Thursday, July 26, 2012

And The Good News Is ....

 ... all my files were uploaded properly. 

Thank God for small wonders.


Anonymous said...

First-time bar-taker with a question: What happens if I missed call of the question on Civ Pro? I applied all the correct rules (as I had studied them just before walking in), but gullibly acted as if they were suing in State B. (The fact pattern said they were suing in State A.) Assuming that the essay was well-organized and all rules were correct and all issues were spotted, is that still gonna be a 55? Just curious. . .

Anonymous said...

Here's to you passing! Good luck, and please keep this blog up even after you've passed.

Barlady said...

GP, can you please please re-cap as to what was tested? Thx a billion! Hoping to see your name in November!

Anonymous said...

In response to Anon. 11:45, the answer is "it depends." I passed the July 2011 CBX and when the CA Bar Assoc. released the model essay and PT answers I was astounded to see that the answers I recalled giving were so much different from the model answers.

It lead me to believe -- and I've read this in many bar prep sources -- that getting to your conclusion in a confident and lawyer-like manner is of paramount importance to the bar graders.

Confusing State A with State B *could* be a problem if doing so radically skews the analysis to follow. Obviously, I haven't read the fact pattern. But you don't want to be too conspicuous: You want the grader to spend their standard two minutes reading your exam, see the standard stuff they're supposed to see, shrug and give you a 70.

I don't think the graders are looking for a religious grasp of the facts. I've seen model answers on the CA Bar Assoc. website where the writer mixes up the parties; you could tell, however, that it was a harmless mistake and that the writer just wrote the wrong name in haste.

So, getting back to your scenario, when you confused State A and State B, did it cause your answer to turn on a *completely* different analysis, like night and day, versus having gotten the states right? If so then I think you have cause for concern because your analysis is likely to stick out and seem -- unlike an innocent name mix-up -- very bizarre.

Finally, the scores I've seen on re-reads often demonstrate a big difference from one grader to the next, so it's always somewhat luck of the draw.

I wish you (and of course GP) nothing but the best of luck in November!

Anonymous said...

bro, did you really not read the fact they were residents of state A and were injured in state b but wanted to sue in state A? The call of the question was crucial in civ pro because it directs the entire analysis. And why do you need a 55?

As for what was tested:
Day 1 essays:

Civ Pro- PJ and SMJ, Fed ct juris,

Evidence: relevance, hearsay, witness testimony, spousal immunity, confidential communications

Community property and Prof Responsibility: CP, SP, debts, transfer of prop, fee agreements, duties.

This of course is a very BASIC outline as im sure i didn't mention all the issues, etc, but those were the subjects that I saw. Also in civ pro you coulda made mention of tort liabilitay respondeat superior, but i dont think it was that relevant.

Anonymous said...

ananoymous at 6:51, if you stated tort liability you will seriously get dinged because it would be a serious deviation from the call of the question. The call was a simple SMJ and PJ question. Stating something outside that area especially an entirely different area of law would hurt way more then it could potentially help. Remember minimum competancy.

Now the guy who missed that it was in state A...well its probably going to hurt pretty bad. It's not a harmless error when you mix up names of parties, you mixed up jurisdictions which completly changes your PMJ question. In state A no PMJ, in state B however you may have PMJ (although there was no long arm statue so you may have came to the same conclusion). They only asked two things when you screw up one of them bad it usually screws you.

Lastly there was only really two wierd things at this bar. 1) the first PT was a nightmare, and 2) the multiple choice was completley different from past bar exams. For individuals who didn't study as much this is a plus. For individuals who studied multiple choice a lot, this was a major blow.

Anonymous said...

I agree- i didn't mention the tort thing because it bore no difference. I also agree about minimum competency, but like what the fuck is that?

I don't do post mortems and don't wanna get into detail about answers bc it doesn't do any good, however, the PTS were BADDD.

The first one, i felt, was at least more clear cut/concise and it was easy to follow.

However, day 3 afternoon- i was struggggggling.

In any event, my cpu broke the first day first AM so I had to handwrite the first three essays, which hurt bc i didn't anticipate that. However i fixed my cpu thakn God and typed everything else.

I agree about the mixing up of issues as well because it changes the ENTIRE answer and does not show that you know the element/analysis of the call of the question. It will likely read as though you didn't know the answer and just analyzed it accordign to law you did know. I have no idea though, i'm not a bar examiner and this was my first attempt at CA bar exam. Good luck to all!

Anonymous said...

Dear GP (a.k.a. "MBE Master"): Did you think that the MBEs were harder this time around? Curious about your opinion, because you have more experience than most with actual MBEs... thanx

Anonymous said...

I had done almost 3000 Micromash, which is very hard, and thought the MBEs were very hard. However, if everyone else thought they were hard then they are going to give us a break. Hopefully!
I agree with above that jurisdiction is always important.
On PTs I did the libraries first, and they didn't look hard after that. I was comfortable with them both. I think this bar they gave us easy essays and hard MBEs. Hope we all can pass.

Anonymous said...

I agree on easy essays and tough MBE's. Essays were very straight forward in my opinion but MBE's were a nightmare.

Anonymous said...

I know I should just not discuss it re to the CBX, on the Civ Pro ques, does the fact that it was a foreign Canadian corporation with no incorp or principal place of business in the US, mean it can be sued in any federal district court? Or does the minimum contacts and long arm statute make this type of an argument null and void?

Anonymous said...

Ok. On PTB I did not catch that I needed to do a statement of facts (section) until the last minute. I added quick statement of facts that merely said that I re-allege the facts from the complain. Other than that I really nailed the rest of the PT. I know this because I have read all the blogs and have a good feeling that I nailed the rest of it. What are the odds that I can still get a passing score?