July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[sssnuggles]

FYI: There are some accommodation examinees who HAVE NOT taken the FIRST PT yet. Maybe DELETE anything referring to the PT's

[plurilingue]

An accommodations schedule might look like this:

Day 1: Essays 1-3 with unlimited breaks
Day 2: PT A
Day 3: 100 MBE questions with unlimited breaks
Day 4: 100 MBE questions with unlimited breaks
Day 5: Essays 4-6 with unlimited breaks
Day 6: PT B

So let's refrain from discussing anything related to the next set of essays until next week.

I think Essays 1-3 should be fair game by the end of today. Also, I think they purposely made certain topics show up early in Essays 1-3 so as to prevent word from getting out.

[sssnuggles]

An accommodations schedule might look like this:

Day 1: Essays 1-3 with unlimited breaks
Day 2: PT A
Day 3: 100 MBE questions with unlimited breaks
Day 4: 100 MBE questions with unlimited breaks
Day 5: Essays 4-6 with unlimited breaks
Day 6: PT B

So let's refrain from discussing anything related to the next set of essays until next week.

I think Essays 1-3 should be fair game by the end of today. Also, I think they purposely made certain topics show up early in Essays 1-3 so as to prevent word from getting out.

This is absolute BS.... There are bar prep blogs who are breaking every element down on this stuff.

[A. Nony Mouse]

That doesn't mean you can discuss it here. Don't.

Edit: to clarify - don't discuss answers for anything you're not allowed to take out of the exam. If California lets you take essay questions out of the exam room you're good. If they don't then don't. Discussing which topics were tested is fair game regardless.

[a male human]

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.

The subject of Civ Pro includes legal theories based on case law and the rules themselves.

[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.

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.

The subject of Civ Pro includes legal theories based on case law and the rules themselves.

That was my thinking, but you said it better.

[rpupkin]

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.

The subject of Civ Pro includes legal theories based on case law and the rules themselves.

That is both true and beside the point. Yes, of course the subject of civil procedure involves legal theories based on case law. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures are not theories; they are the procedural rules that apply to litigants in federal court. Sure, when you're trying to figure out what those rules mean, you can look to theories and case law. But there's no ambiguity about what the starting point is when you're in federal court: you're working with the federal rules of procedure. When you're in California court, there's no ambiguity about what the starting point is: you're working with the California rules of procedure.

Look, if you were talking using the "legal theories" of the FRCP in order to better understand a rule of California civil procedure, that would be one thing. But that's not what folks are talking about. Rather, some posters are defending using the wrong rules of civil procedure procedure as a starting point. That's unambiguously wrong.

[a male human]

That makes sense. Since I haven't seen the actual question, I don't think I can say any more.

[lhanvt13]

Lol D

[Interpretationc]

Am I the only one feel the afternoon mbe is way harder than morning one?

[emptyflare]

Lol D

+1. Absolutely this, in my experience.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

Lol D

Yep

[Spartan_Alum_12]

Am I the only one feel the afternoon mbe is way harder than morning one?

I thought the middle portion of the afternoon was difficult. It's all kind of a blur though.

[SlowLearner]

+1 pm mbe seemed much tougher

[teabreeze]

Agreed. The pm tested on a lot of obscure law and the fact patterns also included some weirdass tricks.

[plurilingue]

The recent trend in MBE testing is to weave two substantially unrelated fact patterns or causes of action together into one question and then have answer choices that engage with both. However, only one is relevant. You have to parse both as you read the first time, or revisit the facts one or two more times. They're often a huge time suck. Also, the fact patterns are getting longer.

[alicen]

Re: CA civ pro, I was very unsure about whether they wanted us to use CA law, but I was swayed by the fact that the fact pattern didn't discuss COUNTIES, and the CA venue rules are about counties, not cities. What do you guys think?

[Interpretationc]

got a shit amount of Ds which make my answer sheet freaking unnatural

[bnghle234]

Re: CA civ pro, I was very unsure about whether they wanted us to use CA law, but I was swayed by the fact that the fact pattern didn't discuss COUNTIES, and the CA venue rules are about counties, not cities. What do you guys think?

No. No. No. Y'all are seriously just reading too much into it. Use your common sense. Case was filed in CA Superior Court. CA Civ Pro applies. There's no ambiguity in this.

Also, by the way, San Francisco and San Diego are both counties as well as cities.

[alicen]

Re: CA civ pro, I was very unsure about whether they wanted us to use CA law, but I was swayed by the fact that the fact pattern didn't discuss COUNTIES, and the CA venue rules are about counties, not cities. What do you guys think?

No. No. No. Y'all are seriously just reading too much into it. Use your common sense. Case was filed in CA Superior Court. CA Civ Pro applies. There's no ambiguity in this.

Also, by the way, San Francisco and San Diego are both counties as well as cities.

^ I know they're both counties, but not everyone would.

[teabreeze]

Re: CA civ pro, I was very unsure about whether they wanted us to use CA law, but I was swayed by the fact that the fact pattern didn't discuss COUNTIES, and the CA venue rules are about counties, not cities. What do you guys think?

No. No. No. Y'all are seriously just reading too much into it. Use your common sense. Case was filed in CA Superior Court. CA Civ Pro applies. There's no ambiguity in this.

Also, by the way, San Francisco and San Diego are both counties as well as cities.

^ I know they're both counties, but not everyone would.

Yeah, but CA Superior Courts use state law, not the FRCP. If you think about it in real-life terms, it doesn't make sense to apply federal law to a state court claim.

For me, the biggest indicator to use CA law was that they specified "Superior Court of SD" when in past essays they've only ever referred to superior courts as simply "state court".

Luckily for those of you who applied FRCP, there isn't a huge difference in the law in the areas that were tested on that essay.

[beepboopbeep]

Luckily for those of you who applied FRCP, there isn't a huge difference in the law in the areas that were tested on that essay.

Yea, I went with the strategy of "say I'm applying the California rule, but really just state the federal rule because I don't know the California one" for the most part. Remembered a couple of the minor distinctions but not the major ones.

Also can we all agree that fuck mortgages

[Calibarra]

Yea, I went with the strategy of "say I'm applying the California rule, but really just state the federal rule because I don't know the California one" for the most part. Remembered a couple of the minor distinctions but not the major ones.

Also can we all agree that fuck mortgages

+1

[2TimesTheCharm]

Luckily for those of you who applied FRCP, there isn't a huge difference in the law in the areas that were tested on that essay.

Yea, I went with the strategy of "say I'm applying the California rule, but really just state the federal rule because I don't know the California one" for the most part. Remembered a couple of the minor distinctions but not the major ones.

Also can we all agree that fuck mortgages

mortgages? I thought we were dealing with easements and warranties?

I think it's CA Civ Pro as well, though I took the "State Courts have jurisdiction over some cases Federal Courts may not. Here's the FRCP"

Hi 55

[Heyheyhey1009]

It seems like it was testing CA civ pro. For people who used FRCP and ignored CA civ pro, accept it and move on. No, the question didn't say "Use CA law" at the end but it did specify in what court the case was brought, which translated to "apply CA law." And to the person who asked why a minimum competency test seems to f with applicants' minds so much, it's not f'ing with anyone's mind. Actually, it was straightforward and obvious to use CA law. If you don't know that you should use CA civ pro in CA state court, then maybe you don't have the required minimum competency.

And yes, they will give points to people who applied FRCP to the fact pattern, likely not for the rule statements or wrong conclusions, but they will if you engaged the right facts.

Wow, who do you think you are man to talk like that to people... so angry and cocky...and why are you so angry with people you do not even know? Your anger is with someone else...talk to your therapist, you will see there is something there. I might be wrong about you and also about my essay 1...who cares anyways at this point
A soon as I read the questions I knew I had to apply CA civ pro, but when I did not see the expected phrase at the end "use CA law", I thought the essay was one of those specially confusing/harder that appear on every administration. I felt they wanted us to analyze the distinctions of CA with Federal rules. So I analyzed all under CA law, but at the end of each issue/conclusion I stated very briefly the difference with Fed rules.
Did anyone else followed this approach?