27 February 2008

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.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

MBE's Overall: Easier than July.

AM: Fairly easy, longest Q to read was #1 (property something)

PM: Took a bit longer to read the q's, overthought way too much; probably because I was tired. Can't believe I changed my answer from Embezzlement to False Pretenses on the cattle broker Q. What am I thinking.

Predictions for tomm:

Wills/Comm Prop

Remedies (UCC/Contracts)

Evil Procedure

Though, I'm praying for Evidence. Please just give us evidence over the CP.

Holden said...

@anonymous -
I feel pretty much the same as you on the MBEs (tired and overthinking - but for some of them there really stuff to overthink about ... like "is overthink a verb?")

Everyone likes civ pro, fears Comm prop.

Evidence - maybe, not way up there on my list, but all the easy to predict ones have passed or are civ pro.

Remedies? Really? tested last summer (contracts) so seems like not due (usually skip a few tests actually) and would more likely be re: torts.

I'll check the lists after dinner and figure what others have to say.

Anonymous said...

I thought hardest MBEs were K contractor/subcontractor bid issues. Other than that, I thought MBE was mostly pretty easy. A lot of questions where 3 answers were completely out there so correct answer was very obvious.

Couple other issues I found difficult: was addition of arbitration clause a material change? Can fruits of poisonous non-miranda warning be admitted against defendant to impeach? My understanding on this issue is that it is an undecided point of law or varies by jursidiction, so I thought no way they'd ask this - but they did!

Assuming a CP essay, I think remaining MBE essay will be Real Property (restrictive covenants/easements/non-possessory interests) or Evidence. I'm ruling out Contracts b/c of the Torts (just my logic) and Con Law b/c its easy and there was some Con law in the crim pro essay and its just not "due" here.

So remaining CA essay...? Hoping for straight trusts, followed by wills/trusts, followed by.. ugh.. a really easy CP or corporations 10b-5 or 16(b) (i.e., federal securities). Wills, CP and Corps are by far my weakest subjects.

Also hope no real complicated CA distinctions on Civ Pro!

Anonymous said...

I only had/remember 1 subtractor/contractor q.

My favorites were the tiger in the cage, paintball gun shoots meter maid and above ground pool fool.

Anonymous said...

Ha! - Nice! All good, but my favorite by far had to be the farmer who DROWNED IN A PILE OF BULL SHIT... literally!

Maybe the MBE was trying to be cute and ironic?

The 2 contractor/subcontractor issues I remember are (1) in the morning, Acme Paint (another one!) subcontracting for paint for a job, the subcontract was for $12,000 (question was what is their contractual relationship, if any, at that point in time); and (2) in the afternoon, some company like "Fast" something subcontracting for electrical work, which subcontractor won for the price of $50,000 then after "Fast" won the contract, they went with a different subcontractor for $47,500 (question was whether "Fast" could do that, breached, etc.).

Holden said...

Fastrack and Crossties

Anonymous said...

what was the deal with essay 6 this morning???

Anonymous said...

"was addition of arbitration clause a material change?"

Definently a material change, it alters the rights of the parties to litigate their claims in court. the clause wouldn't become part of the contract where merchant sends acceptance w/ the additional term even if the other merchant doesn't respond, i think?

"Can fruits of poisonous non-miranda warning be admitted against defendant to impeach?"

Yes, that's the exception to the exclusionary rule. Miranda violations can come in to impeach if the defendant takes the stand, but it won't have any substantive value

"what was the deal with essay 6 this morning???"

I wrote about formation of a corp by de jure, implied corp, corp by estoppel. Also wrote about promoter liability/pre incorporation Ks + unauth. practice of law for the PR portion (also a non-lawyer can't be a boss or hold property-interest in a lawfirm or something because the non-lawyer can influence decisions of the lawfirm, so his layopinon affects the professional judgment of others?). Someone told me he discussed partnership, agency concepts like implied authority, apparent authority, etc. which I completely forgot about

My own question about essay #4 (wills/trusts):

If you concluded that Sis was the trustee of the Trust, did she breach the fiduciary duty of loyalty to Bank when she attempted to unilaterally revoke the trust by cancellation? I didn't write about breach of any of the trustee's duties and it's been buggin me since yesterday....

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I thought there were a ton of ethics issues all over the test. From the full PR essay, to the PR crossover on the corps question, to Sis's selfishness, also another PR issue on the corps essay they didn't even ask about; the attorney who drafted the articles of incorporation breached her duty of competence by forgetting to file them, right? - I even wrote about a possible breach of duty by the prosecutor on the crim essay question, if he encouraged or knew the police officer was improperly interrogating the defendant w/o his counsel!

That said, I don't think you had to write about the issues if they didn't ask about them, they're just little throw-ins. I doubt its even one of the 5-point points in most cases.

Anonymous said...

re: Miranda

Yes, STATEMENTS violating Miranda are admissible against the defendant to impeach, but what about when Miranda is violated and the guy says, "I hid the gun in the garbage can." When they recover the gun (i.e., physical evidence), can they use THOSE fruits against defendant? My impression is the issue is undecided. The quesiton asked about both statements and physical evidence and the choices were (1) all (2) none (3) statements but not evidence (4) statements and evidence.

So I didn't know if it was (3) or (4)

(those numbers don't correspond to the letters)

Anonymous said...

"The question asked about both statements and physical evidence and the choices were (1) all (2) none (3) statements but not evidence (4) statements and evidence."

Well prosecutor can introduce the actual statement on impeachment (cross) if the defendant first testifies that he never said where the gun was.

But i dunno if physical evidence can be used to impeach (ie. isn't this your gun?)

Anonymous said...

@2:54 - yep, right. That was my point, I wasn't sure if you could used the statement but not physical evidence, or statement and physical evidence. I chose statement but not physical evidence, I think.

oh well, 1 question, whatever.

Anonymous said...

First You people are all crazy j/k, I passed the exam in July and cant believe how crazy you make this exam sound, hopefully this will settle you down. I dont know my scores because I passed but in July, but for example I forgot to use an entire case on a PT, On a murder question I did not mention Felony murder, 1st degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. People mentioned countless arguments that seemed great at the time that just didnt apply. Some stuff even if its an issue they just wont grade or count.

Also I know a few bar graders and basically your tests are graded on "feel" you can miss 1 major issue 2 sub issues and get a 75 if your analysis signs, similarly you can write a perfect rule for every major issue and subissue and get a 60 if your analysis is poor. Finally dont believe that graders dont read you answers they do