... I suppose I'll spend a few words on it.
Don't worry, I'll try to be brief.
In the Torts essay I talked about Strict Liability in Tort with its defenses. Then Negligence and its defenses. Then Attractive Nuisance, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, and Injunction. I went 5 minutes over but I made a serious effort to manage my time and I took a few extra minutes to make sure I put a little meat on the bones of my analysis. I didn't want to repeat my mistakes of July when I often simply wrote rules with conclusions. That was bad. This was better. I hope.
On the PR essay I started with duty of confidentiality then went to loyalty and the conflict of interest stuff. I talked about atty/client privilege and the options regarding past and future crimes of the client. The duty of candor to the court and responsibility to peers got stuck in there somewhere too. And about the only place where I could find differences between the CA & ABA rules was in the crimes of the client stuff. Looking back, I don't feel very confident about this one. I know the Bar likes to see clear rules with accurate analysis in which the wayward attorney has his license liquidated by the evil disciplinary arm of the State Bar. (;-)> I don't know if I was sufficiently punitive for the Bar's tastes.
I only had about 53 minutes for the CrimPro/CrimLaw essay but I felt like I know those subjects pretty well so I took just a few minutes to read the fact pattern a couple of times then went straight to writing. I spent 10 minutes each on the 5th and 6th Amendment issues then took 25 minutes to run through the whole homicide analysis from common law murder through involuntary manslaughter, and closed with self-defense (imperfect) and mistake. Again, in hindsight, my analysis looks thin.
I liked the first performance test. It seemed pretty straightforward to me and I felt like I had time to finish properly. However, because feeling good about any part of the exam is usually a bad sign, I now feel even worse about my chances.
The MBEs seemed pretty average compared to the ones I remember from July. All of my anxiety about how the NCBE has changed everything up was some seriously wasted energy. But append my feel-good/bad-sign admonition here and all seems lost.
Thursday essays seemed to be a little too ... common-sensical, if you will. I usually don't take a break in the essay sessions because there's so little time to waste. But I took a few minutes that morning to get a drink so I could get some perspective. I hope it worked.
The CP essay with the putative spouse was fairly simple. I only spent a few moments pondering what purpose the first wife served before I determined that she existed only as a means to create the putative spouse situation. I hope I was not wrong on that one. I didn't remember about quasi-marital property until later when I talked with a classmate from my writing class. Anyway, I spent most of my time talking about the different distributions of the property as quasi-community property, which it was not, and as the subject matter of a contractual relationship, which I decided was the proper result.
The Wills/Trusts essay would have been easy to write if I had an extra 30 minutes to think through all of the little plot twists they worked in there. I wrote about the formation of the trust and where it might be weak. Sis wasn't able to unilaterally revoke the trust. Sis may have exerted undue influence in the creation of the will. I included a bit about will formation and formal/holographic wills because they talked about witnesses. The precatory language in the note was not a valid codicil; acts of independent significance; incorporation by reference. But now I see that I could have worked in a line or two about dependent relative revocation if the note had been considered a valid holographic will. I think that I closed with a reference to Dora getting everything but I forgot to call her an omitted child. Blah.
The Corporations/Non-Partnership/Agency/Professional Responsibility fact pattern in the last essay was indeed full. Talked about invalid formation, de jure/de facto, estoppel/pre-incorporation contracts and the agency liability of both of the dudes. I worked in a full express/implied/apparent authority analysis for them as officers on each of the purchases, including novation/adoption, and talked about who would be left holding the bag. For the PR part I discussed working with a non-lawyer in a company that performs legal services, unauthorized practice of law, attorney supervision of non-attorneys, improper revenue sharing, the proper means of fee splitting; then wrote about what they did wrong and what they should have done to get it right. I hope I got the CA & ABA distinctions sorted properly.
Then, again, I risked incurring the wrath of the bar exam gods by feeling, at that particular moment in time, a wee bit of satisfaction about the product I had created up to that point. I know. Silly me. Insert good-feeling/bad-results warning here.
Not to worry though... PT-B kicked my butt. I didn't start typing until the one-hour mark and that was only to start my outline. I took a "lounge" break at that moment and started to freak out when I stole glances at everyone else's laptops and saw how much all y'all had already written. When I returned to my seat I scrambled to finish the outline then tried to get as much "on paper" as I could. When they called time, I felt confident that I had just written a solid 55 PT.