July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[bananasplit19]

Despite this hypertechnical argument, I hope the graders don't reward the test takers who screwed this up and lacked the basic judgment to answer according to the California rules. It's just common sense.

[rcharter1978]

There was no reason for anyone to apply the FRCP. Anyone who did made a strong argument to the bar examiners that they lack minimum competency. One could figure out within seconds that it was a California civil procedure question; I am shocked it is still being debated.

Also, the Removal question did not invoke diversity jurisdiction. Rather, it invoked alienage with regard to the claim against V. It is true that the amount in controversy requirement was not met, but for the suit against M, this was a secondary point. The correct answer there was that a federal court cannot hear that suit because it would be a suit between two parties of foreign citizenship. Answers that simply state that diversity jurisdiction wasn't appropriate because the amount in controversy requirement was not met do not demonstrate minimum competency.

My guess is that people who didn't apply California civil procedure also messed up the parts that applied the FRCP. So it goes.

Not sure your analysis is correct. Moreover you seem to confuse constitutional and statutory requirements. Recall you need both for jurisdiction. If you read 28 USC 1332 --the diversity statute (contrary to your belief, this suit falls under diversity jurisdiction), you will see the threshold requirement is the AIC not citizenship. The AIC acts as a gatekeeper. Here the issue is easily disposed of bc the suit was below the 75k threshold.

The suit against M should first be disposed of because a federal court isn't able to hear claims between two parties that don't have US citizenship. The first gatekeeper is that the court isn't able to hear this kind of claim, not the AIC

You're correct that alienage jurisdiction has the same statutory basis -- the title of which is actually "diversity jurisdiction" (I stand corrected) -- but I think it's an incomplete answer to dispose of both claims by citing AIC, especially when removal is improper if any defendant is a citizen of a state in which the plaintiff brought the action. One could independently dispose of both claims without mentioning the AIC, though I think it was worth a sentence or two at the end. All this is to say that there was quite a bit to discuss in this section – a lot more than just citing AIC and moving on.

Also, to the person who is arguing that there was ambiguity in the civil procedure question – there wasn't. The application of California rules is matter of procedure, not of law. Thus, there was no "California law" to be applied.

Edit: Actually, unlike the FRCP, the California rules are governed by statute, so one could make an argument that it is a matter of "California law."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor ... _Procedure

Despite this hypertechnical argument, I hope the graders don't reward the test takers who screwed this up and lacked the basic judgment to answer according to the California rules. It's just common sense.

Almost every other question where the test taker has had to apply CA law, the call of the question specifically mentions to apply CA law.

If people were able to apply the FRCP and come up with an answer, it means that it could have been interpreted either way in the absence of a direct instruction. If thats the case, than the testers should have made it more clear.

It will likely depend on how many people applied the FRCP.

In Feb, there was a CA Evidence question......I suppose you could have figured out that CA Evidence applied because all the torts were ones that would be brought up in state court. But the instructions were clear about applying CA Evidence, the examiners didn't expect the test takers to figure it out on their own.

And to the bolded....

[UncleStew]

There was no reason for anyone to apply the FRCP. Anyone who did made a strong argument to the bar examiners that they lack minimum competency. One could figure out within seconds that it was a California civil procedure question; I am shocked it is still being debated.

Also, the Removal question did not invoke diversity jurisdiction. Rather, it invoked alienage with regard to the claim against V. It is true that the amount in controversy requirement was not met, but for the suit against M, this was a secondary point. The correct answer there was that a federal court cannot hear that suit because it would be a suit between two parties of foreign citizenship. Answers that simply state that diversity jurisdiction wasn't appropriate because the amount in controversy requirement was not met do not demonstrate minimum competency.

My guess is that people who didn't apply California civil procedure also messed up the parts that applied the FRCP. So it goes.

Not sure your analysis is correct. Moreover you seem to confuse constitutional and statutory requirements. Recall you need both for jurisdiction. If you read 28 USC 1332 --the diversity statute (contrary to your belief, this suit falls under diversity jurisdiction), you will see the threshold requirement is the AIC not citizenship. The AIC acts as a gatekeeper. Here the issue is easily disposed of bc the suit was below the 75k threshold.

The suit against M should first be disposed of because a federal court isn't able to hear claims between two parties that don't have US citizenship. The first gatekeeper is that the court isn't able to hear this kind of claim, not the AIC

You're correct that alienage jurisdiction has the same statutory basis -- the title of which is actually "diversity jurisdiction" (I stand corrected) -- but I think it's an incomplete answer to dispose of both claims by citing AIC, especially when removal is improper if any defendant is a citizen of a state in which the plaintiff brought the action. One could independently dispose of both claims without mentioning the AIC, though I think it was worth a sentence or two at the end. All this is to say that there was quite a bit to discuss in this section – a lot more than just citing AIC and moving on.

Also, to the person who is arguing that there was ambiguity in the civil procedure question – there wasn't. The application of California rules is matter of procedure, not of law. Thus, there was no "California law" to be applied.

Edit: Actually, unlike the FRCP, the California rules are governed by statute, so one could make an argument that it is a matter of "California law."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor ... _Procedure

Despite this hypertechnical argument, I hope the graders don't reward the test takers who screwed this up and lacked the basic judgment to answer according to the California rules. It's just common sense.

Almost every other question where the test taker has had to apply CA law, the call of the question specifically mentions to apply CA law.

If people were able to apply the FRCP and come up with an answer, it means that it could have been interpreted either way in the absence of a direct instruction. If thats the case, than the testers should have made it more clear.

It will likely depend on how many people applied the FRCP.

In Feb, there was a CA Evidence question......I suppose you could have figured out that CA Evidence applied because all the torts were ones that would be brought up in state court. But the instructions were clear about applying CA Evidence, the examiners didn't expect the test takers to figure it out on their own.

And to the bolded....

how did you set up the analysis knowing the case was in superior court? "The action was filed superior court. Therefore the federal rules apply'"?? They aren't general principles or otherwise common law. So just seems like an odd set up.

[rpupkin]

If people were able to apply the FRCP and come up with an answer, it means that it could have been interpreted either way in the absence of a direct instruction.

This is pretty silly. I mean, I could apply the equal protection clause in evaluating a racial discrimination claim against a private employer. But just because I could apply it doesn't mean I should apply it.

I've beaten this horse to death, but I'll say it again: there's a difference between civil procedure and substantive law. The former is determined entirely by the court you're in. Aside from really subtle Erie doctrine problems (which I'm sure weren't tested on your exam), there's no ambiguity about which rules of civil procedure apply in state court versus federal court. If the hypo stated that you were in California superior court, you were supposed to apply California civil procedure.

[drews9]

There was no reason for anyone to apply the FRCP. Anyone who did made a strong argument to the bar examiners that they lack minimum competency. One could figure out within seconds that it was a California civil procedure question; I am shocked it is still being debated.

Also, the Removal question did not invoke diversity jurisdiction. Rather, it invoked alienage with regard to the claim against V. It is true that the amount in controversy requirement was not met, but for the suit against M, this was a secondary point. The correct answer there was that a federal court cannot hear that suit because it would be a suit between two parties of foreign citizenship. Answers that simply state that diversity jurisdiction wasn't appropriate because the amount in controversy requirement was not met do not demonstrate minimum competency.

My guess is that people who didn't apply California civil procedure also messed up the parts that applied the FRCP. So it goes.

Not sure your analysis is correct. Moreover you seem to confuse constitutional and statutory requirements. Recall you need both for jurisdiction. If you read 28 USC 1332 --the diversity statute (contrary to your belief, this suit falls under diversity jurisdiction), you will see the threshold requirement is the AIC not citizenship. The AIC acts as a gatekeeper. Here the issue is easily disposed of bc the suit was below the 75k threshold.

The suit against M should first be disposed of because a federal court isn't able to hear claims between two parties that don't have US citizenship. The first gatekeeper is that the court isn't able to hear this kind of claim, not the AIC

You're correct that alienage jurisdiction has the same statutory basis -- the title of which is actually "diversity jurisdiction" (I stand corrected) -- but I think it's an incomplete answer to dispose of both claims by citing AIC, especially when removal is improper if any defendant is a citizen of a state in which the plaintiff brought the action. One could independently dispose of both claims without mentioning the AIC, though I think it was worth a sentence or two at the end. All this is to say that there was quite a bit to discuss in this section – a lot more than just citing AIC and moving on.

Also, to the person who is arguing that there was ambiguity in the civil procedure question – there wasn't. The application of California rules is matter of procedure, not of law. Thus, there was no "California law" to be applied.

Edit: Actually, unlike the FRCP, the California rules are governed by statute, so one could make an argument that it is a matter of "California law."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor ... _Procedure

Despite this hypertechnical argument, I hope the graders don't reward the test takers who screwed this up and lacked the basic judgment to answer according to the California rules. It's just common sense.

Dude, what is this attitude? Just take a deep breath and chill.

Declaring who you think deserves to pass would be off-putting enough on its own, but on top of that, you've also confidently posted more than one incorrect statement while in the same breath insulting others for doing the same. Yeah, for what it's worth, I agree--it seemed plain enough that Superior Court in San Diego County applies the CCP and not the FRCP. (And why else would they bother telling you you're in California Superior Court?) But so what? No one's getting automatically failed because they flubbed a question on California venue (assuming they actually did), and no one's interested in whether you think they personally deserve to pass.

I'm sure there's some residual stress freaking people out, but really, the Bar examiners will do what they do. So in the meantime, just... chill. Despite popular belief, nothing about sharing your opinion on TLS or being a California attorney requires any one of us to be an arrogant jerk to strangers.

[rpupkin]

No one's getting automatically failed because they flubbed a question on California venue (assuming they actually did

This is definitely true. Look, if you applied the FRCP instead of the California rules, it just means you applied the wrong law. It seems like a bad mistake, but if you did a decent job of applying the FRCP to the facts, you'll get a 55/60 and you'll live to fight another day.

[rcharter1978]

If people were able to apply the FRCP and come up with an answer, it means that it could have been interpreted either way in the absence of a direct instruction.

This is pretty silly. I mean, I could apply the equal protection clause in evaluating a racial discrimination claim against a private employer. But just because I could apply it doesn't mean I should apply it.

I've beaten this horse to death, but I'll say it again: there's a difference between civil procedure and substantive law. The former is determined entirely by the court you're in. Aside from really subtle Erie doctrine problems (which I'm sure weren't tested on your exam), there's no ambiguity about which rules of civil procedure apply in state court versus federal court. If the hypo stated that you were in California superior court, you were supposed to apply California civil procedure.

Apples and oranges, IMO. There is no instruction to apply government cause of action unless otherwise told, but there is an instruction to apply general principles/federal principles unless told to specifically apply CA law. There is a history of telling applicants specifically when to apply CA only principles even when the test taker may have been expected to otherwise figure through a fact pattern to apply CA law.

Nor was my argument that people applied the FRCP correctly...just that if a test taker could read the question and in the absence of the instruction was able to apply the FRCP than the instructions should have been more clear. If I had a pure torts fact pattern, I almost literally could not apply contract principles no matter how much I wanted to. But in this situation it appears as though people were able to apply the FRCP to the fact pattern.

It especially becomes a point when it would have taken a simple statement saying to apply CA law to make it crystal clear and no one did that. Test takers are told pretty explicitly not to apply CA law unless otherwise told. All it would have taken is one sentence to get rid of any confusion.

I don't think that the bar examiners decision will rely on students knowing that they should not have applied federal rules because there is a different in civil procedure and substantive law. Others have made compelling arguments as to why your point of view is questionable on that matter. Because there is a question, or some level of confusion I think the question is going to be whether there is a reasonable basis for students applying the federal rules instead of the california rules. I think the strength of the instruction to apply federal guidelines/laws unless otherwise told, and the fact that in the past the instruction to apply CA law has been unequivocally and expressly stated will be factors. As will be the number of students who applied FRCP instead of the CA rules.

If only 3 people failed as a result of applying the FRCP instead of the CA rules it will be a non-issue. There may be a lot of people who applied the federal rules and end up passing because they do well enough on the rest of the exam. I think it only ever becomes an issue if there were a significant number of people that were on the fence due to that particular question.

TL;DR -- I think you may still get credit for applying the FRCP, and its one question out of 6.....8 if you include the PT's.

[2TimesTheCharm]

Despite this hypertechnical argument, I hope the graders don't reward the test takers who screwed this up and lacked the basic judgment to answer according to the California rules. It's just common sense.

Though I'm totally ready to take a 50 or 55 on that essay for using FRCP, it's a prick move to say this to people who also had to sit through a three-day bar exam and are just trying to justify their arguments. That said... weren't you the one who thought duty to disclose depended on the usage of attorney work product on the PR essay? If you expect the graders to be lenient on you for that essay, don't hope the opposite for others.

[UncleStew]

If people were able to apply the FRCP and come up with an answer, it means that it could have been interpreted either way in the absence of a direct instruction.

This is pretty silly. I mean, I could apply the equal protection clause in evaluating a racial discrimination claim against a private employer. But just because I could apply it doesn't mean I should apply it.

I've beaten this horse to death, but I'll say it again: there's a difference between civil procedure and substantive law. The former is determined entirely by the court you're in. Aside from really subtle Erie doctrine problems (which I'm sure weren't tested on your exam), there's no ambiguity about which rules of civil procedure apply in state court versus federal court. If the hypo stated that you were in California superior court, you were supposed to apply California civil procedure.

Apples and oranges, IMO. There is no instruction to apply government cause of action unless otherwise told, but there is an instruction to apply general principles/federal principles unless told to specifically apply CA law. There is a history of telling applicants specifically when to apply CA only principles even when the test taker may have been expected to otherwise figure through a fact pattern to apply CA law.

Nor was my argument that people applied the FRCP correctly...just that if a test taker could read the question and in the absence of the instruction was able to apply the FRCP than the instructions should have been more clear. If I had a pure torts fact pattern, I almost literally could not apply contract principles no matter how much I wanted to. But in this situation it appears as though people were able to apply the FRCP to the fact pattern.

It especially becomes a point when it would have taken a simple statement saying to apply CA law to make it crystal clear and no one did that. Test takers are told pretty explicitly not to apply CA law unless otherwise told. All it would have taken is one sentence to get rid of any confusion.

I don't think that the bar examiners decision will rely on students knowing that they should not have applied federal rules because there is a different in civil procedure and substantive law. Others have made compelling arguments as to why your point of view is questionable on that matter. Because there is a question, or some level of confusion I think the question is going to be whether there is a reasonable basis for students applying the federal rules instead of the california rules. I think the strength of the instruction to apply federal guidelines/laws unless otherwise told, and the fact that in the past the instruction to apply CA law has been unequivocally and expressly stated will be factors. As will be the number of students who applied FRCP instead of the CA rules.

If only 3 people failed as a result of applying the FRCP instead of the CA rules it will be a non-issue. There may be a lot of people who applied the federal rules and end up passing because they do well enough on the rest of the exam. I think it only ever becomes an issue if there were a significant number of people that were on the fence due to that particular question.

TL;DR -- I think you may still get credit for applying the FRCP, and its one question out of 6.....8 if you include the PT's.

fwiw looking back at old exam qs, the civil procedure questions never provide a choice of law statement at the end whereas the evidence questions do -- even when federal law is to be applied. So perhaps in keeping with that, they didn't state which law to apply. Unclear why there is this distinction

[LockBox]

Does anyone have a link to, or know the exact wording of, the instructions on the essay portion of the CBX?

[LurkerTurnedMember]

.

[plurilingue]

Despite this hypertechnical argument, I hope the graders don't reward the test takers who screwed this up and lacked the basic judgment to answer according to the California rules. It's just common sense.

Though I'm totally ready to take a 50 or 55 on that essay for using FRCP, it's a prick move to say this to people who also had to sit through a three-day bar exam and are just trying to justify their arguments. That said... weren't you the one who thought duty to disclose depended on the usage of attorney work product on the PR essay? If you expect the graders to be lenient on you for that essay, don't hope the opposite for others.

Yes, look up "noisy withdrawal" and the discussion under the ABA rules. This would not apply in California. It would also only apply to the potential future crimes in which L's work product may have been used. (This is unlikely but still possible based on the facts of the prompt.) Also, I don't expect leniency because I know I passed.

[plurilingue]

I'm sure there's some residual stress freaking people out, but really, the Bar examiners will do what they do. So in the meantime, just... chill. Despite popular belief, nothing about sharing your opinion on TLS or being a California attorney requires any one of us to be an arrogant jerk to strangers.

Could you comment on which actual rules of law/what analysis I have given that is erroneous?

Also, there is a world of difference between simply not knowing the rules, and later continuing to argue in favor of an illogical and unreasonable application of them despite all evidence to the contrary. I'm speechless that anyone could think there was any reason whatsoever to apply the FRCP to a California court.

If you were to randomly sample 100 Civil Procedure professors and ask them whether such an application demonstrates minimum competency, I think substantially all would say it does not.

[plurilingue]

And regarding diversity of citizenship up above, only a single US citizen is required for diversity jurisdiction. True, if a case involves one foreigner against another, there's no smj. But so long as there is one US citizen, complete diversity exists. For complete diversity you don't look at it claim by claim lol (you look at citizenship of all parties in the case), i.e. the amount in controversy would be the dispositive reason to not remove bc no smj even when complete diversity since foreigner vs US citizen and foreigner. I remember I got this wrong on a Barbri MBE question and this was their explanation.

Removal is improper in a federal court where any defendant is a citizen of the forum state if the basis is diversity. V was a citizen of the forum state, so removal was improper for that reason alone. But yes, diversity jurisdiction based on alienage existed in this fact pattern. However a full discussion of the analysis and rules to receive full credit was not short. I doubt the people who misapplied the FRCP for failure to understand that they didn't apply would have gotten most of these points even for the sections of the question where state rules didn't apply.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

.

[drews9]

I'm sure there's some residual stress freaking people out, but really, the Bar examiners will do what they do. So in the meantime, just... chill. Despite popular belief, nothing about sharing your opinion on TLS or being a California attorney requires any one of us to be an arrogant jerk to strangers.

Could you comment on which actual rules of law/what analysis I have given that is erroneous?

Also, there is a world of difference between simply not knowing the rules, and later continuing to argue in favor of an illogical and unreasonable application of them despite all evidence to the contrary. I'm speechless that anyone could think there was any reason whatsoever to apply the FRCP to a California court.

If you were to randomly sample 100 Civil Procedure professors and ask them whether such an application demonstrates minimum competency, I think substantially all would say it does not.

Ha, "speechless." If only... Go find yourself an outlet for your weird competitiveness, dude. The law doesn't need any more toxic people making everyone around them miserable for no reason.

[plurilingue]

And regarding diversity of citizenship up above, only a single US citizen is required for diversity jurisdiction. True, if a case involves one foreigner against another, there's no smj. But so long as there is one US citizen, complete diversity exists. For complete diversity you don't look at it claim by claim lol (you look at citizenship of all parties in the case), i.e. the amount in controversy would be the dispositive reason to not remove bc no smj even when complete diversity since foreigner vs US citizen and foreigner. I remember I got this wrong on a Barbri MBE question and this was their explanation.

Removal is improper in a federal court where any defendant is a citizen of the forum state. V was a citizen of the forum state, so removal was improper for that reason alone.

Wrong. A defendant who resides in a forum state cannot remove a case to federal court. But a defendant who does not, can. If multiple defendants, all defendants must consent to removal for it to be proper. So if one D lives in forum state, that D can't remove. But the other D can with the first D's consent.

The ONLY full stop to removal was amount in controversy. I hope you get 0 for thinking and writing otherwise, and for hoping others get 0 for applying FRCP.

It is correct that the forum-state defendant has to object to removal, but for this to apply, the non-forum defendant must have been validly joined. The claim against Meyer Corp. was improper since a federal court cannot hear it in the first place, so your analysis is irrelevant.

Point being, as you learned in law school, identify the parties first; the basis for jurisdiction second, and if diversity, the amount in controversy third. The answer to the removal jurisdiction question should have been disposed of first on the issue of the parties to the claim, not the AIC, which would have come last. AIC was a secondary basis for dismissing the claims. My point is that most people probably did dismiss on that basis, but most of the points for the analysis would have been elsewhere.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

.

[bnghle234]

man, i've already completely erased the bar from my brain. what was the amount in controversy in essay 1? was it not over 75k?

[LockBox]

man, i've already completely erased the bar from my brain. what was the amount in controversy in essay 1? was it not over 75k?

I believe the claim was only for $50k.

[Baller31]

I am not sure why amount in controversy was a big issue if the issue was being litigated first in California Superior Court. The AIC in CA court is any cases that exceeds $25,000-unlimited cases and less than $25,000 in limited cases. I did a bit of discussion on that. And then when I got to removal there was diversity however because one individual was an in state defendant the case could not be removed to federal court anyway. Removal would have failed for both reasons- in state defendant and the AIC. Since it couldn't be removed anyway didn't talk much about the AIC for the claim to be removed to federal court although that was another reason.

I expected people to be on their bar trips and forget about the exam already... What's written is written. There's no changing the answers now. And one of Barbri's lecturers said he missed equal protection and due process issues on one of his essays when he took the bar, and even applied the UCC to a sale of a house by a house builder when the real issue was negligence. He still passed. And Barbri also mentioned at one point that at the end of the day, the grading is holistic. So if you seem lawyer like (in organization, clear writing, nice analysis) despite misstated rules or even some issues, you get a passing 65. I've seen too many submitted motions and pleadings in court by practicing attorneys, some almost unintelligible, to think this has to be true.

And regarding diversity of citizenship up above, only a single US citizen is required for diversity jurisdiction. True, if a case involves one foreigner against another, there's no smj. But so long as there is one US citizen, complete diversity exists. For complete diversity you don't look at it claim by claim lol (you look at citizenship of all parties in the case), i.e. the amount in controversy would be the dispositive reason to not remove bc no smj even when complete diversity since foreigner vs US citizen and foreigner. I remember I got this wrong on a Barbri MBE question and this was their explanation.

[Baller31]

Also the fact that it was in California superior court I thought it was relevant that general demurer was discussed. Because under general demurer in CA, a claimant has to plead elements of their claim so it more than pleading with particularity, which is the requirement in federal court. The facts stated that the plaintiff just merely pleaded he was injured by the product. In CA this is not enough and thus I figured the complaint would fail, and since the claim is defective service of process is not valid. You need to have a valid complaint and summons.

[Neveragain]

I expected people to be on their bar trips and forget about the exam already... What's written is written. There's no changing the answers now. And one of Barbri's lecturers said he missed equal protection and due process issues on one of his essays when he took the bar, and even applied the UCC to a sale of a house by a house builder when the real issue was negligence. He still passed. And Barbri also mentioned at one point that at the end of the day, the grading is holistic. So if you seem lawyer like (in organization, clear writing, nice analysis) despite misstated rules or even some issues, you get a passing 65. I've seen too many submitted motions and pleadings in court by practicing attorneys, some almost unintelligible, to think this has to be true.

And regarding diversity of citizenship up above, only a single US citizen is required for diversity jurisdiction. True, if a case involves one foreigner against another, there's no smj. But so long as there is one US citizen, complete diversity exists. For complete diversity you don't look at it claim by claim lol (you look at citizenship of all parties in the case), i.e. the amount in controversy would be the dispositive reason to not remove bc no smj even when complete diversity since foreigner vs US citizen and foreigner. I remember I got this wrong on a Barbri MBE question and this was their explanation.

RE the removal call(#4) I believe it was P(citizen of Mexico) who filed to remove it to federal court. Call was something like, Can P remove the case to federal court? From what i remember the D's never filed any motions. I could be wrong and memory is fading tho.

[2TimesTheCharm]

Despite this hypertechnical argument, I hope the graders don't reward the test takers who screwed this up and lacked the basic judgment to answer according to the California rules. It's just common sense.

Though I'm totally ready to take a 50 or 55 on that essay for using FRCP, it's a prick move to say this to people who also had to sit through a three-day bar exam and are just trying to justify their arguments. That said... weren't you the one who thought duty to disclose depended on the usage of attorney work product on the PR essay? If you expect the graders to be lenient on you for that essay, don't hope the opposite for others.

Yes, look up "noisy withdrawal" and the discussion under the ABA rules. This would not apply in California. It would also only apply to the potential future crimes in which L's work product may have been used. (This is unlikely but still possible based on the facts of the prompt.) Also, I don't expect leniency because I know I passed.

You realize the disclosure issue tested there was "who's the client?", not "how to disclose information?" You can't withdraw from a client you never had, so your "noisy withdraw" is a nonissue. For you sake, I hope you did a better job with your first essay than your last.

[plurilingue]

You realize the disclosure issue tested there was "who's the client?", not "how to disclose information?" You can't withdraw from a client you never had, so your "noisy withdraw" is a nonissue. For you sake, I hope you did a better job with your first essay than your last.

You make zero sense.

ABC was an entity client of L. There were many ethical issues related to the engagement of L by ABC. In addition to the absence of discussion of fees and the absence of a written agreement, one part of this discussion should have related to the scope of the representation of ABC by L, which was left unclear by the facts. Later, the facts stated ABC's President, P, was planning on making further false statements to a state agency on a matter potentially related to L's representation of ABC. In addition to a lengthy discussion of the duty of confidentiality and what actions L is permitted to take in response to this information, a pertinent issue was the degree to which L's work product might be used by P in making further false statements with the state agency. This did not appear exceptionally likely, but nevertheless possible as the scope of representation was left ambiguous. The issue of "noisy withdrawal" would show up here. It's a sub-issue of an issue, and I'm sure 95%+ of test-takers didn't reach it. It was probably the seventh or eighth nuance that one could have found in this issue.

Based on your comments, you're referring to a discussion of L not actually representing Equal. This was an obvious point and explicitly stated in the facts.