California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[ilovesf]

I realized I have to change part of my name on my bar profile so that it exactly matches my license (I have two middle names and it does not appear correctly). Do you guys know who I contact to do that?

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

how do you people memorize the CA distinctions in evidence/PR/civpro, etc.?

my eyes gloss over and i can't give two fucks.

i'm gonna fail all the essays. and when i say that, i'm not joking. i know the law generally. i know no rule statements.

A good place to find succinct rule statements are the answers/explanations to multiple choice practice q's.

Hope that helps.

You don't have to know the rule statements down at this point. When I passed this last Feb I pretty much copied rule statements on essays that score 70+ and also copied rule statements from model answers. I put these rule statements on flashcards and memorized like CRAZY the last two weeks. The last two weeks are essential for memorizing rule statements.

Thank you for the ray of hope. I seriously feel like I'm going to fail the essays... and trying to memorize CA distinctions on top of everything else is making me even more depressed The MBEs are "ok" - but these essays??!! %&$#!!!

[pkt63]

how do you people memorize the CA distinctions in evidence/PR/civpro, etc.?

my eyes gloss over and i can't give two fucks.

i'm gonna fail all the essays. and when i say that, i'm not joking. i know the law generally. i know no rule statements.

A good place to find succinct rule statements are the answers/explanations to multiple choice practice q's.

Hope that helps.

You don't have to know the rule statements down at this point. When I passed this last Feb I pretty much copied rule statements on essays that score 70+ and also copied rule statements from model answers. I put these rule statements on flashcards and memorized like CRAZY the last two weeks. The last two weeks are essential for memorizing rule statements.

Thank you for the ray of hope. I seriously feel like I'm going to fail the essays... and trying to memorize CA distinctions on top of everything else is making me even more depressed The MBEs are "ok" - but these essays??!! %&$#!!!

Seconded. I could do MBEs all day long, because it is easier to recognize a rule even if I have just a hint. But remembering when to apply it (especially the more obscure ones), much less its proper phrasing, requires soooooo much effort. I just went back to my torts flashcards, the first set I did, and while I can recognize false imprisonment anytime I see it, I completely forgot how to articulate the elements. I was horrified! But we have 3.5 weeks so I appreciate knowing I should not freak out.

[james11]

[/quote]

You don't have to know the rule statements down at this point. When I passed this last Feb I pretty much copied rule statements on essays that score 70+ and also copied rule statements from model answers. I put these rule statements on flashcards and memorized like CRAZY the last two weeks. The last two weeks are essential for memorizing rule statements.[/quote]

Thank you for the ray of hope. I seriously feel like I'm going to fail the essays... and trying to memorize CA distinctions on top of everything else is making me even more depressed The MBEs are "ok" - but these essays??!! %&$#!!![/quote]

Seconded. I could do MBEs all day long, because it is easier to recognize a rule even if I have just a hint. But remembering when to apply it (especially the more obscure ones), much less its proper phrasing, requires soooooo much effort. I just went back to my torts flashcards, the first set I did, and while I can recognize false imprisonment anytime I see it, I completely forgot how to articulate the elements. I was horrified! But we have 3.5 weeks so I appreciate knowing I should not freak out.[/quote]

No problem. Even if you guys memorized all of the rule statements right now, you would forget them four weeks from now. That's why the final two weeks are critical.

[ph14]

I'm reviewing the CA lean sheets. Can anyone decipher this for me:

If substantive law, analyze if outcome determinative
(SL) ; balance of interest; avoid forum shopping (SL). If fed
conflicts (Fed law prevails)

It's about the Erie doctrine and follows the statement of the basic Erie Rule about substantive state law in diversity cases.

[a male human]

Here is an unsolicited tip for July 4th. I do not think you should break the chain, i.e., you should do something bar related every day. There is a mental attention-switching cost, and getting back into the groove after taking too long of a time off will be harder.

That said, I know 7/4 is a big holiday, and bar prep calendars have a blank day (and you should take some time off to avoid burnout). If I were you, though, I would still do something small, whatever makes you comfortable and easy doing.

Perhaps you could sneak in a couple of MBE questions right after you wake up. If you decide to do that, have those questions ready to go the night before for an even easier time in the morning. Sit on the chair, crank out a couple problems and review them, all in 5 minutes. Done. Now you can get on with the rest of your day with a smile, guilt-free.

If doing that gets you motivated to do essays or more MBEs, then of course go ahead and do them.

Just my 1 cent!

[ph14]

Can someone explain additur to me? The CA Lean Sheet says:

Additor: state ct only; jury award too small,
P chooses greater amount or new trial).

This source says:

The defendant must agree to the additur, but the plaintiff is not required to consent.

I thought it was D chooses, but thanks if someone confirm one way or the other.

[lmr]

Can someone explain additur to me? The CA Lean Sheet says:

Additor: state ct only; jury award too small,
P chooses greater amount or new trial).

This source says:

The defendant must agree to the additur, but the plaintiff is not required to consent.

I thought it was D chooses, but thanks if someone confirm one way or the other.

I think D has to consent to the amount the court seeks to increase the judgment by but the P doesn't have to agree with the judgment award the court recommends so she can still seek a new trial if she doesn't think that amount recommended by the court was high enough...i think that makes sense??

[ph14]

Can someone explain additur to me? The CA Lean Sheet says:

Additor: state ct only; jury award too small,
P chooses greater amount or new trial).

This source says:

The defendant must agree to the additur, but the plaintiff is not required to consent.

I thought it was D chooses, but thanks if someone confirm one way or the other.

I think D has to consent to the amount the court seeks to increase the judgment by but the P doesn't have to agree with the judgment award the court recommends so she can still seek a new trial if she doesn't think that amount recommended by the court was high enough...i think that makes sense??

Makes sense in a vacuum, but difficult to reconcile with either of those sources. I guess i'll look in the CMR.

Edit: So here's what Freer's lecture handout says:

Additur -- playing hardball with the D. P suffered very serious harm, but the jury awarded only $30,000. The court finds the damages figure shocks the conscience. It can order new trial or offer additur. This gives D a choice: pay a greater amount in damages (which the court sets) or go through new trial.

[lmr]

Can someone explain additur to me? The CA Lean Sheet says:

Additor: state ct only; jury award too small,
P chooses greater amount or new trial).

This source says:

The defendant must agree to the additur, but the plaintiff is not required to consent.

I thought it was D chooses, but thanks if someone confirm one way or the other.

I think D has to consent to the amount the court seeks to increase the judgment by but the P doesn't have to agree with the judgment award the court recommends so she can still seek a new trial if she doesn't think that amount recommended by the court was high enough...i think that makes sense??

Makes sense in a vacuum, but difficult to reconcile with either of those sources. I guess i'll look in the CMR.

Edit: So here's what Freer's lecture handout says:

Additur -- playing hardball with the D. P suffered very serious harm, but the jury awarded only $30,000. The court finds the damages figure shocks the conscience. It can order new trial or offer additur. This gives D a choice: pay a greater amount in damages (which the court sets) or go through new trial.

Yeah you are right it looks like from the cmr that it's a defendant's choice so I really don't get where P's consent comes into this at all. Not really a huge issue just have to know that distinction, should be good enough if it comes up on essay. It's rule 662.5 btw

[ph14]

Yeah you are right it looks like from the cmr that it's a defendant's choice so I really don't get where P's consent comes into this at all. Not really a huge issue just have to know that distinction, should be good enough if it comes up on essay. It's rule 662.5 btw

Thanks a bunch. Yeah, definitely not a huge issue. I only brought it up because I just wanted to see if the lean sheet was correct or not.

[jarofsoup]

So anyone taking a day. Heard we should now because the fun month comming up.

[Mr. Pink]

So anyone taking a day. Heard we should now because the fun month comming up.

I have. I burned through all the substantive law reviews (Kaplan review) ahead of schedule so that I could take a couple of days. Just got back to it yesterday with a couple practice essays. Probably do some MBEs at work today. I'm struggling trying to avoid the burnout because each time I start studying I am having problems concentrating.

While reviewing, I keep looking at the stuff and saying "yeah yeah, I know this that's an easy one", then when I see it in a question my mind goes blank. I'm just now getting to the memorization and heavy practice part of my review though, so hopefully it will all get better. Still getting decent grades and comments on my work, but just doesn't feel like I'm getting it (got a 75 on a Property essay that I basically bullshitted through the entire time ).

[hyc9598]

You don't have to know the rule statements down at this point. When I passed this last Feb I pretty much copied rule statements on essays that score 70+ and also copied rule statements from model answers. I put these rule statements on flashcards and memorized like CRAZY the last two weeks. The last two weeks are essential for memorizing rule statements.[/quote]

Thank you for the ray of hope. I seriously feel like I'm going to fail the essays... and trying to memorize CA distinctions on top of everything else is making me even more depressed The MBEs are "ok" - but these essays??!! %&$#!!![/quote]

Seconded. I could do MBEs all day long, because it is easier to recognize a rule even if I have just a hint. But remembering when to apply it (especially the more obscure ones), much less its proper phrasing, requires soooooo much effort. I just went back to my torts flashcards, the first set I did, and while I can recognize false imprisonment anytime I see it, I completely forgot how to articulate the elements. I was horrified! But we have 3.5 weeks so I appreciate knowing I should not freak out.[/quote]

No problem. Even if you guys memorized all of the rule statements right now, you would forget them four weeks from now. That's why the final two weeks are critical.[/quote]
Doing all day only mbe is ok in other jurisdictions because it is 50% and passing by mbe is possible (mbe lawyer). However, in ca, a person with 150 raw can fail if he gets 55 pt (but the wrinkle now is that it appears they lowered the passing writing score to 60 from 65).

[adonai]

Doing all day only mbe is ok in other jurisdictions because it is 50% and passing by mbe is possible (mbe lawyer). However, in ca, a person with 150 raw can fail if he gets 55 pt (but the wrinkle now is that it appears they lowered the passing writing score to 60 from 65).

What's your source for the lowered writing score to pass? I am under the idea they didn't lower it, but a 60 is a passing score in a harder test, and 65 is passing in an "easier" test. Hence the average passing writing score is 62.5.

[hyc9598]

For last two administrations, the passing score for writing and mbe combination was 60 and 130 raw. There is no passing score as they combine all. We assume 130 raw is 144. It may be 155, however. But based on past, 130 is usually 144. In the past, if you got 130 raw, you must get 62.5 or higher. Last two times, the passing writing was 59 or 58 because pt was hard. And it assumes mbe was 127 to 130. When mbe was 127, the writing must have been 59. In the past, it was 62.5 or 65. Writing passing score is decreasing...more and more people are passing by mbe score...

Attorney exam passing score is still 65. It means they still think 65 is passing score when there is no mbe score. Ca average mbe score is 10 points higher than other states and that lowers the writing passing score. Lawyer applicants are expected to get 65 and other applicants are required to get generally 60, recently.

[hyc9598]

I mean when their mbe is average score of ca, which means 50 percent, 127, 60 is passing score. But lawyer applicant must get 65 to pass because there is no mbe score.

[Carryon]

I mean when their mbe is average score of ca, which means 50 percent, 127, 60 is passing score. But lawyer applicant must get 65 to pass because there is no mbe score.

Here was the formula for the written scaled score for the February 2014 bar. Written scaled score = (Raw written score x 3.1584) - 460.6635. According to my calculations, if you average 60 on the essays and pts your score is 1434.378, which is close to the passing score of 1440.

[Carryon]

I mean when their mbe is average score of ca, which means 50 percent, 127, 60 is passing score. But lawyer applicant must get 65 to pass because there is no mbe score.

Here was the formula for the written scaled score for the February 2014 bar. Written scaled score = (Raw written score x 3.1584) - 460.6635. According to my calculations, if you average 60 on the essays and pts your score is 1434.378, which is close to the passing score of 1440.

This is for the attorney exam. As you can see if one essay score was 62 instead of 60, then you get 1440.6, a passing score.

[ph14]

So a third-party beneficiary's rights vest when the third party relies, "assents," or sues for enforcement. What exactly does "assents" mean?

[lmr]

So a third-party beneficiary's rights vest when the third party relies, "assents," or sues for enforcement. What exactly does "assents" mean?

I remember i got a 3P beneficiary Q wrong on the simulated MBE- I thought the 3P's rights vested when they simply learned of the K but the video review broke it down for me-3P rights vest when she (i) learns and sue; (ii) learns and relies, and (iii) learns and assents to promise in a manner invited or requested by the parties. So i'm guessing this would be spotted in a fact pattern where the promisor or promisee know that the 3P beneficiary knows of the K and the 3P communicates acceptance in some way. Can't really think of a good example, most common fact patterns involve reliance

[ph14]

So a third-party beneficiary's rights vest when the third party relies, "assents," or sues for enforcement. What exactly does "assents" mean?

I remember i got a 3P beneficiary Q wrong on the simulated MBE- I thought the 3P's rights vested when they simply learned of the K but the video review broke it down for me-3P rights vest when she (i) learns and sue; (ii) learns and relies, and (iii) learns and assents to promise in a manner invited or requested by the parties. So i'm guessing this would be spotted in a fact pattern where the promisor or promisee know that the 3P beneficiary knows of the K and the 3P communicates acceptance in some way. Can't really think of a good example, most common fact patterns involve reliance

Gotcha, thank you. Sounds like we'll be able to recognize it if it occurs, especially since it doesn't seem to be very common.

[usctoucla]

just discovered this thread, so please excuse my ignorance if any of my questions/sentiments have been answered in the past. glad to know others feel similarly situated, though. I'm doing barbri CA program, but ours started a week later than some other schools. we still haven't done the lectures for remedies or community property, and have a simulated PT on monday.

stayed in all day today and memorized crim/crim pro, but i still feel light years behind schedule. should we be rote memorizing at this point? It feels like 2 weeks out isn't enough time to start...

also, what are these CA lean sheets?

united in the trenches, we shall prevail. happy 4th.

[hyc9598]

I mean that is why attorney exam passing rate is only 20 percent. Only 20 people out of 100 out of state attorneys can get 65 or more. Other 30 percent will be probably between 60 and 65...assuming 60 is the average score for the writing exams.

Disbarred attorney must take only writing section. Out of state laywers have choice to tak or not to take mbe. Between two, I do not see any justification for unequal treatment. Out of state lawyers must only take writing section if disbarred attorney cannot take mbe section.

[Charles Barkley]

also, what are these CA lean sheets?

http://www.leansheets.com/california-ba ... heets-com/

Those are the lean sheets for California. Basically, they are a 2-3 page attack sheet for all of the California subjects. Very useful, but probably more so for the essays than the MBE. I don't think they are detailed enough for the MBE.