in the absence of a clear instruction to use the California rule -- the general rules state to use Federal law.

I think its a valid point to say that the rules state that you should apply federal law in the absence of an instruction to apply CA law....and therefore a test taker applied Federal law because there was no clear instruction to apply CA law. I also think that CA Civ Pro is one of those few subjects where you have CA and Federal law and you could make an essay question that would make it clear you're asking about CA law, which they may have felt negated the need for an express instruction to apply CA law. But every other time I've seen subjects that can be tested at the federal or state level (PR, Evidence are the only two I can think of) the instructions are clear that you should either apply CA law only, or CA and ABA rules.

However, I do think that if the fact pattern was written for a CA analysis, you'll get more points because there were more facts to support and more analysis to do.

[storge]

Past bar exam survivor here - wanted to check-in and wish everyone the best of luck. 2 more days and it's over. DO NOT GIVE UP NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED TODAY!

For those who don't already follow this blog, thought I'd share as it helped me when I was going through the exam last Feb. We had a similar debate re: CA Civ Pro last Feb, but it seems it was different this time (what do I know, I haven't seen the exam). Interesting to see the discussion on here nevertheless and since I was curious, I read this post for more insight into what was tested: https://barexamguru.com/2016/07/26/cali ... g-day-one/

Now, stop dwelling on Day 1 & focus on what's ahead. You'll have plenty of time for dwelling, second guessing and nightmares for months post-exam (not recommended, but unavoidable). FOR THE NEXT 2 DAYS HOWEVER, PUT IT ALL BEHIND YOU!

[rpupkin]

People already complain about the CBX anyways, the last thing I think they want is a situation where a significant number of people complain and are shown to perhaps have a valid point.

It's not a valid point. If you're applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a California court, you're fundamentally confused about something that no lawyer should be confused about.

It becomes valid when enough people complain and the wording can be open to multiple interpretations/confusion.

Its not even how much sense it makes, I think its more how many people may have used the FRCP because there was no clear instruction to use California rules, and in the absence of a clear instruction to use the California rule -- the general rules state to use Federal law.

But that's not what the instructions said. According to an earlier poster, the instruction was: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application." Nothing in this instruction suggests that you should use the FRCP in a state court proceeding. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not legal theories or principles of general application. It seems like folks are confused about the distinction between civil procedure and substantive law.

In any event, anyone taking the test should of course move on from this. I bet that 95% of the test takers who pass the California Bar miss at least three major issues during the two days of essays. (I missed at least that many and passed.) You can all afford to mess up some questions.