Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread Forum

[Young Marino]

Although its possible they will test BE twice in a row, more likely it will be Wills and Evidence to go along with Procedure for the the MC.

this what i'm thinking too. the guy doing the BE lectures was like "yea they rarely ever test BE twice in a row.. but it's happened before."

I never count anything out and hope like crazy too though not having to deal with 120 hour rule and having strict per stripes helps. I only say about BE because the element of surprise is always there, I sat in the Javits Center last July and heard a massive sigh/groan when an article 9 essay showed up when it had just been tested in February, the girl next to me was rattled hardcore cuz her bar course told her article 9 never goes twice in a row.

I'm just wondering if they are ratcheting the difficulty of the MBE up again, the one in July seemed easier than id heard from others. Only took me 3 hours fifty minutes to burn through that puppy.

So that means UCC on the essay for us then right? Lol. I heard about like 3 people barely failing thanks to that dirty trick they pulled.

[hockeyman969]

Although its possible they will test BE twice in a row, more likely it will be Wills and Evidence to go along with Procedure for the the MC.

this what i'm thinking too. the guy doing the BE lectures was like "yea they rarely ever test BE twice in a row.. but it's happened before."

I never count anything out and hope like crazy too though not having to deal with 120 hour rule and having strict per stripes helps. I only say about BE because the element of surprise is always there, I sat in the Javits Center last July and heard a massive sigh/groan when an article 9 essay showed up when it had just been tested in February, the girl next to me was rattled hardcore cuz her bar course told her article 9 never goes twice in a row.

I'm just wondering if they are ratcheting the difficulty of the MBE up again, the one in July seemed easier than id heard from others. Only took me 3 hours fifty minutes to burn through that puppy.

So that means UCC on the essay for us then right? Lol. I heard about like 3 people barely failing thanks to that dirty trick they pulled.

I could see a wacko hybrid of 3/9/contracts that totally screws with people. Or they could drop 9 and property and have a priority dispute between mortgage and secured creditor with ethics. The possibilities of what 3 and 9 can do to cause horrors are endless.

[Pass302]

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

[hockeyman969]

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

[Young Marino]

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

182 is pretty good at this stage in the game. I take the Barbri simulated MBE this Friday just hoping for a 120 floor score

[Pass302]

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.

[hockeyman969]

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.

Not my first bar exam either lol got a 168 last go round cuz I said "ahhh fuck it" the last 20 qs.. I'll have to contact my representative then. Thanks for heads up. Granted I'm done with the course already and now in cram mode.

[Pass302]

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.

Not my first bar exam either lol got a 168 last go round cuz I said "ahhh fuck it" the last 20 qs.. I'll have to contact my representative then. Thanks for heads up. Granted I'm done with the course already and now in cram mode.

yeah, I took took and passed the Maryland bar in July 2016, but the MBE was only worth 1/3 of the overall score, so I focused less on it.

[hockeyman969]

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.

Not my first bar exam either lol got a 168 last go round cuz I said "ahhh fuck it" the last 20 qs.. I'll have to contact my representative then. Thanks for heads up. Granted I'm done with the course already and now in cram mode.

yeah, I took took and passed the Maryland bar in July 2016, but the MBE was only worth 1/3 of the overall score, so I focused less on it.

Lucky you, the only thing that sucks about FL is no PTs.

[Pass302]

Anyone taking Kaplan take the FL MPQ mid-term yet?

There is no Florida MCQ midterm, the midterm with Kaplan is am MBE gut check to see where you are. I did and I scored a 182 raw.

I was assigned 66 MCQ mid term questions and then got an email that stated "complete the 66 Question FL Mini MidTerm which is found in today's assignments in your course syllabus."

That's a good score for the MBE! You should be solid for the exam.

Not my first bar exam either lol got a 168 last go round cuz I said "ahhh fuck it" the last 20 qs.. I'll have to contact my representative then. Thanks for heads up. Granted I'm done with the course already and now in cram mode.

yeah, I took took and passed the Maryland bar in July 2016, but the MBE was only worth 1/3 of the overall score, so I focused less on it.

Lucky you, the only thing that sucks about FL is no PTs.

Ugh yeah. Last July's PT' was an easy one too!

[hockeyman969]

Pass,

You guys get the tax brief from hell or the landlord tenant memo?

[Pass302]

Pass,

You guys get the tax brief from hell or the landlord tenant memo?

Landlord Tenant... Glad I didn't get the tax brief from hell haha.

[lavarman84]

I'm really confused by one of my Florida Evidence questions. Hopefully, one of y'all can explain this to me:

[+] Spoiler

A mailman sued the defendant for $5,000 in compensatory damages, which included pain and suffering and medical expenses, as a result of a dog bite. The only issues in the case were the identity of the dog and the amount of damages. The defendant offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home.
Will the trial judge find this testimony objectionable?

Answers:
A. Yes, because propensity may not be proved by specific instances.
B. Yes, because it calls for a self-serving declaration.
C. Yes, because it calls for the conclusion of the witness.
D. No, because it is evidence of habit.

Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. Evidence of a person's habit is admissible to prove conduct in conformity with the habit on a particular occasion. A habit is a person's particular routine reaction to a specific set of circumstances. Answer choice A is incorrect because this testimony is not being provided as character evidence. Character evidence attempts to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question. This type of evidence is inadmissible. Answer choice B is incorrect because evidence of a habit is not considered a self-serving declaration. Answer choice C is incorrect because the witness is not reaching a conclusion.

The outline says the following about the Florida rule:

[+] Spoiler

Florida Point of Law: Habit Evidence
The Florida rule does not mention a person’s habit, but only “the routine practice of an organization,” which, like the federal rule, may be admitted without corroboration and without an eyewitness’s presence. See Fla. Stat. § 90.406. Florida courts, however, have admitted evidence of a person’s habit under the common-law exception. Evidence of a person’s habit is admissible to corroborate other evidence that shows the habit occurred at a relevant time, but, unlike the federal rule, it is not admissible as direct evidence without corroboration. Peter Nicolas, Florida and Federal Evidence Rules With Commentary (2009–10) 77 (citing sources).

I totally understand why this is habit under the Federal Rules. What I don't understand is why it is acceptable habit evidence under the Florida rule. Can someone explain what evidence it is corroborating? I must be misunderstanding that.

[hockeyman969]

I'm really confused by one of my Florida Evidence questions. Hopefully, one of y'all can explain this to me:

[+] Spoiler

A mailman sued the defendant for $5,000 in compensatory damages, which included pain and suffering and medical expenses, as a result of a dog bite. The only issues in the case were the identity of the dog and the amount of damages. The defendant offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home.
Will the trial judge find this testimony objectionable?

Answers:
A. Yes, because propensity may not be proved by specific instances.
B. Yes, because it calls for a self-serving declaration.
C. Yes, because it calls for the conclusion of the witness.
D. No, because it is evidence of habit.

Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. Evidence of a person's habit is admissible to prove conduct in conformity with the habit on a particular occasion. A habit is a person's particular routine reaction to a specific set of circumstances. Answer choice A is incorrect because this testimony is not being provided as character evidence. Character evidence attempts to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question. This type of evidence is inadmissible. Answer choice B is incorrect because evidence of a habit is not considered a self-serving declaration. Answer choice C is incorrect because the witness is not reaching a conclusion.

The outline says the following about the Florida rule:

[+] Spoiler

Florida Point of Law: Habit Evidence
The Florida rule does not mention a person’s habit, but only “the routine practice of an organization,” which, like the federal rule, may be admitted without corroboration and without an eyewitness’s presence. See Fla. Stat. § 90.406. Florida courts, however, have admitted evidence of a person’s habit under the common-law exception. Evidence of a person’s habit is admissible to corroborate other evidence that shows the habit occurred at a relevant time, but, unlike the federal rule, it is not admissible as direct evidence without corroboration. Peter Nicolas, Florida and Federal Evidence Rules With Commentary (2009–10) 77 (citing sources).

I totally understand why this is habit under the Federal Rules. What I don't understand is why it is acceptable habit evidence under the Florida rule. Can someone explain what evidence it is corroborating? I must be misunderstanding that.

Ahhh, state evidence rules and how they screw with you. First premise the book is right, habit is only good for a routine practice of an organization in Florida. Habit of persons is subject to a trial judge's discretion of probative value and corroborating other evidence.

Here the identity of el angry pooch is at issue and if a mailman is bit by a dog, what are you naturally going to say? It's not my dog that bit you, there are tons of other dogs out there, how do you know my dog even got out? I always latch the gate to the kennel, never let my dog out.

From my rudimentary argument above, and this is a stretch, I'm guessing the habit of this person latching the kennel is to corroborate the defense (you're supposed to supply, much like imaginary statutes and negligence per se--yeah they don't give statutes in florida) and probative to the issue of which dog bit the mailman.

[lavarman84]

I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

[hockeyman969]

I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

The direct evidence is the fact that the identity of which dog bit the mailman and the defense proferred. It's relevant and corroborates the statement that it wasn't the guy's dog. It doesn't corroborate the action because with a person it can't corroborate the action...I hope that helps.

If the dog's identity weren't in issue, it would be inadmissible.

The latching the gate corroborates the defense.

[lavarman84]

I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

The direct evidence is the fact that the identity of which dog bit the mailman and the defense proferred. It's relevant and corroborates the statement that it wasn't the guy's dog. It doesn't corroborate the action because with a person it can't corroborate the action...I hope that helps.

If the dog's identity weren't in issue, it would be inadmissible.

The latching the gate corroborates the defense.

My issue is that all is implied from the question rather than express. My assumption was with a question on habit that they would need to be express about the direct evidence it corroborates, but I guess that's hoping for too much.

[mehiguess]

My most difficult call of the question prompt is, "strongest argument" or best argument". I've been taught to pick an answer that: A)does not add new facts and, B)is technically the only right answer; basically saying that the "strongest" or "best" is a misnomer. I consistently get these wrong, either because I fail to recognize the strongest argument or what I think is the strongest argument is not rooted in existing law. Anyone else have issues here? Any help is appreciated.

[hockeyman969]

I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

The direct evidence is the fact that the identity of which dog bit the mailman and the defense proferred. It's relevant and corroborates the statement that it wasn't the guy's dog. It doesn't corroborate the action because with a person it can't corroborate the action...I hope that helps.

If the dog's identity weren't in issue, it would be inadmissible.

The latching the gate corroborates the defense.

My issue is that all is implied from the question rather than express. My assumption was with a question on habit that they would need to be express about the direct evidence it corroborates, but I guess that's hoping for too much.

Look at negligence per se, you have to imply that from the fact pattern too. Any other jurisdiction gives a statute.

[not guilty]

I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

I guess it is not corroborating direct evidence per se, but more corroborating the defense as a whole.

[hockeyman969]

I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing what the direct evidence is there. If the question had said, "The defendant testified that he locked his dog up that day. The defendant also offered to testify that he always latches the gate to his dog's kennel whenever he leaves his home."

I could understand it as corroborating the direct evidence of his testimony that the dog was locked up. I just didn't see any direct evidence from the defendant's side in the question (since the outline says that habit cannot constitute direct evidence). It's why it baffled me when that was the answer. Hopefully, as I do more PQs, it'll become clearer.

I guess it is not corroborating direct evidence per se, but more corroborating the defense as a whole.

That's my guess as well. On another note, I'm enjoying
extra study time from the NJ govt shutdown lol.

[RC76]

I was originally thinking we would get Wills and Evidence for the FL MC, but we are due for the rare double shot of BE and Wills. They haven't done that since Feb 2014. T- 3 weeks!

[lavarman84]

I was originally thinking we would get Wills and Evidence for the FL MC, but we are due for the rare double shot of BE and Wills. They haven't done that since Feb 2014. T- 3 weeks!

BE doesn't seem too bad. I hate Wills and Trusts. Gonna have to work my ass off to learn it.

[redsox550]

I'm confused, can someone clarify what subjects get tested on the FL MC, is it only Corporations, vic pro, evidence and wills?

[foundingfather]

I'm confused, can someone clarify what subjects get tested on the FL MC, is it only Corporations, vic pro, evidence and wills?

these are the historically tested Florida multiple choice subjects:

civil procedure
criminal procedure
judicial procedure
florida evidence distinctions
wills and estates (i think trusts is usually tested as an essay)
business partnerships
corporations

procedure is the only subject guaranteed to be on the bar exam