To Anon:

You may very well be correct on the evidence points- But I went back and read the call three times and it specifically said assume all appropriate objections have been made and was the evidence properly admitted. In the bar prep class and in all the practice essays I did, a question that calls for listing proper objections asks you to do just that.

I did discuss competency of the witness, lay opinion, all of that... I just got through it and had an extra five minutes, so I thought there must be something else. I figured if it was extra, they would just discount and ignore that at the tail end of my essay.

The Confrontation issue was part of my endless hearsay discussions. The whole point of hearsay is to keep out stuff that deprives the right to cross examine witnesses. This is particularly important in criminal cases.

I did not talk about Prop 8, but that's because I know that I do not ever understand where Prop 8 actually has an effect, so I figure that few points is not worth it to show that I flat out don't get what the purpose of it is.

Also on the PT- remember I wrote this recap after three glasses of wine and two hours of retail therapy, so I was long past wanting to post the entirety of my answer and probably forgot half the stuff I wrote.

After reading your comment- yes, I understand that the likelihood of success on the merits is for the underlying contract case. That's the whole argument I made. I did analysis arguing all the reasons (based on the facts) that plaintiff would be likely to succeed on that claim- the next step of that prong is that his likelihood of success paves the way for a clear right to equitable relief. Basically, if he is likely to win the pending case, he then gets by extension a right to claim irreparable harm and can get the injunction until the suit is over. This is not foreign analysis to me, as I wrote an ex parte TRO motion three weeks ago, which I won. I really think the only reason I was able to finish that PT was because I recently wrote that motion and was quickly able to grab onto the format of the argument and regurgitate the proper analysis. If that was something different, I would have run out of time and gotten it all outlined and a sentence or two under each heading like last February with that Thursday afternoon PT.

You might be right about me being wrong... However, last year when I took the bar, I left the exam saying to myself "Honestly, I think I got a 60 on this question, a 65 on that question... and a 55 on that PT and a 65 on that PT." And I was exactly right about my scores when they came in the mail.

So, should I be worried? Maybe. Am I worried. Absolutely not. Because angst and anxiety and over-analyzing how well I wrote this or how well I argued that got me taking this exam three friggin' times. If I had just blocked out the voices of all the people who said, "To pass the bar, you have to..." I would have been done a long, long time ago. I am over being hunched up with worry about how I wrote this or that.

And I honestly think my writing is better for it this time around, too. When I went back after doing some 60 to 70 essays in prep for this week, I looked at my past exam answers and saw that my writing had a hesitancy. I did a lot of "this is likely to", "may", "could" and I didn't just take a damn position. This time, I went back and made myself outline a question, then type the answer that actually got a 70, 75, or 80. And I started seeing the right way to do it in a way no one could have told me or advised me. I decided that it's kind of like drafting complaints- you can worry about it and it'll come out dismal, or you can go for it and it comes out so much better. Confidence comes across on paper, and the bar examiners like it (along with rule statements and analysis.)

So, that's partly why yesterday, especially since it was a persuasive argument, I wrote it like I would write a real first draft of an MPA. Here's the facts and here's the list of reasons why we meet the elements we have to meet and just assert every last thing you have to assert.

I was actually thinking about it this morning (although I had not seen your comment yet) while they were reading the MBE instructions and I thought yesterday after uploading my answers that I didn't use the foreign law stuff, but really I did- quite a bit. I used it for the factual analysis throughout. Three people all around me were panicking that they just didn't use it at all, so if it was hard for everybody, then it was just hard.

So, was my recap indicative of what was actually on my paper at the end of the three hours? Probably not entirely.

Was I trying to capture the gist. Sorta.

Mostly I was writing it for some catharsis and to get it clear from my mind so I could switch gears to MBE mode.

Anyway, I saw that you posted a second comment, although I have not actually read it yet, but that's really all I have to say about that. Nothing I can do about it now anyway, and hopefully I will never know what my actual score was on each essay and PT. I know I can get a 65 on an essay and still pass 'cause I have done the math, so if I dropped five points on talking about character for a paragraph at the end, oh well. I'll just have to live with myself. I was eleven points away last February and got two 60's, so I am not going to get all worked up.