July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[armenianBEAUTY]

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

We had an extra help program at my school. The instructor was a previous bar grader. She told us that the graders do not spend too much time on each essay, but they try to give you points where you have an answer even if it's buried in somewhere they aren't expecting. Still, she also said you do not want to stand out or annoy them by going counter to what a call of the question clearly intends for you to use as a structure guideline. They have their point distributions and grading set up according to the most logical organization.

I was so happy that the PT2 had subquestions like that bc all you literally had to do was fill in your answers. The only formatting you had to add was the Rule 12 portion (4 factors) into one of the subparts (I forget which, but it wasn't the first and wasn't the last... somewhere in the middle).

[2TimesTheCharm]

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.

I think average is about 2500? I had approximately 3700 for PTB and 3900 for PTA, but I quoted entire statutes multiple times.

[SlowLearner]

I outlined exactly as the questions were laid out, so I made no changes to order.
Some of the answers were much shorter since not a big file and facts slim. I think I had one long answer dealing where you could apply four/five sub elements to the facts but the others were shorter.

[Yukos]

On PTB, lots of law on 1 to get from barebones CA statute to eventually the FRCP 23 framework. Then lots of facts applying that.

Tons of law on 2 setting out the statutory damages/backpay distinction, but barely any facts.

Don't know if there were any facts for 3; they were basically yes/no questions.

[loh]

What were the essay subjects tested today?

CA CIv Pro
Property/Contracts
Contracts

(unless I really fucked up)

for this past Feb, they tested Contract Remedy and full on UCC contract. They did 2 more contracts for this exam? I guess they hired a exam maker with contract background.

[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

We had an extra help program at my school. The instructor was a previous bar grader. She told us that the graders do not spend too much time on each essay, but they try to give you points where you have an answer even if it's buried in somewhere they aren't expecting. Still, she also said you do not want to stand out or annoy them by going counter to what a call of the question clearly intends for you to use as a structure guideline. They have their point distributions and grading set up according to the most logical organization.

I was so happy that the PT2 had subquestions like that bc all you literally had to do was fill in your answers. The only formatting you had to add was the Rule 12 portion (4 factors) into one of the subparts (I forget which, but it wasn't the first and wasn't the last... somewhere in the middle).

The only problem I have with this approach is it doesn't capture real world performance. You would organize by cause of action

Also was this to be an objective of persuasive memo. I sensed a little of both?

[loh]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

I didn't know you can use FRCP in the superior court of California. I thought they had CA Civ Pro and local rules for that.

[2TimesTheCharm]

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

We had an extra help program at my school. The instructor was a previous bar grader. She told us that the graders do not spend too much time on each essay, but they try to give you points where you have an answer even if it's buried in somewhere they aren't expecting. Still, she also said you do not want to stand out or annoy them by going counter to what a call of the question clearly intends for you to use as a structure guideline. They have their point distributions and grading set up according to the most logical organization.

I was so happy that the PT2 had subquestions like that bc all you literally had to do was fill in your answers. The only formatting you had to add was the Rule 12 portion (4 factors) into one of the subparts (I forget which, but it wasn't the first and wasn't the last... somewhere in the middle).

The only problem I have with this approach is it doesn't capture real world performance. You would organize by cause of action

Also was this to be an objective of persuasive memo. I sensed a little of both?

Objective, I think. Past internal memos asking for "arguments we could make" also want estimates of their "realistic" chances of success. FWIW, I answered in order. I heard that some bar graders read quickly and if they can't find the answer after a first read, they'll just assume its not there. But that could just be one guy's opinion, so take it with a grain of salt

[Zaizei]

Did anyone else found the last case of PTB (I think it was the court of appeal in 2010) to be contrary to the possibility to ask for lost wages in a class action under PAGA?

I found that the last case was contradicting that specific part of the supreme case in 2009 where it was found that the plaintiff could be the representative without satisfying all requirements for civil penalties and lost wages.

I also said that the 2010 case was not that relevant since the supreme court case law is much stronger than the court of appeal.

[UncleStew]

Did anyone else found the last case of PTB (I think it was the court of appeal in 2010) to be contrary to the possibility to ask for lost wages in a class action under PAGA?

I found that the last case was contradicting that specific part of the supreme case in 2009 where it was found that the plaintiff could be the representative without satisfying all requirements for civil penalties and lost wages.

Not how I read case one. Maybe I misread bc I too was confused between 1&3. I read 1 as saying paga only for civil penalties. And thereafter any non party could use to obtain other remedies. And I read case 3 as leaving the question abt back pay in paga claim open w remand

[armenianBEAUTY]

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

We had an extra help program at my school. The instructor was a previous bar grader. She told us that the graders do not spend too much time on each essay, but they try to give you points where you have an answer even if it's buried in somewhere they aren't expecting. Still, she also said you do not want to stand out or annoy them by going counter to what a call of the question clearly intends for you to use as a structure guideline. They have their point distributions and grading set up according to the most logical organization.

I was so happy that the PT2 had subquestions like that bc all you literally had to do was fill in your answers. The only formatting you had to add was the Rule 12 portion (4 factors) into one of the subparts (I forget which, but it wasn't the first and wasn't the last... somewhere in the middle).

The only problem I have with this approach is it doesn't capture real world performance. You would organize by cause of action

Also was this to be an objective of persuasive memo. I sensed a little of both?

I think if the call of the question just asked us to discuss our prediction on the outcome of the cause of actions, I would definitely go ground by ground. However, the memo instructions said something along the lines of, "I need your help clearing up some impediments. Please help resolve these uncertainties."

So, I went uncertainty by uncertainty.

Anyway, I hope whoever grades your PT looks for your answers and values them!

[Yukos]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

I didn't know you can use FRCP in the superior court of California. I thought they had CA Civ Pro and local rules for that.

Yeah CA has its own civ pro rules, which were basically pasted into the CPT. Not sure how much detail you're allowed to put, but they gave you a way in the case law to get to FRCP 23 if you wanted.

EDIT: also CPTs don't use CA law; they make up a jurisdiction. Though I believe all the statutes in this CPT were identical to real CA statutes.

[JD2ESQ]

PT B... I also had a hard time with the little facts given in the file. However, I found there were some clues in the interview which led to deeper discussion and analysis of the facts. I want to ask if anyone added a point about legislative intent/public policy in question 2? I did not know exactly how to discuss it, but with 5 minutes left, I just wrote what I thought may be relevant.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

I'm just hoping I avoided a 50 on PT A. I'd take a 55 on that at this point. Hard to recover from a 55 PT (but I think I could have), but really hard to recover from a 50.

[JD2ESQ]

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?

PDP
discussion of each element of PDP
light First Amendment discussion when discussing Paige's interest vs. School's interest

STANDING
Bob - actual harm discussion
Paige - actual harm and redressability discussion

11th
Literally 2 sentences... ran out of time....

[bnghle234]

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)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

[bnghle234]

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.

I think average is about 2500? I had approximately 3700 for PTB and 3900 for PTA, but I quoted entire statutes multiple times.

holy mother of god, how do you type that much???

[bnghle234]

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.

this. they definitely do not go hand in hand. also, specific call of the question was procedural due process.

[Interpretationc]

Did anyone else found the last case of PTB (I think it was the court of appeal in 2010) to be contrary to the possibility to ask for lost wages in a class action under PAGA?

I found that the last case was contradicting that specific part of the supreme case in 2009 where it was found that the plaintiff could be the representative without satisfying all requirements for civil penalties and lost wages.

Not how I read case one. Maybe I misread bc I too was confused between 1&3. I read 1 as saying paga only for civil penalties. And thereafter any non party could use to obtain other remedies. And I read case 3 as leaving the question abt back pay in paga claim open w remand

Case1: "Other remedies Ancillary to primary objective civil penalties" are ok;
Case3: remand to determine if there is any violation of labor code that could be potentially brought by the agency. Then decide the paga cause of action.

Distinction: our case has both back wage and labor code violations (cite last document in the file), case 3 does not apply and our case won't be remanded if the back wage claim is not only claim but ancillary to civil penalties.

Conclusion: if we put unpaid wages together with other violations in paga claim, we can recover since it's ancillary.

[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)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

[bnghle234]

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)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

Paige had standing to bring the due process claim, but yeah I don't think she had standing for the salary cut because it was refunded. I still think Bob's injury was too speculative because he could've taken the course and gotten a full refund and there wouldn't be any injury, aside from having to take a course which wouldn't be an injury under the standing analysis. it reminded me of that supreme court case where the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had no plans of ever traveling to the sri lanka to see the endangered elephants or whatever. anyway, i think the outcome wasn't as important as the analysis in this question. it was an interesting question.

[Yukos]

PT B... I also had a hard time with the little facts given in the file. However, I found there were some clues in the interview which led to deeper discussion and analysis of the facts. I want to ask if anyone added a point about legislative intent/public policy in question 2? I did not know exactly how to discuss it, but with 5 minutes left, I just wrote what I thought may be relevant.

I did end up going to policy/legislative intent because the cases left it open. I said interpreting PAGA in the way he wanted would make UCL pointless (since rep actions there are so much more difficult) and would give Ps a pretty big advantage thanks to case 1.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

I understood the question (though it wasn't clear IIRC) to be whether P & B had standing for PDP and challenging the state law. So I had a discussion of third-party standing for B for P's discharge. But that might have been way beyond what they were looking for

[Baller31]

I don't think so. When the court is assessing a due process case procedural due process and substantive due process are both looked at. Look up precedence cases. They will always tell you "even if the person did not have a property, or liberty interest, we check if there was a fundamental right taken or the reason the state actor did the deprivation. Just stopping at procedural due process is incomplete.

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.

[fairchildIV]

To everyone freaking out:

First of all, chill. It's over. You can't change your answer, so it's not worth demoralizing yourself by obsessing over all the issues you supposedly missed. Remember, you're not trying to be valedictorian of the bar exam.

Secondly, it helps to have perspective on how low your scores can actually be and still pass. Here is a site where you can plug in the scores you think you got on each essay, PT, and the MBE, to see if that would be a passing score:

https://one-timers.com/one-timers-bar-exam-calculator/

For reference, the following scores would be good enough to pass:

Essay 1: 55
Essay 2: 65
Essay 3: 55
Essay 4: 50
Essay 5: 70
Essay 6: 70
PTA: 60
PTB: 70
MBE: 120/190 (about 63% correct)

Final score: 1442

Basically, you can afford to bomb a couple of essays/PTs as long as you have one or two good ones.

[SlowLearner]

To everyone freaking out:

First of all, chill. It's over. You can't change your answer, so it's not worth demoralizing yourself by obsessing over all the issues you supposedly missed. Remember, you're not trying to be valedictorian of the bar exam.

Secondly, it helps to have perspective on how low your scores can actually be and still pass. Here is a site where you can plug in the scores you think you got on each essay, PT, and the MBE, to see if that would be a passing score:

https://one-timers.com/one-timers-bar-exam-calculator/

For reference, the following scores would be good enough to pass:

Essay 1: 55
Essay 2: 65
Essay 3: 55
Essay 4: 50
Essay 5: 70
Essay 6: 70
PTA: 60
PTB: 70
MBE: 120/190 (about 63% correct)

Final score: 1442

Basically, you can afford to bomb a couple of essays/PTs as long as you have one or two good ones.

Thanks- that's a good site.

For me I find this post game analysis "really" helpful in making my guess at which essays I might have bombed or scored high in.
This all feeds into managing my expectations in a realistic way until November.

It's all cathartic therapy and I will close my mind to it in a few days but I NEED this forum for my mental sanity now...

Any thoughts on question 5 and 6?
I felt my PR came in very short - think I got the main issues but a little concerned in that one