2019 July California Bar Forum

[Happy88]

How did it go with folks? Was it easier with the "leak" or just the same? Or people ran out of time due to prior knowledge of what to write?
I think it is a no-win situation for many.

After all the speculation, what was the Remedies/Con Law question? Curious minds want to know.

TRO, PI and Declaratory relief.
Also, contracts had remedies, no surprise though.

[Propertygirl84]

What were the sub-issues tested on the CA essays?

[GARYGW]

How did it go with folks? Was it easier with the "leak" or just the same? Or people ran out of time due to prior knowledge of what to write?
I think it is a no-win situation for many.

OMG absolutely not time to write complete time suck and so many errors in memo set me back by so much pretty much failed because I didn't finish the PT. I hate Cali.

[Animal_Activist]

How did it go with folks? Was it easier with the "leak" or just the same? Or people ran out of time due to prior knowledge of what to write?
I think it is a no-win situation for many.

After all the speculation, what was the Remedies/Con Law question? Curious minds want to know.

TRO, PI and Declaratory relief.
Also, contracts had remedies, no surprise though.

I'm curious as to how to even set up that remedies essay. Some people brought up all equitable defenses but I just couldn't see them as actual issues. Like misrepresentation or mistake. I just couldn't see those defenses as even relevant.

[CEReds]

I know with Themis they made it a point to spot out the equitable defenses even if only to define that you know what laches and unclean hands are. However, it’s not relevant to the fact pattern at all. So I do hope that you tuned out the noise, I tried to avoid those discussions as much as possible

How did it go with folks? Was it easier with the "leak" or just the same? Or people ran out of time due to prior knowledge of what to write?
I think it is a no-win situation for many.

After all the speculation, what was the Remedies/Con Law question? Curious minds want to know.

TRO, PI and Declaratory relief.
Also, contracts had remedies, no surprise though.

I'm curious as to how to even set up that remedies essay. Some people brought up all equitable defenses but I just couldn't see them as actual issues. Like misrepresentation or mistake. I just couldn't see those defenses as even relevant.

[Ciedam08]

How did it go with folks? Was it easier with the "leak" or just the same? Or people ran out of time due to prior knowledge of what to write?
I think it is a no-win situation for many.

OMG absolutely not time to write complete time suck and so many errors in memo set me back by so much pretty much failed because I didn't finish the PT. I hate Cali.

I had a really hard time with completing essays too. Just so much to talk about and it was freezing and my hands were cramping

[Happy88]

MBE morning session = no bueno.

[rcharter1978]

How did it go with folks? Was it easier with the "leak" or just the same? Or people ran out of time due to prior knowledge of what to write?
I think it is a no-win situation for many.

OMG absolutely not time to write complete time suck and so many errors in memo set me back by so much pretty much failed because I didn't finish the PT. I hate Cali.

I had a really hard time with completing essays too. Just so much to talk about and it was freezing and my hands were cramping

You can miss 35 points on an essay and pass that essay. You probably did better than you think.

[rcharter1978]

MBE morning session = no bueno.

You can miss a lot of questions and still pass, you're probably fine too. When I got to the end I was running out of time so I bubbled in "b" for like the last 10 questions just to have an answer bubbled in and went back and read and put in the actual answer for like 2-3 of them. I passed, and you will probably be fine.

[JDJM6215]

I withdrew Monday night. I thought I posted that here, but I didn't see the post today after returning home from Oakland to take the test.

I took the exam in February and after the second read failed by 53 points. I took the exam last July and after the second read failed by 33 points. I feel I'm close, but I didn't feel I had enough to pass, even with the released subjects as being remotely to my advantage. For those who had an advantage from the released subjects, I wish you all the best and will hope you NEVER KNOW YOUR SCORE in NOVEMBER.

I just know I'm going to try my best to pass it in Feb. by knowing more than I know today, which isn't much.

Receiving the 100% refund made sense, I have 208 days to study for February and potentially score enough on all subjects tested on that exam administration, so, I hope they do not change the rules before February.

[Happy88]

So here's my opinion of the exam:

Essays: They were fair and issues were similar to issues in past questions, no surprises there. Although, whether the topics were released or not, 48 notice of such hefty subjects won't do you any good if you aren't already good at them. If you were, the only advantage you got is memorizing your attack sheet very well and could potentially score more time.

PR: Didn't find a lot of issues to be discussed, did anyone encounter that?

PT: Not trying to brag, but it was without a doubt the shortest, easiest PT I have ever encountered. No complications and pretty much straight forward.

MBE: My morning session was a lot tougher than the afternoon. But even the afternoon one was not that much of a breeze. I solely relied on AdaptiBar and the questions on the exam were nothing like that. Some were very tricky and I did bubble a lot of D as an answer choice in a row which gave me anxiety.

Hopeful I never know my score on Nov 15. Good luck and congrats everyone!

[CEReds]

Seriously what was that morning session MBE??? I was freaking out completely rocked my confidence.

As for the PR essays there wasn’t anything sexy to spot, Civ Proc was a complete curveball with solo discovery and the PT wasn’t too bad; actually the only one I’ve ever fully finished.

Just hoping that we all pass. Rooting for you guys

So here's my opinion of the exam:

Essays: They were fair and issues were similar to issues in past questions, no surprises there. Although, whether the topics were released or not, 48 notice of such hefty subjects won't do you any good if you aren't already good at them. If you were, the only advantage you got is memorizing your attack sheet very well and could potentially score more time.

PR: Didn't find a lot of issues to be discussed, did anyone encounter that?

PT: Not trying to brag, but it was without a doubt the shortest, easiest PT I have ever encountered. No complications and pretty much straight forward.

MBE: My morning session was a lot tougher than the afternoon. But even the afternoon one was not that much of a breeze. I solely relied on AdaptiBar and the questions on the exam were nothing like that. Some were very tricky and I did bubble a lot of D as an answer choice in a row which gave me anxiety.

Hopeful I never know my score on Nov 15. Good luck and congrats everyone!

[Crtxlaw]

I just want to say I’m proud of all of us for making it through that effing exam. Those essays (looking at you civ pro, PR, and contracts) were...unique, but we did it!

[pjmika]

I think I may have really fucked up on the MPT
I got confused about which evidence testimonies we were supposed to be discussing... Was it the 3 testimonies (in that first fact memo) or was it the 3 specific incidents (discussed in the pretrial hearin)g. I started off talking about the first 3, then realized it was probably about the second 3 and barely had time to rewrite.
Can someone please verify this for my sanity?

[Happy88]

I think I may have really fucked up on the MPT
I got confused about which evidence testimonies we were supposed to be discussing... Was it the 3 testimonies (in that first fact memo) or was it the 3 specific incidents (discussed in the pretrial hearin)g. I started off talking about the first 3, then realized it was probably about the second 3 and barely had time to rewrite.
Can someone please verify this for my sanity?

I based my analysis off the three incidents that were in the transcript as the partner told the associate he wants to use those for evidence/impeachment. I also concluded that those could potentially be the incidents given the transcript was not completed as the judge was “done for the day”

[pjmika]

I think I may have really fucked up on the MPT
I got confused about which evidence testimonies we were supposed to be discussing... Was it the 3 testimonies (in that first fact memo) or was it the 3 specific incidents (discussed in the pretrial hearin)g. I started off talking about the first 3, then realized it was probably about the second 3 and barely had time to rewrite.
Can someone please verify this for my sanity?

I based my analysis off the three incidents that were in the transcript as the partner told the associate he wants to use those for evidence/impeachment. I also concluded that those could potentially be the incidents given the transcript was not completed as the judge was “done for the day”

Ok thanks
I didn't have much time left when i got to the MPT, so I jumped the gun on writing after reading just the first memo & law files. big mistake

[bunnyboo]

I think I may have really fucked up on the MPT
I got confused about which evidence testimonies we were supposed to be discussing... Was it the 3 testimonies (in that first fact memo) or was it the 3 specific incidents (discussed in the pretrial hearin)g. I started off talking about the first 3, then realized it was probably about the second 3 and barely had time to rewrite.
Can someone please verify this for my sanity?

I based my analysis off the three incidents that were in the transcript as the partner told the associate he wants to use those for evidence/impeachment. I also concluded that those could potentially be the incidents given the transcript was not completed as the judge was “done for the day”

I based my analysis off the three incidents in the pre-trial hearing (traffic stop, intoxication, & conversation with Martinez). I included the 3 testimonies in the first fact memo into the analysis supporting whether attorney could admit the evidence for impeachment or substantive. I was also confused as to which testimonies were were supposed to discuss.

[bunnyboo]

I think I may have really fucked up on the MPT
I got confused about which evidence testimonies we were supposed to be discussing... Was it the 3 testimonies (in that first fact memo) or was it the 3 specific incidents (discussed in the pretrial hearin)g. I started off talking about the first 3, then realized it was probably about the second 3 and barely had time to rewrite.
Can someone please verify this for my sanity?

I based my analysis off the three incidents in the pre-trial hearing (traffic stop, intoxication, & conversation with Martinez). I included the 3 testimonies in the first fact memo into the analysis supporting whether attorney could admit the evidence for impeachment or substantive. I was also confused as to which testimonies were were supposed to discuss.

[Animal_Activist]

My biggest fear is having a harsh grader take off more than 35 points because I'm missing something small or simply for not having a detailed analysis. It would be interesting to see what a complete outline of all issues in each essay looks like just as something to compare what we wrote to.

[rcharter1978]

My biggest fear is having a harsh grader take off more than 35 points because I'm missing something small or simply for not having a detailed analysis. It would be interesting to see what a complete outline of all issues in each essay looks like just as something to compare what we wrote to.

A harsh grader is always a risk, there are a lot of variables. But they don't have a lot of time to grade each essay so I think that might be a good thing if you have nice headings and your essay looks good and tidy. I think it's half the battle, because ..first impressions....

IIRC from my tutor major issues were like 15 points.but then of course if you missed a giant issue you missed the little issues.

[CEReds]

For what it’s worth, I don’t think knowing the topics was any much of an advantage, with the exception of realizing that a ConLaw/Remedies essay will have required a TRO/PI discussion.

I wish you all the best in your pursuit; you’re literally almost at the mark. Hang strong

I withdrew Monday night. I thought I posted that here, but I didn't see the post today after returning home from Oakland to take the test.

I took the exam in February and after the second read failed by 53 points. I took the exam last July and after the second read failed by 33 points. I feel I'm close, but I didn't feel I had enough to pass, even with the released subjects as being remotely to my advantage. For those who had an advantage from the released subjects, I wish you all the best and will hope you NEVER KNOW YOUR SCORE in NOVEMBER.

I just know I'm going to try my best to pass it in Feb. by knowing more than I know today, which isn't much.

Receiving the 100% refund made sense, I have 208 days to study for February and potentially score enough on all subjects tested on that exam administration, so, I hope they do not change the rules before February.

[Ciedam08]

I think I may have really fucked up on the MPT
I got confused about which evidence testimonies we were supposed to be discussing... Was it the 3 testimonies (in that first fact memo) or was it the 3 specific incidents (discussed in the pretrial hearin)g. I started off talking about the first 3, then realized it was probably about the second 3 and barely had time to rewrite.
Can someone please verify this for my sanity?

I based my analysis off the three incidents in the pre-trial hearing (traffic stop, intoxication, & conversation with Martinez). I included the 3 testimonies in the first fact memo into the analysis supporting whether attorney could admit the evidence for impeachment or substantive. I was also confused as to which testimonies were were supposed to discuss.

I was confused in which 3 incidents to use as well, but I ended up using the 3 incidents in the hearing, because she said she gave the defense notice and she told the judge at the hearing of which incidents she wanted to use. But I also ran out of time and the end was shitty so idk how that’s going to play out

[bigpete777]

Are we allowed to inadvertently discuss specific MBE questions?

[ReasonablePersonSSC]

Are we allowed to inadvertently discuss specific MBE questions?

[Animal_Activist]

Are we allowed to inadvertently discuss specific MBE questions?

I don't know. Was the State Bar of California allowed to "inadvertently" send some law schools access to the essay topics and then attempt to remedy its action by distributing them to us 2 days prior to the exam?