Kaplan Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[orangecup]

I got both of those wrong as well. And honestly I'm terrible at distinguishing between the two. If someone could shed light on it, that'd be awesome.

[freestallion]

2nd day in a row I've had issues using Kaplan online. Is anyone else having problems? I'm about to lose my shit...Fucking cbx is 1 week from today and I can't do shit online.

The client is slow for me as well, but I was able to get in.

I haven't been able to get in at all for 20 minutes...Gonna head to do my MBE's on the books I guess...Just don't want to waste time self-grading.

Yeah, I'm not able to get into the website for the past 30 mins :/

[theramblinman]

Had an issue I was struggling with so I figured why not try emailing Chris Fromm. He actually called me and talked it out with me/ provided some other general encouragement. I think that was pretty awesome.

[odoylerulez]

I tried reading the outline but I just don't see where they're drawing the distinction on this one:

Larceny: I understand this to mean the trespassory taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive.
Embezzlement: I understand this to mean conversion of property by someone entrusted with it.

However, I got both of the following MBE Questions wrong, with more or less the following fact patterns:
1. This is Larceny: A schoolteacher who takes a side job as a bartender, and gives out drinks to his friends for free sometimes.
2. This is Embezzlement A grocery store clerk who takes a $5 from a customer for a gallon of milk, and immediately pockets it for himself.

For the first one, I thought it was embezzlement because the schoolteacher has to have been entrusted with the alcohol because he's serving it, but apparently not. The explanation went something like the schoolteacher only has "custody" of the alcohol, and not possession. Based on the first one, I answered the second one as larceny, which was wrong, according to Chris Fromm, because the grocery store clerk's job is to take cash from customers, and thus while he has the cash he's in lawful possession?

Is this just going to be a very close factual situation each time? The best I could come up with for the difference here was that the bartender/schoolteacher is kind of a conduit for the bar's alcohol and thus never possesses it himself. But I can't really explain the clerk along those lines. Fromm also said that if the clerk were to put $5 into the cash register but then take it back out for himself, that would make the crime larceny instead of embezzlement.

I think I might be splitting hairs.

I think the distinction might run along the lines of what the employee actually has the authority to do. Larceny is trespassory, while embezzlement isn't.

Giving out free drinks is larceny, because he has no authority to take alcohol from the bar with the present, specific intent to steal (by giving it away to his friends). However, a grocery store clerk taking $5 from a customer is embezzlement before the clerk puts it in the cash register, because the clerk is authorized to handle that $5 at that moment. However, once the cash is in the cash register, taking the cash back out of the register with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that $5 would be larceny, because the employee does not have the authorization to take the $5 out of the register for that purpose.

I might be way off. That's the only possible distinction I see. I think it comes down to where the present possession is lawful or unlawful. If it's lawful, it's embezzlement. If it's not lawful, it's larceny.

[fadedsunrise]

I tried reading the outline but I just don't see where they're drawing the distinction on this one:

Larceny: I understand this to mean the trespassory taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive.
Embezzlement: I understand this to mean conversion of property by someone entrusted with it.

However, I got both of the following MBE Questions wrong, with more or less the following fact patterns:
1. This is Larceny: A schoolteacher who takes a side job as a bartender, and gives out drinks to his friends for free sometimes.
2. This is Embezzlement A grocery store clerk who takes a $5 from a customer for a gallon of milk, and immediately pockets it for himself.

For the first one, I thought it was embezzlement because the schoolteacher has to have been entrusted with the alcohol because he's serving it, but apparently not. The explanation went something like the schoolteacher only has "custody" of the alcohol, and not possession. Based on the first one, I answered the second one as larceny, which was wrong, according to Chris Fromm, because the grocery store clerk's job is to take cash from customers, and thus while he has the cash he's in lawful possession?

Is this just going to be a very close factual situation each time? The best I could come up with for the difference here was that the bartender/schoolteacher is kind of a conduit for the bar's alcohol and thus never possesses it himself. But I can't really explain the clerk along those lines. Fromm also said that if the clerk were to put $5 into the cash register but then take it back out for himself, that would make the crime larceny instead of embezzlement.

I think I might be splitting hairs.

I think the distinction might run along the lines of what the employee actually has the authority to do. Larceny is trespassory, while embezzlement isn't.

Giving out free drinks is larceny, because he has no authority to take alcohol from the bar with the present, specific intent to steal (by giving it away to his friends). However, a grocery store clerk taking $5 from a customer is embezzlement before the clerk puts it in the cash register, because the clerk is authorized to handle that $5 at that moment. However, once the cash is in the cash register, taking the cash back out of the register with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that $5 would be larceny, because the employee does not have the authorization to take the $5 out of the register for that purpose.

I might be way off. That's the only possible distinction I see. I think it comes down to where the present possession is lawful or unlawful. If it's lawful, it's embezzlement. If it's not lawful, it's larceny.

That makes sense actually! I think this may have been what Chris Fromm was getting at but I tried verifying it in the outlines and just got myself thinking into circles. So I'm thinking the takeaway is that I should consider whether it's lawful possession /in the moment/ that the employee forms intent to steal? And lawful possession in the moment is a function of what the employee is hired to do?

[Florence Night]

So, what has everyone done to prepare for the MPT...?

[orangecup]

So, what has everyone done to prepare for the MPT...?

Pretty much nothing. I did 2 sample ones a while back, and glanced at the formats but that's it...

[robinhoodOO]

So, what has everyone done to prepare for the MPT...?

Pretty much nothing. I did 2 sample ones a while back, and glanced at the formats but that's it...

I've done a few. I noticed that even if you're not familiar with the format, the memo lays out EXACTLY what it wants.

BTW, Kap is completely down for me. Fuck this...

[Bubbles 4 Life]

.

[gregfootball2001]

I tried reading the outline but I just don't see where they're drawing the distinction on this one:

Larceny: I understand this to mean the trespassory taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive.
Embezzlement: I understand this to mean conversion of property by someone entrusted with it.

However, I got both of the following MBE Questions wrong, with more or less the following fact patterns:
1. This is Larceny: A schoolteacher who takes a side job as a bartender, and gives out drinks to his friends for free sometimes.
2. This is Embezzlement A grocery store clerk who takes a $5 from a customer for a gallon of milk, and immediately pockets it for himself.

For the first one, I thought it was embezzlement because the schoolteacher has to have been entrusted with the alcohol because he's serving it, but apparently not. The explanation went something like the schoolteacher only has "custody" of the alcohol, and not possession. Based on the first one, I answered the second one as larceny, which was wrong, according to Chris Fromm, because the grocery store clerk's job is to take cash from customers, and thus while he has the cash he's in lawful possession?

Is this just going to be a very close factual situation each time? The best I could come up with for the difference here was that the bartender/schoolteacher is kind of a conduit for the bar's alcohol and thus never possesses it himself. But I can't really explain the clerk along those lines. Fromm also said that if the clerk were to put $5 into the cash register but then take it back out for himself, that would make the crime larceny instead of embezzlement.

I think I might be splitting hairs.

I think the distinction might run along the lines of what the employee actually has the authority to do. Larceny is trespassory, while embezzlement isn't.

Giving out free drinks is larceny, because he has no authority to take alcohol from the bar with the present, specific intent to steal (by giving it away to his friends). However, a grocery store clerk taking $5 from a customer is embezzlement before the clerk puts it in the cash register, because the clerk is authorized to handle that $5 at that moment. However, once the cash is in the cash register, taking the cash back out of the register with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that $5 would be larceny, because the employee does not have the authorization to take the $5 out of the register for that purpose.

I might be way off. That's the only possible distinction I see. I think it comes down to where the present possession is lawful or unlawful. If it's lawful, it's embezzlement. If it's not lawful, it's larceny.

I agree with the combination of intent and "authority to handle" ideas. If the store clerk takes the money and puts it in his pocket, he was authorized to take the money, but he did the wrong thing with it. If he takes it out of the register, he had no authority to handle it, and he had intent to deprive, so it's larceny. The same with the bartender - he had no authority to take the bottle and intentionally give away alcohol for free, so it's larceny. So, (I think) if the bartender gave someone a drink, took their money, and put that money in his pocket, the bartender would be liable for embezzlement, b/c he had the authority to handle both the drink and the money, but did the wrong thing with it.

[orangecup]

^ Let's say there are 2 issues. You've spent half the time on the first one, but aren't really finished yet. Is it a good idea to just stop, write "In conclusion ____" and then move to issue 2?

[Bubbles 4 Life]

.

[Florence Night]

So, what has everyone done to prepare for the MPT...?

Pretty much nothing. I did 2 sample ones a while back, and glanced at the formats but that's it...

I've done a few. I noticed that even if you're not familiar with the format, the memo lays out EXACTLY what it wants.

BTW, Kap is completely down for me. Fuck this...

I'm not sure I follow on the underlined. Could you elaborate?

[orangecup]

So, what has everyone done to prepare for the MPT...?

Pretty much nothing. I did 2 sample ones a while back, and glanced at the formats but that's it...

I've done a few. I noticed that even if you're not familiar with the format, the memo lays out EXACTLY what it wants.

BTW, Kap is completely down for me. Fuck this...

I'm not sure I follow on the underlined. Could you elaborate?

I think this is more often the case in the CPT, but the MPT AFAIK often doesn't give you the format. Although maybe it does for more obscure tasks

[robinhoodOO]

So, what has everyone done to prepare for the MPT...?

Pretty much nothing. I did 2 sample ones a while back, and glanced at the formats but that's it...

I've done a few. I noticed that even if you're not familiar with the format, the memo lays out EXACTLY what it wants.

BTW, Kap is completely down for me. Fuck this...

I'm not sure I follow on the underlined. Could you elaborate?

The Memo usually dictates exactly how it wants you to lay out the work product. For example, if it asks for a Memo, it tells you each section. If there's an arbitration opinion, it directs you to an provision that lays out how the opinion should be broken down, etc.

It's all very straightforward is what I'm saying.

[Florence Night]

Thanks for clarifying.

So, I just got a few of the essays back that I submitted last week. One is a five (yay), but the other two are 2s. The complaints are things like "put your strongest argument up front", "state the rule thoroughly". Naturally, a week out, I'm kind of freaked out because these are the first essays I've had graded. Is the difference between passing and failing the written portion really about putting strong arguments up front and regurgitating the entire - rather than most - the rule of law? Or is this grading a bunch of shit? I mean, the model answers my state puts out - which I presume are the best essay for that question of the whole administration - aren't even that organized and have errors of law. Someone talk me off the ledge.

Edit: I don't know if the grading scale for the essays is the same everywhere, but the essays are graded from 1 to 6 with Kaplan for me.

[odoylerulez]

Thanks for clarifying.

So, I just got a few of the essays back that I submitted last week. One is a five (yay), but the other two are 2s. The complaints are things like "put your strongest argument up front", "state the rule thoroughly". Naturally, a week out, I'm kind of freaked out because these are the first essays I've had graded. Is the difference between passing and failing the written portion really about putting strong arguments up front and regurgitating the entire - rather than most - the rule of law? Or is this grading a bunch of shit? I mean, the model answers my state puts out - which I presume are the best essay for that question of the whole administration - aren't even that organized and have errors of law. Someone talk me off the ledge.

Edit: I don't know if the grading scale for the essays is the same everywhere, but the essays are graded from 1 to 6 with Kaplan for me.

Kaplan graders ... a lot of them are bad. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Especially that "state the rule thoroughly" comment. That doesn't mean anything. "Thoroughly" is subjective to begin with.

[orangecup]

Agreed, I wouldn't put much stock in the Kaplan graders. One guy shit on me for using "The issue is__", "In New York ____", "In this case, ____" and "Therefore, ____" for all of my transitions.

[robinhoodOO]

Agreed, I wouldn't put much stock in the Kaplan graders. One guy shit on me for using "The issue is__", "In New York ____", "In this case, ____" and "Therefore, ____" for all of my transitions.

That's funny...Beginning my analysis, I usually start, "Here..." and conclusion, "Thus..." Etc.

Kaplan grader complimented me on that aspect, so who fucking knows what those people are talking about...haha

[coffeeandcream]

Kaplan graders ... a lot of them are bad. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Especially that "state the rule thoroughly" comment. That doesn't mean anything. "Thoroughly" is subjective to begin with.

Yep. For a long time I didn't do essays because I got so bummed out on the first few I tried.

Here's one of my sample issue/rule statements from back in early June.

1. Here, Anti-Tax has been convicted of violating a sedition statute. Whether Anti-Tax will be convicted under the sedition statute depends on whether he may make arguments under the First Amendment that the statute is unconstitutional.

Generally, the First amendment provides freedom of speech protections for individuals against the government. This right has been incorporated to the state by the Fourteenth amendment. Government regulation of speech by viewpoint falls under strict scrutiny. However, certain exceptions apply where the speech is deemed of low value, and consequentially afford lesser protections. Indeed, some particularly harmful speech is afforded no constitutional protections at all. One example of unprotected speech is speech that advocates violence or unlawful1 action. Under the Brandenberg Test, when speech is intended to produce imminent unlawful or violent action and does indeed produce such imminent unlawful action, it does not trigger the First Amendment, and thus must be analyzed under rational scrutiny.

I thought I was doing pretty damn fine considering I had never done First amendment law, but the grader was like you didn't mention the unprotected speech must advocate illegal conduct, not just an abstract idea.

And I'm just like, I can't handle this exam. And then for the next two weeks I burnt myself out completely trying to memorize every single detail of every single rule because I thought I had to based on that feedback.

[coffeeandcream]

By the way, did you guys find the Final MBE review videos helpful?

I got a few days behind due to the MEE topics all being crammed up in the end (and me not having taken most of the MEE subjects during law school), so I was wondering how helpful the videos actually are since I haven't watched them yet =/

Scored a 133 on the final, not sure how to feel about it with 5 days left.

[decemberstar82]

By the way, did you guys find the Final MBE review videos helpful?

I got a few days behind due to the MEE topics all being crammed up in the end (and me not having taken most of the MEE subjects during law school), so I was wondering how helpful the videos actually are since I haven't watched them yet =/

Scored a 133 on the final, not sure how to feel about it with 5 days left.

I did the review videos yesterday, and I did find them really helpful. But, I wasn't about to spend two full days on them. Watched at 1.5X, listened, and wrote by hand rule statements when I got the question wrong--took about 10 hrs total. I scored a 135 on the final, so I doubt it'll add the 30pts Fromm says, but I know I picked up at least 5.

[despina]

By the way, did you guys find the Final MBE review videos helpful?

I got a few days behind due to the MEE topics all being crammed up in the end (and me not having taken most of the MEE subjects during law school), so I was wondering how helpful the videos actually are since I haven't watched them yet =/

Scored a 133 on the final, not sure how to feel about it with 5 days left.

I did the review videos yesterday, and I did find them really helpful. But, I wasn't about to spend two full days on them. Watched at 1.5X, listened, and wrote by hand rule statements when I got the question wrong--took about 10 hrs total. I scored a 135 on the final, so I doubt it'll add the 30pts Fromm says, but I know I picked up at least 5.

I watched the videos at 2x and made flashcards for the ones I got wrong, or the ones where I didn't know the rule statement / concept for why I got it right.

My scores had basically been flat since the midterm (60-65%) and now they're steadily increasing. Who knows if it's just that bump that folks were talking about earlier once you hit 1700ish questions, but I think the video and studying those flashcards helped me start putting the pieces together.

[fadedsunrise]

By the way, did you guys find the Final MBE review videos helpful?

I got a few days behind due to the MEE topics all being crammed up in the end (and me not having taken most of the MEE subjects during law school), so I was wondering how helpful the videos actually are since I haven't watched them yet =/

Scored a 133 on the final, not sure how to feel about it with 5 days left.

Some of it was really helpful and some of it wasnt! I wish Kaplan actually wrote out explanations for all the wrong answers all the time, because sometimes they seem to skip over the ones where they think the wrong answers were obvious, and it was not obvious at all to me lol.

I sure hope Fromm is right about +20/30 because Imma fail if I get exactly 117 on the actual test...

[orangecup]

This has been the least productive day yet for me. Didn't get started until the afternoon, I've barely memorized any of the flashcards I made yesterday. I wanted to go through and read a ton of model essays today too..... but I think I will just make it a minimum goal to memorize the flashcards today. It's not the end of the world if one day here or there is unproductive