2017 July California Bar Forum

[varcom24]

did not fold CA evidence in at all. Caught the CA-specific distinctions about privileges and otherwise feel okay about that question, so hoping that missing that (potential) element to the question isn't too big of a deal.

[InterAlia1961]

I'm so screwed. I knew the choice of law rules. OMG. I just panicked when I drew the initial blank. It's a good thing I'm fond of California. I'll be back.

[mcmand]

I know TLS is all about rehashing and overthinking things we can't control anymore, but maybe, just maybe, we should just leave it be and focus on tomorrow and then all the wonderful things we can enjoy tomorrow evening!

Friendly suggestion

Channel good thoughts! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Y11hwjMNs

[varcom24]

I'm so screwed. I knew the choice of law rules. OMG. I just panicked when I drew the initial blank. It's a good thing I'm fond of California. I'll be back.

I'm not too confident about my choice of law analysis either. But it was also part of a 5-call question, so wouldn't consider anyone screwed for missing it

[whats an updog]

I'm so screwed. I knew the choice of law rules. OMG. I just panicked when I drew the initial blank. It's a good thing I'm fond of California. I'll be back.

I'm not too confident about my choice of law analysis either. But it was also part of a 5-call question, so wouldn't consider anyone screwed for missing it

I would not worry about it. Everyone, EVERYONE, missed stuff. As someone in this thread said earlier, your brain is geared to remember the things you did wrong.

[Alt123]

Nah, if anything, everyone didn't do super well on that question. I wouldn't sweat it.

Gotta stay in good head space for tomorrow.

[ManoftheHour]

Fuck I did ordinary negligence for the utility pole and just spent more time on the standard of care. Did not consider that utility pole was an abnormally dangerous activity because I figured it was normally done in the community. I guess I should have at least mentioned that. Oh well, otherwise I felt mostly good about the rest of the questions.

The CA evid/PR question definitely threw me for a loop at first and was probably the strangest question on the exam.

Feel good about: CommProp, Remedies
Feel ok about: CivPro, Torts, PT
Feel uneasy about: CA evid / PR

Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........

Not to be rude but, have you never done a practice PT before?

Edit: Just noticed this account is super recent, so assuming troll.

I DID THE SAME THING!!!!! Please tell me this has been done before and people still pass?????? I knew the law and wrote the right stuff just didn't use the case library!

Also, rude. I took a class on PT work and this was just an honest mistake. The only trolls here are you, commenting on things making people feel worse about themselves.

I did not make this mistake, but I'm sure you can both still get passing scores providing you're on track with the rest of the essays and MBE. This was definitely a weird PT and the library only had a single case in it, which was a little freaky in itself.

I could be wrong here, but to me that was totally a negligence question. Lots of proximate cause to discuss. The stuff about the alternative product was used to talk extensively about breach/duty/standard of care (B<LP shit). Custom and alt product are factors but not determinant. Idk like I said I could be wrong...

Edit: Aight I'm gonna stop reading this stuff. I left the exam feeling pretty good and now I'm starting to have doubts. Need to focus on the MBE tomorrow.

[justanotheruser]

How many practice MBE questions, if at all, are y'all doing to stay sharp? 20-30?

[Slickrick90]

Thank god I took the 1 day exam.

How many words are you writing? I wrote about 1400 for the PT and about 1100-1300 for the rest of the essays.

I totally got destroyed on the civ pro. I did not remember anything about erie just the very basics. It was bad.

was strict liability part of the essay for torts? I didn't think it applied because it wasn't consumer.

[nsv]

The first call to that civ pro threw me off. I talked about joinder of claims in a sentence and didn't know what else to put... Literally sat for a few minutes trying to determine if I'm blanking

[Dee099]

Our proctor is beyond slow, our break was 45 min
We were dismissed at 6:50pm.
To top it off the parking lot was a mess to get out (30 min to get out, just got home at 8:00pm

Definitely have to say the Evidence Q was the toughest for me, hed to re read it twice.

Also blanked out on weather you can bring a fraud and breach of K in same suit.(literally just blanked) don't know why.

Spent way too much time on the torts, 1hr 10, caused me to rush my PT, literally only spent like 25 min writing so it's super short, but hopefully my tone with Ms Castile wasn't too rough.

Happy i got through the worst imo, now time for the doubt game of picking between two answers on the MBE

[Sunny1211]

Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff

[twenty]

Our proctor is beyond slow, our break was 45 min

fellow anaheim taker? or is this just a CA thing?

[Slickrick90]

Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff

Yes I talked about the breach of confidentiality for PR and also mentioned fees and how it has to be written down for Cali.

[Sunny1211]

Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?

I felt my analysis was super short each property

[wentmat]

Thank god I took the 1 day exam.

How many words are you writing? I wrote about 1400 for the PT and about 1100-1300 for the rest of the essays.

I totally got destroyed on the civ pro.

was strict liability part of the essay for torts? I didn't think it applied because it wasn't consumer.

I think it probably strictly involved negligence and strict product liability (electricity as a product, think there are some cases on this), but I wouldn't worry, more important is how you answer and not whether you pick up every issue, no one gets every issue!

[Sunny1211]

Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff

Yes I talked about the breach of confidentiality for PR and also mentioned fees and how it has to be written down for Cali.

What about Negligence Per Se for the Torts question? That it DIDNT apply cuz it was not the type of harm and not the class of persons the law was trying to protect?

[Squintz805]

.

[Slickrick90]

Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff

Yes I talked about the breach of confidentiality for PR and also mentioned fees and how it has to be written down for Cali.

What about Negligence Per Se for the Torts question? That it DIDNT apply cuz it was not the type of harm and not the class of persons the law was trying to protect?

Yes that's how I decided it too.

[CAnow]

Did anyone talk about about the Negligence Per Se? F

Also I didn't think the Light pole was an abnormally dangerous.... I applied the negligent product liability---- balance the alternative safer design?

For the damages to be apportioned I said substantial fa actor test since they both were the but for causes IF they were both liable and shift the burden to both Ds

As far as the PR question, I only found the breach of confidentiality and made some stuff up about having a conflict of interest with the Hotel Inc

PT - only about 6500 characters bombed that.... didnt have time to go into all the facts didn't even have time to go into the dog sniff

Yes I talked about the breach of confidentiality for PR and also mentioned fees and how it has to be written down for Cali.

What about Negligence Per Se for the Torts question? That it DIDNT apply cuz it was not the type of harm and not the class of persons the law was trying to protect?

Yes that's how I decided it too.

Yep. I feel like I wasted precious moments raising it just so I could shoot it back down.

I also spent the entire question on negligence. Completely missed the ultra-hazardous activity.

[yost]

I could be wrong here, but to me that was totally a negligence question. Lots of proximate cause to discuss. The stuff about the alternative product was used to talk extensively about breach/duty/standard of care (B<LP shit). Custom and alt product are factors but not determinant. Idk like I said I could be wrong...

Edit: Aight I'm gonna stop reading this stuff. I left the exam feeling pretty good and now I'm starting to have doubts. Need to focus on the MBE tomorrow.

Products Liability...did they even sell a product into the stream of commerce?

Electricity? Idk. I just acknowledged that Electric Company would make this argument and then moved on.

Totally missed abnormally dangerous activities though

[CAnow]

Received this orange card at the end of the exam:

"You must upload all four (4) exam answer files by 12:00 noon Thursday July 27, 2017"

Four???

[yost]

Received this orange card at the end of the exam:

"You must upload all four (4) exam answer files by 12:00 noon Thursday July 27, 2017"

Four???

In Santa Clara at least they acknowledged that this was a mistake. Only two.

[Sunny1211]

Anahiem sucked balls today, there were atleast a 1000+ test takers and only 1 escalator.... took almost two hours from lunch break to get seated and the Proctors need more training for sure

[Dee099]

I spent way too much time on the per se aspect knowing Harry knew damn well he wasn't part of the class intended to be protected nor the the type of harm intented to prevent

Also can someone tell me if trying to avoid Probate raised an issue for Comm prop