California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[Kiwi917]

I forgot to try this during the mock exam - does anyone who has used ExamSoft before know what it does if you unplug or plug in a mouse or keyboard while the test is running? Will that sort of thing mess it up? My wireless keyboard sometimes randomly disconnects and reconnects itself, which I imagine could be a problem if the software blocks out programs like whatever background process recognizes that something new is plugged into the USB port.

Related question - any particular keyboard or mouse recommendations? Thinking about getting new wired ones just so I don't have to deal with the buggy wireless on my current set. I'm working on a small-ish laptop, so the gains on typing speed with a full-size keyboard are probably worthwhile.

I just ordered the "Macally Wired 3 Button Optical USB Mouse for Mac and PC," but it's not here yet so I don't know how good it is... it looks like Belkin has good reviews too. Also, don't forget your mouse pad needs to be a solid color. Had to buy a new one of those too! Was thinking about a wired keyboard, but decided to just use the keys on the laptop. I love my desktop Mac, and I'm not looking forward to using my new and unfamiliar PC laptop for the exam I'd use the PC I used in law school, but it feels like it's going to break any second... not taking any chances.

The gains with the external keyboard are really worthwhile. I seemed to frequently miss the space bar using a laptop. I am using a wireless mouse. Do we need a mouse pad? I wasn't going to use one, but I am not sure of the surface at the ontario test site for the laptops. Anybody know if we need a mouse pad?

Thanks for the advice, Fruits&Veggies!

Carryon - I have no idea about the Ontario site, but I think it's better to be safe and bring a mouse pad rather than get distracted if the surface ends up not working well with your mouse. I guess you could probably use the scratch paper as a mouse pad in a pinch.

[Lasers]

question about promoter liability. the rule is a promoter is personally liable for any acts on behalf of a corporation before incorporation. i know novation of contract would be an exception. however, does the corporation's adoption (express or implied) of the contract or its benefits relieve a promoter of personally liability?

i ask because i read an answer that stated a promoter can still be personally liable absent a subsequent novation, even if the corporation later adopted the contract.

Novation, where all parties agree to relieve the promoter of liability for pre-incorporation contracts, is the only avenue to relieve promoter's liability on the contract. Adoption makes the corporation also liable.

great, thanks.

[Mr. Pink]

question about promoter liability. the rule is a promoter is personally liable for any acts on behalf of a corporation before incorporation. i know novation of contract would be an exception. however, does the corporation's adoption (express or implied) of the contract or its benefits relieve a promoter of personally liability?

i ask because i read an answer that stated a promoter can still be personally liable absent a subsequent novation, even if the corporation later adopted the contract.

Novation, where all parties agree to relieve the promoter of liability for pre-incorporation contracts, is the only avenue to relieve promoter's liability on the contract. Adoption makes the corporation also liable.

great, thanks.

Promoter can also be indemnified after adoption right?

[Mr. Pink]

Sitting at the library studying today and remembered a nice exam tip...... take some Imodium.

[Anonnn]

I never trust the released answers. There is NO reason to believe everything in them is correct.
They are riddled with incorrect law.
That is the point.
You do not have to be perfect to pass.

Beware of the weaknesses in the released answers.

Just identify the issues, know the applicable law, and apply the limited/given facts, then state a conclusion consistent with that analysis.

Then do it again.

One issue at a time. DO NOT BLEND ISSUES and call it "Analysis" <---- deadly sin.

Short, concise, IRAC. Period.

If you are writing "on the other hand.... however... although X may counter and state..." UGH.... you are in deep !
DO NOT DO THIS.

Likely you are blending issues.
Just start another IRAC.

You can still deliver your brilliance, just tone it down and be CONCISE.

The truth takes very few words <---- LEARN THIS NOW

Your advice about "on the other hand" statements is really limited to applying different rules of law isn't it though? I feel like if the parties disagree about their characterization of the facts then its probably ok (and the Barbri videos + graders seem fine with it) to say "On the other hand, D is going to point out that P never complied with X requirement and therefore cannot prevail" so long as its within the same statement of law.

I hear you about blending issues though. It can be really tempting to launch into a defense while discussing P's claim without breaking it into a separate paragraph.

[pkt63]

Are you all still practicing essays and PTs or just drilling law and doing MBEs? I'm trying to force myself to issue spot essays and learn more about PTs, but having a hard time forcing myself to actually fully outline either of them. Also telling myself that drilling law and MBEs will help me be able to spit out the proper rule statements more efficiently on essays, so that should help. But, other than reading some of the PTs in the Barbri book, I'm not doing much on that front.

[ilovesf]

Are you all still practicing essays and PTs or just drilling law and doing MBEs? I'm trying to force myself to issue spot essays and learn more about PTs, but having a hard time forcing myself to actually fully outline either of them. Also telling myself that drilling law and MBEs will help me be able to spit out the proper rule statements more efficiently on essays, so that should help. But, other than reading some of the PTs in the Barbri book, I'm not doing much on that front.

I am *REALLY* behind on essays, so I am doing them. But I am only outlining and writing out the rules of laws and doing bullet points of major facts. Writing out the laws helps me remember them, too.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Are you all still practicing essays and PTs or just drilling law and doing MBEs? I'm trying to force myself to issue spot essays and learn more about PTs, but having a hard time forcing myself to actually fully outline either of them. Also telling myself that drilling law and MBEs will help me be able to spit out the proper rule statements more efficiently on essays, so that should help. But, other than reading some of the PTs in the Barbri book, I'm not doing much on that front.

I am *REALLY* behind on essays, so I am doing them. But I am only outlining and writing out the rules of laws and doing bullet points of major facts. Writing out the laws helps me remember them, too.

Same here. REALLY behind on essays so I'm issue spotting today and trying to memorize rules. Did a bunch of MBEs this morning but did a lot worse than I have in the past, which is worrisome. Felt pretty good that I'd pass the MBE with enough points to help out deficiencies in essays, but after this morning, I'm not so sure about that anymore. Haven't done anything for PTs other than read a bunch of them. Super stressed

[Lasers]

i'm just reading through the PT's too. not even outlining. not to say they are a walk in the park, but they are by far the easiest portion of the test.

i haven't done a single MBE question in almost a week. scary. i've been outlining essays and studying model answers. gonna spend the last week drilling MBE, memorizing law, and keeping a few practice essays to outline.

[Mr. Pink]

Are you all still practicing essays and PTs or just drilling law and doing MBEs? I'm trying to force myself to issue spot essays and learn more about PTs, but having a hard time forcing myself to actually fully outline either of them. Also telling myself that drilling law and MBEs will help me be able to spit out the proper rule statements more efficiently on essays, so that should help. But, other than reading some of the PTs in the Barbri book, I'm not doing much on that front.

I am trying to do an essay each day up until Sunday, just to see different questions and be in a groove going into Tuesday. Most of my studying from here on out will be MBEs and reviewing rule statements and notes. I'm not doing anymore PTs, because those are fairly easy as long as you can figure out the format they want (office memo, motion in support of SJ, closing arguments, etc).

[pkt63]

I keep checking this document as I'm doing MBEs to see how low my essays can be and still pass (bottom page 2): https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/BarP ... .23.08.pdf

Somehow, each time I look, it doesn't give me as much comfort as I hope it will.

[Carryon]

I just talked with the Bar admissions office in LA. They said that the Ontario center testing area will be open from 2-4 P.M. next Monday for us to take a look at the center and ask questions.

[Law-So-Hard]

Ugh PTs. I wrote two out for Barbri and outlined 2 more. I agree, they aren't as intensive as the other parts of the exam but for me I get really fatigued/bored because I find them really tedious to get through and I'm worried I haven't had as much practice on them as I'd like. I'd like to outline 2 more this week but somehow clogging up my brain on state of columbia law seems stupid. Although fun fact, I googled some of the facts from the Barbri practice test, about the wrongful death heli-skiing accident and it was a case out of BC Canada.

[Carryon]

Ugh PTs. I wrote two out for Barbri and outlined 2 more. I agree, they aren't as intensive as the other parts of the exam but for me I get really fatigued/bored because I find them really tedious to get through and I'm worried I haven't had as much practice on them as I'd like. I'd like to outline 2 more this week but somehow clogging up my brain on state of columbia law seems stupid. Although fun fact, I googled some of the facts from the Barbri practice test, about the wrongful death heli-skiing accident and it was a case out of BC Canada.

Some of the Pts actually help you study certain areas of the law. For example, the February 2013 ptb talk about the UCC rules for contract modifications, written confirmation etc. Nevertheless, it seems at this point, they may take too much time to study and maybe not worth the time, unless one needs to drastically improve their pt score.

[Law-So-Hard]

Ugh PTs. I wrote two out for Barbri and outlined 2 more. I agree, they aren't as intensive as the other parts of the exam but for me I get really fatigued/bored because I find them really tedious to get through and I'm worried I haven't had as much practice on them as I'd like. I'd like to outline 2 more this week but somehow clogging up my brain on state of columbia law seems stupid. Although fun fact, I googled some of the facts from the Barbri practice test, about the wrongful death heli-skiing accident and it was a case out of BC Canada.

Some of the Pts actually help you study certain areas of the law. For example, the February 2013 ptb talk about the UCC rules for contract modifications, written confirmation etc. Nevertheless, it seems at this point, they may take too much time to study and maybe not worth the time, unless one needs to drastically improve their pt score.

Any particularly tricky or good PTs you recommend I take a look at? And if anyone has been prepping with PTs please weigh in and help me spend my time more efficiently.

[Carryon]

Ugh PTs. I wrote two out for Barbri and outlined 2 more. I agree, they aren't as intensive as the other parts of the exam but for me I get really fatigued/bored because I find them really tedious to get through and I'm worried I haven't had as much practice on them as I'd like. I'd like to outline 2 more this week but somehow clogging up my brain on state of columbia law seems stupid. Although fun fact, I googled some of the facts from the Barbri practice test, about the wrongful death heli-skiing accident and it was a case out of BC Canada.

Some of the Pts actually help you study certain areas of the law. For example, the February 2013 ptb talk about the UCC rules for contract modifications, written confirmation etc. Nevertheless, it seems at this point, they may take too much time to study and maybe not worth the time, unless one needs to drastically improve their pt score.

Any particularly tricky or good PTs you recommend I take a look at? And if anyone has been prepping with PTs please weigh in and help me spend my time more efficiently.

February 2014 was pretty good, as it talked about hearsay and statements against interest, but then again they might not be testing on that since it was the last test. On the other hand, they talked about the Van Camp and Pereia tests both in July 2013 and February 2014 calbar exams. So yo never know.

[pkt63]

Ugh PTs. I wrote two out for Barbri and outlined 2 more. I agree, they aren't as intensive as the other parts of the exam but for me I get really fatigued/bored because I find them really tedious to get through and I'm worried I haven't had as much practice on them as I'd like. I'd like to outline 2 more this week but somehow clogging up my brain on state of columbia law seems stupid. Although fun fact, I googled some of the facts from the Barbri practice test, about the wrongful death heli-skiing accident and it was a case out of BC Canada.

Some of the Pts actually help you study certain areas of the law. For example, the February 2013 ptb talk about the UCC rules for contract modifications, written confirmation etc. Nevertheless, it seems at this point, they may take too much time to study and maybe not worth the time, unless one needs to drastically improve their pt score.

Any particularly tricky or good PTs you recommend I take a look at? And if anyone has been prepping with PTs please weigh in and help me spend my time more efficiently.

I don't have much, if any, exposure to the some of the things they sometimes ask for. Like an objective memo is obvious, and then the specific instructions make it clear how to structure it. but I've never done a memo of points and authorities, (the second most common thing they ask for, VERY likely to be the persuasive PT we get) and I'm really scared of getting a Closing Argument (I'm transactional!!). So I just wanted to have an idea of what these things look like generally, so I can conform to that even though they give you specific structuring directions on the actual PT.

Anyhow, long story short, I looked at Estate of Keefe (Feb 2002) last night, which is good if you don't have exposure to what a declaration or memo of points and authorities might look like. Really glad I looked at it.

[Law-So-Hard]

Ugh PTs. I wrote two out for Barbri and outlined 2 more. I agree, they aren't as intensive as the other parts of the exam but for me I get really fatigued/bored because I find them really tedious to get through and I'm worried I haven't had as much practice on them as I'd like. I'd like to outline 2 more this week but somehow clogging up my brain on state of columbia law seems stupid. Although fun fact, I googled some of the facts from the Barbri practice test, about the wrongful death heli-skiing accident and it was a case out of BC Canada.

Some of the Pts actually help you study certain areas of the law. For example, the February 2013 ptb talk about the UCC rules for contract modifications, written confirmation etc. Nevertheless, it seems at this point, they may take too much time to study and maybe not worth the time, unless one needs to drastically improve their pt score.

Any particularly tricky or good PTs you recommend I take a look at? And if anyone has been prepping with PTs please weigh in and help me spend my time more efficiently.

I don't have much, if any, exposure to the some of the things they sometimes ask for. Like an objective memo is obvious, and then the specific instructions make it clear how to structure it. but I've never done a memo of points and authorities, (the second most common thing they ask for, VERY likely to be the persuasive PT we get) and I'm really scared of getting a Closing Argument (I'm transactional!!). So I just wanted to have an idea of what these things look like generally, so I can conform to that even though they give you specific structuring directions on the actual PT.

Anyhow, long story short, I looked at Estate of Keefe (Feb 2002) last night, which is good if you don't have exposure to what a declaration or memo of points and authorities might look like. Really glad I looked at it.

Estate of Keefe has totally been on my list b/c I've never done a P+A memo either.
Darn I should look at a closing argument too. I have no idea what that would look like on the PT.

[pkt63]

Estate of Keefe has totally been on my list b/c I've never done a P+A memo either.
Darn I should look at a closing argument too. I have no idea what that would look like on the PT.

Re: the former I'm a bit worried, because you have to lay it out in a two column format. I already did my mock exam on exam soft, and I don't remember there being a way to do a two column layout and it seems a pain to do it by tabbing over and trying to keep things orderly. Then I remind myself that I don't have to worry about this and we'll all figure it out. but seriously, I don't like wondering about simple things like formatting taking up valuable time!

Re: the closing argument, I was just looking at some successful PTs on baressays.com and some people did it as if they were speaking it to the judge and some people did it as a memo back to the supervising atty without the preliminary "Thank you your honor, may it please the court" type stuff. And the few I looked at, the people that did it as a memo got the higher scores, even though the directions specifically said, "write it as if you were delivering it to the judge in court." So I guess that kind of thing doesn't really matter too much. Still I don't want mine to stick out like a sore thumb and not be in some standard format that everyone knows but me, because I didn't do moot court or whatever. So yeah, I'm spending like a half hour on it a couple times this week...

[071816]

How much room for BSing rule statements that you don't know is there on the CA bar?

[usctoucla]

Hoping someone can help me clear up imputed conflicts of interest:

BarBri's CMR is horrible on this point, and I'm trying to understand when screening is allowed. From what I thought, screening is a permissible way to get around ANY imputed conflict --> just screen the lawyer off, and the firm is good to go.

Some other notes I'm seeing say that screening is only permissible if the conflict is PERSONAL to the lawyer, or if the lawyer was a FORMER GOV'T employee (and he receives no part of the fee and the gov't is notified etc. etc.).

So what is the rule? If I'm at a firm, and my firm wants to take on a new client who is potentially adverse to either a current client of mine or a former client of mine, can't I just be screened off the matter and be all good?

Thanks in advance. United we stand.

[Law-So-Hard]

Hoping someone can help me clear up imputed conflicts of interest:

BarBri's CMR is horrible on this point, and I'm trying to understand when screening is allowed. From what I thought, screening is a permissible way to get around ANY imputed conflict --> just screen the lawyer off, and the firm is good to go.

Some other notes I'm seeing say that screening is only permissible if the conflict is PERSONAL to the lawyer, or if the lawyer was a FORMER GOV'T employee (and he receives no part of the fee and the gov't is notified etc. etc.).

So what is the rule? If I'm at a firm, and my firm wants to take on a new client who is potentially adverse to either a current client of mine or a former client of mine, can't I just be screened off the matter and be all good?

Thanks in advance. United we stand.

Screening is OK for purely personal matters not imputed to the firm. On the other hand if it's a really small firm and it's impossible to build a fully impermeable ethical wall because of inadvertent disclosure (overhearing conversations, seeing photocopies lying around) then screening is probably not OK. Don't forget to always get client's consent.

[Law-So-Hard]

Watched this today:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohqFI8hhVaU

It made me really nervous but it was also useful to just imagine how the exam day will be.

[Anonnn]

Hoping someone can help me clear up imputed conflicts of interest:

BarBri's CMR is horrible on this point, and I'm trying to understand when screening is allowed. From what I thought, screening is a permissible way to get around ANY imputed conflict --> just screen the lawyer off, and the firm is good to go.

Some other notes I'm seeing say that screening is only permissible if the conflict is PERSONAL to the lawyer, or if the lawyer was a FORMER GOV'T employee (and he receives no part of the fee and the gov't is notified etc. etc.).

So what is the rule? If I'm at a firm, and my firm wants to take on a new client who is potentially adverse to either a current client of mine or a former client of mine, can't I just be screened off the matter and be all good?

Thanks in advance. United we stand.

Screening is OK for purely personal matters not imputed to the firm. On the other hand if it's a really small firm and it's impossible to build a fully impermeable ethical wall because of inadvertent disclosure (overhearing conversations, seeing photocopies lying around) then screening is probably not OK. Don't forget to always get client's consent.

Building off this, pretty sure (close to 100% sure) you can NEVER screen someone off if they have a current client conflict. I'm looking at the lecture notes now. If you presently represent X and your firm wants to represent Y who is adverse to X presently in the same matter screening doesn't work here. For former client you can't do it if there's any overlap in function, scope or information and even if there's not then you need former client's consent (though again, pretty sure this is different if former client was client of an old law firm). Less sure about the former client one but pretty damn sure about the current client issue.

The TL;DR seems to be screening is really only for gov't lawyers and associates from other firms so that people don't get locked in whenever their firm represents SOME client.

[Law-So-Hard]

Argh just did Feb 2002 essay, the Barbri book has it under Ks but it was a remedies-heavy question and I didn't even spend that much time discussing the remedies and focused more on the contract itself.