July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[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

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.

Not that it matters but the distinction doesn't make sense. The case 3 left open the question I.e it's dicta. It merely provided arguments for why we could combine the claims.

Also what was the part about seeking discovery for? Did ppl include this option?

[UncleStew]

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

Speaking of 5. His and her property. Does that imply separate?

[SFSpartan]

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

I felt excellent about 6 and pretty good about 5.

If I didn't get a 65 on 5, it's because I spent too much time looking for reasons to invalidate the prenup (it really didn't help that in basically every Barbri question where there was a prenup, they argued it was invalid). That meant that my discussion of the other stuff was really ancillary, though I mostly just talked about tracing, with some fiduciary duty on the second condo.

6 seemed relatively straightforward. Lots of discussion on the ABA/CA distinction re: going outside the organization and urging reconsideration, and whether L needed to withdraw because of his antipathy towards the client's position (probably). Concluded the LSO thing wasn't really an issue since L didn't participate in the organization's decisions in a way that created a conflict.

Would be interested in hearing how others approached Q3

[chicoalto0649]

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.

Not that it matters but the distinction doesn't make sense. The case 3 left open the question I.e it's dicta. It merely provided arguments for why we could combine the claims.

Also what was the part about seeking discovery for? Did ppl include this option?

I don't think the discovery aspect matter. The prompt just asked for "a" argument... I'm not sure how many others you could make outside of basically bring a civil penalty action and tack on back pay... He had a host of civil penalty claims he could make and we could argue the back pay is incidental to primary purpose of suit which is to protect the public or w.e.

Pretty tricky PT it really seemed like there wasn't much room to get to creative with applicable laws or arguments

[UncleStew]

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

I felt excellent about 6 and pretty good about 5.

If I didn't get a 65 on 5, it's because I spent too much time looking for reasons to invalidate the prenup (it really didn't help that in basically every Barbri question where there was a prenup, they argued it was invalid). That meant that my discussion of the other stuff was really ancillary, though I mostly just talked about tracing, with some fiduciary duty on the second condo.

6 seemed relatively straightforward. Lots of discussion on the ABA/CA distinction re: going outside the organization and urging reconsideration, and whether L needed to withdraw because of his antipathy towards the client's position (probably). Concluded the LSO thing wasn't really an issue since L didn't participate in the organization's decisions in a way that created a conflict.

Would be interested in hearing how others approached Q3

Lots of issues in the pr Q. Conflicts/ Loyalty. Confidentiality/reporting. Competency. Fee agreement w. Corp. objectives v. Means. Duty of candor. Advising client against violating law.

[chicoalto0649]

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

I felt excellent about 6 and pretty good about 5.

If I didn't get a 65 on 5, it's because I spent too much time looking for reasons to invalidate the prenup (it really didn't help that in basically every Barbri question where there was a prenup, they argued it was invalid). That meant that my discussion of the other stuff was really ancillary, though I mostly just talked about tracing, with some fiduciary duty on the second condo.

6 seemed relatively straightforward. Lots of discussion on the ABA/CA distinction re: going outside the organization and urging reconsideration, and whether L needed to withdraw because of his antipathy towards the client's position (probably). Concluded the LSO thing wasn't really an issue since L didn't participate in the organization's decisions in a way that created a conflict.

Would be interested in hearing how others approached Q3

Lots of issues in the pr Q. Conflicts/ Loyalty. Confidentiality/reporting. Competency. Fee agreement w. Corp. objectives v. Means. Duty of candor. Advising client against violating law.

Did you think he had some duty to the public to have client amend false filings submitted or just to avoid not doing it in the future?

[UncleStew]

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

I felt excellent about 6 and pretty good about 5.

If I didn't get a 65 on 5, it's because I spent too much time looking for reasons to invalidate the prenup (it really didn't help that in basically every Barbri question where there was a prenup, they argued it was invalid). That meant that my discussion of the other stuff was really ancillary, though I mostly just talked about tracing, with some fiduciary duty on the second condo.

6 seemed relatively straightforward. Lots of discussion on the ABA/CA distinction re: going outside the organization and urging reconsideration, and whether L needed to withdraw because of his antipathy towards the client's position (probably). Concluded the LSO thing wasn't really an issue since L didn't participate in the organization's decisions in a way that created a conflict.

Would be interested in hearing how others approached Q3

Lots of issues in the pr Q. Conflicts/ Loyalty. Confidentiality/reporting. Competency. Fee agreement w. Corp. objectives v. Means. Duty of candor. Advising client against violating law.

Did you think he had some duty to the public to have client amend false filings submitted or just to avoid not doing it in the future?

No. Maybe under ABA he MAY tell outside org. But in CA absolutely not. There was also a deceit issue with the lawyers behavior.

[SFSpartan]

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

I felt excellent about 6 and pretty good about 5.

If I didn't get a 65 on 5, it's because I spent too much time looking for reasons to invalidate the prenup (it really didn't help that in basically every Barbri question where there was a prenup, they argued it was invalid). That meant that my discussion of the other stuff was really ancillary, though I mostly just talked about tracing, with some fiduciary duty on the second condo.

6 seemed relatively straightforward. Lots of discussion on the ABA/CA distinction re: going outside the organization and urging reconsideration, and whether L needed to withdraw because of his antipathy towards the client's position (probably). Concluded the LSO thing wasn't really an issue since L didn't participate in the organization's decisions in a way that created a conflict.

Would be interested in hearing how others approached Q3

Lots of issues in the pr Q. Conflicts/ Loyalty. Confidentiality/reporting. Competency. Fee agreement w. Corp. objectives v. Means. Duty of candor. Advising client against violating law.

Right. I wasn't suggesting that the issues I explicitly talked about were the only issues, but they seemed to be the major ones. Personally, hit everything you mentioned except the fee agreement (and currently kicking myself for it).

[UncleStew]

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

I felt excellent about 6 and pretty good about 5.

If I didn't get a 65 on 5, it's because I spent too much time looking for reasons to invalidate the prenup (it really didn't help that in basically every Barbri question where there was a prenup, they argued it was invalid). That meant that my discussion of the other stuff was really ancillary, though I mostly just talked about tracing, with some fiduciary duty on the second condo.

6 seemed relatively straightforward. Lots of discussion on the ABA/CA distinction re: going outside the organization and urging reconsideration, and whether L needed to withdraw because of his antipathy towards the client's position (probably). Concluded the LSO thing wasn't really an issue since L didn't participate in the organization's decisions in a way that created a conflict.

Would be interested in hearing how others approached Q3

Lots of issues in the pr Q. Conflicts/ Loyalty. Confidentiality/reporting. Competency. Fee agreement w. Corp. objectives v. Means. Duty of candor. Advising client against violating law.

Right. I wasn't suggesting that the issues I explicitly talked about were the only issues, but they seemed to be the major ones. Personally, hit everything you mentioned except the fee agreement (and currently kicking myself for it).

Probably not in the grading. May be a bonus point.

[plurilingue]

Not a bonus point. These were all legit.

Add discussion of failure to write agreement and failure to delineate scope of representation (which would be relevant for a discussion of the duty to disclose if the lawyer's work product was used in making false filings.)

Also potential issue of attacking previous work product. I would consider this a bonus point to mention briefly.

[bnghle234]

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.

it doesn't matter how courts tend to analyze the issue of due process. the call of the question specifically asked about procedural due process, not substantive due process. if they wanted you to discuss both, the call of the question would have simply referred to due process, or maybe procedural and substantive due process. this question only asked about procedural due process.

[emptyflare]

What did you guys put for the premarital agreement with regard to validity? I relied on the lack of seven day waiting period (or indep counsel) but then kind of hedged for each property classification by also concluding with a "in case the prenup is enforceable..."

[runner1111]

What did you guys put for the premarital agreement with regard to validity? I relied on the lack of seven day waiting period (or indep counsel) but then kind of hedged for each property classification by also concluding with a "in case the prenup is enforceable..."

I hedged in the same way, but it was 100% invalid and unenforceable.

They didn't wait 7 days after drafting the agreement, they didn't properly waive independent counsel, they didn't disclose finances, and it may not have been fair at enforcement due to the wife's illness (maybe unable to support herself or whatever).

[Baller31]

I know what the call of question was. I didn't say that substantive due process would be successfully argued. If the substantive argument was raised it would obviously fail because there was no fundamental right and even if there was there was no property right since she was at-will. That is still answering the call of the question. They say to answer "lawyer-like." A lawyer would probably advise his client of all avenues. It's also the "Due Process" Clause of the 14th Amendment, so talking about the whole due process clause is not off base.

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.

it doesn't matter how courts tend to analyze the issue of due process. the call of the question specifically asked about procedural due process, not substantive due process. if they wanted you to discuss both, the call of the question would have simply referred to due process, or maybe procedural and substantive due process. this question only asked about procedural due process.

[EZ as AsDf]

There was no possible way that I could have discussed SDP and EP along with PDP... unless I cut out the outlining process.

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.

[UncleStew]

What did you guys put for the premarital agreement with regard to validity? I relied on the lack of seven day waiting period (or indep counsel) but then kind of hedged for each property classification by also concluding with a "in case the prenup is enforceable..."

But even if enforceable how did you deal with the verbiage. Was it intended to be separate property bc it failed to use the word separate.

[emptyflare]

What did you guys put for the premarital agreement with regard to validity? I relied on the lack of seven day waiting period (or indep counsel) but then kind of hedged for each property classification by also concluding with a "in case the prenup is enforceable..."

But even if enforceable how did you deal with the verbiage. Was it intended to be separate property bc it failed to use the word separate.

That's one argument.

My hedge was something like: courts adjudicating over marital dissolution have certain powers of equity. To prevent substantial injustice, a court could enforce the provisions of the premarital agreement against one of the spouses. Assuming a court looks to the premarital agreement, here ... [analyze the relevant property].

Hopefully that gets some points (could be waste of time, who knows).

[emptyflare]

What did you guys put for the premarital agreement with regard to validity? I relied on the lack of seven day waiting period (or indep counsel) but then kind of hedged for each property classification by also concluding with a "in case the prenup is enforceable..."

I hedged in the same way, but it was 100% invalid and unenforceable.

They didn't wait 7 days after drafting the agreement, they didn't properly waive independent counsel, they didn't disclose finances, and it may not have been fair at enforcement due to the wife's illness (maybe unable to support herself or whatever).

Good points re financial disclosure and wife's illness with regard to premarital agreement enforceability

[bnghle234]

What did you guys put for the premarital agreement with regard to validity? I relied on the lack of seven day waiting period (or indep counsel) but then kind of hedged for each property classification by also concluding with a "in case the prenup is enforceable..."

that's how i did it.

[SlowLearner]

Damn..
i said facts would support valid prenup since
no evid of undue influence,
took their time to discuss in advance
no evid of non disclosure,


I never mentioned 7 days ...was there any fact suggesting 7 days not met? I can't remember but was prenup and waiver signed at same time?

[SFSpartan]

Damn..
i said facts would support valid prenup since
no evid of undue influence,
took their time to discuss in advance
no evid of non disclosure,


I never mentioned 7 days ...was there any fact suggesting 7 days not met? I can't remember but was prenup and waiver signed at same time?

The facts said they signed it "sometime" before the wedding. I said that it was probably valid, but hedged that if it wasn't it was because of the 7 days.

[Interpretationc]

Damn..
i said facts would support valid prenup since
no evid of undue influence,
took their time to discuss in advance
no evid of non disclosure,


I never mentioned 7 days ...was there any fact suggesting 7 days not met? I can't remember but was prenup and waiver signed at same time?

Me too, I went through all possible defenses and said no facts show non disclosure, no facts show waiver is not knowingly and voluntarily and prenu does not require legal counsel unless one party has a legal counsel, and they discuss for weeks before signing it, so 7days requirement has been met....

Are there any reasonable points that I can get.... Really freaks me out right now, my whole essay relies on assumption of valid prenup...omg

[SFSpartan]

Damn..
i said facts would support valid prenup since
no evid of undue influence,
took their time to discuss in advance
no evid of non disclosure,


I never mentioned 7 days ...was there any fact suggesting 7 days not met? I can't remember but was prenup and waiver signed at same time?

Me too, I went through all possible defenses and said no facts show non disclosure, no facts show waiver is not knowingly and voluntarily and prenu does not require legal counsel unless one party has a legal counsel, and they discuss for weeks before signing it, so 7days requirement has been met....

Are there any reasonable points that I can get.... Really freaks me out right now, my whole essay relies on assumption of valid prenup...omg

The 7 day requirement can't be satisfied by their discussion. Each party must be presented with the written agreement and then given at least 7 calendar days to sign it. We weren't really given facts on this point, though I think you could argue it either way.

Edit: I would assume that you will still get points - it seems like the point of the essays is to analyze facts.

[2TimesTheCharm]

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

I felt excellent about 6 and pretty good about 5.

If I didn't get a 65 on 5, it's because I spent too much time looking for reasons to invalidate the prenup (it really didn't help that in basically every Barbri question where there was a prenup, they argued it was invalid). That meant that my discussion of the other stuff was really ancillary, though I mostly just talked about tracing, with some fiduciary duty on the second condo.

6 seemed relatively straightforward. Lots of discussion on the ABA/CA distinction re: going outside the organization and urging reconsideration, and whether L needed to withdraw because of his antipathy towards the client's position (probably). Concluded the LSO thing wasn't really an issue since L didn't participate in the organization's decisions in a way that created a conflict.

Would be interested in hearing how others approached Q3

Lots of issues in the pr Q. Conflicts/ Loyalty. Confidentiality/reporting. Competency. Fee agreement w. Corp. objectives v. Means. Duty of candor. Advising client against violating law.

Did you think he had some duty to the public to have client amend false filings submitted or just to avoid not doing it in the future?

No. Maybe under ABA he MAY tell outside org. But in CA absolutely not. There was also a deceit issue with the lawyers behavior.

I thought about saying that too, but I ended up arguing that not only can he tell the organization, but he should. The reason is that P retained him to represent the corporation, not P as an individual, so L's duties are to the corporation. L has no duty to P as an individual because there's not attorney client relationship. However he's still not allowed to tell the authorizes about P (who is an officer of the corp and whose actions may result in liability for the corp) without expressed consent from his client, the corp.

[2TimesTheCharm]

Damn..
i said facts would support valid prenup since
no evid of undue influence,
took their time to discuss in advance
no evid of non disclosure,


I never mentioned 7 days ...was there any fact suggesting 7 days not met? I can't remember but was prenup and waiver signed at same time?

I didn't mention the 7 days either because it didn't say anything about the waiting period. I said there is an argument that waiver of counsel is vague, but given date and signature and lack of dispute between parties regarding its validity, I thought it was valid. I think it could be argued either way based on how you came out on validity