July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[Lawless!]

It was fair straightforward with alot of analysis needed.

any thoughts on essay #4?

how did you set up your issues?

[Baller31]

It had alot of parts but if you knew the law you were good. It was straight out of the book on pro dp and subs. dp. Con law unlike other subjects takes a methodical approach. Unlike Property and Contracts it doesn't really change a whole lot.

any thoughts on essay #4?

Might have saved me from failing. Taking a class on constitutional torts fucking saved me.

How so? This question had so many parts, i felt like i was all over the place.

[Baller31]

Pro dp
Sub dp
Equal Protection- although no chance of winning

Standing
11th amendment- against state

It was fair straightforward with alot of analysis needed.

any thoughts on essay #4?

how did you set up your issues?

[Lawless!]

It had alot of parts but if you knew the law you were good. It was straight out of the book on pro dp and subs. dp. Con law unlike other subjects takes a methodical approach. Unlike Property and Contracts it doesn't really change a whole lot.

any thoughts on essay #4?

Might have saved me from failing. Taking a class on constitutional torts fucking saved me.

How so? This question had so many parts, i felt like i was all over the place.

oh no! I read PDP... did it ask for SDP?? If it did i only discussed PDP

[Lawless!]

It had alot of parts but if you knew the law you were good. It was straight out of the book on pro dp and subs. dp. Con law unlike other subjects takes a methodical approach. Unlike Property and Contracts it doesn't really change a whole lot.

any thoughts on essay #4?

Might have saved me from failing. Taking a class on constitutional torts fucking saved me.

How so? This question had so many parts, i felt like i was all over the place.

oh no! I read PDP... did it ask for SDP?? If it did i only discussed PDP

Also, did anyone else catch the buried gov employee first amendment speech issue? Brought my essay to a halt about half way thru

[Baller31]

It didn't ask for Sub DP but they go hand in hand basically. Can't really have one without that other. I saw the speech thing a little but didn't know what really to do with is so just made a comment about it. It didn't have much of a bearing on the call of the question.

It had alot of parts but if you knew the law you were good. It was straight out of the book on pro dp and subs. dp. Con law unlike other subjects takes a methodical approach. Unlike Property and Contracts it doesn't really change a whole lot.

any thoughts on essay #4?

Might have saved me from failing. Taking a class on constitutional torts fucking saved me.

How so? This question had so many parts, i felt like i was all over the place.

oh no! I read PDP... did it ask for SDP?? If it did i only discussed PDP

[Lawless!]

It didn't ask for SP but they go hand in hand basically. Can't really have one without that other. I saw the speech thing a little but didn't know what really to do with is so just made a comment about it. It didn't have much of a bearing on the call of the question.

It had alot of parts but if you knew the law you were good. It was straight out of the book on pro dp and subs. dp. Con law unlike other subjects takes a methodical approach. Unlike Property and Contracts it doesn't really change a whole lot.

any thoughts on essay #4?

Might have saved me from failing. Taking a class on constitutional torts fucking saved me.

How so? This question had so many parts, i felt like i was all over the place.

oh no! I read PDP... did it ask for SDP?? If it did i only discussed PDP

That's kind of what i was thinking and then it dawned on me. The PDP violation of 1st amendment right. I had a homer simpson moment because my PDP analysis was on P's economic interest.

[Baller31]

Yea, I mean that is what it essentially was asking for. The Thing about it is that First Amendment comes into play when the government is actually restricting speech or preventing it from occurring. This was about a right to be heard and usually there has to be some law passed that expresses that speech will be restricted. It could have been an issue brought up that would have failed though.

It didn't ask for SP but they go hand in hand basically. Can't really have one without that other. I saw the speech thing a little but didn't know what really to do with is so just made a comment about it. It didn't have much of a bearing on the call of the question.

It had alot of parts but if you knew the law you were good. It was straight out of the book on pro dp and subs. dp. Con law unlike other subjects takes a methodical approach. Unlike Property and Contracts it doesn't really change a whole lot.

any thoughts on essay #4?

Might have saved me from failing. Taking a class on constitutional torts fucking saved me.

How so? This question had so many parts, i felt like i was all over the place.

oh no! I read PDP... did it ask for SDP?? If it did i only discussed PDP

That's kind of what i was thinking and then it dawned on me. The PDP violation of 1st amendment right. I had a homer simpson moment because my PDP analysis was on P's economic interest.

[immikeyiiirock]

Considering the call of the question, I'm inclined to say SDP was unnecessary. I wouldn't see it as a major missed issue.

[armenianBEAUTY]

Pro dp
Sub dp
Equal Protection- although no chance of winning

Standing
11th amendment- against state

It was fair straightforward with alot of analysis needed.

any thoughts on essay #4?

how did you set up your issues?

Is this a demo of IIED? Freaked me out for a second. The question specifically asked how the procedural due process claim would result... I can't imagine how anyone would have time to do that, SDP, EP, AND the second subpart of the question. You must type really, really fast.

[armenianBEAUTY]

P.S. Procedural due process & substantive due process do not go hand in hand. PDP challenges the law as applied to a certain instance (here, Paige's situation). SDP challenges the law facially (and SDP only comes into play whenever the gov deprives life, liberty, or property for everyone... not a single person as was the case in our fact pattern today). [Although it could be argued that the ordinance deprived everyone of some "significant freedom secured by the Const." or "an entitlement to a continued receipt of benefit" -- in that case, you would NOT be answering the call of the question. It specifically asked how P's PDP claim would result.] The question asked for Paige's PDP claim. Nothing else.

On a side note-- I have no idea how I'm going to wait until Nov 18.

[2TimesTheCharm]

P.S. Procedural due process & substantive due process do not go hand in hand. PDP challenges the law as applied to a certain instance (here, Paige's situation). SDP challenges the law facially (and SDP only comes into play whenever the gov deprives life, liberty, or property for everyone... not a single person as was the case in our fact pattern today). [Although it could be argued that the ordinance deprived everyone of some "significant freedom secured by the Const." or "an entitlement to a continued receipt of benefit" -- in that case, you would NOT be answering the call of the question. It specifically asked how P's PDP claim would result.] The question asked for Paige's PDP claim. Nothing else.

Agreed. The call of the question was PDP for Paige. (I almost did Bob too )

My organization was:

Part 1: Government Action - Paige's (yes) and Bob's (yes), Standing - Paige's (yes), Ripeness (yes), Mootness (almost no, but yes), PDP - Paige's property (violation)
Part 2: Standing - Bob's (yes) and Paige's (yes) (deny dismissal for both), 11th - immunity not including officers, no applicable exceptions, (dismiss for State, deny dismissal for AG)

The first amendment bit I threw into the analysis for standing, mootness, and PDP. (They fired her without giving any explanation or any kind of hearing. Her contract says "termination for any reason"; it didn't say "termination without reason.") Really hope this made up a little for my crappy first essay.

[HabitualLurker]

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Thought the PTs were both ridiculous (although B was better than A). There was definitely no need to discuss SPD or EP in #4 considering it asked only for PDP. I was completely unsure of how to work in the free speech issue into #4, but it has since dawned on me. Organization for #4:

Part 1:
Standing (Paige has it)
State actor (School that terminated her)
Due Process Definition
Identify life, liberty, or property interest (Said Paige had none because she wasn't tenured, but in retrospect, should have said she had a liberty interest in free speech)
What process is due (said none because no deprivation, but should have done speech for govt employees)

Part 2:
Standing (Paige and Bob have)
11th Amendment (all I remembered is that you can't sue states for monetary damages)
Conclusion ( (1) deny motion re: standing, (2) dismiss claim for damages but retain claim for injunctive relief)

[MsAvocadoPit]

If you look at barbri con law essay 8 in the essay book, I think that may be a good guide to the possibility of an answer you could have written (PDP)- if you look yes, barbri throws in EPC.

Luckily, my friend and I discussed that answer the night before. So mine kinda looked like that, but much more sloppy

Did anyone throw in contracts clause?! I just added it anyway but didn't do a very good job incorporating it - it kind of was just floating there in my sub q1 analysis.

[UncleStew]

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Thought the PTs were both ridiculous (although B was better than A). There was definitely no need to discuss SPD or EP in #4 considering it asked only for PDP. I was completely unsure of how to work in the free speech issue into #4, but it has since dawned on me. Organization for #4:

Part 1:
Standing (Paige has it)
State actor (School that terminated her)
Due Process Definition
Identify life, liberty, or property interest (Said Paige had none because she wasn't tenured, but in retrospect, should have said she had a liberty interest in free speech)
What process is due (said none because no deprivation, but should have done speech for govt employees)

Part 2:
Standing (Paige and Bob have)
11th Amendment (all I remembered is that you can't sue states for monetary damages)
Conclusion ( (1) deny motion re: standing, (2) dismiss claim for damages but retain claim for injunctive relief)

For 11A state is completely immune from suits sans explicit consent. Look to statute. Also re AG must look to Ex parte Young for prospective relief only.

[SlowLearner]

If you look at barbri con law essay 8 in the essay book, I think that may be a good guide to the possibility of an answer you could have written (PDP)- if you look yes, barbri throws in EPC.

Luckily, my friend and I discussed that answer the night before. So mine kinda looked like that, but much more sloppy

Did anyone throw in contracts clause?! I just added it anyway but didn't do a very good job incorporating it - it kind of was just floating there in my sub q1 analysis.

+ 1contracts
I ran pdp (didn't run epc or sdp / didn't mention free speech or association)
I also said immunity not a defense if no money damages sought from state (...which misses a big point since state was a defendant ..duh!)

[HabitualLurker]

For 11A state is completely immune from suits sans explicit consent. Look to statute. Also re AG must look to Ex parte Young for prospective relief only.

Yeah, I completely brain farted on 11A. Mentioned something about state needing to consent, but forgot about ex party young. So the correct answer should have been dismiss state entirely, dismiss damages claim against AG, and keep claim for injunctive relief?

[LurkerTurnedMember]

If you look at barbri con law essay 8 in the essay book, I think that may be a good guide to the possibility of an answer you could have written (PDP)- if you look yes, barbri throws in EPC.

Luckily, my friend and I discussed that answer the night before. So mine kinda looked like that, but much more sloppy

Did anyone throw in contracts clause?! I just added it anyway but didn't do a very good job incorporating it - it kind of was just floating there in my sub q1 analysis.

That's one of the things that I didn't appreciate about Barbri. They'd go so much beyond the call of the question that I'd get confused on what to put in. And it messed with me a bit on the con law essay cause technically you could have thrown in a lot more than PDP, like the contracts clause, EP, how PDP affected both people in the fact pattern, etc. So I never learned when to stop, where to draw the line and say, "yea, this is triggered but not asked for." I'm hoping the graders don't take the extra written stuff as a negative because it doesn't stick to the question, and instead award points.

[MsAvocadoPit]

Re: PTB

I felt like my memo was not fact heavy at all, except for the first question- but not a lot of law to apply to those sub elements either! Question 2/3 seemed like I was just doing legal analysis and regurgitation.

I looked at my word count, I think it was only 1700? Does that seem short? Ack. But there were so few facts. PTA I had at least 2100 words.

[armenianBEAUTY]

If you look at barbri con law essay 8 in the essay book, I think that may be a good guide to the possibility of an answer you could have written (PDP)- if you look yes, barbri throws in EPC.

Luckily, my friend and I discussed that answer the night before. So mine kinda looked like that, but much more sloppy

Did anyone throw in contracts clause?! I just added it anyway but didn't do a very good job incorporating it - it kind of was just floating there in my sub q1 analysis.

Con law essay #8 asks, "What arguments could Paul reasonably make that the denial of his in forma pauperis application violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution, and what is the likely outcome?"

Of course you would consider PDP, SDP, and EP after getting a call like that. Notice that that was the only question for that essay. Doing all of that PLUS another sub-part asking you to discuss standing and immunity would have been unreasonable.

Plus, our question specifically asked how Paige's procedural due process clause claim would result. SDP & EP are irrelevant.

[UncleStew]

For 11A state is completely immune from suits sans explicit consent. Look to statute. Also re AG must look to Ex parte Young for prospective relief only.

Yeah, I completely brain farted on 11A. Mentioned something about state needing to consent, but forgot about ex party young. So the correct answer should have been dismiss state entirely, dismiss damages claim against AG, and keep claim for injunctive relief?

The facts were not very clear but that is my thinking. Glad I took fed courts!

[UncleStew]

Re: PTB

I felt like my memo was not fact heavy at all, except for the first question- but not a lot of law to apply to those sub elements either! Question 2/3 seemed like I was just doing legal analysis and regurgitation.

I looked at my word count, I think it was only 1700? Does that seem short? Ack. But there were so few facts. PTA I had at least 2100 words.

Did people answer the questions in order? Or did people reorganize between the two options?

[HabitualLurker]

Re: PTB

I felt like my memo was not fact heavy at all, except for the first question- but not a lot of law to apply to those sub elements either! Question 2/3 seemed like I was just doing legal analysis and regurgitation.

I looked at my word count, I think it was only 1700? Does that seem short? Ack. But there were so few facts. PTA I had at least 2100 words.

Did people answer the questions in order? Or did people reorganize between the two options?

Reorganized by cause of action because that's how I would want to see it in practice (I've been out a few years, licensed in another state). Who knows if that's ok with the graders

[UncleStew]

Re: PTB

I felt like my memo was not fact heavy at all, except for the first question- but not a lot of law to apply to those sub elements either! Question 2/3 seemed like I was just doing legal analysis and regurgitation.

I looked at my word count, I think it was only 1700? Does that seem short? Ack. But there were so few facts. PTA I had at least 2100 words.

Did people answer the questions in order? Or did people reorganize between the two options?

Reorganized by cause of action because that's how I would want to see it in practice (I've been out a few years, licensed in another state). Who knows if that's ok with the graders

Ok this was my thinking. The org in the instructions was confusing imo. Thought there were additional issues to hit on too so I included those.

[MsAvocadoPit]

If you look at barbri con law essay 8 in the essay book, I think that may be a good guide to the possibility of an answer you could have written (PDP)- if you look yes, barbri throws in EPC.

Luckily, my friend and I discussed that answer the night before. So mine kinda looked like that, but much more sloppy

Did anyone throw in contracts clause?! I just added it anyway but didn't do a very good job incorporating it - it kind of was just floating there in my sub q1 analysis.

Con law essay #8 asks, "What arguments could Paul reasonably make that the denial of his in forma pauperis application violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution, and what is the likely outcome?"

Of course you would consider PDP, SDP, and EP after getting a call like that. Notice that that was the only question for that essay. Doing all of that PLUS another sub-part asking you to discuss standing and immunity would have been unreasonable.

Plus, our question specifically asked how Paige's procedural due process clause claim would result. SDP & EP are irrelevant.

Def didn't recall the exact question stem! Ugh, but I quickly concluded that they would not apply. But bc of essay 8, I just tried to argue that bc (if) she was denied Epc or sdp then she should get a hearing to vindicate those rights.