Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=287854
Good luck and safe travels!CBlaw wrote:Well folks I am traveling to my bar location tommorow morning. I likely will be done with this thread. With that said, Good Luck to everyone!! We got this!!
There's this chart for NY (266 UBE), you just have to be above the curve so any combination of percentiles that'll put you there. Of course who knows what dumb score that is but it's making me feel better because I only need a 260White Dwarf wrote:Has anyone broken down how terribly we can do on the MEE if we do well on the MPT (assuming a decent MBE)?
Feeling completely overwhelmed by the MEE right now.
No. I think I did two the first time I took the bar.Tala29 wrote:I am actually really concerned that I did not practice more than 2 MPTS during the whole course - one persuasive and the other and objective memo.
Is this going to be a big problem? Should I do some tomorrow maybe?
jcwest wrote:I do not know what the CPT is but if its like the MPT... I too have only done two. Got an 83% on the graded and have not looked back.
There is so much I do not know that I have decided to stop caring and trust I know enough to pass. Minimum competency folks. I'll be putting in 8 hours tomorrow and probably 6-8 on Monday because I can't not but I stopped at 4 today... which was still 7 hours. Felt great.
There are numerous situations where a remove would be proper even if the case could not have originally been brought in federal court. Examples would include fraudulent joinder/dismissal of a party destroying diversity or the failure to allege adequate damages, which could result in the case becoming removal after receipt of an "other paper" demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. That's why the rule has a provision that specifically deals with cases that become removal after the initial pleading.Regarding removal, which of the following is FALSE?
You Selected: Removal is proper only if the case could have originally been brought by the plaintiff in federal court.
When removal is based on diversity jurisdiction, removal is proper only if the case was originally brought in a state of which no defendant is a citizen.
Only a defendant can remove a case.
Correct Answer: Federal courts cannot abstain from hearing a properly removed case.
This is 100% wrong! A court may impose monetary sanctions against a party on its own initiative--it just can't do so before providing the party to be sanctioned notice and an opportunity to be heard. It's in the text of Rule 11.A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court alleging that a cell phone application sold by the defendant infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff. The complaint was signed by an associate at the large law firm that represented the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the cell phone application at issue did not actually perform as described in the complaint, and thus did not affect the plaintiff’s patent. The court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the defendant presented evidence that the application performed only functions not covered by the plaintiff’s patent. The defendant also showed that the plaintiff’s attorney had never actually used the application, but had drafted the complaint based solely on his client’s description of the application. The court granted the motion to dismiss. The court also issued an order requiring the plaintiff’s attorney and his law firm to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees, finding that the plaintiff’s attorney had not conducted a reasonable inquiry into the factual contentions in the complaint.
What of the following is the best argument that the court erred in its order requiring payment of attorney’s fees?
Answers:
A court may not impose sanctions against a law firm unless the pleading at issue is signed by a partner.
Correct Answer: A court may not order a party to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees except upon motion.
You Selected: An attorney may rely upon factual contentions put forth by the client in a pleading.
Attorney’s fees are not a permissible type of sanction under Rule 11.
Yeah, this has happened several times for me with criminal procedure.Omerta wrote: I hate when the questions overgeneralize or when your experience contradicts the bizarro bar jurisdiction interpretations.
Omerta wrote:Sorry for the double post, but I need to rant somewhere and my wife is probably tired of hearing me rage about how stupid the bar is.
There are numerous situations where a remove would be proper even if the case could not have originally been brought in federal court. Examples would include fraudulent joinder/dismissal of a party destroying diversity or the failure to allege adequate damages, which could result in the case becoming removal after receipt of an "other paper" demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. That's why the rule has a provision that specifically deals with cases that become removal after the initial pleading.Regarding removal, which of the following is FALSE?
You Selected: Removal is proper only if the case could have originally been brought by the plaintiff in federal court.
When removal is based on diversity jurisdiction, removal is proper only if the case was originally brought in a state of which no defendant is a citizen.
Only a defendant can remove a case.
Correct Answer: Federal courts cannot abstain from hearing a properly removed case.
Likewise, a federal court can abstain from hearing certain cases, even if the case were properly removed. 1367's exception for substantial unresolved state law questions would be one reason. Even if you say that doesn't count because that would only authorize declining to exercise jurisdiction, rather than an abstention doctrine, there are at least three abstention doctrines that could justify abstention from a properly removed federal case: Pullman, Younger, and Wilton/Brillhart abstention.
Same beef with this question
This is 100% wrong! A court may impose monetary sanctions against a party on its own initiative--it just can't do so before providing the party to be sanctioned notice and an opportunity to be heard. It's in the text of Rule 11.A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court alleging that a cell phone application sold by the defendant infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff. The complaint was signed by an associate at the large law firm that represented the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the cell phone application at issue did not actually perform as described in the complaint, and thus did not affect the plaintiff’s patent. The court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the defendant presented evidence that the application performed only functions not covered by the plaintiff’s patent. The defendant also showed that the plaintiff’s attorney had never actually used the application, but had drafted the complaint based solely on his client’s description of the application. The court granted the motion to dismiss. The court also issued an order requiring the plaintiff’s attorney and his law firm to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees, finding that the plaintiff’s attorney had not conducted a reasonable inquiry into the factual contentions in the complaint.
What of the following is the best argument that the court erred in its order requiring payment of attorney’s fees?
Answers:
A court may not impose sanctions against a law firm unless the pleading at issue is signed by a partner.
Correct Answer: A court may not order a party to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees except upon motion.
You Selected: An attorney may rely upon factual contentions put forth by the client in a pleading.
Attorney’s fees are not a permissible type of sanction under Rule 11.
I hate when the questions overgeneralize or when your experience contradicts the bizarro bar jurisdiction interpretations.
I think it would make way more sense for them to put out stats correlated to performance on practice tests.masterherm wrote:Any stats out there for Themis pass rate among people who complete 75+%?
jcwest wrote:Just wanted to say its been a pleasure ladies and gents. Needed the comradery through these past two weeks.
My last two days will be focused studying and relaxation. Turning the internet off. Best of luck to you all.
Yeah, and that's the problem. The statement "A court may not order a party to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees except upon motion" is a misstatement of law; the court may, on its own, initiative, order a party to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. The court could also use its inherent authority to sanction a party, which wouldn't require a motion. There is a difference between the abstract statement " a court may not order sanctions except upon a motion" and the statement the court may not order sanctions because plaintiff did not make a motion" or something like that.Findedeux wrote:Omerta wrote:Sorry for the double post, but I need to rant somewhere and my wife is probably tired of hearing me rage about how stupid the bar is.
There are numerous situations where a remove would be proper even if the case could not have originally been brought in federal court. Examples would include fraudulent joinder/dismissal of a party destroying diversity or the failure to allege adequate damages, which could result in the case becoming removal after receipt of an "other paper" demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. That's why the rule has a provision that specifically deals with cases that become removal after the initial pleading.Regarding removal, which of the following is FALSE?
You Selected: Removal is proper only if the case could have originally been brought by the plaintiff in federal court.
When removal is based on diversity jurisdiction, removal is proper only if the case was originally brought in a state of which no defendant is a citizen.
Only a defendant can remove a case.
Correct Answer: Federal courts cannot abstain from hearing a properly removed case.
Likewise, a federal court can abstain from hearing certain cases, even if the case were properly removed. 1367's exception for substantial unresolved state law questions would be one reason. Even if you say that doesn't count because that would only authorize declining to exercise jurisdiction, rather than an abstention doctrine, there are at least three abstention doctrines that could justify abstention from a properly removed federal case: Pullman, Younger, and Wilton/Brillhart abstention.
Same beef with this question
This is 100% wrong! A court may impose monetary sanctions against a party on its own initiative--it just can't do so before providing the party to be sanctioned notice and an opportunity to be heard. It's in the text of Rule 11.A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court alleging that a cell phone application sold by the defendant infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff. The complaint was signed by an associate at the large law firm that represented the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the cell phone application at issue did not actually perform as described in the complaint, and thus did not affect the plaintiff’s patent. The court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the defendant presented evidence that the application performed only functions not covered by the plaintiff’s patent. The defendant also showed that the plaintiff’s attorney had never actually used the application, but had drafted the complaint based solely on his client’s description of the application. The court granted the motion to dismiss. The court also issued an order requiring the plaintiff’s attorney and his law firm to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees, finding that the plaintiff’s attorney had not conducted a reasonable inquiry into the factual contentions in the complaint.
What of the following is the best argument that the court erred in its order requiring payment of attorney’s fees?
Answers:
A court may not impose sanctions against a law firm unless the pleading at issue is signed by a partner.
Correct Answer: A court may not order a party to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees except upon motion.
You Selected: An attorney may rely upon factual contentions put forth by the client in a pleading.
Attorney’s fees are not a permissible type of sanction under Rule 11.
I hate when the questions overgeneralize or when your experience contradicts the bizarro bar jurisdiction interpretations.
Actually, according to our outline at least, a party has to file a motion specifically for attorney's fees. The Court can sua sponte impose sanctions on other bases.
Especially when the set up basically forces you to check things off. There's a huge difference between reading the answers to an essay (what I generally did) vs. outlining fully vs. writing fully that just isn't represented at all.White Dwarf wrote:https://www.themisbar.com/pass-rates
3rd column has 75% completion pass rates. I agree that it's kind of pointless, given that you can easily check things off without really engaging with them.
BlueLaw11 wrote:What's the final verdict on throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the Essays? Most of the model answers bring up every conceivable issue (regardless how frivolous), but my essay grader told me to stick to what was obvious. Tempted to just say every possible issue that comes to my mind, but I don't want to piss off the graders
Re-read Rule 11. Attorney's fees can only be imposed on a party's motion. Monetary sanctions doesn't mean the same thing as attorney's fees. Attorney's fees are treated specially under the Rule. You're conflating the two.Omerta wrote:Yeah, and that's the problem. The statement "A court may not order a party to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees except upon motion" is a misstatement of law; the court may, on its own, initiative, order a party to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. The court could also use its inherent authority to sanction a party, which wouldn't require a motion. There is a difference between the abstract statement " a court may not order sanctions except upon a motion" and the statement the court may not order sanctions because plaintiff did not make a motion" or something like that.Findedeux wrote:Omerta wrote:Sorry for the double post, but I need to rant somewhere and my wife is probably tired of hearing me rage about how stupid the bar is.
There are numerous situations where a remove would be proper even if the case could not have originally been brought in federal court. Examples would include fraudulent joinder/dismissal of a party destroying diversity or the failure to allege adequate damages, which could result in the case becoming removal after receipt of an "other paper" demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. That's why the rule has a provision that specifically deals with cases that become removal after the initial pleading.Regarding removal, which of the following is FALSE?
You Selected: Removal is proper only if the case could have originally been brought by the plaintiff in federal court.
When removal is based on diversity jurisdiction, removal is proper only if the case was originally brought in a state of which no defendant is a citizen.
Only a defendant can remove a case.
Correct Answer: Federal courts cannot abstain from hearing a properly removed case.
Likewise, a federal court can abstain from hearing certain cases, even if the case were properly removed. 1367's exception for substantial unresolved state law questions would be one reason. Even if you say that doesn't count because that would only authorize declining to exercise jurisdiction, rather than an abstention doctrine, there are at least three abstention doctrines that could justify abstention from a properly removed federal case: Pullman, Younger, and Wilton/Brillhart abstention.
Same beef with this question
This is 100% wrong! A court may impose monetary sanctions against a party on its own initiative--it just can't do so before providing the party to be sanctioned notice and an opportunity to be heard. It's in the text of Rule 11.A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court alleging that a cell phone application sold by the defendant infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff. The complaint was signed by an associate at the large law firm that represented the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the cell phone application at issue did not actually perform as described in the complaint, and thus did not affect the plaintiff’s patent. The court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the defendant presented evidence that the application performed only functions not covered by the plaintiff’s patent. The defendant also showed that the plaintiff’s attorney had never actually used the application, but had drafted the complaint based solely on his client’s description of the application. The court granted the motion to dismiss. The court also issued an order requiring the plaintiff’s attorney and his law firm to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees, finding that the plaintiff’s attorney had not conducted a reasonable inquiry into the factual contentions in the complaint.
What of the following is the best argument that the court erred in its order requiring payment of attorney’s fees?
Answers:
A court may not impose sanctions against a law firm unless the pleading at issue is signed by a partner.
Correct Answer: A court may not order a party to pay the opposing party’s attorney’s fees except upon motion.
You Selected: An attorney may rely upon factual contentions put forth by the client in a pleading.
Attorney’s fees are not a permissible type of sanction under Rule 11.
I hate when the questions overgeneralize or when your experience contradicts the bizarro bar jurisdiction interpretations.
Actually, according to our outline at least, a party has to file a motion specifically for attorney's fees. The Court can sua sponte impose sanctions on other bases.
Sure, you can say that's pedantic, but there are plenty of other questions where one answer is a statement of law that's overinclusive or underinclusive, so the best choice is something that is factually accurate but not the best argument a party can make.
Also curious...BlueLaw11 wrote:What's the final verdict on throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the Essays? Most of the model answers bring up every conceivable issue (regardless how frivolous), but my essay grader told me to stick to what was obvious. Tempted to just say every possible issue that comes to my mind, but I don't want to piss off the graders
, but anyone knows what percentage on the MBE practice corresponds to a NY passing score on the actual MBE? Is it the 70% that Themis puts as goal on its mixed-subjects PQs?
Pajsa18 wrote:Just to confirm some previous postings about mixed set 17 - did pretty much everyone score significantly lower on that one, or on set 18?
I just took 17 and did so much worse than my normal average, but wasn't sure if that was the consensus on this mixed set?
fuuuuuuuuuu wrote:I honestly think it's random and it depends on what questions you have left in the pool. Mixed set 17 was just about the same for me (same score as like 7-8 other sets, well settled over 70%). However, mixed sets 15 and 16 kicked my butt.
Pajsa18 wrote:Just to confirm some previous postings about mixed set 17 - did pretty much everyone score significantly lower on that one, or on set 18?
I just took 17 and did so much worse than my normal average, but wasn't sure if that was the consensus on this mixed set?
Yeah, we've discussed a lot of them--post away.Findedeux wrote:Can we post Themis questions on here?
I just did practice test 4 and I really don't understand one of the quesitons.
