29 February 2008

Day 3 - February 28, 2008 - of the California Bar Exam

Oy, it's over.

Questions (roughly):

Essay 1: Trusts/wills cross over (Sis, you just got greedy, didn't you?)

Essay 2: Community Property (yeah, I didn't remember WTF a putative/meretricious spouse was either - just that they're up to no good - you sneaky bigamists) - link to the February 2004 exam where a REALLY similar question came up (essay #2 on page 12) and they define putative spouse there if you're so dang curious)

Essay 3: Corporations/Professional Responsibility (/agency/partnership/contract/what? no, not really, yeah? maybe? doesn't matter now)

Performance Test B - objective memo on chances of getting an injunction for a demoted doctor (Snyder) based on violation of his free speech rights as part of a hospital was planning to then voted on moving to Palatine (which, according to googlemaps is actually 207 miles from Springfield). Tests with sub-tests re: can get injunction? matter of public concern? blah. Hated PT-A, dugg PT-B.

View Larger Map

So the real question now is, "what movies are you going to see because you didn't get to while you were overcome with guilty/anxiety/stress/fear during the past month or two?"

I'll get started:
Invincible (co-workers demand it, no idea)
American Gangster
Charlie Wilson's war

27 February 2008

Predictions final for day 3

Predictions are kinda silly now, but here goes:

Civ pro – most likely, right?
res judicata or CE (had these last time, but they're popular),
CA dictions - yeah.

Corps - officer's powers, 10b5/16b
Cross over possibilities with agency/partnership

Community property – it's due right? with Wills?

Trusts - Breach, types, termination

One more MBE subject (maybe 2 with a cross over - then again, think July 2007):

Evidence – CA distinctions are up

Ks – meh, they already tested property, but could come, pretty popular (with remedies?)

Con Law – meh, lots of speech in the recent past, how about equal protection/due process or religion or commerce clause?

Day two of the California bar exam - MBE madness - 2-27-2008

MBE's - talk about 'em!

AM seemed better to me, girls behind me disagreed completely (didn't ask, just overheard), who knows. Other's said it was all medium-hard.

Wills question ... just like this summer =) Was exoneration of the deceased's property an answer option for more than three questions? Oy.

Predictions for tomorrow?
Well, everyone liked civ pro for this exam, I'll check my lists and post again about what the pro's think, but here's what we know:

MBE subjects tested: Torts (and a taste of property maybe?), crim law/pro

Non-MBE subjects: PR

Update later - nap now.

26 February 2008

Day one of the February 2008 California Bar Exam ... oy

1: Torts (negligence, strict liability) - kid enters electrical substation and gets fried - would have been better if his bird got fried ... who the hell keeps a pigeon as a pet?

2: PR - loyalty, confidentiality, conflicts, and withdrawal more or less.

3: Crim pro (5A and 6A) and crim law (straight murder cluster - for the third time in a row, WTF?)

Response to a demmurrer/Points and authority
Wow, long, hard, weird setup, horrible in every way.

Three responses on-line so far:
"like getting California Penal Code 261(a)'ed"
"hard a fuk"
"I agree... I have no idea how I feel about PT today"
"I thought PT A was incredibly hard."

23 February 2008

More predictions from a tutor

Usually hit at least 4 out of 6 (sure you do =): but you never know:
1. full blown Civ. Pro (fed & ca);
2. full blown PR and maybe even a small PR x over on another essay;
3. Review Corp securities;
4. Review torts defamation;
5. review Comm Property (Pererra/Van Camp, especially)
6. full blown Crim Pro, with emphasis on 4rth, 5th and 6th.
7. I'd be ready for a full blown trusts essay.

As always, salt for everyone

22 February 2008

Torts flash cards I made (for you!)

Mix of Conviser Mini-review, The "Cheat Sheets," and Adachi's flashcards/survival kit:
Download here

14 February 2008

Barpasser's "guesses" - take with a BAG of salt!

Friends in class reporting Barpasser's predictions:
*some similarities to Performance Advantage predictions - more reliable:
Civ Pro, PR, K, Crim Pro)

*some VERY different (Evidence, Con law) - low reliability.

Again, Barpasser's "guesses":

Civ pro – jurisdiction or joinder (was on res and collateral estoppel last time) – not many CA distinctions

PR – full, not cross over
Conflicts of interest

Ks – formation heavy vs. breach heavy
UCC last time, maybe CL this time

Community prop – recently under tested in last three years

Crim pro – know 4th am, Miranda,
Could cross over with evidence or crim law

Con Law – know 14th am (Equal protection and due process clause),
1st am free speech tested 4 times in a row – unlikely again
Commerce clause also tested recently –

Evidence – CA (with crim case b/c that’s where distinctions are)
Only answer re: CA if it’s in the call or somewhere in the question.

13 February 2008

CA Evidence distinctions (per another request)

These charts are more or less available at:
... home of the best bar prep materials I've gotten (Bar Breakers - highly recommended! Survival Kit too!)

Ancient Writings

CA requires 30 years (FED: 20)

Witness UNAVAILABLE when:
FED: Do not remember or refuse to testify
CA: These are NOT grounds for unavailability (considered available instead)

Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
FRE admission of fact (admissible) with offer to pay medical expenses (inadmissible)
CA excludes both.

Character of the Accused
CA: Defendant may introduce specific acts to prove victim’s character.

CA: can impeach W with any misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude in criminal cases.

Doctor-Patient privilege
CA (same as majority) privilege also to psychotherapist-patient.
But privilege does not apply in CA if need to disclose to protect patient from danger to self / others or <16 and disclosure in their best interest.

CA: privilege holder can stop eavesdropper from revealing confidential info

CA (and Common law): W/V must be dead

CA admits contemporaneous statements made to explain, qualify or understand what the declarant is doing when spoke

CA admit prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence of its truth,
FRE statement must have been made under oath at prior hearing/trial/depo to be admitted for substance.
Both CA & FRE admit prior inconsistent statements for impeachment.

CA admits statements of past bodily conditions made to anyone.

CA also requires 1) statement made while event was fresh in W’s memory; 2) W must testify as to prior identification and confirm that it was his opinion when made.

CA Civ Pro Distinctions (per request)

CA Choice of Law Rules: A federal court sitting in CA must apply CA law, which instead looks to each state’s interest in applying its laws to the case and whether, in a contract action, there is a clause setting forth which state’s laws apply.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction - SMJ in state court is statutory
CA categorizes civil cases as either “limited” (actions involving $25K or less) or unlimited (amount exceeds $25K), and small claims (less than $7500). A case filed in the wrong category may be “re-classified” without the court losing SMJ.

CA cases: Venue is proper in any county. If the claim could have arisen anywhere, venue is proper where D resides when the action is brought. In a K action, venue is proper where K was agreed to or to be performed, and in a personal injury action, in county where injury occurred.

Fed follows NOTICE pleading, while CA follows FACT pleading.

*CA allows amendment to correct naming error if new D is a closely related company. CA also allows P to initially name “John Doe” and later replace with the true D if the original complaint is filed on time and includes the charges against the unknown Ds and P does not know the identity of the Does at the time the complaint was filed.


Class Action Fairness Act: Act by Congress that makes it easier for class action to be certified. SMJ exists where
1) citizenship of any class member is different from that of any D;
2) total amount in controversy exceeds $5 million;
3) at least 100 class members; and
4) any D may remove case to federal court.
Act does not apply where D is state, government entity or to claims involving security laws or corporate affairs, or to claims that are entirely local in nature (i.e. where most Ps are citizen of state where action filed and principal injury occurred in state).

Right to a Jury Trial

(CA Constitution’s relation back date is 1850)

FED Civil case must have at least 6 and not more than 12 jurors and at least 6 jurors must reach a unanimous verdict unless parties consent;

CA requires 12 jurors unless parties otherwise consent, and 3/4 of jurors must agree.

Res Judicata – Judgment on the Merits

NOTE: Judgment in CA is not final after until appeal is concluded, while FED decision is final when rendered by court.

Distinctions as suggested by the ALL POWERFUL AND RIGHTEOUS ADACHI!

12 February 2008

Essay predictions for California Bar Exam

I. Predictions (be cautious)

A. Anchor of 3 of 6 questions will be rooted in MBE subjects. The other 3 will be non-MBE. That's traditionally what they have done. Based on that.

B. Most Likely: [usually 4 right]

1. 1. Property – Last 5 winters. Most likely to show up b/c strongest trend. Tough would be covenants running with land / equitable servitudes.

2. Crim Pro – Hasn't been on last 3 exams. Formulaic. 4/5/6. Could be evidence cross-over. Would be in call of the question (e.g. is this statement inadmissible hearsay). Hearsay – state entire cluster – logical relevance, legal relevance, personal knowledge, LY, exception, ???. Tough border search.

3. K – Last 2 off. Anticipatory repudiation. If Repudiation v. Modification, Repudiation has won. Always seems to have been credited. After Repudiation if want to mention Modification briefly – go for it. Tough – employment at will Q.

4. PR – 21/22. Off last. Senate Judiciary Committee declared it must be on every exam. Imagine full blown question. Or, trust-PR (trustee is attorney and screws up). Corporations-PR (have someone talk to an atty tipper-tippee). Agency/Partnership cross-over. Tough – none really, just ID duties.

5. Civil Procedure – Extraordinarily high chance. Of three in a row. On winter 2004. Off three times. On winter 2006. Off three times. If something is off three in a row – highly likely to be back on. Do I have to write CA distinctions? If explicitly in call of question. (July 2006: Discuss ABA and CA distinctions to the degree they are different.) If see such a disclaimer, explicitly, talk about distinctions. If they do not explicitly mention, don't write it. B/c someone wrote an evidence essay sample answer w/o distinctions! Tough – RJ, Collateral estoppel, 7 california distinctions.

a. Civ Pro: 1 on jurisdiction. 2d on anything random. Q2 would maybe be about the CA distinctions.

6. Business Associations – Either community property or corporations/agency/partnership. Community property – six times since 1990, if community property off on a winter exam and on next two. Corporations – 2 on, one off, 2 on, one off. Tough – new stuff (agency, partnership).

C. Next Most Likely:

1. Community Property.

2. Wills/Community Property cross-over. Last two winters have been heavy wills and a little community property. If wills question, and $5K is a separate property – that is a wills question with a little community property. Look at a few. 2/06. 2/07. Generic wills or generic CP fine. But, cross-over is tough b/c of required knowledge for surviving spouse. (In general usually 1 cross-over, sometimes 3).

D. Less Likely:

1. Trusts: Typical trust. What type. etc. Reasonable. Tough question would be if trusts, 2, 7 – accounting issues. Ugly set of issues. Haven't tested it in 11-12 years. Very few would be familiar. Just look at them. Tough – look at 2,7.

E. Least Likely: (one of four always shows up)

1. Con Law (10% chance). On three in a row on same subject matter. Fourth time – 100% not on. If con law did show up again – should be dormant commerce clause (although religion has not been tested in 6.5 years but that would also mean 1st amendment four times in a row).

2. Remedies (10% chance). On. Off three in a row. On, then off three in a row. Last two remedies have been contracts, so this should be torts. Be sure to write up one cause of action that succeeds. At least some aspect of K that succeeds. Torts – Negligence, defamation, etc. Even if it says can X get an injunction. Marbury v. Madison – no rights no remedies.

3. Criminal Law (10% chance). Pure criminal question in 2000. Seven years later 2/2007. Then again 7/07 crim/con law crossover.

4. Evidence (15% chance). Traditional summer subject, but was on last winter.

11 February 2008

10,000 years ... what?!? McCain's "Hope" remix

Another useful blog about (re)taking the Bar exam

They seem more concerned about keeping their failure a secret than me ... not worried though, I'll get hired because have dirt on all my potential employers: they're lawyers. What? I should be worried? It's the reason HRC isn't getting the Democratic nomination? Fuck, now I'll never be president ... the dreams of another fat Jew are dashed by his bad academic record -- I'll have to be the guy whispering in the ear of the good looking politician I suppose. That, or stay they hell out of it.

A wiser man than me told me to just work on making the world better by being good to the people you are connecting with at the moment, the person across the table from you will benefit much more from your good graces and humor than all your good intentions for all the people you'll never meet. Advise it will probably take me 40 more years to really understand, and then I'll be too old to do anything about it other than tell some young a-hole to play nice.

Sorry, the cynicism is ebbing out today, one practice performance test too many (i.e., PT's > 0).

Yeah, look at:

Back to work folks, Obama ahead in the delegate count, I'm surrounded by jack in the boxes and pez dispensers with a yellow remote control airplane baring down on me ... what a weird day.