Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Vantwins]

Any thoughts on this MBE Evidence PQ:

[+] Spoiler

A teller is on trial for the crime of obstructing justice during a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation. The teller is accused of intentionally hiding key financial documents after the investigation was announced. The government calls the bank’s attorney to testify that when the SEC announced its investigation, the teller asked him how to comply with the regulations, what financial documents needed to be released, and what the potential consequences would be for failing to provide the required documents. The bank’s attorney, unaware of the teller’s plans to conceal these documents, said that he would look into it and let the teller know the next day. The teller objects, claiming the attorney-client privilege. Should the court admit the bank attorney’s testimony?
ANo, because the attorney did not know that the teller had an illegal purpose.
BNo, because the teller is not in a position to control the bank’s corporate decisions.
CYes, because the attorney did not give the teller legal advice.
DYes, because the teller knew or should have known that he intended to commit a crime or fraud.
SUBMIT ANSWER

Sorry, that's not the best choice.

The answer you selected is not the best choice in this situation.

Answer choice D is correct. A confidential communication between a client and an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice or representation is privileged. However, the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications made to enable or aid in the commission of what the client knew or should have known was a crime or fraud.

The client is on trial, having pled not guilty to this crime, so how do we assume intent to commit a crime that she hasn't been convicted of?

[Nebby]

Any thoughts on this MBE Evidence PQ:

[+] Spoiler

A teller is on trial for the crime of obstructing justice during a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation. The teller is accused of intentionally hiding key financial documents after the investigation was announced. The government calls the bank’s attorney to testify that when the SEC announced its investigation, the teller asked him how to comply with the regulations, what financial documents needed to be released, and what the potential consequences would be for failing to provide the required documents. The bank’s attorney, unaware of the teller’s plans to conceal these documents, said that he would look into it and let the teller know the next day. The teller objects, claiming the attorney-client privilege. Should the court admit the bank attorney’s testimony?
ANo, because the attorney did not know that the teller had an illegal purpose.
BNo, because the teller is not in a position to control the bank’s corporate decisions.
CYes, because the attorney did not give the teller legal advice.
DYes, because the teller knew or should have known that he intended to commit a crime or fraud.
SUBMIT ANSWER

Sorry, that's not the best choice.

The answer you selected is not the best choice in this situation.

Answer choice D is correct. A confidential communication between a client and an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice or representation is privileged. However, the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications made to enable or aid in the commission of what the client knew or should have known was a crime or fraud.

The client is on trial, having pled not guilty to this crime, so how do we assume intent to commit a crime that she hasn't been convicted of?

You should assume that the teller acted with the intent to commit a crime because the fact pattern tells you that the teller asked the attorney with the intent to commit a crime. I bolded the relevant part. I do think, however, that they kinda hid the ball on this one and the answer they provided is worded weirdly.

[Vantwins]

Any thoughts on this MBE Evidence PQ:

[+] Spoiler

A teller is on trial for the crime of obstructing justice during a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation. The teller is accused of intentionally hiding key financial documents after the investigation was announced. The government calls the bank’s attorney to testify that when the SEC announced its investigation, the teller asked him how to comply with the regulations, what financial documents needed to be released, and what the potential consequences would be for failing to provide the required documents. The bank’s attorney, unaware of the teller’s plans to conceal these documents, said that he would look into it and let the teller know the next day. The teller objects, claiming the attorney-client privilege. Should the court admit the bank attorney’s testimony?
ANo, because the attorney did not know that the teller had an illegal purpose.
BNo, because the teller is not in a position to control the bank’s corporate decisions.
CYes, because the attorney did not give the teller legal advice.
DYes, because the teller knew or should have known that he intended to commit a crime or fraud.
SUBMIT ANSWER

Sorry, that's not the best choice.

The answer you selected is not the best choice in this situation.

Answer choice D is correct. A confidential communication between a client and an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice or representation is privileged. However, the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications made to enable or aid in the commission of what the client knew or should have known was a crime or fraud.

The client is on trial, having pled not guilty to this crime, so how do we assume intent to commit a crime that she hasn't been convicted of?

You should assume that the teller acted with the intent to commit a crime because the fact pattern tells you that the teller asked the attorney with the intent to commit a crime. I bolded the relevant part. I do think, however, that they kinda hid the ball on this one and the answer they provided is worded weirdly.

Thanks, I do tend to overthink things, which doesn't work well on MC questions!

[Nebby]

Any thoughts on this MBE Evidence PQ:

[+] Spoiler

A teller is on trial for the crime of obstructing justice during a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation. The teller is accused of intentionally hiding key financial documents after the investigation was announced. The government calls the bank’s attorney to testify that when the SEC announced its investigation, the teller asked him how to comply with the regulations, what financial documents needed to be released, and what the potential consequences would be for failing to provide the required documents. The bank’s attorney, unaware of the teller’s plans to conceal these documents, said that he would look into it and let the teller know the next day. The teller objects, claiming the attorney-client privilege. Should the court admit the bank attorney’s testimony?
ANo, because the attorney did not know that the teller had an illegal purpose.
BNo, because the teller is not in a position to control the bank’s corporate decisions.
CYes, because the attorney did not give the teller legal advice.
DYes, because the teller knew or should have known that he intended to commit a crime or fraud.
SUBMIT ANSWER

Sorry, that's not the best choice.

The answer you selected is not the best choice in this situation.

Answer choice D is correct. A confidential communication between a client and an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice or representation is privileged. However, the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications made to enable or aid in the commission of what the client knew or should have known was a crime or fraud.

The client is on trial, having pled not guilty to this crime, so how do we assume intent to commit a crime that she hasn't been convicted of?

You should assume that the teller acted with the intent to commit a crime because the fact pattern tells you that the teller asked the attorney with the intent to commit a crime. I bolded the relevant part. I do think, however, that they kinda hid the ball on this one and the answer they provided is worded weirdly.

Thanks, I do tend to overthink things, which doesn't work well on MC questions!

I think we all do. Some of the questions are in a factual context where our brains automatically view it through a variety of lenses out of legal training instinct, but then we end up missing what is right in front of us. I have to turn off the critical thinking part of my brain in order to answer these questions correctly

[Fivedham]

Do the cards have a "quiz" feature? In other words, can you be tested by the software itself or are you solely self-assessing?

Yeah, but it's basically self-assessing in that it just shuffles the deck according to what topics you specify (or you can do cards in order), and you just get a prompt and you can turn the car back and forth. It's not like you type in an answer, it's just like you have real cards.

Also, re. that evidence question on the bank teller,

[+] Spoiler

I agree that the wording was specifically shifty. The way it's worded is designed to get you to think the teller is the one who had a duty to know or should have known the illegal purpose, but the correct answer is that the defendant is the one who has to have the illegal purpose.

Doctor-Patient privilege question. In the crim pro lectures by Pam Karlan, she says at one point that doctor patient privilege would apply in a situation where a patient told a doctor, "I'm having trouble sleeping because I just robbed a bank." or something to that effect. Karlan says the privilege would apply. But that's not what Schott seems to say in his lecture on doctor-patient privilege. I thought that tacked-on illegality statements like that, said by a patient to a doctor during treatment, were admissible despite the privilege. Anyone else notice this?

[unidentifiable]

This Agency guy -- Birdthistle.

He's not bad, he's fast.. but all I can think about is how Dwight Schrute-y he looks.

[ndp1234]

Do the cards have a "quiz" feature? In other words, can you be tested by the software itself or are you solely self-assessing?

Yeah, but it's basically self-assessing in that it just shuffles the deck according to what topics you specify (or you can do cards in order), and you just get a prompt and you can turn the car back and forth. It's not like you type in an answer, it's just like you have real cards.

Also, re. that evidence question on the bank teller,

[+] Spoiler

I agree that the wording was specifically shifty. The way it's worded is designed to get you to think the teller is the one who had a duty to know or should have known the illegal purpose, but the correct answer is that the defendant is the one who has to have the illegal purpose.

Doctor-Patient privilege question. In the crim pro lectures by Pam Karlan, she says at one point that doctor patient privilege would apply in a situation where a patient told a doctor, "I'm having trouble sleeping because I just robbed a bank." or something to that effect. Karlan says the privilege would apply. But that's not what Schott seems to say in his lecture on doctor-patient privilege. I thought that tacked-on illegality statements like that, said by a patient to a doctor during treatment, were admissible despite the privilege. Anyone else notice this?

I think the difference is where the statement of illegality was disclosed for purposes of medical treatment (robbing a bank is related to the symptom of not being able to sleep). Differ the statement you quoted above from "I sprained my ankle, and I need treatment before I go kill John" Here, the ankle injury pain is privileged, but the part about killing John is not privileged.

Hope this helps!

[ndp1234]

Apparently for the Civ Pro essay questions, there's a lot of stuff that we didn't learn in the lectures! Time to make sure I skim that long af Civ Pro outline!

[ultimolugar]

This Agency guy -- Birdthistle.

He's not bad, he's fast.. but all I can think about is how Dwight Schrute-y he looks.

Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galatica.

[a_bowler_hat]

if i never have to watch another repetitive essay writing workshop again, i will be so happy.

[ndp1234]

Confusion about the evidence practice essay about the 911 call:

[+] Spoiler

Sample answer brings up the medical treatment exception: "In addition, a statement describing past or present symptoms is not hearsay if it is made for medical diagnosis or treatment. A statement of the cause or source of the condition is admissible if it is reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The statement need not be made to a physician and nor be made by the patient. Here, the caller told the dispatcher that her sister had been injured by a broken bottle and was bleeding. These statements could fall under the medical treatment exception to hearsay if the court determines that the caller was trying to seek medical help."

Huh? How is this even applicable? The caller was definitely not calling for medical treatment, it was the dispatcher who asked if the sister was injured. Are we supposed to bring this up every time there's an injury mentioned?

[not guilty]

if i never have to watch another repetitive essay writing workshop again, i will be so happy.

some of these lectures have been brutal.

[not guilty]

Also, I just signed up for Adaptibar. We'll see how that goes.

I have a code that will get you $50 off, so quote me if you need it.

[xdeuceswild81xx]

In line w/the rest of the thread re: Evidence MBE PQ set 3. Scored 82% and 88% respectively on 1 and 2, then a whopping 55% on PQ set 3 lol. I noticed a lot of the questions were moderate--->hard difficulty on the spectrum, so that makes sense. Themis crushing emotional spirits yo

[Vantwins]

In line w/the rest of the thread re: Evidence MBE PQ set 3. Scored 82% and 88% respectively on 1 and 2, then a whopping 55% on PQ set 3 lol. I noticed a lot of the questions were moderate--->hard difficulty on the spectrum, so that makes sense. Themis crushing emotional spirits yo

I got the first 10 in a row correct and then things went downhill! 68%, but I'll need better than that to make up for how badly I do on property questions.

[NaeDeen]

Wonderful lesson I just learned: I am doing torts MQs and I came across a repeat question, or so I thought. There was one sentence that I missed and it created an entirely different outcome. So that was a dumb mistake! So now I'll definitely make sure not to get all happy when I see what I think is a repeat question.

[NaeDeen]

Also, I've been spending way too much time creating an outline (my last one for torts took me all of Sunday) so I went ahead and purchased Magicsheets from Makethisyourlasttime.com--apparently it eliminates the need for me to create my own. I'll still create flashcards of rules that I miss on the MQs but at least that one less thing that I have to do. Does anyone here have any familiarity with them? I know Adaptibar and Critical Pass is highly regarded but I don't have that kind of money just yet

[Easy-E]

Wonderful lesson I just learned: I am doing torts MQs and I came across a repeat question, or so I thought. There was one sentence that I missed and it created an entirely different outcome. So that was a dumb mistake! So now I'll definitely make sure not to get all happy when I see what I think is a repeat question.

I'm fairly sure I did get a repeat once, but yeah, there are a few PQs with similar fact patterns.

[Easy-E]

Can someone help with this crim assessment question?

For purposes of common-law murder, which of the following is NOT considered malice aforethought?

A Intent to inflict bodily injury

B Abandoned and malignant (depraved) heart

C Intent to kill

D Felony murder during the commission of a BARRK felony

So, I guessed A, which was correct, but I'm a little confused.. How do you distinguish between "intent to inflict bodily injury" and "intent to inflict serious bodily harm"? It's not as if the lecture defined a standard for "serious bodily harm/injury".

[Nebby]

Can someone help with this crim assessment question?

For purposes of common-law murder, which of the following is NOT considered malice aforethought?

A Intent to inflict bodily injury

B Abandoned and malignant (depraved) heart

C Intent to kill

D Felony murder during the commission of a BARRK felony

So, I guessed A, which was correct, but I'm a little confused.. How do you distinguish between "intent to inflict bodily injury" and "intent to inflict serious bodily harm"? It's not as if the lecture defined a standard for "serious bodily harm/injury".

I don't think there's anyway to help. I think you just have to assume if it just says" bodily harm" then it's not serious

[Easy-E]

Can someone help with this crim assessment question?

For purposes of common-law murder, which of the following is NOT considered malice aforethought?

A Intent to inflict bodily injury

B Abandoned and malignant (depraved) heart

C Intent to kill

D Felony murder during the commission of a BARRK felony

So, I guessed A, which was correct, but I'm a little confused.. How do you distinguish between "intent to inflict bodily injury" and "intent to inflict serious bodily harm"? It's not as if the lecture defined a standard for "serious bodily harm/injury".

I don't think there's anyway to help. I think you just have to assume if it just says" bodily harm" then it's not serious

I guess so?

Here's a crim PQ that is annoying me. From the first set, related to green potatoes:

[+] Spoiler

Guy runs a soup kitchen, gets a ton of potatoes which he notices are green. Chef tells him they are "unsafe and potentially toxic, especially when fed to children". Manager brushes it off and says they are just ripe. Chef refuses to cook with them. Manager does it anyway, kids get sick and die. Potatoes are the cause.

Apparently this doesn't rise to "abandoned and malignant heart", which calls for "a cavalier disregard for human life", where "defendant must realize his conduct is really risky". So just because the manager is a dipshit and doesn't take his chefs advice + refusal to cook seriously, he's just "grossly negligent"? I understand why the answer comes out that way, just bothers me I guess.

[NaeDeen]

I've asked this question already (late last night), but does anyone have any opinion about Magicsheets from Makethisyourlasttime.com?

[Chardee_MacDennis]

What % correct for MBE Qs are we expected to be at by the end of studying?

[ndp1234]

What % correct for MBE Qs are we expected to be at by the end of studying?

I think if we hit 65% for each subject (give or take for stronger and weaker subjects that balance each other out) we should be good on the MBE to get the median score of 130. Obviously, you should shoot for more, but I think that's the minimum.

[Fivedham]

What % correct for MBE Qs are we expected to be at by the end of studying?

I think if we hit 65% for each subject (give or take for stronger and weaker subjects that balance each other out) we should be good on the MBE to get the median score of 130. Obviously, you should shoot for more, but I think that's the minimum.

Lisa McElroy says that it's fine to score lower than that in some subjects, as long as you're making up ground in others. So if you're hitting 55% in Contracts/Property/CivPro, you're okay so long as you're compensating with 70+ in Evidence/ConLaw/Crim.

Still, my stress levels will decrease significantly once I start regularly hitting 65% in everything, including my weak topics.