2017 July California Bar Forum

[netrag]

Oops. Double post.

[netrag]

I took the Missouri Bar in 2014 and passed with flying colors -- but it was the UBE. At the time, I thought it was really difficult, but this is truly hell. I've done endless essays, and I have Lean Sheets, CriticalPass, everything Barbri (never again), etc., but I still have no idea what the fuck is going on in Cal Civ Pro, Cal Evidence, Community Property, Remedies, and P.R. (especially PR!). It's amazing that none of these companies could put together a coherent outline for us. Like, it's ridiculous that some of these study guides don't even include reverse Van Camp. It's ridiculous that the Barbri and Themis lectures for P.R. are so divergent, and that when citing the Model Rules, they're often wrong. Some of these topics don't belong on Bar Exams. I actually wouldn't mind if they kept the cut score the same and just tested what everyone tests -- because it's all digestible if you put the work in. They should go the New York way: test the unsettled, messy law via an open book online test that you can retake a few times before the bar. It's just too much to study. I haven't gone out other than to buy food at the store since May.

[dredd16]

Having a lot of trouble nailing rule statements on these essays. I'm spotting the issues and employing the facts in creative ways, but I'm doing so by only giving a vague a rule statement. How are you all learning these rule statements? Forcing yourself to write them out over and over again?

You don't need a perfect rule statement.

Your rule statement, however, needs to capture 99.9% of the elements (because those are essentially sub-issues).

Don't kill yourself over writing a perfect rule statement because the CA bar is not testing you on that. They're testing you on issue/subissue spotting and analysis.

You might think you are spotting all the issues, but are you breaking it down and spotting all the subissues? It's not enough that you spot the arson issue. Did you break it down into subheadings of (1) burning, (2) dwelling, and (3) malice and analyze facts for each different element?

Good luck!

[whats an updog]

I took the Missouri Bar in 2014 and passed with flying colors -- but it was the UBE. At the time, I thought it was really difficult, but this is truly hell. I've done endless essays, and I have Lean Sheets, CriticalPass, everything Barbri (never again), etc., but I still have no idea what the fuck is going on in Cal Civ Pro, Cal Evidence, Community Property, Remedies, and P.R. (especially PR!). It's amazing that none of these companies could put together a coherent outline for us. Like, it's ridiculous that some of these study guides don't even include reverse Van Camp. It's ridiculous that the Barbri and Themis lectures for P.R. are so divergent, and that when citing the Model Rules, they're often wrong. Some of these topics don't belong on Bar Exams. I actually wouldn't mind if they kept the cut score the same and just tested what everyone tests -- because it's all digestible if you put the work in. They should go the New York way: test the unsettled, messy law via an open book online test that you can retake a few times before the bar. It's just too much to study. I haven't gone out other than to buy food at the store since May.

Lmao right there with you. Good to read a commiserating post in the morning

PR is the fucking worst

[SmokeytheBear]

Having a lot of trouble nailing rule statements on these essays. I'm spotting the issues and employing the facts in creative ways, but I'm doing so by only giving a vague a rule statement. How are you all learning these rule statements? Forcing yourself to write them out over and over again?

You don't need a perfect rule statement.

Your rule statement, however, needs to capture 99.9% of the elements (because those are essentially sub-issues).

Don't kill yourself over writing a perfect rule statement because the CA bar is not testing you on that. They're testing you on issue/subissue spotting and analysis.

You might think you are spotting all the issues, but are you breaking it down and spotting all the subissues? It's not enough that you spot the arson issue. Did you break it down into subheadings of (1) burning, (2) dwelling, and (3) malice and analyze facts for each different element?

Good luck!

mnemonics man. it's the easiest and best way to get the rules down.

just remember that there are going to be certain elements that are common for certain subjects and you can just fudge them in there: intent for crim, intent and damages for torts, duty to do something reasonable for corps and torts and PR, etc. When in doubt just go that way, make some shit up for a rule that sounds pro, and you're on your way to 1440.

[thisisxael]

P sure OP was joking when he said the CA Supreme Court would raise the cut score. They are going to lower it for sure. By how much is the real question. And, will it apply to us???

she, and yes, good gd i was joking. i can't believe i forgot how humorless tls could be

[SmokeytheBear]

P sure OP was joking when he said the CA Supreme Court would raise the cut score. They are going to lower it for sure. By how much is the real question. And, will it apply to us???

she, and yes, good gd i was joking. i can't believe i forgot how humorless tls could be

Lots of stress around the bar exam. Lots riding on this for many people. Such "humor" not wholly appropriate.

[thisisxael]

I took the Missouri Bar in 2014 and passed with flying colors -- but it was the UBE. At the time, I thought it was really difficult, but this is truly hell. I've done endless essays, and I have Lean Sheets, CriticalPass, everything Barbri (never again), etc., but I still have no idea what the fuck is going on in Cal Civ Pro, Cal Evidence, Community Property, Remedies, and P.R. (especially PR!). It's amazing that none of these companies could put together a coherent outline for us. Like, it's ridiculous that some of these study guides don't even include reverse Van Camp. It's ridiculous that the Barbri and Themis lectures for P.R. are so divergent, and that when citing the Model Rules, they're often wrong. Some of these topics don't belong on Bar Exams. I actually wouldn't mind if they kept the cut score the same and just tested what everyone tests -- because it's all digestible if you put the work in. They should go the New York way: test the unsettled, messy law via an open book online test that you can retake a few times before the bar. It's just too much to study. I haven't gone out other than to buy food at the store since May.

Lmao right there with you. Good to read a commiserating post in the morning

PR is the fucking worst

PR is the worst cuz i thought i was done with that shot after the mpre. also the lecturer ended by saying good luck on the THREE day exam so like can i trust anything she says??

community property is the worst cuz the outline is a piece of shit and the lecture even worse. all i can say is i've learned way too much from essay answers and that isn't even that much.

ca civ pro was intriguing until i realized i actually had to learn that stuff.

luckily i just took evidence that involved both ca and fed but it sucks too. voters can't be trusted with that sort of power

remedies i feel like i got which means i don't at all and won't find out until the exam

[barjamie8]

Having a lot of trouble nailing rule statements on these essays. I'm spotting the issues and employing the facts in creative ways, but I'm doing so by only giving a vague a rule statement. How are you all learning these rule statements? Forcing yourself to write them out over and over again?

You don't need a perfect rule statement.

Your rule statement, however, needs to capture 99.9% of the elements (because those are essentially sub-issues).

Don't kill yourself over writing a perfect rule statement because the CA bar is not testing you on that. They're testing you on issue/subissue spotting and analysis.

You might think you are spotting all the issues, but are you breaking it down and spotting all the subissues? It's not enough that you spot the arson issue. Did you break it down into subheadings of (1) burning, (2) dwelling, and (3) malice and analyze facts for each different element?

Good luck!

Good post. A "perfect" rule statement is one that captures all of the elements. Then do a separate IRAC for each element.

[thisisxael]

rn my approach to all the ca junk (and this is my first and hopefully only bar i'll take so take this with a grain of salt) is to just map out the biggest differences and try to like rememberthem in the abstract. then when they come up on the exam, my general plan is to just remember like, the words barbri likes and manufacture rule statements cuz i have a real bad memory for things like that

so like for ca evidence i've got:
- truth in evidence act (w impeachment most important)
- use of specific evidence in character evidence
- expert tests: reliability
- impeachment: felonies/misdemeanors/specific conduct (i made a big ass chart for this: the key ones are civil/misdemeanor/involves lying/less than ten years, civil/felony/no lying, civil/specific conduct/lying, crim/felony/no lying/criminal defendant, and crim/specific conduct/lying, or for short: no lying, misdeamenors, specific conduct) (i don't have these even close to memorized yet :'( )
- whether something is hearsay excepted ("hearsay exception: must be available") or nonhearsay
- whether judge bound by evidence rules in prelim stuff

a couple of smaller ones:
- use of statements against interest
- prior inconsistent statement and whether can use to prove truth of the matter asserted or just impeach
- present sense impression
- offers to pay doctors and accompanying factual admissions
- expressions of sympathy
- liability insurance and products liability
(smaller cuz i just took evd so these were more drilled into my head)

and professional responsibility:
- advertising (ca requires additional labels and no guarantees)
- solicitation (aba: live phone + live online / ca: all phone no online)
- testifying (CA can before judge and don't have withdrawal exception)
- fees (ca you'll generally need it written unless cheap, corp, repeated, waived, emergency)
- contingency (ca: domestic ok)
- referral fees (ca: ok)
- ***duty of care (ca must be more than negligence)
- duty of confidentiality (ca: no mandatory waiver, permissive only compelled, fee collection, defending self,not ethics help)
- criminal D's gonna lie on the stand what do u do
- ***mandatory reporting (not in ca!)
- mandatory/permissive withdrawal (ca: no withdraw for past bad shit, financial)
- sex

stars mean seems real important.
then i just plan on knowing there is a difference and kinda making it up on test day/hoping i remember it. when i was trying to remember exact wording/exact things i couldn't pay attention to the bigger pic and was just getting confused :/ idk if this is a good strat or not tho

[mcmand]

I took the Missouri Bar in 2014 and passed with flying colors -- but it was the UBE. At the time, I thought it was really difficult, but this is truly hell. I've done endless essays, and I have Lean Sheets, CriticalPass, everything Barbri (never again), etc., but I still have no idea what the fuck is going on in Cal Civ Pro, Cal Evidence, Community Property, Remedies, and P.R. (especially PR!). It's amazing that none of these companies could put together a coherent outline for us. Like, it's ridiculous that some of these study guides don't even include reverse Van Camp. It's ridiculous that the Barbri and Themis lectures for P.R. are so divergent, and that when citing the Model Rules, they're often wrong. Some of these topics don't belong on Bar Exams. I actually wouldn't mind if they kept the cut score the same and just tested what everyone tests -- because it's all digestible if you put the work in. They should go the New York way: test the unsettled, messy law via an open book online test that you can retake a few times before the bar. It's just too much to study. I haven't gone out other than to buy food at the store since May.

Lmao right there with you. Good to read a commiserating post in the morning

PR is the fucking worst

This test is the fucking worst. This is completely unnecessary.

[barjamie8]

rn my approach to all the ca junk (and this is my first and hopefully only bar i'll take so take this with a grain of salt) is to just map out the biggest differences and try to like rememberthem in the abstract. then when they come up on the exam, my general plan is to just remember like, the words barbri likes and manufacture rule statements cuz i have a real bad memory for things like that

so like for ca evidence i've got:
- truth in evidence act (w impeachment most important)
- use of specific evidence in character evidence
- expert tests: reliability
- impeachment: felonies/misdemeanors/specific conduct (i made a big ass chart for this: the key ones are civil/misdemeanor/involves lying/less than ten years, civil/felony/no lying, civil/specific conduct/lying, crim/felony/no lying/criminal defendant, and crim/specific conduct/lying, or for short: no lying, misdeamenors, specific conduct) (i don't have these even close to memorized yet :'( )
- whether something is hearsay excepted ("hearsay exception: must be available") or nonhearsay
- whether judge bound by evidence rules in prelim stuff

a couple of smaller ones:
- use of statements against interest
- prior inconsistent statement and whether can use to prove truth of the matter asserted or just impeach
- present sense impression
- offers to pay doctors and accompanying factual admissions
- expressions of sympathy
- liability insurance and products liability
(smaller cuz i just took evd so these were more drilled into my head)

and professional responsibility:
- advertising (ca requires additional labels and no guarantees)
- solicitation (aba: live phone + live online / ca: all phone no online)
- testifying (CA can before judge and don't have withdrawal exception)
- fees (ca you'll generally need it written unless cheap, corp, repeated, waived, emergency)
- contingency (ca: domestic ok)
- referral fees (ca: ok)
- ***duty of care (ca must be more than negligence)
- duty of confidentiality (ca: no mandatory waiver, permissive only compelled, fee collection, defending self,not ethics help)
- criminal D's gonna lie on the stand what do u do
- ***mandatory reporting (not in ca!)
- mandatory/permissive withdrawal (ca: no withdraw for past bad shit, financial)
- sex

stars mean seems real important.
then i just plan on knowing there is a difference and kinda making it up on test day/hoping i remember it. when i was trying to remember exact wording/exact things i couldn't pay attention to the bigger pic and was just getting confused :/ idk if this is a good strat or not tho

It depends on what you mean by abstract. Will you remember all of the elements to the rules and spell them out? Will you be able to define each element? Don't plan on "winging it" on the exam. You have more than a week, write out the rules on flashcards and go through them over and over.

[a male human]

Having a lot of trouble nailing rule statements on these essays. I'm spotting the issues and employing the facts in creative ways, but I'm doing so by only giving a vague a rule statement. How are you all learning these rule statements? Forcing yourself to write them out over and over again?

You don't need a perfect rule statement.

Your rule statement, however, needs to capture 99.9% of the elements (because those are essentially sub-issues).

Don't kill yourself over writing a perfect rule statement because the CA bar is not testing you on that. They're testing you on issue/subissue spotting and analysis.

You might think you are spotting all the issues, but are you breaking it down and spotting all the subissues? It's not enough that you spot the arson issue. Did you break it down into subheadings of (1) burning, (2) dwelling, and (3) malice and analyze facts for each different element?

Good luck!

Good post. A "perfect" rule statement is one that captures all of the elements. Then do a separate IRAC for each element.

Agreed with both. It's simpler to understand the concepts and the elements, and write it out in your own "essay form" based on your understanding. No need to sound exactly like Barbri as long as you can analyze the parts the way you understand them.

[NYC2012]

.

[netrag]

Does anyone have good, organized rule statements for the ABA Model Rules and California RPC Conflict of Interests (e.g. Potential Client, Actual Client, Former Client)? None of these courses offer even remotely similar ones and it's making me feel like a crazy person because they are absolutely something that I have to memorize. BarEssays has some, but they're impossible to learn as worded.

I would be so grateful to anyone that help.

[barjamie8]

Does anyone have good, organized rule statements for the ABA Model Rules and California RPC Conflict of Interests (e.g. Potential Client, Actual Client, Former Client)? None of these courses offer even remotely similar ones and it's making me feel like a crazy person because they are absolutely something that I have to memorize. BarEssays has some, but they're impossible to learn as worded.

I would be so grateful to anyone that help.

Did you look at the high scoring essays on BarEssays?

[thisisxael]

Does anyone have good, organized rule statements for the ABA Model Rules and California RPC Conflict of Interests (e.g. Potential Client, Actual Client, Former Client)? None of these courses offer even remotely similar ones and it's making me feel like a crazy person because they are absolutely something that I have to memorize. BarEssays has some, but they're impossible to learn as worded.

I would be so grateful to anyone that help.

Did you look at the high scoring essays on BarEssays?

good question

[psg190]

There's no need to formally withdraw at this point if you decide to tap out, right? You can just not show up?

[mcmand]

There's no need to formally withdraw at this point if you decide to tap out, right? You can just not show up?

I think you don't get your money back, right?
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... ees-Policy

You might as well take it, since you're just burning your money either way.

[psg190]

There's no need to formally withdraw at this point if you decide to tap out, right? You can just not show up?

I think you don't get your money back, right?
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... ees-Policy

You might as well take it, since you're just burning your money either way.

Right, no money back, but I'd save $1,200 on the Oakland Marriott. At this point I just don't think it's worth the emotional drain. I've been out of law school for 5 years and while my employer wants me to sit for and pass the bar, it's not required. The other factor that I keep coming back to is when I interview with competitors they always ask if I'm licensed. When I say I never sat for the bar they seem willing to take a flier. If I say I tried and failed I don't think I'll get the same response.

[mcmand]

There's no need to formally withdraw at this point if you decide to tap out, right? You can just not show up?

I think you don't get your money back, right?
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... ees-Policy

You might as well take it, since you're just burning your money either way.

Right, no money back, but I'd save $1,200 on the Oakland Marriott. At this point I just don't think it's worth the emotional drain. I've been out of law school for 5 years and while my employer wants me to sit for and pass the bar, it's not required. The other factor that I keep coming back to is when I interview with competitors they always ask if I'm licensed. When I say I never sat for the bar they seem willing to take a flier. If I say I tried and failed I don't think I'll get the same response.

Just don't say you tried and failed.

I'll be at the Oakland Marriott too. We can have lunch together and not talk about the exam (a topic of discussion I am keenly trying to avoid during those couple of days).

[maxmartin]

There's no need to formally withdraw at this point if you decide to tap out, right? You can just not show up?

I think you don't get your money back, right?
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... ees-Policy

You might as well take it, since you're just burning your money either way.

Right, no money back, but I'd save $1,200 on the Oakland Marriott. At this point I just don't think it's worth the emotional drain. I've been out of law school for 5 years and while my employer wants me to sit for and pass the bar, it's not required. The other factor that I keep coming back to is when I interview with competitors they always ask if I'm licensed. When I say I never sat for the bar they seem willing to take a flier. If I say I tried and failed I don't think I'll get the same response.

Your employer is not paying for hotel? If so next time, got to ONT, hotel there are much cheaper. Two nights cost you less than $200.

[Alt123]

Unless you really haven't been able to prepare at all, I might still take it and hope for a very gracious retroactive adjustment by the state supreme court.

[psg190]

Just don't say you tried and failed.

I'll be at the Oakland Marriott too. We can have lunch together and not talk about the exam (a topic of discussion I am keenly trying to avoid during those couple of days).

I don't know, "Have you passed the bar?" "No." sounds just as bad as "I failed."

If I don't cancel my hotel reservation by Saturday night I'll take you up on that offer. Heck, I'll even get you concierge lounge access at the hotel.

[psg190]

Your employer is not paying for hotel? If so next time, got to ONT, hotel there are much cheaper. Two nights cost you less than $200.

I wish. I'm at $7,000+ out of pocket not counting the hotel and I had to burn accumulated PTO to study.