February 2015 Bar Exam Forum

[cooperlaserpup]

I'm feeling super unmotivated today. Which I feel like is insane, given the test is like three days away.

that was me yesterday. I loafed around staring blankly at my outlines until like 5, and then I studied until about 10.

but today I'm more ready to power through this nonsense. I have a rewards system based heavily on expensive cheese and game of thrones. If I get through my overall tasks today and start to feel good about corporations and partnerships essays, than I shall be rewarded handsomely later.

[ilovetypos]

I'm feeling super unmotivated today. Which I feel like is insane, given the test is like three days away.

that was me yesterday. I loafed around staring blankly at my outlines until like 5, and then I studied until about 10.

but today I'm more ready to power through this nonsense. I have a rewards system based heavily on expensive cheese and game of thrones. If I get through my overall tasks today and start to feel good about corporations and partnerships essays, than I shall be rewarded handsomely later.

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that! I'm thinking about leaving my apt to study. I've been cooped up for a week without leaving, so maybe a change of scenery would help. On the other hand, I don't want to put on clothes and am lazy. Oh decisions.

[46-and-2]

Can't figure out how Themis expects people to be prepared for secured transactions with a shitty lecture and three sample essays. Guess I'll have to do it live on game day.

[Tomego]

Curious -- How are you all spending the last few days?

Anyone feeling good yet? Or maybe not "good" but confident perhaps? I teeter totter between the two when I'm not crippled with stress.

I'm kind of at the point where I just want it to be over. If the bar were a grizzly charging me, I'd stand my grand and get a good kick in before it tore into me.

Yesterday I did a full 6 hour exam with the MEE in the morning and the MPT in the afternoon. Don't know how great use of time that was but I wanted to put myself through that experience before Tuesday. Today is my last day to study. I'm going to watch a Kaplan video about the test, probably do 50-100 MBE questions and issue spot some essays before looking at Kaplan outlines of them. Sundays have been my day off so I'll spend time with my wife and friends. Monday I'm not planning on studying much at all. I figure giving my brain a day or two to refresh itself can't hurt. Besides, Monday my wife has one of her last prenatal visits, which I'm going to, and then its about 5-6 hours of driving to the test location in my state.

I don't know everything but I don't have to know everything. I've done the best I can studying for this thing, come what may.

[hoppingabird]

I wanted to take a quick moment and wish all of the exam takers good luck. You have just been through one of the more mentally challenging, exhausting, and stressful times of your life. I hope you prepared well and feel confident. But most importantly, go pass that exam! The bar exam is the right of passage in this career. It is difficult, it is stressful, the exam pisses me off, but it is required.

I'm sure there are some repeat exam takers out there. If you are a repeat exam taker, please
do not give up and please remain confident. You only have to pass this exam once (ok, maybe depending on where you move or want to practice). I was a repeat exam taker. In fact, it took me more than two tries to pass the bar exam. The failing scores and multiple repeats were grueling on me. I felt worthless and had no confidence. I didn't know what I was going to do in life. I probably felt the exact same emotions anyone else who has failed the bar exam has felt. I did not, however, give up. I buckled down, worked on my studying and confidence, and then passed the July 2014 bar exam.

I can't describe the feeling I felt seeing my name on that pass list. You too will pass this exam and feel the same feelings. It is awesome! You will be a lawyer! I just hope you don't take the long difficult road that I took.
Please feel free to reach out to me if you need some pep talks or want to ask some last minute questions leading up to the bar exam (perferably not exam substance questions this late in the game).
I'll be the first one to welcome you to the profession. Passing the bar exam is possible. You've got this!

[cooperlaserpup]

I'm feeling super unmotivated today. Which I feel like is insane, given the test is like three days away.

that was me yesterday. I loafed around staring blankly at my outlines until like 5, and then I studied until about 10.

but today I'm more ready to power through this nonsense. I have a rewards system based heavily on expensive cheese and game of thrones. If I get through my overall tasks today and start to feel good about corporations and partnerships essays, than I shall be rewarded handsomely later.

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that! I'm thinking about leaving my apt to study. I've been cooped up for a week without leaving, so maybe a change of scenery would help. On the other hand, I don't want to put on clothes and am lazy. Oh decisions.

omg this whole month I have NOT had a bra on far more often than I have had one on. And I don't remember the last time I wasn't in stretchy fabrics. Putting on a suit for work on thursday is going to be rough.

and yes. they are making me go back the day after. my boss pulled the " WE'RE YOUR FAMILY! DON'T YOU WANT TO SEE US?!? WON'T YOU MISS US?!?!" erm, I miss stress-free sleep a lot more.

[cooperlaserpup]

Curious -- How are you all spending the last few days?

Anyone feeling good yet? Or maybe not "good" but confident perhaps? I teeter totter between the two when I'm not crippled with stress.

I'm kind of at the point where I just want it to be over. If the bar were a grizzly charging me, I'd stand my grand and get a good kick in before it tore into me.

Yesterday I did a full 6 hour exam with the MEE in the morning and the MPT in the afternoon. Don't know how great use of time that was but I wanted to put myself through that experience before Tuesday. Today is my last day to study. I'm going to watch a Kaplan video about the test, probably do 50-100 MBE questions and issue spot some essays before looking at Kaplan outlines of them. Sundays have been my day off so I'll spend time with my wife and friends. Monday I'm not planning on studying much at all. I figure giving my brain a day or two to refresh itself can't hurt. Besides, Monday my wife has one of her last prenatal visits, which I'm going to, and then its about 5-6 hours of driving to the test location in my state.

I don't know everything but I don't have to know everything. I've done the best I can studying for this thing, come what may.

one of her last visits?!?! That baby better hold off until you're out of the test Congrats!!

[cooperlaserpup]

Can't figure out how Themis expects people to be prepared for secured transactions with a shitty lecture and three sample essays. Guess I'll have to do it live on game day.

completely agree. same thing with admin and equity for my state.

[Tomego]

one of her last visits?!?! That baby better hold off until you're out of the test Congrats!!

Yeah, one my worst fears would be her going into labor on one of the days of the bar. Thankfully, shes still a month+ out so we should be fine.

[Metaread]

I'm not really sure if this is your issue based on the information you gave, but hopefully this helps:

Is it possible you're confusing the crime with the tort?

As I understand, the crime = attempted battery OR the intentional creation of apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact whereas the tort is just the second one. Basically the tort of assault has nothing to do with battery because battery and assault are separate torts, and there is no tort for attempt of another tort, the way there is in criminal law, where attempt of a crime is a wholly separate crime.


As for consideration, all valid contracts need consideration. It doesn't really have to do with the statute of frauds... Pretty much everything has consideration except for gifts, or agreements to accept a lesser payment on an undisputed debt bc you're worried you won't get paid. Courts don't question the amount of consideration ($100 to buy a car is fine). Pretty rare for lack of consideration to be the issue in a contracts Q IMO.

I agree with this.

Your state might have its own definition of the crime of assault, and it might not match up with the tort definition. In many places, the CRIME of assault is more or less attempted battery. However the multistate definition of the tort of assault is the fear of imminent harm. Hence why on MBE questions, the guy with the baseball on your door step saying he is going to break your legs if you don't have the money is NOT committing the tort of assault because the fear isn't imminent.

Yes. I think I got the criminal and tort actions for assault mixed up. You're right that criminal assault can come under either of two theories. I was thrown off because of a question about assault where the wrong answer mentioned that there was no claim because there was no fear of imminent harm. I guess if a guy is using a weapon like a gun, then it's criminal, and if he's just throwing something (a punch, a book, etc) then it's a tort action?

And for the threepeaters out there, what did you do while waiting on bar results each time you failed?

Good luck to everyone on this exam. I think we all know just how miserable it is. Not-looking-forward to waiting on results.

[cooperlaserpup]

I'm not really sure if this is your issue based on the information you gave, but hopefully this helps:

Is it possible you're confusing the crime with the tort?

As I understand, the crime = attempted battery OR the intentional creation of apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact whereas the tort is just the second one. Basically the tort of assault has nothing to do with battery because battery and assault are separate torts, and there is no tort for attempt of another tort, the way there is in criminal law, where attempt of a crime is a wholly separate crime.


As for consideration, all valid contracts need consideration. It doesn't really have to do with the statute of frauds... Pretty much everything has consideration except for gifts, or agreements to accept a lesser payment on an undisputed debt bc you're worried you won't get paid. Courts don't question the amount of consideration ($100 to buy a car is fine). Pretty rare for lack of consideration to be the issue in a contracts Q IMO.

I agree with this.

Your state might have its own definition of the crime of assault, and it might not match up with the tort definition. In many places, the CRIME of assault is more or less attempted battery. However the multistate definition of the tort of assault is the fear of imminent harm. Hence why on MBE questions, the guy with the baseball on your door step saying he is going to break your legs if you don't have the money is NOT committing the tort of assault because the fear isn't imminent.

Yes. I think I got the criminal and tort actions for assault mixed up. You're right that criminal assault can come under either of two theories. I was thrown off because of a question about assault where the wrong answer mentioned that there was no claim because there was no fear of imminent harm. I guess if a guy is using a weapon like a gun, then it's criminal, and if he's just throwing something (a punch, a book, etc) then it's a tort action?

And for the threepeaters out there, what did you do while waiting on bar results each time you failed?

Good luck to everyone on this exam. I think we all know just how miserable it is. Not-looking-forward to waiting on results.

Well don't forget it can always be a tort or a crime, it just depends what the question is asking you. It doesn't matter at all if there is a weapon involved, I was just trying to use one example to illustrate the difference. States write their own criminal code, and they could also have tort distinctions, so in terms of essays you need to know whatever the definition is for your state. On the MBE, the definition of "assault" is always going to be the same, and it is always going to be fear or imminent threat of harm. Without knowing exactly what questions you had issues with, I wouldn't be able to say why one answer was right or wrong. If you post it I'm more than happy to try and explain better

[fslexcduck]

Well don't forget it can always be a tort or a crime, it just depends what the question is asking you.

Yeah, just remember if someone is suing someone else, than it's a tort. If the state is prosecuting someone or someone is charged with something, then it's a crime. It's easy to skip over those details when you're on question #147 with your eyes completely glazed over...

I actually wrote 1 of 3 essays on my evidence final in law school based on criminal rules when the whole question was about an assault-based tort action. I'm sure I got most of the rules completely wrong since they're so different for criminal/civil trials, but luckily for me I'm also pretty sure my professor didn't actually read the exams, so I passed anyway

[numbertwo88]

There are a couple more sample civil procedure questions here, in a mixed set released by the NCBEX: http://www.ncbex.org/assets/media_files ... stions.pdf

[cooperlaserpup]

how you know your a public defender when writing bar essays: Even when the facts tell you they committed the crime, you refer to everything as "alleged."

[minnbills]

Just got back from a long day skiing (I'm an instructor), so I haven't studied much today.

I am feeling fairly confident. Wish my MBE was looking better, but everyone is telling me barbri is insanely hard and only getting 50% is actually good, so hopefully that's true.

The essays are worrying, I don't feel prepared for conflict of laws or family law, so I need to spend some more time there. Just hoping we draw the right topics. If that happens I feel confident I'll pass. If conflict of laws AND family law comes up, I may be in for a retake.

[Holly Golightly]

Ugh.

[sparty99]

Just got back from a long day skiing (I'm an instructor), so I haven't studied much today.

I am feeling fairly confident. Wish my MBE was looking better, but everyone is telling me barbri is insanely hard and only getting 50% is actually good, so hopefully that's true.

The essays are worrying, I don't feel prepared for conflict of laws or family law, so I need to spend some more time there. Just hoping we draw the right topics. If that happens I feel confident I'll pass. If conflict of laws AND family law comes up, I may be in for a retake.

I feel like family law is real easy. Just apply the best interests of the child standard to everything.

Conflicts of laws, just apply the law with the most contacts. Done and done.

[fslexcduck]

OK got another law question guys, from the NCBEX question set. Once again I feel like I'm probably overthinking it, but I just hate this question.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a largescreen
TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry
with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to
get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he
would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the
neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend
remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell
phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the
scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the
back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law
jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.

The answer sheet says the answer is (a) but I chose (c) burglary. In my mind, the elements were met for accomplice liability for burglary because the friend (1)helped the man commit the crime (2) with the intention that the crime was actually committed. The fact that he wanted to get the man in trouble for doing the crime doesn't negate the fact that he wanted the crime to be committed (and burglary was committed the second the man broke in with the intention of committing larceny).

Is this question fucked up or am I missing something again?

[46-and-2]

OK got another law question guys, from the NCBEX question set. Once again I feel like I'm probably overthinking it, but I just hate this question.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a largescreen
TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry
with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to
get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he
would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the
neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend
remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell
phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the
scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the
back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law
jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.

The answer sheet says the answer is (a) but I chose (c) burglary. In my mind, the elements were met for accomplice liability for burglary because the friend (1)helped the man commit the crime (2) with the intention that the crime was actually committed. The fact that he wanted to get the man in trouble for doing the crime doesn't negate the fact that he wanted the crime to be committed (and burglary was committed the second the man broke in with the intention of committing larceny).

Is this question fucked up or am I missing something again?

Specific intent.

[Holly Golightly]

OK got another law question guys, from the NCBEX question set. Once again I feel like I'm probably overthinking it, but I just hate this question.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a largescreen
TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry
with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to
get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he
would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the
neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend
remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell
phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the
scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the
back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law
jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.

The answer sheet says the answer is (a) but I chose (c) burglary. In my mind, the elements were met for accomplice liability for burglary because the friend (1)helped the man commit the crime (2) with the intention that the crime was actually committed. The fact that he wanted to get the man in trouble for doing the crime doesn't negate the fact that he wanted the crime to be committed (and burglary was committed the second the man broke in with the intention of committing larceny).

Is this question fucked up or am I missing something again?

A looks right to me, the friend didn't have the intent for the crime to actually be committed.

[fslexcduck]

how you know your a public defender when writing bar essays: Even when the facts tell you they committed the crime, you refer to everything as "alleged."

haha yeah, love it. I also feel public defense work has helped me remember a lot of NY specific crim pro rules.

No "good faith" exception to warrant requirement - bc cops are too corrupt
Inventory searches need specific, detailed regulations - bc cops are too corrupt
Police can't seize obscene material - Nope, too much discretion, cops are too corrupt.

[fslexcduck]

A looks right to me, the friend didn't have the intent for the crime to actually be committed.

Yes he did! He took the man to the house with the specific intent that the man would break into the house. What was his intention, if not for the man to commit burglary? That the man would run away and do backflips in the street?

I think he didn't have the intent that the crime would be committed and that he would get away with it , but that seems like an entirely different issue.

Also I just saw someone else wrote "specific intent" - that just doesn't cut it though. Someone please give me a reason why what I wrote just now doesn't make him guilty.

[BeachedBrit]

OK got another law question guys, from the NCBEX question set. Once again I feel like I'm probably overthinking it, but I just hate this question.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a largescreen
TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry
with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to
get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he
would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the
neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend
remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell
phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the
scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the
back door.
The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law
jurisdiction?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.

The answer sheet says the answer is (a) but I chose (c) burglary. In my mind, the elements were met for accomplice liability for burglary because the friend (1)helped the man commit the crime (2) with the intention that the crime was actually committed. The fact that he wanted to get the man in trouble for doing the crime doesn't negate the fact that he wanted the crime to be committed (and burglary was committed the second the man broke in with the intention of committing larceny).

Is this question fucked up or am I missing something again?

I'll give you my logic. You can eliminate B and D because conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds between the parties (or something along those lines but that terminology seems to work) which couldn't happen because he never intended to actually go through with it. You can eliminate C because he never actually committed the crime because he never entered/broke the plane of a place he wasn't allowed to be. That leaves A as the only option.

[fslexcduck]

You can eliminate C because he never actually committed the crime because he never entered/broke the plane of a place he wasn't allowed to be. That leaves A as the only option.

Doesn't work... he would be guilty of burglary via accomplice liability for the exact same circumstances if the question prompt had left out all the business about calling the police. The bar examiners obviously think the question turns on that fact.

[46-and-2]

A looks right to me, the friend didn't have the intent for the crime to actually be committed.

Yes he did! He took the man to the house with the specific intent that the man would break into the house. What was his intention, if not for the man to commit burglary? That the man would run away and do backflips in the street?

Also I just saw someone else wrote "specific intent" - that just doesn't cut it though. Someone please give me a reason why what I wrote just now doesn't make him guilty.

I understand your point and annoyance with the question, because the argument could be made in the abstract that but-for the commission of the burglary, the intended consequence (his friend's arrest) wouldn't manifest (thus forming an underlying intent for burglary).

Just try to dumb yourself down for some of these and you'll be in good shape