Friday, August 1, 2008

Okey dokey....

Against my better judgment, I'm compiling a brief summary of what I saw, and what I think I saw, and what I saw then forgot to put on my outline and thus didn't write about.

In the mean time ... Did everyone notice that the kid in PT-2 (what was his name, Duncan?), put in his affidavit on line 2 that he was arrested at 12:30?

I like to think I'm pretty good at finding the details, it's just putting the big picture together that takes too long. I think that's why I'm competent at spotting the issues, yet I can't seem get them all on paper (on the screen) in an hour.

More to come ....

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

I did. (And btw, the fact that you remember the exact line of the affidavit is simultaneously amazing and disturbing.) As I recall, Duncan's affidavit heavily contradicted James's transcript (or vice versa). Although I didn't mention it in my answer, on reflection, I believe the purpose of that fact in the affidavit was to provide evidence of Duncan's subjective belief that he was under arrest as of 12:30. The natural counter to that, for the purposes of the PE task, might have been that custody is determined by an objective, rather than subjective standard. Not that I mentioned any of this on my answer. That PE was definitely a racehorse.)

Anonymous said...

I didn't see that fact in his affadavit!
Did you find 8 factors?

The Grand Poobah said...

Yep. I wrote on the eight "Custody" factors. I found a couple of other lists in the text and I inserted them where I thought they belonged but I didn't reserve enough time to explore them at all.

But there's a greater than even chance that I failed this exam too so don't give anything I say too much weight.

Anonymous said...

I thought there was 8 factors too but then again, I was so much more confident when I left the bar but as the minutes keep passing, I am second guessing myself. Such as, should I have discussed the exception to the 4th A. on the Conlaw essay or why did I forget the implied-in-fact discussion on K?
sigh...I better start studying for the Feb bar.

Anonymous said...

I basically just went through the 8 factors as that's all I had time for. Threw in an intro and conclusion and called it a day.

Hardly did any analysis as I didn't have time.

I probably didn't pass either tell you the truth. I had some problems on the essays too and of course the MBE.

Anonymous said...

Don't mean to hijack, but here's a question. Since PE-2 was a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, were we expected to use point headings? In the past, the examiners have included an instruction sheet detailing how they want this done. But it was noticeably absent this time around. Any thoughts?

The Grand Poobah said...

Anon 10:47: I was thinking the same thing. There were almost zero format instructions in both PTs. The only format suggestion was in PT-2 where she said not to include a statement of facts.

I'm sure I got it all wrong.

Anonymous said...

I was looking for instructions too! I just used the 8 factors by changing them into statements, wrote in caps and underlined. It was a doozy...and PT1 wasn't any better. I just need more time!

Anonymous said...

everyone,

in terms of format for the exam - Honesberg (spelling?) stated time and time again, that if there arent any instructions regarding format - then there isnt really a wrong answer when it comes to the proper way to "format" a performance exam...

please dont dispair. It wont do any good at this point. I know of dozens of people who were unequivocally sure they failed the bar exam and ended up passing.

have faith in yourself and what you've done to get to this point..

calbar blondie said...

Remember this was a "draft" of a points and authorities; the sr. partner likely wanted applicant to do the work and then she would submit the final document to the court. I just put the main points in "caps", and underlined the eight factors(which was my point two) I came up with four "points" an intro and a conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the blog. Lots of insights. I think analyzing it now would be jumping the gun - you'd be doing it straight from memory and you'd probably miss a lot of the facts in the fact pattern. This will probably lead to missed issues or an incorrect analysis. (See previous analysis of past bar questions).

I have nothing but sincere wishes that you (and I, for that matter, pass). However, if the bar gods frown upon us, I would recommend you look at just the Cal Bar published questions, outline and write it, and then compare it with the sample answers. If you miss anything or write anything less completely than the samples (because they aren't that good anyway), you should copy their analysis five times over by hand and then work on how you can improve on them. The bar exam questions are finite and if you can get used to the format of 60-75 percent of the most tested issues, you can still "improv" the rest, assuming you have a rough sense of the rule.

Anyway, hope to see a happy post come Nov. 21st.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone not finished a PT and still gotten like a 60 or 65? I felt like I did a pretty good job on the part of PTA that I finished, but I ran out of time and completely skipped the sub-part about non-punitive damages (the NIED claims). No introduction or conclusion, either. There was so much in that essay! I think if I get a 60 or so I can still keep my head above water with the others, but a 50 will be hard to recover from. Any ideas from people with experience? Thanks...

Anonymous said...

To: anon 10:15 am.
From personal experience, whether you pass or not depends on the big picture (all your essays, MBE, and both PT's).
If you get a 50-55 on a PT and your other essays/PT score around a 60-65, and you average whatever the median is on the MBE's, there is a chance that you won't pass.
However, if you get a 50-55 on one PT but do really well on the other essays/PT and on the MBE's, you could still pass.
I know the waiting sucks, but try not to dwell on what you THINK you got. Those scores won't mean anything unless you fail and have to restrategize...
Best of luck to all you guys!

Anonymous said...

to anon-10:15

I took 2/07 for my 1st time and earned a 70 on PT A - I only made it through the SOF - that was it - I laid out the argument and did not even have a chance to start it - w/o conclu - so YES without finishing you can still earn a good score.

I just too this past exam and was unable to finish both PT's - both of them get good starts - then the end is just a mess. Good luck to all of us - it is out of our hands now - all we can do it hope for the best and get mentally ready for another round if it comes down that, but lets hope it doesnt. I have a feeling these PT's are spot graded, that is the only way I could have earned a 70 on my 1st PT - the grader was looking for something specific in the SOF.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I saw that. I pointed out that his affidavit was clearly tailor-made by his attorney, Mary Lynch was her name, right? Clearly, in preparation for a Miranda violation charge. But the State of Oregon case says he was not taken into custody. Did any of you see it this way, too?

Anonymous said...

Hey GP...SuperGil here...just wanted to let you know tht I sat 2 rows behind you duing this exam :) You actually turned around once (I was wearing a yellow baseball shirt) you may remember I tried to say hi a few times but did not want to ruin your concentration. Anyways, I know we passed and I can't wait to see our names on the pass list this November!!!

-SuperGirl

Anonymous said...

RE: NOT FINISHING A PT

I had a "traumatic event" during the Feb PT-A, so I stopped writing after two hand-written pages. I got a 60 on that PT. I wrote 13 pages on PT-B, finished it and got a 60 on that one as well. I think a lot depends on the grader. In July '07 I had three essay scores that varied by 15 points on the re-read.

For me, the saying, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" takes on a whole new meaning with the CAL bar. I give up trying to figure out what score I may/may not receive on a particular portion of the exam. When I am tempted to do so, I just close my eyes and visualize my name on the pass list. I also pray for the graders who get my exams: that they have happiness and ease of well-being,(especially when they are grading my exam).

-Wendy

Anonymous said...

WORLD'S OLDEST FACT PATTERN

This is from 1200 BC:

Three ox drivers from Adab were thirsty: one owned the ox, the other owned the cow, and the other owned the wagon's load. The owner of the ox refused to get water because he feared his ox would be eaten by a lion; the owner of the cow refused because he thought the cow might wander off into the desert; the owner of the wagon refused because he feared his load would be stolen. So they all went. In their absence the ox made love to the cow which gave birth to a calf, which ate the wagon's load. Question: who owns the calf?

Anonymous said...

he he he
we discussed this on our first day of property.

Anonymous said...

My first time: I didn't finish both PTs and ending up getting a 65 on both.
not great--but passing scores.

My second time: I didn't finish anything. Once I hit that time limit, I moved on. (after arguing the hell out of the facts). And I passed.

So I don't think it's about spotting all the issues or finishing every answer. It comes down to the quality of your analysis.

Anonymous said...

Ok, that's really messed up...i came here at least 5 time looking for a re-cap.

It's still not posted. I demand a re-cap by the end of the day.

=(

Anonymous said...

Hey anonymous,

How about you quit whining and post your own recap.

BTW, I know you were only kidding so please don't be offended by my sardonic retort.

Anonymous said...

I saw that Duncan claimed he was arrested at 12:30, and used this comment from him during the interview to impeach him: "Boy, I didn't know it would be so tough when I agreed to come it". To me that sounded like an admission of consent.

It occurred to me that they could have given out the same fact and library, but have half the applicants argue for guy, and half against.

canbf said...

On the P2, did anybody other than me, argue that despite the desires of our supervising attorney, we could not ethically argue that Cray controlled because the Adams case (st. supreme court) was dispositive.

I know there is some ethics rule that says where a case is not controlling, you cannot cite it as "the law." I thought Cray was fed vs. Adams that was state supreme crt.

Anybody this dumb?

humble but confident said...

@ csnbf

No, that's a good thing to point out at the end of your answer (wish I would have caught it). Did you take any John Holtz PT seminars? that's what he taught, to remind your supervising attorney at the end of your memo about things that affect the case.

For example, in PT A, I wrote at the very end "Boss, maybe we should make sure that our client's friend (J?) and client's psychiatrist (Romeo) can testify for us if our case goes to trial, since both parties seem reluctant to come forward (our client is 'covering up' for J and Romeo said he will give affidavit but doesn't want to testify)."

canbf said...

thanks, humble, but I think, really I know, I talked about more than this issue than at the end.

but isn't there a law that says you can't cite something that isn't controlling as controlling? I also read somewhere that the examiners some times test you on whether you will do something you shouldn't. it sucks because i'm kicking myself for doing it but I "thought" i was right.