California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[jarofsoup]

I have not memorized all the law yet. Got most the mbe topics down and half the state stuff but weak in community property, and remedies . CA civ pro have not even looked at. Am I fucked?

I studied 8 to 10 hours a day and feel completely useless.

[Law-So-Hard]

I have not memorized all the law yet. Got most the mbe topics down and half the state stuff but weak in community property, and remedies . CA civ pro have not even looked at. Am I fucked?

I studied 8 to 10 hours a day and feel completely useless.

Based on what friends who have taken the bar and passed tell me --- no, not fucked.

I feel the SAME WAY. Some topics I'm okay with, others not so much, MBE topics are okay except for the tricky parts of some of the subjects. It sucks to feel like you sit there and study for hours and hours and still not feel prepared. I'm really struggling to stay positive. This too shall pass and so shall we.

[FutureInLaw]

Wills help, please?

So, I get the concept of DRR, but I don't understand why it would fix a mistaken omission.

If there's a mistaken omission in will 2, which is substantially the same, but the second will is otherwise valid, why go back to will 1?

I get why DRR works in cases like interested witnesses or lack of witnesses, but mistaken omission just seems altogether different.

[LSATNightmares]

Wills help, please?

So, I get the concept of DRR, but I don't understand why it would fix a mistaken omission.

If there's a mistaken omission in will 2, which is substantially the same, but the second will is otherwise valid, why go back to will 1?

I get why DRR works in cases like interested witnesses or lack of witnesses, but mistaken omission just seems altogether different.

I'm not sure I fully understand the confusion, but the way I see it, the testator would have wanted Will 1 to take effect and not be revoked if the testator knew that there was a problem with Will 2 (assuming, of course, the wills are substantially similar). DDR is about having a mistaken belief and if it weren't for that mistaken belief you would not have revoked your prior will.

[rolen27]

For those who have taken the test at the Santa Clara convention center:

1. Was the room cold/hot? Should I bring an extra layer?

2. Are there any good (but not super heavy) lunch places nearby?

[FutureInLaw]

Wills help, please?

So, I get the concept of DRR, but I don't understand why it would fix a mistaken omission.

If there's a mistaken omission in will 2, which is substantially the same, but the second will is otherwise valid, why go back to will 1?

I get why DRR works in cases like interested witnesses or lack of witnesses, but mistaken omission just seems altogether different.

I'm not sure I fully understand the confusion, but the way I see it, the testator would have wanted Will 1 to take effect and not be revoked if the testator knew that there was a problem with Will 2 (assuming, of course, the wills are substantially similar). DDR is about having a mistaken belief and if it weren't for that mistaken belief you would not have revoked your prior will.

I guess my issue is I get why that would work if the second will is invalid. It makes sense to believe T would've wanted a will rather than no will.

I also get it when T tried to increase a gift but does so invalidly. You can see the intent in wanting to leave a gift to that person, so some gift is better than no gift.

I also get why DRR wouldn't work when T tried to decrease a gift but does so invalidly. We know T didn't want the higher amount, so the gift is just invalid rather than trying to fix it.

But I don't get why DRR would work with an omission. To me, the logic seems the same as the last example. The omission appears to show an intent to take someone out. I guess for DRR to work in this situation you would need some more extrinsic evidence that the omission was a mistake?

[LSATNightmares]

Wills help, please?

So, I get the concept of DRR, but I don't understand why it would fix a mistaken omission.

If there's a mistaken omission in will 2, which is substantially the same, but the second will is otherwise valid, why go back to will 1?

I get why DRR works in cases like interested witnesses or lack of witnesses, but mistaken omission just seems altogether different.

I'm not sure I fully understand the confusion, but the way I see it, the testator would have wanted Will 1 to take effect and not be revoked if the testator knew that there was a problem with Will 2 (assuming, of course, the wills are substantially similar). DDR is about having a mistaken belief and if it weren't for that mistaken belief you would not have revoked your prior will.

I guess my issue is I get why that would work if the second will is invalid. It makes sense to believe T would've wanted a will rather than no will.

I also get it when T tried to increase a gift but does so invalidly. You can see the intent in wanting to leave a gift to that person, so some gift is better than no gift.

I also get why DRR wouldn't work when T tried to decrease a gift but does so invalidly. We know T didn't want the higher amount, so the gift is just invalid rather than trying to fix it.

But I don't get why DRR would work with an omission. To me, the logic seems the same as the last example. The omission appears to show an intent to take someone out. I guess for DRR to work in this situation you would need some more extrinsic evidence that the omission was a mistake?

I see. If you're decreasing a gift, it shows you don't want the person to get the higher amount. If you have an omission, that can just be an oversight, like a clerical error. You're doing something affirmative by decreasing a gift, whereas an omission may simply be a careless oversight. It would be more like the decreasing example if you said "I disinherit that person." Maybe that helps?

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

For those who have taken the test at the Santa Clara convention center:

1. Was the room cold/hot? Should I bring an extra layer?

2. Are there any good (but not super heavy) lunch places nearby?

That's where I'm taking it too. I hear the hotel is nice, but the food is horrible and super expensive, so I'm definitely bringing my lunch. Not sure what's nearby...

[FutureInLaw]

Wills help, please?

So, I get the concept of DRR, but I don't understand why it would fix a mistaken omission.

If there's a mistaken omission in will 2, which is substantially the same, but the second will is otherwise valid, why go back to will 1?

I get why DRR works in cases like interested witnesses or lack of witnesses, but mistaken omission just seems altogether different.

I'm not sure I fully understand the confusion, but the way I see it, the testator would have wanted Will 1 to take effect and not be revoked if the testator knew that there was a problem with Will 2 (assuming, of course, the wills are substantially similar). DDR is about having a mistaken belief and if it weren't for that mistaken belief you would not have revoked your prior will.

I guess my issue is I get why that would work if the second will is invalid. It makes sense to believe T would've wanted a will rather than no will.

I also get it when T tried to increase a gift but does so invalidly. You can see the intent in wanting to leave a gift to that person, so some gift is better than no gift.

I also get why DRR wouldn't work when T tried to decrease a gift but does so invalidly. We know T didn't want the higher amount, so the gift is just invalid rather than trying to fix it.

But I don't get why DRR would work with an omission. To me, the logic seems the same as the last example. The omission appears to show an intent to take someone out. I guess for DRR to work in this situation you would need some more extrinsic evidence that the omission was a mistake?

I see. If you're decreasing a gift, it shows you don't want the person to get the higher amount. If you have an omission, that can just be an oversight, like a clerical error. You're doing something affirmative by decreasing a gift, whereas an omission may simply be a careless oversight. It would be more like the decreasing example if you said "I disinherit that person." Maybe that helps?

Yup. Thanks. I probably should've said I get it, but think it's stupid

[Charles Barkley]

Are hoodies allowed? I mean, obviously I wouldn't actually wear the hoodie part during the exam.

[Carryon]

Are hoodies allowed? I mean, obviously I wouldn't actually wear the hoodie part during the exam.

I think so. I was wondering if shorts are allowed. In Ontario testing center, the temperature outside is suppose to be close to 100 degrees. I hope their a/c works (as well as my hotel room's a/c)

[ilovesf]

Are hoodies allowed? I mean, obviously I wouldn't actually wear the hoodie part during the exam.

where are all of the weird rules about what we are allowed to wear, bring, etc?

nvm, i found it. i like that you can bring in pillows (WITHOUT A CASE!) for the essay portion, but not the mbe portion. so, who is bringing a pillow?

[dtl]

Are hoodies allowed? I mean, obviously I wouldn't actually wear the hoodie part during the exam.

Anyone know about gloves? I have basically fucked up my hand by typing 20 hours a day for the last three weeks and compression gloves help a lot.

I am still shell shocked after a rep told me they are very strict with the 17 inch laptop screen thing.

[ilovesf]

so we have to be seated by 820 - what time should we actually arrive?

[pkt63]

so we have to be seated by 820 - what time should we actually arrive?

I was wondering that, too. It seems like with so many people it could take a LONG time to just get in the door and get to your seat. I was thinking arrive by 7:30…?

ilovesf are you going to Oakland?

[dtl]

Also for Ontario people;

For what it is worth, I just talked to a friend who stayed at the Radisson last year who says the train woke him up 5-6 times during the night. Supposedly the tracks are right next to the back of the hotel. Might want to ask to be towards the front of the hotel.

Just something to consider, and thought I would share.

[ilovesf]

so we have to be seated by 820 - what time should we actually arrive?

I was wondering that, too. It seems like with so many people it could take a LONG time to just get in the door and get to your seat. I was thinking arrive by 7:30…?

ilovesf are you going to Oakland?

Yeah I'll be at Oakland. I'm staying at the hotel there so I am not worried about how long it will take, I just want to start waking up early now for test day. I guess if we arrive by 7:30, I'll wake up at like 6:15 or something.

[Carryon]

Are hoodies allowed? I mean, obviously I wouldn't actually wear the hoodie part during the exam.

Anyone know about gloves? I have basically fucked up my hand by typing 20 hours a day for the last three weeks and compression gloves help a lot.

I am still shell shocked after a rep told me they are very strict with the 17 inch laptop screen thing.

How is that measured? The specifications on my Toshiba laptop say it is 15.6 inches. So, I think that I am ok. Surprised that they would be so strict.

[Carryon]

Also for Ontario people;

For what it is worth, I just talked to a friend who stayed at the Radisson last year who says the train woke him up 5-6 times during the night. Supposedly the tracks are right next to the back of the hotel. Might want to ask to be towards the front of the hotel.

Just something to consider, and thought I would share.

I stayed at the Sheraton there in February and did not have any problem with noise. I wonder if you can actually change your rooms. Almost every hotel near the convention center is booked next week.

[pkt63]

so we have to be seated by 820 - what time should we actually arrive?

I was wondering that, too. It seems like with so many people it could take a LONG time to just get in the door and get to your seat. I was thinking arrive by 7:30…?

ilovesf are you going to Oakland?

Yeah I'll be at Oakland. I'm staying at the hotel there so I am not worried about how long it will take, I just want to start waking up early now for test day. I guess if we arrive by 7:30, I'll wake up at like 6:15 or something.

Have you been there before? Do you know what entrance we're supposed to line up at?

[ilovesf]

so we have to be seated by 820 - what time should we actually arrive?

I was wondering that, too. It seems like with so many people it could take a LONG time to just get in the door and get to your seat. I was thinking arrive by 7:30…?

ilovesf are you going to Oakland?

Yeah I'll be at Oakland. I'm staying at the hotel there so I am not worried about how long it will take, I just want to start waking up early now for test day. I guess if we arrive by 7:30, I'll wake up at like 6:15 or something.

Have you been there before? Do you know what entrance we're supposed to line up at?

i have never been there, and i have no idea at all. i guess there will be signs.

[yips]

so we have to be seated by 820 - what time should we actually arrive?

I'm taking it in Oakland as well. Planning to get there around 7:45 or so.

Have you been there before? Do you know what entrance we're supposed to line up at?

The convention center is huge (one double-wide city block across and a block long). I imagine that there will be signs everywhere. As long as you are somewhere on Broadway between 10th and 11th streets, you will surely see the swarming mass of examinees.

Are you the one who was asking for details about the convention center?

I've been a couple of times for various events: there's hella food nearby, including shops along Broadway and the side streets, as well as an enormous food court just north of the center itself (I think on Broadway between 11-12th streets?).

Temperature in there has always been pleasant, but I expect that with thousands of people it will either get really stuffy or they will overcompensate and blast the AC. Prepare for both, I guess?

Bathrooms are plentiful and easy to find (all of them are gendered, though, in case anyone else cares ).

There are a few drink vending machines (water, soda, energy drinks, coffee) and a food machine with decent looking snacks.

I have no idea about parking because I will be walking there every day. I assume you can look up garage info on the convention center's website, though. Alternatively, the 12th street BART is right there on 12th and Broadway, so if you're comfortable with the thought of a possible delay, BART's great-- very close by.

What else did you want to know?

[pkt63]

What else did you want to know?

I think you covered everything possible! Thanks!

[dtl]

How is that measured? The specifications on my Toshiba laptop say it is 15.6 inches. So, I think that I am ok. Surprised that they would be so strict.

Diagonally, which is what it will say on the box/manual etc. I honestly think I could have gotten away with mine being too big, but supposedly they actually enforce it if they notice.

[JJDancer]

Are hoodies allowed? I mean, obviously I wouldn't actually wear the hoodie part during the exam.

Anyone know about gloves? I have basically fucked up my hand by typing 20 hours a day for the last three weeks and compression gloves help a lot.

I am still shell shocked after a rep told me they are very strict with the 17 inch laptop screen thing.

I'm leaning towards the gloves being allowed since braces/wrist splints are allowed...but you can always call them