Friday, July 27, 2007

Heinz 57 Varieties

My two buddies who took it in February said they compared notes on the Crimes essay and found that they each approached it differently, analyzed it differently, wrote it differently, and came to different conclusions. And they both passed.

The Bar's got to expect this, especially when they keep tweaking the fact patterns. As of this moment, each of our approaches has as good a chance as the next. And all we'll know come November is what they weren't looking for.

Despair not. Remember Feb '07's great Crawford debate? Many people who didn't talk about it at all, at least not by that name, passed.

As long as you had something to type for easy essay and PT, you've got a shot. I saw some people who had their arms folded for much of the time. Stuff like that makes me wonder.

7 comments:

biff said...

Perhaps they just didn't bother reading one of the essays, or either essay.

Blawgin' said...

Just wanted to say congratulations, GP! It's been a heck of ride! I'm liking the new counter by the way..much less heart attack inducing. =)

Looking forward to hearing your further adventures...

calbar blondie said...

Oh Blawgin, you won't be saying that come November 12th or so!
GP, I believe you are right about the different approaches one can take to tackle this exam. It must come down to the degree of analysis. Most people can spot lots of issues, not as many can lay it out and argue properly.

The guy sitting next to me, an Attorney applicant, did sit with his arms folded much of Tuesday morning. Maybe I just had the blinders on, but I did not notice him typing furiously like many of the others. I wondered whether he would even be back for the afternoon; he was, and did the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Strange. Maybe that attorney did what attorneys were warned not to--moot the case on one issue like they would in real life.

As to the Heinz 57--thanks. I thought the Qs were pretty straightforward as compared to some of the funky essays given over the years, but then after reading various blogs I keep hitting myself in the forehead. Hopefully I spotted enough good stuff.

The Grand Poobah said...

Biff: I think they rent a hotel, get stinkin' drunk, stack our answers in a big pile at one end of the hall, then throw one arm-full at a time down said hall. The ones that make it past a certain line pass, the one's that don't, come back next time.

That's why it pays to write more words. The more ink on your paper, the heavier it is, the farther it flies. The key to success is to type or write more than your competition.

It's as simple as that.

Jonathan Kramer said...

"My two buddies who took [the Bar exam] in February said they compared notes on the Crimes essay and found that they each approached it differently, analyzed it differently, wrote it differently, and came to different conclusions. And they both passed."

Poo, et al, some bar questions---ESPECIALLY crimes---can yield answers that find Dan guilty, or find Dan not guilty. This highlights the foundational issue that for every prosecutor out there ready to lock Dan away for 20 years, there's an attorney who would defend Dan to get him off. The issue is the use of facts, the knowledge of law, and the weaving of facts and law to point to the only conclusion:

"He's Guilty, the bastard!" ...or... "He's Not Guilty, the bastard!"

You pick, depending on who you're working for; the People of the State of Columbia, or Dan the bastard.

Once more we learn (re-learn) that using every fact in the question, AND discussing those facts in the answer, is the road to passing the hazing to join our club.

Best hopes for you, Poo, and all others in November.

Jonathan

The Grand Poobah said...

Much thanks Jonathan! And thanks for the support over these last few months.

TGP