OK, so I figure if there is anyone who still had essays to take, they have started already, so here it is...
As I drove down to Cal Expo Thursday morning I thought to myself, "What would I most like to see on the essays.."
Defamation would be awesome. Contracts (breach not formation issues), after I painstakingly broke down my outline, made my own little approach and wrote it out over and over again. After that... probably corps. Director Duties ideally.
But, alas, I figured my luck was to get con law, wills/CP crossover, and a professional responsibility crossover with trusts or some weird crap that would freak me out.
So, it was like the heavens parted and made way for my dream bar exam. I had none of that 'oh shit' feeling because the topics on there I had studied the crap out of. I had defamation done in 40 minutes because I didn't need to outline it. The whole essay just appeared in my mind and I struggled to get it on the page as quickly and concisely as possible. Same with the contracts one. The director one I had to actually do some recall, but again- not bad, not bad at all....
Q1: consumer protection agency publishes manual that rates attorneys and calls one an ambulance chaser who only takes easy cases. :)
Q2: developer enters conditioned contract with builder that is fully integrated. Condition technically satisfied but the oral explanation of the condition does not occur, so developer loses profitability and jumps ship. Builder gets another gig with architect, but sues developer for full value of contract.
Q3: 3 director in close corp. D1 convinces others to get corp involved in shopping mall real estate deal, despite corps stated purpose in article for running comedy clubs. D 2 and 3 change their minds later. D1 has a second opportunity to invest in another mall, thinks the others will not approve it, and invests his own money. D 2 and 3 suspect D1 is embezzling. Can they oust him? (They are not shareholders.)
I was definitely less sure on the director one. I mean I know the director duties, and I talked about ultra vires, talked about the embezzlement issue, competing ventures, corp opportunity, etc. I think I may have missed some small issue. However, that being said, I think I still did enough to get a 70 on it. Maybe it was voting. I did go through the business judgment rule for the directors investing in the mall when the corp was struggling financially, but I didn't do a full blown discussion on director voting requirements. I did do removal of a director (who can, etc.)
Then there was the PT. So much nicer than Tuesday. The last firm I worked for did tenants' rights stuff. We defended unlawful detainers, brought affirmative suits, got statutory fees, the whole nine yards. So that PT was a revamp of every discussion I ever had with every client who came in the door. And it just worked itself out so beautifully. I started a new page for every issue as I went through the library first (after reading the preliminary instructions as to what I was supposed to do), then did a brief factual discussion (very brief), following by a discussion of the client's goals. Then I got my pages in a logical order and went through my pages, working through each option for the client, starting with doing nothing, all the way down to sue without administrative pursuit and ask for prelim injunction. I got every last thing in there, both factual and law based. Finished and was able to spell check and look it over for about 2 minutes at the end before they called time.
Sigh.
And I don't think I will ever take that exam again. Honestly, I could not have gotten a better bar for me. That was "my" bar exam. If I couldn't pass that, then I may have to decide that lawyering is not for me. Plus, I just am not sure I could get up the gumption to go back again.
But I don't have to decide that right now, so I'm just not going to worry about it anymore. Real life can begin again....
Showing posts with label California Bar Exam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Bar Exam. Show all posts
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Phew...
It's over. Supposedly I am not s'posed to reveal the topics until tommorrow. Just in case that's true, I'll post my recap tomorrow.
But it's done. DONE! I am done with that test. Forever.
Amen.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
MBEs...
I'm glad that is over.
The morning was hard for me. Got done in the last five minutes. A lot of questions I knew the answer, sure, but some of them I just sat there and thought, "What the FUCK?!?"
I could not remember what attornment meant, even though I remember seeing it on my flashcards. Just lost that out of my brain. Don't remember if it was actually a viable correct answer, just that I remember going through my flashcards and seeing that term and thinking, "There's no friggin' way I have to know that. Next!"
And then it was there. Geez.
And that one that had the transactional immunity and the use and something else immunity? I got mad. I know you don't have a right to counsel for a grand jury, but what's with the types of immunity? That I did not know and I just got frustrated and pissed. So it took me longer this morning as a result. One good thing, being frustrated kept me from getting bored and I read every single question and every single answer and was able to rule out a lot of them, which is exactly what happened last year in the morning of MBEs. So, maybe that means I did about the same as last year on MBEs. That was a decent score, so that'd be fine. I saw that my last five questions were all B's and that made me all nervous, like I must have missed a couple of those because there's no way there are five B's in a ROW.... Ugh!
Afternoon... aahhhh. More defamation, evidence questions, crimes, easier con law questions. Again this year, there was a weird pseudo-wills question that irritated me. One had a bunch of civil procedure... That's not supposed to be on the MBE people! Give us a break!
Anyway, it's done. Tomorrow is more essays. I certainly hope that was the harder PT, so I'm looking forward to tomorrow's and getting the heck out of here.
2/3 of the way done, people!
The morning was hard for me. Got done in the last five minutes. A lot of questions I knew the answer, sure, but some of them I just sat there and thought, "What the FUCK?!?"
I could not remember what attornment meant, even though I remember seeing it on my flashcards. Just lost that out of my brain. Don't remember if it was actually a viable correct answer, just that I remember going through my flashcards and seeing that term and thinking, "There's no friggin' way I have to know that. Next!"
And then it was there. Geez.
And that one that had the transactional immunity and the use and something else immunity? I got mad. I know you don't have a right to counsel for a grand jury, but what's with the types of immunity? That I did not know and I just got frustrated and pissed. So it took me longer this morning as a result. One good thing, being frustrated kept me from getting bored and I read every single question and every single answer and was able to rule out a lot of them, which is exactly what happened last year in the morning of MBEs. So, maybe that means I did about the same as last year on MBEs. That was a decent score, so that'd be fine. I saw that my last five questions were all B's and that made me all nervous, like I must have missed a couple of those because there's no way there are five B's in a ROW.... Ugh!
Afternoon... aahhhh. More defamation, evidence questions, crimes, easier con law questions. Again this year, there was a weird pseudo-wills question that irritated me. One had a bunch of civil procedure... That's not supposed to be on the MBE people! Give us a break!
Anyway, it's done. Tomorrow is more essays. I certainly hope that was the harder PT, so I'm looking forward to tomorrow's and getting the heck out of here.
2/3 of the way done, people!
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obligatory Recap...
Okay, so here it is...
Question 1: Full Professional Responsibility- conflicts of interest, fee issues, whistle
blower stuff, nothing too exotic.
Question 2: Civil Procedure: transfer of venue and discovery issues. How happy am I that I have done insurance defense PI work? Pretty happy since it asked about getting maintenance records via discovery requests and getting a physical and mental examination of plaintiff. All federal.
Question 3: California Evidence. Weird format. It looked like a transcript objection question but the call said assume all proper objections have been made. It drove me nuts. I just kept thinking- that assumes facts not in evidence, that question is leading, that question calls for speculation. I guess the idea was to mislead the people who didn't read the call. So the issues I got were the marital privileges (duh- she's his ex-wife and they were married when he supposedly did the robbery), hearsay, more hearsay, more fake you out with something that could only be hearsay but is really nothing, and then the last one I finally decided was character. She gave her opinion as to what the statement via the telephone meant and it turned out her opinion was that she thought they committed a crime, and I just had too much time, so I settled on that as the only thing that actually fit. I even threw in competency of the witness for one of them because I just jammed through it too fast and I knew they must want something else. Plus you have a criminal defendant in CA court, mercy rule, all three kinds of evidence can come in for rebuttal, yadda yadda yadda, there ya go.
I can safely say I think I got a minimum of 70 on each of those essays. If I got something less, I would be shocked(!).
Anyway, PT was (I certainly hope) the harder of the two this afternoon. Memo of Points & Authorities on a guy who was suing some foreign guy and two corporations and they were trying to transfer all the asset value of the corps to evade his reach at the time of ultimate judgment. Can he get a temporary injunction? Oh, and that just drove me NUTS. I learned TRO, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction. The PT kept calling it temporary injunction. Get the term right people! Not that big a deal, but I kept having to be real careful to call it the same thing they called it and it just bugged.
There was all kinds of bizarre stuff in there.... some resume and declaration from an international law guy who would testify as to the rules applied in the foreign countries. A statute that talked about the correct procedure for introducing the foreign law for the court to consider. Uh.... okay. Now WTF do I do with this? It has nothing to do with getting a prelim injunction and that's what the brief is about.
There was also a third case in one of the cases, but it was overturned, so I just said that it was overturned and ignored it after that.
I was very happy that after all the writing this time around, I completely ignored all the um, "advice" about what to do on a PT. This is what I started doing for those half factual, half argument ones...
I need more time for the argument, so I immediately start writing the facts, as I read them. Typing them cements them in my mind, and I was done with the statement of the facts slightly more time than it took to read them. Then I moved on to the library and read that stuff. I ended up getting the factual stuff done in about 15 minutes, read the library for 25 minutes, outlined and just thought for 5-10 minutes, and then wrote like crazy for the rest of the time.
I spent probably 2 hours and 15 minutes just writing the argument, so I got it all in there. It wasn't the prettiest, but I figured out how to use everything I thought had any importance whatsoever. And it all had some decent analysis (not like last year's goofy con law PT that I completely f'd up.)
Like the weird statute that repeated itself. WTF? I decided to argue he was a covered by one because of the contract and so he was a present creditor, and he was covered by the one that included future creditors because he had the pending suit and he was going to prevail on the merits.
Covered 1) the issue of irreparable harm- if he can show a fraudulent transfer then he establishes irreparable harm. That took a long time to go through all those facts and analyze and then compare to the two cases. Sheesh.
Covered 2) likelihood of success on the merits, therefore he has a clear right to equitable relief. Went on and on about the rationale for equitable relief in a fraud instance, blah blah blah. Even I was bored writing it. I feel sorry for the examiners, slogging through all that stuff.
Covered 3) the public policy stuff- five friggin' public policy reasons. Went through each one, applied the reason to the case at bar. Tried to also discuss the remedies in the statutes and how they also applied but that was minimal cuz I just got low on time.
Ugh! I was exhausted when I was done.
Then I went and got some retail therapy. Now I feel much better.
Now I am going to have me a nice glass of wine, review one or maybe two outlines, if I even do that, and relax. I just feel like this is my last time doing this. If I can't pass knowing what I know, then I am just not meant to be a lawyer. I don't know what else to say about that. I used everything, argued the shit out of the facts, and knew for SURE what each rule I was writing was and why it should go right there and not somewhere else. Don't know what else to do after that...
So, I'm gonna go tomorrow and do what I can with the MBEs. I purposely do not care about riparian water rights. Ooops, gonna hafta skip that question. Also do NOT care about the RAP. Check a box and moving on.
The Thursday I'm doing the same thing I did today. Then I'm going home to open a bottle of Gary Farrell. Cuz I deserve it.
Question 1: Full Professional Responsibility- conflicts of interest, fee issues, whistle
blower stuff, nothing too exotic.
Question 2: Civil Procedure: transfer of venue and discovery issues. How happy am I that I have done insurance defense PI work? Pretty happy since it asked about getting maintenance records via discovery requests and getting a physical and mental examination of plaintiff. All federal.
Question 3: California Evidence. Weird format. It looked like a transcript objection question but the call said assume all proper objections have been made. It drove me nuts. I just kept thinking- that assumes facts not in evidence, that question is leading, that question calls for speculation. I guess the idea was to mislead the people who didn't read the call. So the issues I got were the marital privileges (duh- she's his ex-wife and they were married when he supposedly did the robbery), hearsay, more hearsay, more fake you out with something that could only be hearsay but is really nothing, and then the last one I finally decided was character. She gave her opinion as to what the statement via the telephone meant and it turned out her opinion was that she thought they committed a crime, and I just had too much time, so I settled on that as the only thing that actually fit. I even threw in competency of the witness for one of them because I just jammed through it too fast and I knew they must want something else. Plus you have a criminal defendant in CA court, mercy rule, all three kinds of evidence can come in for rebuttal, yadda yadda yadda, there ya go.
I can safely say I think I got a minimum of 70 on each of those essays. If I got something less, I would be shocked(!).
Anyway, PT was (I certainly hope) the harder of the two this afternoon. Memo of Points & Authorities on a guy who was suing some foreign guy and two corporations and they were trying to transfer all the asset value of the corps to evade his reach at the time of ultimate judgment. Can he get a temporary injunction? Oh, and that just drove me NUTS. I learned TRO, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction. The PT kept calling it temporary injunction. Get the term right people! Not that big a deal, but I kept having to be real careful to call it the same thing they called it and it just bugged.
There was all kinds of bizarre stuff in there.... some resume and declaration from an international law guy who would testify as to the rules applied in the foreign countries. A statute that talked about the correct procedure for introducing the foreign law for the court to consider. Uh.... okay. Now WTF do I do with this? It has nothing to do with getting a prelim injunction and that's what the brief is about.
There was also a third case in one of the cases, but it was overturned, so I just said that it was overturned and ignored it after that.
I was very happy that after all the writing this time around, I completely ignored all the um, "advice" about what to do on a PT. This is what I started doing for those half factual, half argument ones...
I need more time for the argument, so I immediately start writing the facts, as I read them. Typing them cements them in my mind, and I was done with the statement of the facts slightly more time than it took to read them. Then I moved on to the library and read that stuff. I ended up getting the factual stuff done in about 15 minutes, read the library for 25 minutes, outlined and just thought for 5-10 minutes, and then wrote like crazy for the rest of the time.
I spent probably 2 hours and 15 minutes just writing the argument, so I got it all in there. It wasn't the prettiest, but I figured out how to use everything I thought had any importance whatsoever. And it all had some decent analysis (not like last year's goofy con law PT that I completely f'd up.)
Like the weird statute that repeated itself. WTF? I decided to argue he was a covered by one because of the contract and so he was a present creditor, and he was covered by the one that included future creditors because he had the pending suit and he was going to prevail on the merits.
Covered 1) the issue of irreparable harm- if he can show a fraudulent transfer then he establishes irreparable harm. That took a long time to go through all those facts and analyze and then compare to the two cases. Sheesh.
Covered 2) likelihood of success on the merits, therefore he has a clear right to equitable relief. Went on and on about the rationale for equitable relief in a fraud instance, blah blah blah. Even I was bored writing it. I feel sorry for the examiners, slogging through all that stuff.
Covered 3) the public policy stuff- five friggin' public policy reasons. Went through each one, applied the reason to the case at bar. Tried to also discuss the remedies in the statutes and how they also applied but that was minimal cuz I just got low on time.
Ugh! I was exhausted when I was done.
Then I went and got some retail therapy. Now I feel much better.
Now I am going to have me a nice glass of wine, review one or maybe two outlines, if I even do that, and relax. I just feel like this is my last time doing this. If I can't pass knowing what I know, then I am just not meant to be a lawyer. I don't know what else to say about that. I used everything, argued the shit out of the facts, and knew for SURE what each rule I was writing was and why it should go right there and not somewhere else. Don't know what else to do after that...
So, I'm gonna go tomorrow and do what I can with the MBEs. I purposely do not care about riparian water rights. Ooops, gonna hafta skip that question. Also do NOT care about the RAP. Check a box and moving on.
The Thursday I'm doing the same thing I did today. Then I'm going home to open a bottle of Gary Farrell. Cuz I deserve it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Ah...
So, I got here, had trouble settling in and writing out approaches but finally found my groove...
Went to dinner with an acquaintance who is also taking the bar. Relaxed, talked about other things, all was good.
Got back here and had a small problem settling in, but got back to it pretty quickly. Once I started having issues with hand cramps and wanting to turn on the TV, I went down to the hotel bar and ordered a glass of wine and sipped slowly while writing out approaches. Discussed the establishment and free exercise clauses as well as the relative hardships of the bar exam vs. the series seven exam with drunk guy and his friend, then continued writing approaches.
Got through all approaches with about 85-90% accuracy without looking at my master ones. Felt good about that, and still feel good about the rainbow on the way here. Not sure why.
Now I am going to read my newest issue of Bon Appetit and Eating Well and enjoy some banal television... in the morning I will again listen to my super soothing nice lady who tells me how smart and amazing I am. Seriously, someone posted it on the Cal Bar Repeaters group and this lady is so soothing- I LOVE HER. No, really- I want to have this lady in my life every day I ever have to go into court. She's so nice. She's so soothing. She's so positive.... I wish I had her all through the FIRST bar prep. I woulda passed the first time with this lady, dammit.
Anyway, not focusing on the negative... we are focusing on the positive. I am actually happy to go tomorrow and take the test. I know that sounds weird and twisted, but I'm kind of excited, like I know this is my last chance to show the examiners what I know, so I just want to get to it already.
Ahhhh...... I don't know what happened to me this time, but the bar is so much nicer and better this time. (Geez, I must sound like I'm on crack or something...)
I'll post tomorrow and we'll see if my calm continues.
Went to dinner with an acquaintance who is also taking the bar. Relaxed, talked about other things, all was good.
Got back here and had a small problem settling in, but got back to it pretty quickly. Once I started having issues with hand cramps and wanting to turn on the TV, I went down to the hotel bar and ordered a glass of wine and sipped slowly while writing out approaches. Discussed the establishment and free exercise clauses as well as the relative hardships of the bar exam vs. the series seven exam with drunk guy and his friend, then continued writing approaches.
Got through all approaches with about 85-90% accuracy without looking at my master ones. Felt good about that, and still feel good about the rainbow on the way here. Not sure why.
Now I am going to read my newest issue of Bon Appetit and Eating Well and enjoy some banal television... in the morning I will again listen to my super soothing nice lady who tells me how smart and amazing I am. Seriously, someone posted it on the Cal Bar Repeaters group and this lady is so soothing- I LOVE HER. No, really- I want to have this lady in my life every day I ever have to go into court. She's so nice. She's so soothing. She's so positive.... I wish I had her all through the FIRST bar prep. I woulda passed the first time with this lady, dammit.
Anyway, not focusing on the negative... we are focusing on the positive. I am actually happy to go tomorrow and take the test. I know that sounds weird and twisted, but I'm kind of excited, like I know this is my last chance to show the examiners what I know, so I just want to get to it already.
Ahhhh...... I don't know what happened to me this time, but the bar is so much nicer and better this time. (Geez, I must sound like I'm on crack or something...)
I'll post tomorrow and we'll see if my calm continues.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Ready?...
Am I ready? I go back and forth. One minute I feel like I just don't know it as well as last February, but then if I pull out any random set of flashcards, I know the rules, so I feel better.
MBEs are the same for me. Actually, in some ways they are easier. I don't hate them as much. By that I mean that I read one, and I have the gist of what they are looking for. However, I just don't know some of the minute rules, so I am aware that if I could remember if the measure of damages between merchants is at the time of breach (it is- I looked it up), or at the time the contract was made compared to the contract price, then getting the right answer is not a problem.
However, I know I am not going to know it all. That's just impossible and too much to expect, so I'm past even trying or panicking about that. I know my writing is soooo much better and more confident. Doing essays got to the point where I could read the question and start spilling out the answer without even thinking twice, which is how I used to be in law school. I knew I was ready for a final when I could go through past exam questions and immediately see the answer in my head as it should be laid out. So, that is fine.
PT's: I actually feel really good about those. I figure one will be factually based and I feel like I know exactly what to do with that one. The other will be more rule, argument based, and therefore harder for me to cram into the time requirements ( I like to mull over and so the time crunch always throws me), but I'm just going to do the obvious, do what I can, and make sure I cover everything I can possibly think of.
So, aside from last minute memorizing, which I know I need to continue on, I am pretty much ready. I wrote out, using my blank page method, all my approaches this morning and feel really, really good about the stuff that I KNOW that I know. And even stuff that I think I don't know, I actually mostly do. On topics, like Con Law, that I know less well, I am at about 70% rentention right now, so I think if my worst subject is at 70% solid comfort level, then there isn't much more I could expect from myself.
Most importantly, I don't want to kill myself right now, as in past last weekends before the bar. I feel pretty good. I'm actually kind of looking forward to going there, sitting down in the test room, and showing the examiners what I know and that they have made a serious error in not giving me my bar card already.
So, that's where I'm at. Hope all is well with you, dear reader. Although comments are few, I know from my site meter counts that people are reading. So, good luck to all who are sharing this experience with me, and let's go kick some bar exam ass.
I am sure I will post again, but I just feel like I am now done preparing. I have memorized, worked on my writing, and mentally prepared, so the rest is just downhill- just finalizing and cementing the work I have done. I hope the same is true for all of you.
MBEs are the same for me. Actually, in some ways they are easier. I don't hate them as much. By that I mean that I read one, and I have the gist of what they are looking for. However, I just don't know some of the minute rules, so I am aware that if I could remember if the measure of damages between merchants is at the time of breach (it is- I looked it up), or at the time the contract was made compared to the contract price, then getting the right answer is not a problem.
However, I know I am not going to know it all. That's just impossible and too much to expect, so I'm past even trying or panicking about that. I know my writing is soooo much better and more confident. Doing essays got to the point where I could read the question and start spilling out the answer without even thinking twice, which is how I used to be in law school. I knew I was ready for a final when I could go through past exam questions and immediately see the answer in my head as it should be laid out. So, that is fine.
PT's: I actually feel really good about those. I figure one will be factually based and I feel like I know exactly what to do with that one. The other will be more rule, argument based, and therefore harder for me to cram into the time requirements ( I like to mull over and so the time crunch always throws me), but I'm just going to do the obvious, do what I can, and make sure I cover everything I can possibly think of.
So, aside from last minute memorizing, which I know I need to continue on, I am pretty much ready. I wrote out, using my blank page method, all my approaches this morning and feel really, really good about the stuff that I KNOW that I know. And even stuff that I think I don't know, I actually mostly do. On topics, like Con Law, that I know less well, I am at about 70% rentention right now, so I think if my worst subject is at 70% solid comfort level, then there isn't much more I could expect from myself.
Most importantly, I don't want to kill myself right now, as in past last weekends before the bar. I feel pretty good. I'm actually kind of looking forward to going there, sitting down in the test room, and showing the examiners what I know and that they have made a serious error in not giving me my bar card already.
So, that's where I'm at. Hope all is well with you, dear reader. Although comments are few, I know from my site meter counts that people are reading. So, good luck to all who are sharing this experience with me, and let's go kick some bar exam ass.
I am sure I will post again, but I just feel like I am now done preparing. I have memorized, worked on my writing, and mentally prepared, so the rest is just downhill- just finalizing and cementing the work I have done. I hope the same is true for all of you.
Friday, February 13, 2009
CA/FED Civ Pro...
Here is my breakdown of the distinctions... keep in mind that I purposely left out things that I thought were not really differences. The only real example that comes to mind is the class action distinctions, as I decided that I just didn't think the differences were substantive enough to warrant learning.
Enjoy....
CA/FED Civ Pro Distinctions
CA long arm statute= constitutional limits
CA conflict of Law Rules= For Tort claims: if there is a conflict, balance the state interests
For Contract claims: if choice of law clause is enforceable, then balance the state interests
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Fed-
1) Federal Question or
2) Diversity
CA-
1) Limited Civil= $25K or less,
2) Unlimited civil= more than $25K,
3) Small claims= under $7,500
Venue
Fed-
determines the judicial district in which an action under fed jurisdiction may be brought
Rule: proper:
1) where any defendant resides (if all in same state), or
2) where the T/O properly held/occurred
If no 1 or 2, in solely diversity cases, where any defendant is subject to PJ
If no 1 or 2, not diversity cases, where any defendant is found
CA-
determines the county in which an action within state court jurisdiction may be brought
Rule:
1) the county where where any defendant resides, where the contract performance or execution to occur, or where the tort occurred. (For corps, where the contract is to be performed, the breach occurs, or the principle place of business.)
Transfer of Venue
Fed- improper venue may be waived
Venue may be transferred “in the interest of justice”
CA- if improper, may still transfer if 1) not impartial, 2) convenience, or 3) no qualified judge in that county
Venue selection clauses unenforceable
Service of Process
Fed:
1) personal delivery,
2) leave at dwelling house or usual abode with person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or
3) serving an agent appointed for service.
Alternate ways are
4) to follow the methods for service of process in the state where the federal court sits, and
5) if Defendant out of state, pursuant to the state’s rules where the action is pending
CA:
1) not a party and
2) over the age of 18
Options:
1) personal
2) Substituted followed by mailing
3) mail
4) publication
Immunity from Process
Fed:
1) if enter the state to appear in another action, or
2) fraud or deceit by the plaintiff
CA: no immunity
Injunctions
Fed- TRO: 10 day period if:
1) Irreparable harm
2) Must show why notice not required, and
3) Post security bond
CA TRO:
1) no time limit-expires when preliminary injunction issued or denied
2) if no notice- hearing on prelim injunction within 15 days
3) court has discretion to issue without a bond
Pleadings
Fed: Notice Pleading, must include:
1) Grounds of jurisdiction
2) Short statement of claim (fraud pled with particularity)
3) Demand for judgment for relief
CA: Fact Pleading (based on Code)
1) Statement of facts
2) Demand for judgment for relief
Pre-Answer Motion/Demurrer
Fed:
Motion to dismiss, for:
1) Lack of SMJ
2) Lack of PJ
3) Improper venue
4) Insufficiency of Process
5) Insufficiency of Service if Process
6) Failure to State a Claim for Relief
7) Failure to Join Indispensible Party
CA:
calls the 12(b)(6) motion a demurrer, works the same as the federal counterpart
Two kinds:
1) General demurrer- like 12(b)(6), can’t bring for lack of SMJ
2) Special demurrer- can bring for:
a. Lack of legal capacity
b. Other action pending
c. Defect/misjoinder of parties
d. Uncertain pleadings
e. Oral/written contract not plead
f. Not filing required certificates
Motion to Quash/Strike
Fed:
1) Motion to quash- objection to PJ, file with answer to preserve objection
2)Motion for more definite answer- must be before answering (in CA, special demurrer)
3)Motion to strike- used for any insufficient defense, redundant immaterial or scandalous material (CA has anti-SLAPP motion to strike)
Pre-Trial or Trial Procedures
Fed:
1) Must have general/special denial(s)
2) Must include affirmative defenses
3) If Rule 12 motion, answer within 20 days
4) If waive formal service, must answer within 60 days
CA:
1) General or specific denial(s)
2) If complaint verified, answer must also be verified
3) 30 days to answer complaint
4) If demurrer, must be within 10 days
Default Judgments
Fed:
is a sum certain
2) Party failed to appear, and
3) Party is not infant or incompetent
4) Notice after default required before default hearing
CA:
clerk may enter if
1) Arises out of contract or judgment
2) There is a sum certain
3) Party was not served by publication
4) Notice not required and no right to appear at default hearing
Counterclaims/Cross Complaints
Fed:
called counter claims
1) Compulsory- requires same T/O
2) Permissive- needs independent jurisdiction
3) Must reply within 20 days
CA:
called Cross Complaints
Amended Pleadings
Fed:
1) amendment to new cause of action, relates back to original complaint, must be same T/O
2) amendment to add new Defendant, if S of L not run, is permitted
3) exceptions- 1) mistake ID, within 120 days, and party knew or should have known
CA:
1) misnomer doctrine
2) Doe amendments (within 3 years of filing complaint), if:
a. Genuinely ignorant
b. Original complaint has the allegations in it
Intervention
Fed:
1) Of right- interest in property or transaction, no apparent supp. Jur.
2) Permissive- question of fact/law in common, not necessarily a direct or pecuniary interest, needs independent jurisdiction
CA:
requires “direct and immediate interest”
Discovery
Fed:
affirmative duty to make reasonable inquiry into facts and disclose information
CA:
no automatic disclosure requirement
Work Product
Fed:
discoverable upon showing of:
1) Substantial need, and
2) Avoid undue hardship
CA:
substantially the same, but language is “unfairly prejudice or result in injustice”
Case Management
Fed:
requires meet and confer to plan discovery, court makes a schedule they have to follow
CA:
case management conference will be scheduled by court within 180 days of filing c/o
Jury Trial
Fed:
7th A preserves right to jury trial in federal court if suit is:
1) Common law, and
2) Greater than $20
3) Must make demand within 20 days or waived
4) Legal claims tried first, then equitable
CA:
right exists for,
1) Common law claims
2) Gist of the action legal rather than equitable
Dismissal by Plaintiff
Fed:
as a matter of right until answer/SMJ filed or stipulation of all parties
CA:
as a matter of right until commencement of trial (unless parties agree otherwise)
Directed Verdict/Nonsuits
Fed:
called Judgment as a Matter of Law (Directed Verdict), renewed judgment as a matter of law must be filed within 10 days after entry of judgment
CA:
called nonsuit, motion made after plaintiff’s opening, may be partial (on certain issues)
Called directed verdict after all evidence is presented
Motion for a New Trial
Fed:
within 10 days
CA:
within 15 days
Same grounds, failure to move for new trial will be waived on appeal
Motion for Summary Judgment
Fed:
defendant can bring at any time, plaintiff/claimant can bring 20 days or after another party brings
CA:
any party- after 60 days since general appearance of the other party
Otherwise, both substantially the same
Relief from Judgment
Fed:
grounds
1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect
2) New evidence
3) Misconduct, fraud of adverse party
4) Void judgment
5) Satisfaction/release/discharge/prior judgment vacated or reversed
6) Generally within one year
CA:
grounds
1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
2) Reasonable time, not to exceed 6 months
3) Void judgment
Final Judgment
Fed:
unless judge makes express determination, order on some parties will not be final- must dispose of the whole case on its merits by rendering final judgment as to all parties and all claims
Notice of appeal within 30 days
CA:
judgment against some is final if no further issues and is immediately appealable
Notice of appeal within 60 days
Res Judicata
Fed:
final when rendered
Includes all rights from the same transaction or occurrence
CA:
final when all appeals exhausted
Includes “primary rights” (based on causes of action, ie. for personal injury, property damages, etc.)
Enjoy....
CA/FED Civ Pro Distinctions
CA long arm statute= constitutional limits
CA conflict of Law Rules= For Tort claims: if there is a conflict, balance the state interests
For Contract claims: if choice of law clause is enforceable, then balance the state interests
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Fed-
1) Federal Question or
2) Diversity
CA-
1) Limited Civil= $25K or less,
2) Unlimited civil= more than $25K,
3) Small claims= under $7,500
Venue
Fed-
determines the judicial district in which an action under fed jurisdiction may be brought
Rule: proper:
1) where any defendant resides (if all in same state), or
2) where the T/O properly held/occurred
If no 1 or 2, in solely diversity cases, where any defendant is subject to PJ
If no 1 or 2, not diversity cases, where any defendant is found
CA-
determines the county in which an action within state court jurisdiction may be brought
Rule:
1) the county where where any defendant resides, where the contract performance or execution to occur, or where the tort occurred. (For corps, where the contract is to be performed, the breach occurs, or the principle place of business.)
Transfer of Venue
Fed- improper venue may be waived
Venue may be transferred “in the interest of justice”
CA- if improper, may still transfer if 1) not impartial, 2) convenience, or 3) no qualified judge in that county
Venue selection clauses unenforceable
Service of Process
Fed:
1) personal delivery,
2) leave at dwelling house or usual abode with person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or
3) serving an agent appointed for service.
Alternate ways are
4) to follow the methods for service of process in the state where the federal court sits, and
5) if Defendant out of state, pursuant to the state’s rules where the action is pending
CA:
1) not a party and
2) over the age of 18
Options:
1) personal
2) Substituted followed by mailing
3) mail
4) publication
Immunity from Process
Fed:
1) if enter the state to appear in another action, or
2) fraud or deceit by the plaintiff
CA: no immunity
Injunctions
Fed- TRO: 10 day period if:
1) Irreparable harm
2) Must show why notice not required, and
3) Post security bond
CA TRO:
1) no time limit-expires when preliminary injunction issued or denied
2) if no notice- hearing on prelim injunction within 15 days
3) court has discretion to issue without a bond
Pleadings
Fed: Notice Pleading, must include:
1) Grounds of jurisdiction
2) Short statement of claim (fraud pled with particularity)
3) Demand for judgment for relief
CA: Fact Pleading (based on Code)
1) Statement of facts
2) Demand for judgment for relief
Pre-Answer Motion/Demurrer
Fed:
Motion to dismiss, for:
1) Lack of SMJ
2) Lack of PJ
3) Improper venue
4) Insufficiency of Process
5) Insufficiency of Service if Process
6) Failure to State a Claim for Relief
7) Failure to Join Indispensible Party
CA:
calls the 12(b)(6) motion a demurrer, works the same as the federal counterpart
Two kinds:
1) General demurrer- like 12(b)(6), can’t bring for lack of SMJ
2) Special demurrer- can bring for:
a. Lack of legal capacity
b. Other action pending
c. Defect/misjoinder of parties
d. Uncertain pleadings
e. Oral/written contract not plead
f. Not filing required certificates
Motion to Quash/Strike
Fed:
1) Motion to quash- objection to PJ, file with answer to preserve objection
2)Motion for more definite answer- must be before answering (in CA, special demurrer)
3)Motion to strike- used for any insufficient defense, redundant immaterial or scandalous material (CA has anti-SLAPP motion to strike)
Pre-Trial or Trial Procedures
Fed:
1) Must have general/special denial(s)
2) Must include affirmative defenses
3) If Rule 12 motion, answer within 20 days
4) If waive formal service, must answer within 60 days
CA:
1) General or specific denial(s)
2) If complaint verified, answer must also be verified
3) 30 days to answer complaint
4) If demurrer, must be within 10 days
Default Judgments
Fed:
is a sum certain
2) Party failed to appear, and
3) Party is not infant or incompetent
4) Notice after default required before default hearing
CA:
clerk may enter if
1) Arises out of contract or judgment
2) There is a sum certain
3) Party was not served by publication
4) Notice not required and no right to appear at default hearing
Counterclaims/Cross Complaints
Fed:
called counter claims
1) Compulsory- requires same T/O
2) Permissive- needs independent jurisdiction
3) Must reply within 20 days
CA:
called Cross Complaints
Amended Pleadings
Fed:
1) amendment to new cause of action, relates back to original complaint, must be same T/O
2) amendment to add new Defendant, if S of L not run, is permitted
3) exceptions- 1) mistake ID, within 120 days, and party knew or should have known
CA:
1) misnomer doctrine
2) Doe amendments (within 3 years of filing complaint), if:
a. Genuinely ignorant
b. Original complaint has the allegations in it
Intervention
Fed:
1) Of right- interest in property or transaction, no apparent supp. Jur.
2) Permissive- question of fact/law in common, not necessarily a direct or pecuniary interest, needs independent jurisdiction
CA:
requires “direct and immediate interest”
Discovery
Fed:
affirmative duty to make reasonable inquiry into facts and disclose information
CA:
no automatic disclosure requirement
Work Product
Fed:
discoverable upon showing of:
1) Substantial need, and
2) Avoid undue hardship
CA:
substantially the same, but language is “unfairly prejudice or result in injustice”
Case Management
Fed:
requires meet and confer to plan discovery, court makes a schedule they have to follow
CA:
case management conference will be scheduled by court within 180 days of filing c/o
Jury Trial
Fed:
7th A preserves right to jury trial in federal court if suit is:
1) Common law, and
2) Greater than $20
3) Must make demand within 20 days or waived
4) Legal claims tried first, then equitable
CA:
right exists for,
1) Common law claims
2) Gist of the action legal rather than equitable
Dismissal by Plaintiff
Fed:
as a matter of right until answer/SMJ filed or stipulation of all parties
CA:
as a matter of right until commencement of trial (unless parties agree otherwise)
Directed Verdict/Nonsuits
Fed:
called Judgment as a Matter of Law (Directed Verdict), renewed judgment as a matter of law must be filed within 10 days after entry of judgment
CA:
called nonsuit, motion made after plaintiff’s opening, may be partial (on certain issues)
Called directed verdict after all evidence is presented
Motion for a New Trial
Fed:
within 10 days
CA:
within 15 days
Same grounds, failure to move for new trial will be waived on appeal
Motion for Summary Judgment
Fed:
defendant can bring at any time, plaintiff/claimant can bring 20 days or after another party brings
CA:
any party- after 60 days since general appearance of the other party
Otherwise, both substantially the same
Relief from Judgment
Fed:
grounds
1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect
2) New evidence
3) Misconduct, fraud of adverse party
4) Void judgment
5) Satisfaction/release/discharge/prior judgment vacated or reversed
6) Generally within one year
CA:
grounds
1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
2) Reasonable time, not to exceed 6 months
3) Void judgment
Final Judgment
Fed:
unless judge makes express determination, order on some parties will not be final- must dispose of the whole case on its merits by rendering final judgment as to all parties and all claims
Notice of appeal within 30 days
CA:
judgment against some is final if no further issues and is immediately appealable
Notice of appeal within 60 days
Res Judicata
Fed:
final when rendered
Includes all rights from the same transaction or occurrence
CA:
final when all appeals exhausted
Includes “primary rights” (based on causes of action, ie. for personal injury, property damages, etc.)
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Defamation...
Oh, and to follow up on yesterday... I notice there has been no defamation for a while. Hey, I KNOW defamation- wouldn't it be cool if that showed up in 19 days?
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
PR...
8 PR essays later... and I am tired. I see ethical violations EVERYWHERE.
Just sayin'.
Plus, I just disagree that it is proper in California for an attorney to have sex with his client as long as he or she reasonably believes that it will not interfere with their ability to represent the client.
I mean, how would you really know that? If they are good in bed, you'd certainly want to do better for them, but then there's the alternative.... if they suck in bed and do weird stuff that makes you think they are crazy or worse, then how could that NOT affect your representation of them?
These are the kind of thoughts that kept me from passing previously... back to rule, apply, conclude... much safer that way.
Just sayin'.
Plus, I just disagree that it is proper in California for an attorney to have sex with his client as long as he or she reasonably believes that it will not interfere with their ability to represent the client.
I mean, how would you really know that? If they are good in bed, you'd certainly want to do better for them, but then there's the alternative.... if they suck in bed and do weird stuff that makes you think they are crazy or worse, then how could that NOT affect your representation of them?
These are the kind of thoughts that kept me from passing previously... back to rule, apply, conclude... much safer that way.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Torts...
I have now done everything that has a good score for the last five years for torts....
Too tired to type anymore... will update checklist later....
Too tired to type anymore... will update checklist later....
Monday, February 2, 2009
Contract Remedies...
Wow, so I have found what I should have done last February.... I did this in law school, and then followed people's dumb advice and didn't do it for the bar and my scores suffered as a result.
I got myself a subscription to baressays.com. So, each day, my schedule is this: go to gym, use the machines and look like an idiot while I go through flashcards memorizing. Get sweaty and tired, so stop by Starbucks for a nice short nonfat latte. Come home and shower, then pull up baressays and pick a topic. Today it was contract remedies: pull up question, read and outline it (the first one is hard), and then retype the best scored answer(s) on baressays that correspond to that question. Pick another question in the same topic, lather, rinse, repeat.
By the third essay, I was able to outline within five minutes and type at a FAST clip getting all the elements in no time. It also teaches me how to limit the issues to what they are looking for and not get off on a tangent or get too far down the wrong path. Also, you get in and out FAST. A LOT faster than I typically was doing in the past.
Yes, the stoooopid California Bar Exam will not beat me this time!
I'm just sayin'.
I got myself a subscription to baressays.com. So, each day, my schedule is this: go to gym, use the machines and look like an idiot while I go through flashcards memorizing. Get sweaty and tired, so stop by Starbucks for a nice short nonfat latte. Come home and shower, then pull up baressays and pick a topic. Today it was contract remedies: pull up question, read and outline it (the first one is hard), and then retype the best scored answer(s) on baressays that correspond to that question. Pick another question in the same topic, lather, rinse, repeat.
By the third essay, I was able to outline within five minutes and type at a FAST clip getting all the elements in no time. It also teaches me how to limit the issues to what they are looking for and not get off on a tangent or get too far down the wrong path. Also, you get in and out FAST. A LOT faster than I typically was doing in the past.
Yes, the stoooopid California Bar Exam will not beat me this time!
I'm just sayin'.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Essays...
In case anybody is starting the new year in an effort to do endless past essays, here is a link to lots and lots of old ones.... You hafta register, but hey, better than paying for the same thing from Barbri...
Click Here
Click Here
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Materials...
So, my friend A is going through what I went through when I didn't pass the first time. After talking to her some and lots of emailing about this, it has come to my attention that there are many misconceptions about bar study materials. I, too, fell victim to thinking that I had to have more materials to ensure a pass on the exam.
So, in an effort to allow others to learn from some of my mistakes, here is my list of myths surrounding bar prep-- specific to materials in particular....
Myth #1: I must have the newest materials to be the best prepared for the exam.
Truth: No. You don't. Period. Buy stuff off Craigslist. Buy your friend's old stuff who was a year ahead of you in law school. I had a set of PMBR books from five years ago and a set from ten years ago. I purchased new ones as well. Lo and behold, those ten year old books are EXACTLY THE SAME as the new ones. Same questions, same answers, same effing typos, SAME EVERYTHING. So, don't blow money on the newest stuff. It's just wasting money.
Myth #2: I must focus on the distinctions between California law and federal law (evidence and civ pro.)
Truth: No. You don't. Well, maybe spend 15 to 30 minutes recognizing that there are some distinctions and be aware of what areas have distinctions, but do not spend inordinate amounts of time studying the minutiae of these. There is enough minutiae on the exam without making it worse.
Myth #3: If I just buy this or that (or any) extra book, it'll be the key to passing.
Truth: No. Wrong. Using the daylights out of the materials you have will do it. Spending time buying materials and shopping for materials is a waste of precious study time. You need something that has MBEs in it (PMBR books and/or Strategies and Tactics for the MBE), and something that you can practice essays from. Also, a Conviser Mini Review. That's about it. PT study materials are largely filled with really old, outdated examples of PTs and aren't even all that helpful (the bar website is best for those because they are actually recent). Just. Don't. Buy. Any. More.
Myth #4: I must have a personal tutor to be assured of passing.
Truth: You don't necessarily. And I say this having NOT passed, but I am just not of the persuasion that it is absolutely necessary to spend $5,000 on a personal tutor to keep you on your study schedule and show you the basic traps of writing an essay answer. Join the yahoo repeaters group. Talk to some friends who are also studying. Spend only $75 on baressays.com and spend some quality time with a question and answers to it that earned a 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 respectively. A tutor will NOT insert the knowledge into you. You have to teach yourself and spending extra money does not make up for not putting in the time to learn the law. You will still have to learn the law and learn how to write the way the examiners want to see it. There are no shortcuts. Period.
Myth #5: I can buy flashcards instead of making my own.
Truth: No. Spend less money and accept that your hand will cramp writing out your own flashcards. Again- THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS. The act of going methodically through each subject, digesting each rule, making it into a concise (and I do mean concise) rule statement, lists to remember, and lists of elements is all exhaustive but necessary work. So, save your money and spend only on blank cards and force yourself to make your own tools for memorization later.
Myth #6: I can study right up to the exam.
Truth: I, too, thought this. Wrong. Treat it like a marathon. You train, then you taper off just before the race. Allow two weeks prior to the exam to simply memorize, write out your approaches or cheat sheets or whatever you are doing to plan for essay issues, and do MBEs. Do not plan to write three essays a day during this time. It's too late then. Learning and practicing are different acts than memorizing, and you do have to memorize some for this exam because there's just so much stuff. Anyone who says you don't need rule statements in addition to analysis is lying to you.
Finally...
Myth #7: 'I am not smart enough to pass' (and it's corollary) 'I am smart enough to get by without working as much as others in order to pass'.
Truth: No. Not true. Lots of stupid people, mean people, brilliant people, nice people, and ethical people pass this test every single administration. If you do the work, you have a good chance of passing. If you do the work, you might still not pass. It's arbitrary. You get a grader who is assigning grades subjectively. There is absolutely no way to calibrate the written portion of the test to make some kind of magic formula that ensures complete objectivity in this exam. So, I instead stick with this philosophy.... I am smart, I worked hard and efficiently to prepare, and I just have to hope that I get the exam that shows my knowledge and skill and the bar gods smile on me this time.
'Nough said.
So, in an effort to allow others to learn from some of my mistakes, here is my list of myths surrounding bar prep-- specific to materials in particular....
Myth #1: I must have the newest materials to be the best prepared for the exam.
Truth: No. You don't. Period. Buy stuff off Craigslist. Buy your friend's old stuff who was a year ahead of you in law school. I had a set of PMBR books from five years ago and a set from ten years ago. I purchased new ones as well. Lo and behold, those ten year old books are EXACTLY THE SAME as the new ones. Same questions, same answers, same effing typos, SAME EVERYTHING. So, don't blow money on the newest stuff. It's just wasting money.
Myth #2: I must focus on the distinctions between California law and federal law (evidence and civ pro.)
Truth: No. You don't. Well, maybe spend 15 to 30 minutes recognizing that there are some distinctions and be aware of what areas have distinctions, but do not spend inordinate amounts of time studying the minutiae of these. There is enough minutiae on the exam without making it worse.
Myth #3: If I just buy this or that (or any) extra book, it'll be the key to passing.
Truth: No. Wrong. Using the daylights out of the materials you have will do it. Spending time buying materials and shopping for materials is a waste of precious study time. You need something that has MBEs in it (PMBR books and/or Strategies and Tactics for the MBE), and something that you can practice essays from. Also, a Conviser Mini Review. That's about it. PT study materials are largely filled with really old, outdated examples of PTs and aren't even all that helpful (the bar website is best for those because they are actually recent). Just. Don't. Buy. Any. More.
Myth #4: I must have a personal tutor to be assured of passing.
Truth: You don't necessarily. And I say this having NOT passed, but I am just not of the persuasion that it is absolutely necessary to spend $5,000 on a personal tutor to keep you on your study schedule and show you the basic traps of writing an essay answer. Join the yahoo repeaters group. Talk to some friends who are also studying. Spend only $75 on baressays.com and spend some quality time with a question and answers to it that earned a 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 respectively. A tutor will NOT insert the knowledge into you. You have to teach yourself and spending extra money does not make up for not putting in the time to learn the law. You will still have to learn the law and learn how to write the way the examiners want to see it. There are no shortcuts. Period.
Myth #5: I can buy flashcards instead of making my own.
Truth: No. Spend less money and accept that your hand will cramp writing out your own flashcards. Again- THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS. The act of going methodically through each subject, digesting each rule, making it into a concise (and I do mean concise) rule statement, lists to remember, and lists of elements is all exhaustive but necessary work. So, save your money and spend only on blank cards and force yourself to make your own tools for memorization later.
Myth #6: I can study right up to the exam.
Truth: I, too, thought this. Wrong. Treat it like a marathon. You train, then you taper off just before the race. Allow two weeks prior to the exam to simply memorize, write out your approaches or cheat sheets or whatever you are doing to plan for essay issues, and do MBEs. Do not plan to write three essays a day during this time. It's too late then. Learning and practicing are different acts than memorizing, and you do have to memorize some for this exam because there's just so much stuff. Anyone who says you don't need rule statements in addition to analysis is lying to you.
Finally...
Myth #7: 'I am not smart enough to pass' (and it's corollary) 'I am smart enough to get by without working as much as others in order to pass'.
Truth: No. Not true. Lots of stupid people, mean people, brilliant people, nice people, and ethical people pass this test every single administration. If you do the work, you have a good chance of passing. If you do the work, you might still not pass. It's arbitrary. You get a grader who is assigning grades subjectively. There is absolutely no way to calibrate the written portion of the test to make some kind of magic formula that ensures complete objectivity in this exam. So, I instead stick with this philosophy.... I am smart, I worked hard and efficiently to prepare, and I just have to hope that I get the exam that shows my knowledge and skill and the bar gods smile on me this time.
'Nough said.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Vacation...
Ah... a few days of blissful relaxation and fun to be had at Disneyland and now I feel like I am actually ready to start facing the next step.
New things in my life:
1. working for myself (yay), not the man
2. working on how I am going to make this my last bar exam
Benefits of numbers 1 and 2:
1. more time
2. less stress
3. knowing that I know what it takes to pass
4. a LOT less exhaustion
Last February I went to the exam knowing that I knew the law and that I knew how to write essays and do reasonably well on the MBEs. The PTs, not so much. I took a two day seminar and it really didn't do much except tell me an order to do things and how to get through the library quickly. I also had not figured out how important not being exhausted was to getting through the afternoons.
So, after some reflection, I have arrived at this: The bar prep I did for the essays was excellent. I took a course similar to Essay Advantage that showed me all the ways I was messing up my essays and how to fix that. I also got back fifteen graded essays from them, which started off as 55's and 60's and after three or four turned into 70's and 75's. And lo and behold, my scores on the essay portion: nothing less and than a 65. Basically, I got the ten points per esssay increase I was looking for.
MBE's: it's funny, but I did a LOT less MBE's than the previous exam. I think I did about 2200 for the previous July. I did MBE's until I was so angst ridden about MBEs that I continually talked myself out of the right answer because I could remember having done that question but did not remember which answer I answered or whether the one I wanted to choose was the right one or not. For last February, I did maybe 600 MBE's, and followed the advice of my bar prep person instead. She said knowing the law was the key to the essays AND the MBE's. So, instead of doing lots of those, I focused on making my own flashcards for every single subject and then memorizing them, as well as my approaches/cheat sheets/whatever you want to call them precisely. Man, that was a lot of work, time consuming, and exhausting, but it was what I needed to do. My MBE score jumped some 25 raw points.
PT's: I had a sinking sensation during the Tuesday PT in February. That thing was hard. I was mentally tired from staying up until something a.m. almost every night for the last six weeks. I had gone full blast on the essays in the morning.... I was just tired and was having a hard time getting the nice clear focus that legal writing requires (at least for me). Then Thursday was just as bad, not because it was hard, but because I was that much more tired by Thursday afternoon. And it was con law stuff. Something about con law makes my eyes glaze over. It started with the professor I had in law school, whom I despised. And it continued with the extracurriculars I was doing while in that class to make for a sense of dread and horror when the different scrutinies must be remembered.
So, I walked out of February knowing that I did fine on the essays, fine on the MBEs, and that I probably got a 55 and a 60 or a 65 on the PTS.
And I was right.
So now, I still remember a lot of the rules verbatim. I still remember a lot of the MBEs. In a couple of hours I could get back my memorization on all my cheat sheets. The only area of struggle remains the PT.
However, I know how to write after having drafted hundreds of letters, many many carrier reports, ex parte applications, motions, summary judgment motions, appellate briefs, etc. I am just not worried about my writing skills. I am worried about being too tired to clearly focus. By 3:00, my brain starts turning in circles and I am far less able to focus and write something coherent.
I am down to thinking that simply sitting down, in a non-exigent, panicked way, and looking at some old PTs and some old answers is all I really need to do. That worked really, really well for me in law school. I used to do my outline, study it, get the law all memorized and shrunk down to manageable compartments in my head, and then look at old exams. I could review 5-6 of them and have a good handle on what that professor preferred for style, content, etc.
So, for anonymous who thinks I am not really wanting to pass the exam, I say, nope. You're absolutely wrong. First, I think people who don't pass and then say they didn't really want to be an attorney are saying that to make themselves feel better on at least some level. Sure, there may some validity to working in a law office and realizing that you are not cut out for the job, but the bottom line is this: nobody goes through three years of law school and multiple attempts at the bar exam to be deemed NOT good enough to practice as an attorney.
As for me personally, I was not sure that I wanted to actually be an attorney until after law school when I worked for good and bad attorneys and realized that I really, really, like the job itself. I get to go to work and think, my efforts have an effect on people in the real world (unlike academia, where you get to go and think but it is removed from practical application in many fields), you have flexibility of lifestyle and those with whom you work.... I like research, writing, order and organization, and I like the gamesmanship of figuring out the ways to use a rule/statute to accomplish a goal. In short, the only thing I despise about the law is summarizing medical records. And that just tells me I don't much want to do med mal or P.I. unless it is necessary.
Also to those who say that if you don't pass it's not because you wanted it bad enough, I would say that I guess I agree and disagree at the same time. Do I want to pass- sure. Do I want to pass enough to put my children and my husband on complete hold for an indeterminate length of time? nope. And sure, I did not pass on the first try. I did not pass on the second try (but I came damn close). But I will pass this test eventually, and I know that for sure. I am taking the exam until I pass it, but I am not spending 12 hours per day studying myself into a tizzy anymore to do it. I also don't need to do that anymore. After two study periods, there is not enough to do that I need to spend 12 hours a day. We're not reinventing the wheel, here. Starting from scratch is 12 hours per day. Tweaking and getting back up to speed is not 12 hours per day. It's about 4-6.
So, that's where I am at... now I gotta go get some work done so I can afford food and clothing and shelter and all that good stuff.
New things in my life:
1. working for myself (yay), not the man
2. working on how I am going to make this my last bar exam
Benefits of numbers 1 and 2:
1. more time
2. less stress
3. knowing that I know what it takes to pass
4. a LOT less exhaustion
Last February I went to the exam knowing that I knew the law and that I knew how to write essays and do reasonably well on the MBEs. The PTs, not so much. I took a two day seminar and it really didn't do much except tell me an order to do things and how to get through the library quickly. I also had not figured out how important not being exhausted was to getting through the afternoons.
So, after some reflection, I have arrived at this: The bar prep I did for the essays was excellent. I took a course similar to Essay Advantage that showed me all the ways I was messing up my essays and how to fix that. I also got back fifteen graded essays from them, which started off as 55's and 60's and after three or four turned into 70's and 75's. And lo and behold, my scores on the essay portion: nothing less and than a 65. Basically, I got the ten points per esssay increase I was looking for.
MBE's: it's funny, but I did a LOT less MBE's than the previous exam. I think I did about 2200 for the previous July. I did MBE's until I was so angst ridden about MBEs that I continually talked myself out of the right answer because I could remember having done that question but did not remember which answer I answered or whether the one I wanted to choose was the right one or not. For last February, I did maybe 600 MBE's, and followed the advice of my bar prep person instead. She said knowing the law was the key to the essays AND the MBE's. So, instead of doing lots of those, I focused on making my own flashcards for every single subject and then memorizing them, as well as my approaches/cheat sheets/whatever you want to call them precisely. Man, that was a lot of work, time consuming, and exhausting, but it was what I needed to do. My MBE score jumped some 25 raw points.
PT's: I had a sinking sensation during the Tuesday PT in February. That thing was hard. I was mentally tired from staying up until something a.m. almost every night for the last six weeks. I had gone full blast on the essays in the morning.... I was just tired and was having a hard time getting the nice clear focus that legal writing requires (at least for me). Then Thursday was just as bad, not because it was hard, but because I was that much more tired by Thursday afternoon. And it was con law stuff. Something about con law makes my eyes glaze over. It started with the professor I had in law school, whom I despised. And it continued with the extracurriculars I was doing while in that class to make for a sense of dread and horror when the different scrutinies must be remembered.
So, I walked out of February knowing that I did fine on the essays, fine on the MBEs, and that I probably got a 55 and a 60 or a 65 on the PTS.
And I was right.
So now, I still remember a lot of the rules verbatim. I still remember a lot of the MBEs. In a couple of hours I could get back my memorization on all my cheat sheets. The only area of struggle remains the PT.
However, I know how to write after having drafted hundreds of letters, many many carrier reports, ex parte applications, motions, summary judgment motions, appellate briefs, etc. I am just not worried about my writing skills. I am worried about being too tired to clearly focus. By 3:00, my brain starts turning in circles and I am far less able to focus and write something coherent.
I am down to thinking that simply sitting down, in a non-exigent, panicked way, and looking at some old PTs and some old answers is all I really need to do. That worked really, really well for me in law school. I used to do my outline, study it, get the law all memorized and shrunk down to manageable compartments in my head, and then look at old exams. I could review 5-6 of them and have a good handle on what that professor preferred for style, content, etc.
So, for anonymous who thinks I am not really wanting to pass the exam, I say, nope. You're absolutely wrong. First, I think people who don't pass and then say they didn't really want to be an attorney are saying that to make themselves feel better on at least some level. Sure, there may some validity to working in a law office and realizing that you are not cut out for the job, but the bottom line is this: nobody goes through three years of law school and multiple attempts at the bar exam to be deemed NOT good enough to practice as an attorney.
As for me personally, I was not sure that I wanted to actually be an attorney until after law school when I worked for good and bad attorneys and realized that I really, really, like the job itself. I get to go to work and think, my efforts have an effect on people in the real world (unlike academia, where you get to go and think but it is removed from practical application in many fields), you have flexibility of lifestyle and those with whom you work.... I like research, writing, order and organization, and I like the gamesmanship of figuring out the ways to use a rule/statute to accomplish a goal. In short, the only thing I despise about the law is summarizing medical records. And that just tells me I don't much want to do med mal or P.I. unless it is necessary.
Also to those who say that if you don't pass it's not because you wanted it bad enough, I would say that I guess I agree and disagree at the same time. Do I want to pass- sure. Do I want to pass enough to put my children and my husband on complete hold for an indeterminate length of time? nope. And sure, I did not pass on the first try. I did not pass on the second try (but I came damn close). But I will pass this test eventually, and I know that for sure. I am taking the exam until I pass it, but I am not spending 12 hours per day studying myself into a tizzy anymore to do it. I also don't need to do that anymore. After two study periods, there is not enough to do that I need to spend 12 hours a day. We're not reinventing the wheel, here. Starting from scratch is 12 hours per day. Tweaking and getting back up to speed is not 12 hours per day. It's about 4-6.
So, that's where I am at... now I gotta go get some work done so I can afford food and clothing and shelter and all that good stuff.
Invite...
Um, so I want an invite to read a couple of people's blogs... To both calbarblonde and lastcallatthecaliforniabar, email me at jen@guiltyminds.com and let me read! Come on, I'm staring the third time in the face... I need fellow commiseraters, here! (And I do not write insensitive, obnoxious comments, so there's no danger there.)
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Ugh...
So, initially on Friday evening, I of course started hearing from my friends who know friends from my law school, about who passed and who didn't.
On the one hand, I don't really begrudge anyone who has passed the California bar exam. On the other hand, hearing about those who passed just conjured up my feelings of anxiety and failure about having taken it in the past. I managed to feel overwhelming waves of failure even though I didn't take the damn thing in July....
Geez....
But, this evening I notice that Cal Bar None passed.... Congrats! I am so, so happy for you! Also, a woman that is in a similar position to me, who graduated a year before me who I had commiserated with in the past during bar prep, J.W., also finally passed, and I am so, so, SO happy for her. She totally deserves it. Knowing that people I like and was pulling for have passed doesn't make me feel bad about myself.
But my friend A. did not pass, so we will be visiting Sacramento in February together. Rat bastards. Well, I am feeling fortunate that at least I will have someone to have dinner with during the three days. Honestly, I'd rather have to eat by myself and save her the angst and anxiety, but what are you gonna do? It is what it is.
On the other hand... it's the people who I thought were just lazy or downright jerky during law school whose passing on the very first try gets to me. I know it shouldn't, but there's a little part of me that is a baby and feels like if I am a generous and nice person and I didn't pass, where is the justice in them passing.
But I got over it, and now I have registered (no snafus on effing THAT up again) and am working on what I think I need to do to make this my last sit for this stupid stupid STUPID exam that is of course a measure of your true worth as a human being and obviously an excellent measure of what an outstanding attorney you will be.... but at least I'm not bitter or anything. ;)
Alas, I am not yet certain what I need to do.
Memorize, certainly. Done.
Do some essays, yep.
Do a smattering of MBEs, absolutely.
Spend any money on bar prep? Not so sure about that.
I am just not sure spending any money will help. I mean, we are talking eleven points here. That's basically getting back up to speed and maintaining cool, calm, un-exhausted focus on the PTs and I will be there.
So, I am still working on the study plan...
Anyone who has ideas, I am open. Obviously, there will be more on this later...
On the one hand, I don't really begrudge anyone who has passed the California bar exam. On the other hand, hearing about those who passed just conjured up my feelings of anxiety and failure about having taken it in the past. I managed to feel overwhelming waves of failure even though I didn't take the damn thing in July....
Geez....
But, this evening I notice that Cal Bar None passed.... Congrats! I am so, so happy for you! Also, a woman that is in a similar position to me, who graduated a year before me who I had commiserated with in the past during bar prep, J.W., also finally passed, and I am so, so, SO happy for her. She totally deserves it. Knowing that people I like and was pulling for have passed doesn't make me feel bad about myself.
But my friend A. did not pass, so we will be visiting Sacramento in February together. Rat bastards. Well, I am feeling fortunate that at least I will have someone to have dinner with during the three days. Honestly, I'd rather have to eat by myself and save her the angst and anxiety, but what are you gonna do? It is what it is.
On the other hand... it's the people who I thought were just lazy or downright jerky during law school whose passing on the very first try gets to me. I know it shouldn't, but there's a little part of me that is a baby and feels like if I am a generous and nice person and I didn't pass, where is the justice in them passing.
But I got over it, and now I have registered (no snafus on effing THAT up again) and am working on what I think I need to do to make this my last sit for this stupid stupid STUPID exam that is of course a measure of your true worth as a human being and obviously an excellent measure of what an outstanding attorney you will be.... but at least I'm not bitter or anything. ;)
Alas, I am not yet certain what I need to do.
Memorize, certainly. Done.
Do some essays, yep.
Do a smattering of MBEs, absolutely.
Spend any money on bar prep? Not so sure about that.
I am just not sure spending any money will help. I mean, we are talking eleven points here. That's basically getting back up to speed and maintaining cool, calm, un-exhausted focus on the PTs and I will be there.
So, I am still working on the study plan...
Anyone who has ideas, I am open. Obviously, there will be more on this later...
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Bullet...
Whew, I feel like I really dodged the bullet, since I completely SUCK at contracts/remedies questions (I never get how much time to spend on each of those distinct sections and end up missing the stuff I was s'posed to get.) and con law. Really bad at con law, as in, 50% of the questions I literally look at the question and think WTF? Then I have absolutely no idea what to write on the answer.
I hated that contracts/remedies question last July, too.
Really hopin' February is more like last February. That was a pretty okay test.
Oh, and my new guilty pleasure is Tori & Dean's reality show. It's like the scene of an accident: I just can't NOT look at it. And her husband reminds me of Slade from Real Housewives of Orange County. He's the type of guy I look at and and wonder how on God's green earth THAT person ever managed to come into money. Same with Tori. She's so plastic and looks like a drag queen. People actually came to her book signing and were talking about how much they loved her. What? What rock did you crawl out from under, people?
I'm just sayin'.
I hated that contracts/remedies question last July, too.
Really hopin' February is more like last February. That was a pretty okay test.
Oh, and my new guilty pleasure is Tori & Dean's reality show. It's like the scene of an accident: I just can't NOT look at it. And her husband reminds me of Slade from Real Housewives of Orange County. He's the type of guy I look at and and wonder how on God's green earth THAT person ever managed to come into money. Same with Tori. She's so plastic and looks like a drag queen. People actually came to her book signing and were talking about how much they loved her. What? What rock did you crawl out from under, people?
I'm just sayin'.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
No!...
Con Law on the essays... horror story performance tests...
Dear God I am glad I am NOT there right now. Especially since Con Law is my friggin' most HATED subject.
I smell what you're steppin' in... that's all I can say about that mess.
And... I hope you're wrong about your scores.
Dear God I am glad I am NOT there right now. Especially since Con Law is my friggin' most HATED subject.
I smell what you're steppin' in... that's all I can say about that mess.
And... I hope you're wrong about your scores.
Relief...
Got the offer.
Start Monday.
And everything is as it should be. I knew I screwed up registering for the July bar for some cosmic reason. I would have missed out on the perfect timing of this opportunity if I was stressed out and on my way to the bar the last few days....
Hope everyone there had a nice, cakewalk morning of essays and a performance test NOTHING like the horror that was the first PT in February. I really felt that I would not pass after that b.s. on Tuesday. And turns out, I was right. Both bar exams, the first afternoon PT has just screwed me over. Stoooopid 55.
But I'm not bitter or anything.
Start Monday.
And everything is as it should be. I knew I screwed up registering for the July bar for some cosmic reason. I would have missed out on the perfect timing of this opportunity if I was stressed out and on my way to the bar the last few days....
Hope everyone there had a nice, cakewalk morning of essays and a performance test NOTHING like the horror that was the first PT in February. I really felt that I would not pass after that b.s. on Tuesday. And turns out, I was right. Both bar exams, the first afternoon PT has just screwed me over. Stoooopid 55.
But I'm not bitter or anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
