Hello all-
Haven't posted in a long long time and it just occured to me to actually check and see if anyone has commented in the last year. Some have, so I may just start blogging again.
Let's see- what's new with me? Well, I've been busy. I have a solo practice that keeps me super busy. Kids are older, and thus keep me super busy. Marriage is good. In general, things are really, really good.
Facebook has really impeded my time and desire to blog, but I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to switch things up and get back into regular blogging.
I'll try to think if fun and interesting things to say about the actual practice of law- which is so far removed from the practice of passing the bar, it's not even funny. I still cringe slightly when the end of July and the end of February come around. Last July I ran to the grocery store to buy some snacks for a social get together at my house and ran into someone I knew in high school who told me she was studying for the bar and was taking it in two weeks. I backed away pretty quick- I just couldn't help it. The anxiety immediately started creeping back and it was all I could do to be polite and say good luck. I left the store shuddering with relief that I was done with that part of my life.
But, although it sounds patronizing, I can now say the same thing everyone else says, which is that taking the bar is just a phase. You get through it and once it's over, it's really over and you don't have to think about it anymore. And I honestly don't think having to take it more than once makes on whit of difference in what caliber of attorney you will be. In fact, it might even make you a better attorney to have failed it at least once. It definitely gives you some humility, and makes you grateful for the license.
So, I'll try to focus on funny and interesting things that happen with my practice. I do bankruptcy and foreclosure defense, so most everyone has a sad story, and I can say that I feel okay about what I do for my clients. Not only that- most of them are sad to have to meet me, but later on they are glad that they did. I don't know if all attorneys can actually say that of their clients.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Flashcards...
Someone posted a comment on how to do flashcards... so, for whatever it's worth, here is my method. This is the result of years of memorizing speeches for collegiate competition, and teaching classes as a grad student where I would learn the students' names the first day by going person by person and learning the names in order, building on the mental list in my head until I knew them all.
Grab the Conviser Review, sit down with a large stack of cards, and start working your way through. One topic at a time, go through the outline, and read the rule, synthesize what that means, and start working it into a SHORT statement. This will take a lot of time. It is exhausting. It sucks. And, I think it is necessary. It is both substantive review and the beginning of the memorization process.
Items that go on flashcards are:
1. Definitions. This means on the front of the card write "Definition of Contract". On the back write, "A contract is a promise or a set of promieses that courts will enforce." On the next card, write on the front, "Elements of contract", and on the back write "Offer, acceptance, consideration". Keep it simple.
2. Lists of things to remember. This means get in the things that will need to be remembered while writing an essay or thinking through an MBE. One the front of the card write "Exceptions to Knock and Announce" and on the back write a list of the exceptions. Try to order them with an acronym. I forget what I used for knock and announce, but I came up with one and it helped. Follow that card with a card for each exception, and the definition, if that is needed. Keep the cards in the same order all the time. Memorize them in the same order all the time. Your brain will remember better if you go in the same order and build on what you have learned previously.
3. Breakdowns of an issue. I attended The Bar Code's Essay Writing Intensive, so I was on board with the idea of a specific outline for how to deal with specific issues. For example, equal protection has a certain list of subissues that need to be discussed in order, so I made a flash card to help me memorize that order. But again, don't put lots of words on the flashcard. Your mind can compartmentalize and remember little bits, but too much on a flashcard makes it useless.
4. I did a larger version of flashcarding at the end, because I took the Cheat Sheets, and additional self-developed cheat sheets that I made myself (some are posted on this blog) and the last two weeks all I did was memorize. I spent part of the day with a ream of blank paper. First I wrote out the cheat sheet, looking at the template. Then, I continued writing it over and over, starting with a blank sheet each time, until I could write it without referencing the template. Usually it would take 5 or 6 times of writing out the entire cheat sheet until I could do it on a blank sheet without assistance. I could remember first the shape of the outline on the page, and then once that shape was imprinted in my mind, I could quickly fill in the details. Then, I would build on that by adding a second, then a third, and so on. On day two, I would do all the cheat sheets from the day before (5 or so) and then add five more to the process. On day three... another 5, until the night before the exam, I sat in the hotel bar with a glass of wine and wrote every single one out with barely glancing at the templates. I am convinced that I got an 85 or 90 on the defamation question last February solely because of that process. (I knew what to do with that question after reading the first sentence.)
The other thing I did to memorize was working through my completed flashcards in a similar fashion. Here is what I did after I had five boxes of flashcards, each topic rubber banded separately.
I would get on the treadmill with my con law flashcards and once I could state word for word what was on the back of the first card three times, I moved on to the second one. It would take one to three hours to get through a whole topic memorizing my flashcards. Then, day two, I did the con law ones and added my evidence ones. Each day got a little easier, because I would go through the topics I already knew and had about 85-90% accuracy on them (you will not get to 100% and you don't need to) and the hard part was the addition of the new topic that I hadn't yet learned. I saved the smaller topics, like community property and wills and trusts, for later days in the memorizing process because memorizing the smaller stacks was easier later after I had a huge stack of the MBE topics I already reviewed first that day.
I also carried a couple of stacks of flashcards everywhere. When I went to pick up the kids at school, I sat in my car for the ten or fifteen minutes and tried to get through as many cards as I could. If I was waiting in line at the bank, I pulled out some cards. I looked stupid, but I didn't care, because I figured it was better than looking stupid by not passing (again).
Did it suck? Yes. Was it necessary? For me, yes. I needed the comfort of knowing how I was going to address every rule and every essay topic before I walked into the exam, so that period while they were reading directions did not result in a rising anxiety that made my brain freeze up. That happened the first time around, and also the second.
Now, I can say, the second time I studied, I made those flashcards, and the third time around, I pulled them out and used them, and added some more. So, did I spend 12 hours per day any time I studied for the bar? Nope. But over time, I did all that stuff and it was worth it. The satisfaction of throwing those boxes of flashcards away was supreme also.
I also agree with Whitney Roberts when she recommended that you study by practicing essays, learning how to write essays, and do some MBEs up until two weeks before the test. Then, you focus only on memorizing. That last two weeks is crucial with so much information. And, when I spent 3-4 hours a day memorizing flashcards, and then 2-3 hours per day writing out cheat sheets to memorize them, that took a lot of time and energy. It is okay to give yourself permission just to do this. I also did 20 MBEs per day during this time. One morning each of those weeks, I did a set of 100 MBE's, timing to make sure I could make the three hours. For me, that was no problem. I usually finished in 2:10. However, at the exam, I usually took up to the last five minutes on one MBE session, for some reason.
If it sounds like a lot. It is. But, get it done, and you won't have to do it again.
Good luck. I felt your pain, the thought of all that work still makes me shudder, and I sympathize, but it's doable. When you study, focus wholeheartedly, and when you are done, stop thinking about it and relax. For me, learning to relax was the hardest part.
Grab the Conviser Review, sit down with a large stack of cards, and start working your way through. One topic at a time, go through the outline, and read the rule, synthesize what that means, and start working it into a SHORT statement. This will take a lot of time. It is exhausting. It sucks. And, I think it is necessary. It is both substantive review and the beginning of the memorization process.
Items that go on flashcards are:
1. Definitions. This means on the front of the card write "Definition of Contract". On the back write, "A contract is a promise or a set of promieses that courts will enforce." On the next card, write on the front, "Elements of contract", and on the back write "Offer, acceptance, consideration". Keep it simple.
2. Lists of things to remember. This means get in the things that will need to be remembered while writing an essay or thinking through an MBE. One the front of the card write "Exceptions to Knock and Announce" and on the back write a list of the exceptions. Try to order them with an acronym. I forget what I used for knock and announce, but I came up with one and it helped. Follow that card with a card for each exception, and the definition, if that is needed. Keep the cards in the same order all the time. Memorize them in the same order all the time. Your brain will remember better if you go in the same order and build on what you have learned previously.
3. Breakdowns of an issue. I attended The Bar Code's Essay Writing Intensive, so I was on board with the idea of a specific outline for how to deal with specific issues. For example, equal protection has a certain list of subissues that need to be discussed in order, so I made a flash card to help me memorize that order. But again, don't put lots of words on the flashcard. Your mind can compartmentalize and remember little bits, but too much on a flashcard makes it useless.
4. I did a larger version of flashcarding at the end, because I took the Cheat Sheets, and additional self-developed cheat sheets that I made myself (some are posted on this blog) and the last two weeks all I did was memorize. I spent part of the day with a ream of blank paper. First I wrote out the cheat sheet, looking at the template. Then, I continued writing it over and over, starting with a blank sheet each time, until I could write it without referencing the template. Usually it would take 5 or 6 times of writing out the entire cheat sheet until I could do it on a blank sheet without assistance. I could remember first the shape of the outline on the page, and then once that shape was imprinted in my mind, I could quickly fill in the details. Then, I would build on that by adding a second, then a third, and so on. On day two, I would do all the cheat sheets from the day before (5 or so) and then add five more to the process. On day three... another 5, until the night before the exam, I sat in the hotel bar with a glass of wine and wrote every single one out with barely glancing at the templates. I am convinced that I got an 85 or 90 on the defamation question last February solely because of that process. (I knew what to do with that question after reading the first sentence.)
The other thing I did to memorize was working through my completed flashcards in a similar fashion. Here is what I did after I had five boxes of flashcards, each topic rubber banded separately.
I would get on the treadmill with my con law flashcards and once I could state word for word what was on the back of the first card three times, I moved on to the second one. It would take one to three hours to get through a whole topic memorizing my flashcards. Then, day two, I did the con law ones and added my evidence ones. Each day got a little easier, because I would go through the topics I already knew and had about 85-90% accuracy on them (you will not get to 100% and you don't need to) and the hard part was the addition of the new topic that I hadn't yet learned. I saved the smaller topics, like community property and wills and trusts, for later days in the memorizing process because memorizing the smaller stacks was easier later after I had a huge stack of the MBE topics I already reviewed first that day.
I also carried a couple of stacks of flashcards everywhere. When I went to pick up the kids at school, I sat in my car for the ten or fifteen minutes and tried to get through as many cards as I could. If I was waiting in line at the bank, I pulled out some cards. I looked stupid, but I didn't care, because I figured it was better than looking stupid by not passing (again).
Did it suck? Yes. Was it necessary? For me, yes. I needed the comfort of knowing how I was going to address every rule and every essay topic before I walked into the exam, so that period while they were reading directions did not result in a rising anxiety that made my brain freeze up. That happened the first time around, and also the second.
Now, I can say, the second time I studied, I made those flashcards, and the third time around, I pulled them out and used them, and added some more. So, did I spend 12 hours per day any time I studied for the bar? Nope. But over time, I did all that stuff and it was worth it. The satisfaction of throwing those boxes of flashcards away was supreme also.
I also agree with Whitney Roberts when she recommended that you study by practicing essays, learning how to write essays, and do some MBEs up until two weeks before the test. Then, you focus only on memorizing. That last two weeks is crucial with so much information. And, when I spent 3-4 hours a day memorizing flashcards, and then 2-3 hours per day writing out cheat sheets to memorize them, that took a lot of time and energy. It is okay to give yourself permission just to do this. I also did 20 MBEs per day during this time. One morning each of those weeks, I did a set of 100 MBE's, timing to make sure I could make the three hours. For me, that was no problem. I usually finished in 2:10. However, at the exam, I usually took up to the last five minutes on one MBE session, for some reason.
If it sounds like a lot. It is. But, get it done, and you won't have to do it again.
Good luck. I felt your pain, the thought of all that work still makes me shudder, and I sympathize, but it's doable. When you study, focus wholeheartedly, and when you are done, stop thinking about it and relax. For me, learning to relax was the hardest part.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sad Day...
Our doggy Molly got hit by a car last night. Not sure how someone could be driving on a road, hit an animal, especially a yellow dog, and not stop, not call the number on the poor dog's collar, nothing. Luckily, some neighbors found her collar and called us. My husband went and got her last night and buried her this morning.
She was the most sweet, joyful dog. My buddy in the kitchen. Bacon was her favorite, so weekend mornings were the time she most looked forward to, when I might be in the kitchen cooking up bacon or sausage at breakfast. She got so excited to "assist" in taking the trash out that she would treat it like a covert operation, running out to the trash cans, looking left and right, and then standing guard while my husband dumped the trash bag. She was always ready to follow wherever her people were going, or just to sit at your feet if you were ready to be lazy. She had a habit of either sitting on my foot or leaning against my leg, simply because she wanted to be near someone. She adored running through the vineyards, and was always a runner. Unfortunately, that's what led to her digging her way out of her kennel, despite all our precautions. She chose the wrong moment to run out onto Dry Creek Road. Poor girl.
I can't imagine having another dog I so thoroughly enjoyed. She may have been my husband's dog, but I can say I loved her wholeheartedly, too. She will be missed in our family.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Clients...
A very nice woman came in today for an intial consultation. She started to cry when she started explaining how she makes less because of a mandatory pay cut from the state, and she is struggling to pay the few bills she has.
I went and got her a tissue, we talked, and we figured out some things she can do to help with her financial issues.
Then I gave her her check back for her initial consultation.
My office manager/assistant was less than thrilled. She disagreed that I should be more concerned about this lady's finances than my own.
Granted, I like to pay my employees, and I like to make enough money to pay my bills, but I just cannot feel good about charging this lady for a consultation. She is hiring me to do some things for her, and that is enough.
I think there is a reason we are often called attorneys and counselors at law. You really do need to counsel people. Sometimes it's that they come in and have no idea what they can do to help their own situation and they are really at their wits end. Sometimes they are just in denial about their situation. I have had to tell people they can't afford their house. I then apologize, because I realize that's not the news they want to hear. However, usually they take it pretty well. Sometimes, I think it's what they need to hear from someone else that they trust and don't have to feel embarrassed to discuss financial issues with. Plus, I can deliver some good news about what their options are if they do walk away from the house.
So, the end result of today's experience is that I think if you cannot develop compassion, you make a crappy attorney. Even doing defense work, if you lack the ability to recognize that some people were indeed damaged, then you do your client a disservice when you fail to advise them of their exposure.
Okay, off my soapbox now.
I went and got her a tissue, we talked, and we figured out some things she can do to help with her financial issues.
Then I gave her her check back for her initial consultation.
My office manager/assistant was less than thrilled. She disagreed that I should be more concerned about this lady's finances than my own.
Granted, I like to pay my employees, and I like to make enough money to pay my bills, but I just cannot feel good about charging this lady for a consultation. She is hiring me to do some things for her, and that is enough.
I think there is a reason we are often called attorneys and counselors at law. You really do need to counsel people. Sometimes it's that they come in and have no idea what they can do to help their own situation and they are really at their wits end. Sometimes they are just in denial about their situation. I have had to tell people they can't afford their house. I then apologize, because I realize that's not the news they want to hear. However, usually they take it pretty well. Sometimes, I think it's what they need to hear from someone else that they trust and don't have to feel embarrassed to discuss financial issues with. Plus, I can deliver some good news about what their options are if they do walk away from the house.
So, the end result of today's experience is that I think if you cannot develop compassion, you make a crappy attorney. Even doing defense work, if you lack the ability to recognize that some people were indeed damaged, then you do your client a disservice when you fail to advise them of their exposure.
Okay, off my soapbox now.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Legal Work...
I hate it when this happens because I always feel so incompetent, but it tends to be my process in answering motions to dismiss and demurrers....
I read the other side's argument. I think, hmmm.... what was I thinking drafting the complaint that way? Why did I take that client? They have no case! Egads, I'm going to commit malpractice! I will lose my license. These people should have gotten a real lawyer...
Then I read it again and get on Westlaw, and I start to get mad, because, really, what was that other lawyer thinking when they wrote such lame drivel, disguising it as the truth of the law? Sheesh!
Then I review my work, edit out the snarky stuff, and breathe a sigh of relief. I may actually do okay on this.
Every stinkin' time.
That was my day today.
I read the other side's argument. I think, hmmm.... what was I thinking drafting the complaint that way? Why did I take that client? They have no case! Egads, I'm going to commit malpractice! I will lose my license. These people should have gotten a real lawyer...
Then I read it again and get on Westlaw, and I start to get mad, because, really, what was that other lawyer thinking when they wrote such lame drivel, disguising it as the truth of the law? Sheesh!
Then I review my work, edit out the snarky stuff, and breathe a sigh of relief. I may actually do okay on this.
Every stinkin' time.
That was my day today.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Lawyering....
I have learned that being a lawyer means that most days no one is happy. Clients, especially plaintiffs, tend to require a lot of placating. This usually centers around a result/settlement not being good enough, their bill being too expensive, or not being able guarantee or give them absolutes on their situation.
Therefore, the clients who are kind, polite, and say thank you are so appreciated. And although I do it on pretty much every single file, I look for reasons to write down the time on those clients' files.
And that's about where I'm at today. Trying to be grateful for the delightful clients, and do what I can for the grouchy, unhappy ones without taking it personally that they seem to think I am not working enough in the way of miracles for them.
Therefore, the clients who are kind, polite, and say thank you are so appreciated. And although I do it on pretty much every single file, I look for reasons to write down the time on those clients' files.
And that's about where I'm at today. Trying to be grateful for the delightful clients, and do what I can for the grouchy, unhappy ones without taking it personally that they seem to think I am not working enough in the way of miracles for them.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Good Luck...
Just wanted to give a shout out to all the bar takers tomorrow. Good luck and kick some bar exam a**. Just get in and stay in the zone and you'll be done with this thing.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The List...
So, I figure since I just turned the big 3-5 on Wednesday, it might be good to check and see how I did on the list...
Things to do before I turn 35 (next May 27)
#1. pass stupid bar exam
#2. have garage sale
#3. learn to cook fabulous ribs
#4. lose 30 pounds
#5. compete in a cooking contest
#6. learn to play guitar
#7. get a great haircut
#8. change someone's life
#9. bake bread from scratch
#10. master every sauce in James Peterson's Sauces
So, how did I did?
bar exam: check!
garage sale: check! (I made over $700!)
ribs: check! (yum, yum)
30 pounds: oh HELL no, but I also care way, way less than I did last summer. I would like to put that on the new list in the form of "get in good physical shape" rather than a weight loss goal, for turning 36.
cooking contest: check! (Two, actually.)
guitar: well, no... maybe this year...
haircut: check! (although now I need a good color)
someone's life:... um, check? One of my employees hated her former boss and was miserable, and now loves us and her new job, so does that qualify? I'm guessing yes.
bread: semi-check. I made croissants. Is that technically bread?
sauces: half,check. I got some, but not all. Definitely all the good basic ones: cream, red wine, au jus, etc.
So, I didn't get them all. I was sorely lacking on the creative front. I think is was simply a matter of no time for cooking and hobbies, what with starting a new law firm and all. Both me and my husband were working some 70-100 hours a week for a couple of months there in between the bar and the beginning of May. Phew!
But, I managed to snag one on my list for before I turn 40...
#10. have at least one employee
Actually, I have managed two employees... so, I figure I get some extra credit for that to compensate for the ones I lagged on for 35.
List for 36?
hmmm... let me think about it and get back to you. I'm tired from the 35 list still. ;)
Things to do before I turn 35 (next May 27)
#1. pass stupid bar exam
#2. have garage sale
#3. learn to cook fabulous ribs
#4. lose 30 pounds
#5. compete in a cooking contest
#6. learn to play guitar
#7. get a great haircut
#8. change someone's life
#9. bake bread from scratch
#10. master every sauce in James Peterson's Sauces
So, how did I did?
bar exam: check!
garage sale: check! (I made over $700!)
ribs: check! (yum, yum)
30 pounds: oh HELL no, but I also care way, way less than I did last summer. I would like to put that on the new list in the form of "get in good physical shape" rather than a weight loss goal, for turning 36.
cooking contest: check! (Two, actually.)
guitar: well, no... maybe this year...
haircut: check! (although now I need a good color)
someone's life:... um, check? One of my employees hated her former boss and was miserable, and now loves us and her new job, so does that qualify? I'm guessing yes.
bread: semi-check. I made croissants. Is that technically bread?
sauces: half,check. I got some, but not all. Definitely all the good basic ones: cream, red wine, au jus, etc.
So, I didn't get them all. I was sorely lacking on the creative front. I think is was simply a matter of no time for cooking and hobbies, what with starting a new law firm and all. Both me and my husband were working some 70-100 hours a week for a couple of months there in between the bar and the beginning of May. Phew!
But, I managed to snag one on my list for before I turn 40...
#10. have at least one employee
Actually, I have managed two employees... so, I figure I get some extra credit for that to compensate for the ones I lagged on for 35.
List for 36?
hmmm... let me think about it and get back to you. I'm tired from the 35 list still. ;)
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Recap of Studying...
So, someone was already asking for a recap of study plans... This is what I did...
First July... I graduated from law school tired and burnt out. Probably should have waited a few months and taken it in February, but I listened to every one's "advice" and plunged ahead. I started a new job in a law office and bar prep at the same time. Another mistake.
Then in February... I decided it might be time for some kind of help. I signed up for The Bar Code, which was an essay writing seminar taught by Whitney Roberts. I had used her book the previous July, but didn't adhere strictly to it while in the exam, so the areas where I veered from her approach, I got terrible scores.
I drove out to Sacramento every Saturday in January and sat there all day, going through each topic, and then during the week, I had practice essays to do that were due by a certain time. The feedback from the Bar Code was excellent. Each essay came back with tons of comments, a score that was around 50 initially, but by essay 10, climbed to 65's and 70's, and plenty of encouragement. They grade 13 or so essays. My last one, I got a 75.
Most importantly, I learned from Whitney's class how to figure out what I just wrote in terms of scoring myself. I also was advised to get my Barbri Conviser Mini Review out and make my own flashcards. They had to be done a specific way. It was exhausting and extremely time consuming. It was totally worth it. So, in January, I did essays, attended class on Saturdays, worked during the week and did flashcards, and then took two weeks in February off prior to the exam.
Those two weeks, per Whitney's advice, were for memorization and MBE prep. She was so, so right. I had my flashcards done by the first week of February, my essay writing was better, and all I had left was to focus on memorizing and getting some MBE practice in. I came up 11 points short.
When my scores came in the mail, I spoke with Whitney on the phone. She said she thought that if I had done the exact same prep and taken another bar exam other that exact configuration of essays and PTs, she thought I would have passed. I just needed "my" bar exam. So, I took some time off, and decided that all I really needed was to manage my anxiety for the next time around. So, for this February, I planned ahead to do less.
Yes, less. February 1, I started. I got a subscription to baressays.com. I already had my homemade flashcards. I already had a set of PMBR books. It was triage time. I got up every day and went to the gym, where I got on a machine and memorized for an hour. Then I went home, took a shower, and sat down at my desk. I went topic by topic, and took the highest scoring essay answer off baressays, downloaded the question, outlined it, and then took the printed -ff answer that scored well and re-typed it. Then, I went to the down the list of well-scoring past answers and did the same thing until I finished that topic. Some days this took me three hours. Some days it took four or five. It depended on how many past answers were there for that topic. For the occasionally tested topics, sometimes, I managed to start on a second topic in a day. Usually by the third or fourth essay in a topic, I was able to just start writing on my own, with only referencing the sample answer. I was also able to critique those answers where they were weak and did not follow the Bar Code "cheat sheet" approach. Some days I did a few essays and then a PT, since PTs were on there, too, and I knew I needed the exact same system for PTs to get my scores and confidence up on those. I never studied more than 6 hours a day. Never. Even if I was tempted. I left the house every single day at 3:00 p.m. to go pick up my kids from school and that was the end of studying for that day, whether I thought it had gone well or poorly.
With about 5-8 days left, I was done with all the essays and PTs. I then started with the blank sheet method of writing out my approaches/cheat sheets on a piece of paper.
I did it this way: the first time through, I used the book or my own cheat sheet that I created (see as an example the contracts ones I worked on for myself and posted back then). The by the third time writing it out, I had some of it committed to memory, but had to remind myself of some of it. I wrote it out so it looked the same on the blank page every time. Then, if I blanked on one rule, I knew exactly where my pocket of forgetfulness was in the mini-outline. For that last week, I wrote out my approaches in the morning, and did no less than 20 MBEs and no more than 40 MBEs each day.
When I arrived in Sacramento for the test, I was nervous, so that afternoon, I sat down in my hotel room and wrote out all my cheat sheets again. If they were flawless three times in a row, then I could move on to the next one. After three hours, by hand was tired, and I was only through about half of my 45-50 "cheat sheets" (some from The Bar Code book and some I made up myself modelled after Whitney's method). I then went and got dinner, and then sat in the hotel bar with a glass of wine and kept writing out approaches until they were all done and flawless. I tried to go to bed, but I was still nervous. So, I sat in bed with con law flashcards (my worst subject.) Since I hate con law, this made me tired and I was able to get to sleep by about 11:00. I did no more studying during the test at all, except Wednesday night when I realized I couldn't remember any of wills and trusts, so I went through my flashcards for that topic area to memorize.
And that's it. I am probably not a good example of how to study because I purposely did less. I went and had a nice dinner each night while I was there, with a glass of wine. I built some retail therapy into the trip and scooted over to Arden Fair Mall to distract myself and feel like I was able to have some fun, unlike the intense pressure and stress I felt the past two times. Overall, I made this February as much like a vacation as I could, and focused only on me, not on my kids or my husband or anything but my own self and my own mental health and well being. That was the right thing for me.
I went back to the way I studied in law school this time around. I was a good studier in law school. I carved out time to study, was focused and productive during that time, and then didn't worry about it most of the rest of the time. I did lots of past tests to get the gist of how each professor wrote their tests and what style they graded highly. That worked great for me in law school, where I graduated with honors, so going back to it was the best thing I ever did. I went into the test with confidence that I knew what a good PT answer was and I knew what a good essay answer was. And, I knew the law- I knew that last February, so all I had to do was refresh my memory and my MBEs would be about the same as they always had been.
For me, MBE scores did not go up the more I did practice questions. In fact, I did better on the MBE last February having done those flashcards and knowing the law really, really well than by trying to learn the law by doing lots and lots of MBEs. My MBE score, despite having done about 600 MBEs for last February, actually went up by 23 raw points. That's a huge testament to the importance of knowing the rules of law. So, that's what I did.
But don't do what I did. Do what works for you. Look at where your scores need improvement and focus there. One thing I can advise is that it is far easier to raise your overall score by focusing on the writing than by doing MBEs, so I am a proponent of focusing on getting good writing scores.
A tutor can only do so much. At some point, you have to "see" it. You have to be able to "see" what a good answer is. Someone can talk at you until they are blue in the face, but they can't do that for you. For me, re-typing other people's answers that got a good score did it in a way nothing else could. I honestly think tutors are a waste of money. Even having taken the exam three times, I think that. But, again, do what YOU need to do, not what someone else advises. Following advice despite your own inner voice is exactly what got me in the position of taking that damn exam three times.
Finally, you'll live. I did. It sucked, but I did it and got through it and the letter on Saturday that was all about admission to practice law rather than my numerical breakdown of how I didn't measure up this time was completely and totally worth it. It will be for you, too. :)
First July... I graduated from law school tired and burnt out. Probably should have waited a few months and taken it in February, but I listened to every one's "advice" and plunged ahead. I started a new job in a law office and bar prep at the same time. Another mistake.
Then in February... I decided it might be time for some kind of help. I signed up for The Bar Code, which was an essay writing seminar taught by Whitney Roberts. I had used her book the previous July, but didn't adhere strictly to it while in the exam, so the areas where I veered from her approach, I got terrible scores.
I drove out to Sacramento every Saturday in January and sat there all day, going through each topic, and then during the week, I had practice essays to do that were due by a certain time. The feedback from the Bar Code was excellent. Each essay came back with tons of comments, a score that was around 50 initially, but by essay 10, climbed to 65's and 70's, and plenty of encouragement. They grade 13 or so essays. My last one, I got a 75.
Most importantly, I learned from Whitney's class how to figure out what I just wrote in terms of scoring myself. I also was advised to get my Barbri Conviser Mini Review out and make my own flashcards. They had to be done a specific way. It was exhausting and extremely time consuming. It was totally worth it. So, in January, I did essays, attended class on Saturdays, worked during the week and did flashcards, and then took two weeks in February off prior to the exam.
Those two weeks, per Whitney's advice, were for memorization and MBE prep. She was so, so right. I had my flashcards done by the first week of February, my essay writing was better, and all I had left was to focus on memorizing and getting some MBE practice in. I came up 11 points short.
When my scores came in the mail, I spoke with Whitney on the phone. She said she thought that if I had done the exact same prep and taken another bar exam other that exact configuration of essays and PTs, she thought I would have passed. I just needed "my" bar exam. So, I took some time off, and decided that all I really needed was to manage my anxiety for the next time around. So, for this February, I planned ahead to do less.
Yes, less. February 1, I started. I got a subscription to baressays.com. I already had my homemade flashcards. I already had a set of PMBR books. It was triage time. I got up every day and went to the gym, where I got on a machine and memorized for an hour. Then I went home, took a shower, and sat down at my desk. I went topic by topic, and took the highest scoring essay answer off baressays, downloaded the question, outlined it, and then took the printed -ff answer that scored well and re-typed it. Then, I went to the down the list of well-scoring past answers and did the same thing until I finished that topic. Some days this took me three hours. Some days it took four or five. It depended on how many past answers were there for that topic. For the occasionally tested topics, sometimes, I managed to start on a second topic in a day. Usually by the third or fourth essay in a topic, I was able to just start writing on my own, with only referencing the sample answer. I was also able to critique those answers where they were weak and did not follow the Bar Code "cheat sheet" approach. Some days I did a few essays and then a PT, since PTs were on there, too, and I knew I needed the exact same system for PTs to get my scores and confidence up on those. I never studied more than 6 hours a day. Never. Even if I was tempted. I left the house every single day at 3:00 p.m. to go pick up my kids from school and that was the end of studying for that day, whether I thought it had gone well or poorly.
With about 5-8 days left, I was done with all the essays and PTs. I then started with the blank sheet method of writing out my approaches/cheat sheets on a piece of paper.
I did it this way: the first time through, I used the book or my own cheat sheet that I created (see as an example the contracts ones I worked on for myself and posted back then). The by the third time writing it out, I had some of it committed to memory, but had to remind myself of some of it. I wrote it out so it looked the same on the blank page every time. Then, if I blanked on one rule, I knew exactly where my pocket of forgetfulness was in the mini-outline. For that last week, I wrote out my approaches in the morning, and did no less than 20 MBEs and no more than 40 MBEs each day.
When I arrived in Sacramento for the test, I was nervous, so that afternoon, I sat down in my hotel room and wrote out all my cheat sheets again. If they were flawless three times in a row, then I could move on to the next one. After three hours, by hand was tired, and I was only through about half of my 45-50 "cheat sheets" (some from The Bar Code book and some I made up myself modelled after Whitney's method). I then went and got dinner, and then sat in the hotel bar with a glass of wine and kept writing out approaches until they were all done and flawless. I tried to go to bed, but I was still nervous. So, I sat in bed with con law flashcards (my worst subject.) Since I hate con law, this made me tired and I was able to get to sleep by about 11:00. I did no more studying during the test at all, except Wednesday night when I realized I couldn't remember any of wills and trusts, so I went through my flashcards for that topic area to memorize.
And that's it. I am probably not a good example of how to study because I purposely did less. I went and had a nice dinner each night while I was there, with a glass of wine. I built some retail therapy into the trip and scooted over to Arden Fair Mall to distract myself and feel like I was able to have some fun, unlike the intense pressure and stress I felt the past two times. Overall, I made this February as much like a vacation as I could, and focused only on me, not on my kids or my husband or anything but my own self and my own mental health and well being. That was the right thing for me.
I went back to the way I studied in law school this time around. I was a good studier in law school. I carved out time to study, was focused and productive during that time, and then didn't worry about it most of the rest of the time. I did lots of past tests to get the gist of how each professor wrote their tests and what style they graded highly. That worked great for me in law school, where I graduated with honors, so going back to it was the best thing I ever did. I went into the test with confidence that I knew what a good PT answer was and I knew what a good essay answer was. And, I knew the law- I knew that last February, so all I had to do was refresh my memory and my MBEs would be about the same as they always had been.
For me, MBE scores did not go up the more I did practice questions. In fact, I did better on the MBE last February having done those flashcards and knowing the law really, really well than by trying to learn the law by doing lots and lots of MBEs. My MBE score, despite having done about 600 MBEs for last February, actually went up by 23 raw points. That's a huge testament to the importance of knowing the rules of law. So, that's what I did.
But don't do what I did. Do what works for you. Look at where your scores need improvement and focus there. One thing I can advise is that it is far easier to raise your overall score by focusing on the writing than by doing MBEs, so I am a proponent of focusing on getting good writing scores.
A tutor can only do so much. At some point, you have to "see" it. You have to be able to "see" what a good answer is. Someone can talk at you until they are blue in the face, but they can't do that for you. For me, re-typing other people's answers that got a good score did it in a way nothing else could. I honestly think tutors are a waste of money. Even having taken the exam three times, I think that. But, again, do what YOU need to do, not what someone else advises. Following advice despite your own inner voice is exactly what got me in the position of taking that damn exam three times.
Finally, you'll live. I did. It sucked, but I did it and got through it and the letter on Saturday that was all about admission to practice law rather than my numerical breakdown of how I didn't measure up this time was completely and totally worth it. It will be for you, too. :)
Marketing...
A note to those shamelessly marketing themselves on the comment section. I am not your marketing vehicle. This is my personal blog- read, not for commercial profit. Market yourself somewhere else.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Final, FINAL Recap...
There is nothing like the relief of knowing I NEVER HAVE TO TAKE THAT TEST AGAIN.
My husband already presented me with my new business cards... I just have to get sworn in on Monday or thereafter and I'm all set.
Yay.
So, to answer the questions, yes I passed. (Yipee!)
My husband already presented me with my new business cards... I just have to get sworn in on Monday or thereafter and I'm all set.
Yay.
So, to answer the questions, yes I passed. (Yipee!)
Friday, February 27, 2009
Final Recap...
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....
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....
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.
Tired...
Got no sleep. Woke up at 2:15 and had to figure out the cooling system in my room. Surfed channels for a while and saw the P90x guy get ripped, the Malibu Pilates ladies get sculpted, and that floor steamer clean everything. Then turned off the TV and stared at the dark for a while.
Now I'm exhausted. So I go down to get a cup of coffee (or two) in the lobby and this guy (who is a client of ours) is there. He's taking the bar, too.
I don't know what it is about some guys, but they think it's okay to touch every woman they see. That is so annoying. Keep your hands to yourself, buddy. When I'm bleary-eyed and haven't had my coffee yet, the LAST thing I want is some stranger rubbing my shoulder or back. Thank goodness I haven't showered yet, because that kind of male behavior makes me want to take one.
Men who do this, just stop please. It's not professional. And it's downright creepy.
Now I'm exhausted. So I go down to get a cup of coffee (or two) in the lobby and this guy (who is a client of ours) is there. He's taking the bar, too.
I don't know what it is about some guys, but they think it's okay to touch every woman they see. That is so annoying. Keep your hands to yourself, buddy. When I'm bleary-eyed and haven't had my coffee yet, the LAST thing I want is some stranger rubbing my shoulder or back. Thank goodness I haven't showered yet, because that kind of male behavior makes me want to take one.
Men who do this, just stop please. It's not professional. And it's downright creepy.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Fun During Bar Week Hell...
This makes me laugh each and every time I watch it. Even if you are studying (well, let's face it, if you are reading blogs you are putting off studying anyway) it is only about 14 seconds and well worth it.
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!
Comment...
Ok, I tried to post a comment and Blogger won't let me, so I'm pasting it here....
Anon: No worries. I just saw your second post. I disagree about this, though...
"Thus, there would be no need to discuss the rationale for equitable relief in a fraud case here."
The cases talked on and on about how the fact that there were badges of fraud made it preferable that an action at law (for damages on a contract) would now be able to receive equitable relief.
Previously, a plaintiff had to choose. If they brought a suit at law, they were limited to legal remedies (ie. damages). If they brought a suit in equity, then they were limited to equitable rememdies (ie, SP, injunction). If there is a sufficient showing of fraud, then plaintiff is now allowed to "mix" equity and legal remedies, so to speak.
The reason for that is public policy- the judicial process is rendered futile by the fraudulent acts of the defendant. So, you have to show that there was sufficient evidence of fraud in the first place to get to the point where you can even qualify to ask for equitable relief.
Breach of contract allows you to get damages for breach, right? Well, if there is fraud, then that's a whole new ball game. That was the point the cases were making. Once you establish the fraud, you have to meet all the elements to actually get the equitable relief you are seeking. That's the test where you argue all the facts of the harm (of not getting the injunction) to plaintiff and end with the five public policy reasons for why plaintiff getting the injunction not only helps him, it helps the public interest at large, innocent third parties, other creditors who might rush the defendant, etc.
Kind of like if you submit a summary judgment motion to the court, you always start with the rationale why summary judgment can be granted. Sure the judge knows that, but you put it in there anyway to show that YOU know that and to educate the court like they are a two year old (wasn't that in a Denzel Washington movie?)
Just sayin'.
Anon: No worries. I just saw your second post. I disagree about this, though...
"Thus, there would be no need to discuss the rationale for equitable relief in a fraud case here."
The cases talked on and on about how the fact that there were badges of fraud made it preferable that an action at law (for damages on a contract) would now be able to receive equitable relief.
Previously, a plaintiff had to choose. If they brought a suit at law, they were limited to legal remedies (ie. damages). If they brought a suit in equity, then they were limited to equitable rememdies (ie, SP, injunction). If there is a sufficient showing of fraud, then plaintiff is now allowed to "mix" equity and legal remedies, so to speak.
The reason for that is public policy- the judicial process is rendered futile by the fraudulent acts of the defendant. So, you have to show that there was sufficient evidence of fraud in the first place to get to the point where you can even qualify to ask for equitable relief.
Breach of contract allows you to get damages for breach, right? Well, if there is fraud, then that's a whole new ball game. That was the point the cases were making. Once you establish the fraud, you have to meet all the elements to actually get the equitable relief you are seeking. That's the test where you argue all the facts of the harm (of not getting the injunction) to plaintiff and end with the five public policy reasons for why plaintiff getting the injunction not only helps him, it helps the public interest at large, innocent third parties, other creditors who might rush the defendant, etc.
Kind of like if you submit a summary judgment motion to the court, you always start with the rationale why summary judgment can be granted. Sure the judge knows that, but you put it in there anyway to show that YOU know that and to educate the court like they are a two year old (wasn't that in a Denzel Washington movie?)
Just sayin'.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
