2019 February California Bar Forum

[lostinca]

Hey guys,

Was hoping some of you could provide a bit of clarity for me with respect to trusts. I for the most part understand the topic and what is within, but my question is with respect to structure and or how to approach a trust question. I have attempted to check multiple sources online and still feel a bit lost. If anyone can give me some insight, I would greatly appreciate it.

My current approach to trusts is this:
1. Valid trust- I first and foremost attempt to make sure there is a valid trust. So I run through the elements trust property, beneficiary, trustee, intent, and valid legal purpose.

2. If the trust is valid then I attempt to label the trust itself. Whether it be a private express trust, charitable trust, etc. My understanding is a trust can fit more than one? So discuss all the possible ones?

3. Then I address any violations to duties, modifications, etc.

I don't really know where to put the creation element? for a trust (trust designed to take effect at T death, declaration in trust, transfer in trust). Or what to discuss with respect to this besides if for example they transferred it to a third party.

In most cases, the creation of trust is not an issue. But when it becomes an issue (eg. when the trust property is real property, there must be a writing if it's transfer in trust), then you need to address it.

Gotcha, that actually makes sense. Some reason from my outlines I assumed that it was a topic of discussion in almost every single trust essay. I will only address it if required, would you include that in the requirements of a valid trust or just address it in its own separate section?

[BrainToast]

I am so lost as to how any of these commercial courses can even get me close to prepared for the exam. I am taking Themis and will be lucky to even get to 50%. Part of the reason is that I am trying to structure an outline so I know what to write for the essays. But it takes me days to get one subject done. I see everyone here being almost done with the course so I have the following question: am I just not sharp enough to synthesize these rules into a flowing outline and get practice or are most of you merely not outlining and trying to practice and use the outlines they provide as a review? Because all I hear is that you do not need to be smart to take this exam and that anyone can pass it so long as they put in 6-8 hours for at least a month.

I cannot figure out how I am so slow in learning the law and getting through these damn subjects. Maybe taking the California bar is the problem or maybe I just do not know how to prioritize the issues to learn. But I am desperate for some help or advice. Honestly, I do not feel there is any point of me even sitting for this exam based on my knowledge of the 6 subjects I have already outlined. I cannot imagine doing an essay on the other 6-7 subjects that I have yet to go over.

If it is taking you days to get one subject done, you are probably doing too much. You have to come to the realization that you cannot prepare for every little issue in each subject and you will miss some points here and there. Just do not miss the big ticket items.

Your outline should consist of the big issues in each subject that are likely to show up. For example, in evidence, you must know hearsay rules. But you can blow through judicial notice.

You can pass an essay if you nail the hearsay issue and poorly discuss judicial notice. But if you blow the hearsay, your essay won't pass. This is a tough pill to swallow, especially for perfectionists. This exam is made to be impossible to ace. So don't go for the gold, go for the bronze.

[yespasscbx]

I don't really know where to put the creation element? for a trust (trust designed to take effect at T death, declaration in trust, transfer in trust). Or what to discuss with respect to this besides if for example they transferred it to a third party.

In most cases, the creation of trust is not an issue. But when it becomes an issue (eg. when the trust property is real property, there must be a writing if it's transfer in trust), then you need to address it.

Gotcha, that actually makes sense. Some reason from my outlines I assumed that it was a topic of discussion in almost every single trust essay. I will only address it if required, would you include that in the requirements of a valid trust or just address it in its own separate section?

I would address it in the discussion of the validity of trust; I think that's more logical.

[Heyall]

Anybody have any predictions?

I'm thinking itll be products liability or defamation for Torts.

Homocide for criminal law.

[fatedreality]

Hi everyone - I passed the CA bar awhile ago but ended up writing this mini guide up for friends who took the bar after me who, like myself, were frustrated with the commercial bar prep courses. I ended up studying supplements (while using Kaplan only for its MBE question bank) almost exclusively on my own schedule (and passed - with a lot less stress than a lot of my peers who struggled to complete the commercial bar prep schedule). My friends found this really helpful so just in case this can help anyone else, I'm sharing it here:

-----------------------

Reviewing the Black Letter Law
I highly recommend lean sheets because they were compact and great for reviewing rule elements.
They also had room in the margins for me to add any other notes I wanted to make.
http://www.leansheets.com/california-ba ... heets-com/

I suggest printing the entire pdf in color - double sided - 8.5 x 11 paper
http://documents.staples.com/ASP1/
Binding/Booklet 1
Paper/8.5x11 28lb Premium White / Standard / Standard Print (Precut Size) / Color / Duplex ($23)

-----------------------

Multiple Choice:
Many people say that kicking ass on the MBE section is essential because it's the one section that is truly in your control to differentiate your score. The essay and performance test grading can be arbitrary - most people will get an average of 60 something on everything if they apply the correct IRAC method to the essays. But a lot of people mess up MBEs, and there's no excuse for that because one can definitely improve this with practice.

1. Critical Pass: http://criticalpass.refr.cc/DHGJQMN (my referral link but you don't have to use it . This was Great to review in the evening when I was too tired to do practice questions. They already added flash cards for the civ pro mbe questions. I was stupidly impressed with how these cards actually covered so much of the questions on actual exam. Definitely essential in my opinion

2. Strategies & Tactics for the MBE, Sixth Edition (Emanuel Bar Review)
https://www.amazon.com/Strategies-Tacti ... b_title_bk

I used this book mostly for the general MBE test-taking tips and the tips were so on-point. Because I was using Kaplan and it already had a huge question bank - I practiced with those questions.

-----------------------

Essays:

Formatting is KEY. Do NOT write big long paragraphs. I underlined, made sure to write a lot of mini-paragraphs (5-6 sentences max), then move on.

During the exam, make sure you use every single fact in the fact pattern. Use a highlighter and highlight each fact or mark each fact after you incorporate it in some way into your essay.

Don't worry if the question asks you something pretty obscure or you just blank on something. Just put down something reasonable and move on. Use every fact (there are almost never any red herrings - I never saw any).

Using the call of the question--- IRAC. But the IRAC's should be really short and concise - (1 sentence for the issue; 1-2 rule statements, 5-6 for application, 1 sentence for conclusion).

I didn't have a memorization plan for rule statements, but made sure to know certain rules very well: Community Property opener, Contract (applicable law, offer, acceptance, etc), Evidence (definition of legal and logical relevance, hearsay exceptions), elements of negligence claim for Torts, etc. You'll find good rule statements in the following book:

Essay Exam Writing for the CA Bar Exam: http://www.amazon.com/Essay-Exam-Writin ... 24-1877215

I didn't actually practice writing a lot of actual essays. I read this book in its entirely and thought it was amazing. The only essay book you need in my opinion. I found the checklists a little hard to memorize, so I just focused on the approach this book outline for every subject. (And memorizing the rules used in the sample essays).

And what I did is, after reading the tips, I practiced writing essays for the practice essays at the end of each chapter - read the sample essay + looked at the issue chart + rewrote it again.

I liked this book the best because the sample essays weren't ridiculously long like kaplan and barbri. This book emphasizes what HAS to be in your essay responses, and leaves out the extraneous stuff that will hardly get you any points on the exam itself.

My essays were much shorter on the actual exam than in any barbri or kaplan sample essay - and I think it was sufficient.

-----------------------

Performance Tests
http://ipassedmybarexam.com/2011/02/13/ ... -are-easy/

Honestly - that write-up sums up all the tips you need to do well on the performance test. Really thorough and really hits the nail on the head.

To be honest, I practiced maybe 2 performance tests in total. The only things I think you need to do is read through all the tips above, and then print out and read all the sample performance test answers for the past 3 years from the CA bar site: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... Past-Exams

Getting a feel for the memo structure that the bar examiners wanted was the most helpful thing.

-----------------------
Rule Statements
I did not use this site when I studied for the bar, but someone posted this in another thread and it looks pretty good if you're looking for black letter law outlines and rule statements: By the way, I was briefly looking at this thread for the July 2018 Bar exam and someone posted this link as a good place to get solid rule statements for some of the major subjects:

https://law.stanford.edu/office-of-stud ... nformation

-----------------------
Best of luck!!!

[JDJM6215]

I saw a CBX question that actually showed when an added term was not material. It had to do with the order of helmets. The person wanted helmets and the seller said it had neon helmets. The buyer then sent an acceptance and asked that straps (amounting to just about 6.00) to be added to the contract. The rule under the 2-207 acceptance is any seasonal definite expression of the offer works. Therefore, this acceptance for the helmets is reasonable. As to the new term? If the offer didn't limit acceptance to the offer, the new term adds only if it is not materially altering the existing K AND the offeror in a reasonable time does not reject the term. That should be what you put is the rule.

Here, the straps do not materially alter the existing contract for helmets. If both parties are merchants ( should explain that rule too). Then the term adds as here 6.00 is not a change to the detriment to the offeror in any way by adding the straps. You can also explain what is a material alteration - one that is substantial in price, one that will change the benefit substantial, you can even state how courts have held the requiring arbitration is material to show it changes the position the offeror had to adjudicate in court.

Now, if the offeree is NOT a merchant and the offeror adds a new term or the opposite, the term drops off. Or if both parties are nonmerchants, then it should be explained that this is a rejection of the offer and a counteroffer. I hope that helps. The more I think about it the more I realize the adding requires

1. describe who the parties are (merchants or not)
2. give the rules 2-207 acceptance in relation to the parties described in one
3. explain the facts according to acceptance
4. explain all three - in detail regarding a. offer with limiting acceptance to the terms, b. material change - what effect on the offeror and c. reasonable time to reject.
5. conclude - Therefore, this will add to the terms if the two are merchants, the a, b and c didn't apply.

Hope I'm making sense. Now off to do a PT and a couple of essays. On another note, heard that projections state Business associations, Torts (neg), Civ Pro, either Wills/CP and Real property will be on the exam - I can't believe that they will NOT test prof. res. since the ABA and CA seems to always be tested. As for Evidence, be sure to start with Relevance, logical, legal, then apply hearsay and the exceptions. On the chance that they do cross overs be prepared to write quickly.

If you are burnt on essay writing, in the evenings just write out rule statements on past essays and then compare to the released ones.

[agcdya]

I On another note, heard that projections state Business associations, Torts (neg), Civ Pro, either Wills/CP and Real property will be on the exam - I can't believe that they will NOT test prof. res. since the ABA and CA seems to always be tested. As for Evidence, be sure to start with Relevance, logical, legal, then apply hearsay and the exceptions. On the chance that they do cross overs be prepared to write quickly.

If you are burnt on essay writing, in the evenings just write out rule statements on past essays and then compare to the released ones.

I heard Saccuzzo had predicted Torts, Crim Law/Procedure, Business Assoc., Civ Pro, Wills/Trusts and Professional Responsibility. I predict - whatever subject I'm least prepared for...

[bacillusanthracis]

Anybody have any predictions?

I'm thinking itll be products liability or defamation for Torts.

Homocide for criminal law.

Civ Pro: (some kind of jurisdiction question; it's been awhile since they've tested it)
Crimpro/law: seems a safe bet
Torts: maybe products liability, but since it's February, it wouldn't be surprising to see some oddball essay about false imprisonment and abuse of process stuff
Remedies: I think the last time they had a full on remedies question was July of 2017
PR: of course
Business Associations/corporations: this one's way overdue and I was expecting to see it on the last one.
Real Property: they claim they tested this last February, but it was more of a triple crossover containing con law, torts, and RP. So an essay more fully dedicated to the topic seems appropriate.

Yeah, that's 7 subjects, but it's hard to see them not trying to makeup for the lack of crossovers in July.

Best of luck to everyone here. I passed in July and was sure I failed it. It was my third try and passing seemed truly impossible. What I did differently, and what I think put me over the top was doing my PT first after the break. I spent 2+ hours on it and modeled the formatting from the calbar model answers. The second thing was a really heavy focus on the MBE and MBE essay topics.

And practice, practice, practice.

Finally, if you come out of the exam feeling certain that you failed, take a couple weeks off and start studying again. The first time I took it, I knew I'd failed, but everyone told me I probably passed and told me not to start studying again. That was terrible advice. So after the second time I took it, I kept doing MBE questions until I got results in May (failed again). BUT, because I'd kept doing 50-70 MBE questions a week, I was able to spend about 80% of my time on the written portion for the July 2018 exam. And when the July exam was over, I dove even more deeply into MBE subjects and kept studying until I got results this past November.

It's really hard to do that, and it breaks your heart to do it, but it's worth it.

Again, best of luck to everyone.

[barjamie8]

Good luck to everyone during the final study period! I am a former repeater. In the final weeks before the exam that I passed, the highest priority for me was memorizing rule statements and being able to spot issues.

I would write out all of the rule statements I needed to memorize on flashcards and go over them for several hours a day. Then, I would pull up 3 or 4 essays and outline them, meaning write out all of the important issues and rule statements. I double checked my outline against the essays that scored 65+ on BarEssays to see if I was hitting similar issues and writing similar rule statements as the high scoring ones.

Then, not to fall behind on the MBE, I would still do 15-20 MBE questions a day on adaptibar.

As a guideline, I would chart out 2 subjects a day to focus on and strictly adhere to this schedule.

The main point is to have a strict structure for the remaining time and not panic. You will get through this!

[iworkforlsac]

Anyone have a prediction as to whether Commercial Property + Wills/Trusts will come up?

[Heyall]

Civ Pro: (some kind of jurisdiction question; it's been awhile since they've tested it)
Crimpro/law: seems a safe bet
Torts: maybe products liability, but since it's February, it wouldn't be surprising to see some oddball essay about false imprisonment and abuse of process stuff
Remedies: I think the last time they had a full on remedies question was July of 2017
PR: of course
Business Associations/corporations: this one's way overdue and I was expecting to see it on the last one.
Real Property: they claim they tested this last February, but it was more of a triple crossover containing con law, torts, and RP. So an essay more fully dedicated to the topic seems appropriate.

.

I agree with Civ Pro, Real Property, and Products Liability.

Also, Bar Guru last time around predict Real Property, with either Landlord/Tenant or Real Covenants.

They're usually pretty accurate, and if they miss something on one prediction, it often shows up on the next exam. They analyze what's overdue.

Anyone have a prediction as to whether Commercial Property + Wills/Trusts will come up?

Lots of people are predicting Wills/Trusts. Seems very likely. The good thing is that those are repetitive, so if you study the old ones, you'll do well.

[a male human]

Hey! I don't want to discourage you guys from following predictions (low-key do if the plan is to go all-in on them -- but this is your exam), but here's what I would do personally: Prioritize my weak subjects rather than "likely" subjects, if I don't have time to give each one equal time. By focus, I mean reserve them for last in my schedule (or first and last) so they stay in memory better. Just something to consider in your final stretch here. Best of luck!

[iworkforlsac]

Civ Pro: (some kind of jurisdiction question; it's been awhile since they've tested it)
Crimpro/law: seems a safe bet
Torts: maybe products liability, but since it's February, it wouldn't be surprising to see some oddball essay about false imprisonment and abuse of process stuff
Remedies: I think the last time they had a full on remedies question was July of 2017
PR: of course
Business Associations/corporations: this one's way overdue and I was expecting to see it on the last one.
Real Property: they claim they tested this last February, but it was more of a triple crossover containing con law, torts, and RP. So an essay more fully dedicated to the topic seems appropriate.

.

I agree with Civ Pro, Real Property, and Products Liability.

Also, Bar Guru last time around predict Real Property, with either Landlord/Tenant or Real Covenants.

They're usually pretty accurate, and if they miss something on one prediction, it often shows up on the next exam. They analyze what's overdue.

Anyone have a prediction as to whether Commercial Property + Wills/Trusts will come up?

Lots of people are predicting Wills/Trusts. Seems very likely. The good thing is that those are repetitive, so if you study the old ones, you'll do well.

Thanks man. Let's hope you're right on all fronts....

[davidagnew]

Hi everyone. Can we talk new PR rules? The old CPRC required written disclosure, as a potential conflict, where the lawyer has a relationship with person who could be affected substantially by resolution of the client's matter. As far as I can tell, this rule is not in the new CPRC Rule 1.7. The old rule got tested in fact patterns like the 2011 July #4 essay, where a lawyer is involved personally, but does not have a lawyer-client relationship with, an organization. In that essay, Lawyer was big involved with a group of physicians on the issue of physicians getting fair pay from health insurers. Now, Lawyer begins representing an insurer and will argue public policy allows the insurer to reduce physician compensation. Under the old CPRC, this required a written disclosure because the physicians group would be substantially affected. As far as I can tell, there's no longer a rule that classifies this kind of situation as a conflict, and no disclosure or consent is required. Do you guys agree? Is that right?

[hatcrime]

Hi everyone. Can we talk new PR rules? The old CPRC required written disclosure, as a potential conflict, where the lawyer has a relationship with person who could be affected substantially by resolution of the client's matter. As far as I can tell, this rule is not in the new CPRC Rule 1.7. The old rule got tested in fact patterns like the 2011 July #4 essay, where a lawyer is involved personally, but does not have a lawyer-client relationship with, an organization. In that essay, Lawyer was big involved with a group of physicians on the issue of physicians getting fair pay from health insurers. Now, Lawyer begins representing an insurer and will argue public policy allows the insurer to reduce physician compensation. Under the old CPRC, this required a written disclosure because the physicians group would be substantially affected. As far as I can tell, there's no longer a rule that classifies this kind of situation as a conflict, and no disclosure or consent is required. Do you guys agree? Is that right?

I've also been trying to reconcile the new rules with my out-of-date study materials. Here's what I think:

Rule 1.7(b) would seem to cover the case where there is a substantial risk that representation would be materially limited by the lawyer's relationship to a third person. Informed written consent is required. If there's no substantial risk, then Rule 1.7(c) contains the written disclosure requirement for relationship-based conflicts (i.e. with a party, witness, or opposing counsel). The lawyer in the essay would certainly be covered by (c) and arguably by (b).

[davidagnew]

Hi everyone. Can we talk new PR rules? The old CPRC required written disclosure, as a potential conflict, where the lawyer has a relationship with person who could be affected substantially by resolution of the client's matter. As far as I can tell, this rule is not in the new CPRC Rule 1.7. The old rule got tested in fact patterns like the 2011 July #4 essay, where a lawyer is involved personally, but does not have a lawyer-client relationship with, an organization. In that essay, Lawyer was big involved with a group of physicians on the issue of physicians getting fair pay from health insurers. Now, Lawyer begins representing an insurer and will argue public policy allows the insurer to reduce physician compensation. Under the old CPRC, this required a written disclosure because the physicians group would be substantially affected. As far as I can tell, there's no longer a rule that classifies this kind of situation as a conflict, and no disclosure or consent is required. Do you guys agree? Is that right?

I've also been trying to reconcile the new rules with my out-of-date study materials. Here's what I think:

Rule 1.7(b) would seem to cover the case where there is a substantial risk that representation would be materially limited by the lawyer's relationship to a third person. Informed written consent is required. If there's no substantial risk, then Rule 1.7(c) contains the written disclosure requirement for relationship-based conflicts (i.e. with a party, witness, or opposing counsel). The lawyer in the essay would certainly be covered by (c) and arguably by (b).

This issue is also tested in CA16JUL006, where Lawyer is a member of Equal Ownership (Equal), a non-profit affordable housing organization. Lawyer did not represent Equal as a lawyer. Equal helped draft a statute promoting fair housing. The statute was enacted. Lawyer seeks to undertake representing ABC Developer challenging the statute, and seems to have a good plan for attacking the statute. Lawyer secretly believes the statute is a good policy and hopes the challenge fails. Is there a conflict, and what kind of disclosure is required, if any, because of 1) Lawyer's membership in Equal, and 2) Lawyer's secret beliefs.

Note that this tested a CA/ABA distinction. The representation was against the old CPRC, but not against ABA. So, this makes me think that under the new CA authority, the conclusion would be the same as under ABA. As for 1.7(b) which talks about whether the representation is materially limited, I think it goes like this: either the lawyer's feelings would prevent him from providing competent representation, in which case he simply can't undertake the representation, since even with informed written consent, the client can't consent to incompetent representation; or else, since the lawyer has only sentiments but no obligations toward the third parties, then there's no conflict, and no need for any kind of disclosure.

On the one hand, I know the new CPRC was revised to be more like the ABA, but I would think if the rules on this particular thing had been changed, it would at least be addressed in a comment to 1.7, which I don't see either.

Also, let me add that I found that just reading the CPRC and the comments was hugely more helpful, and easier to understand, than reading the outline Kaplan made on this subject. http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Cond ... rent-Rules

[rose409]

Hi all,

This is my first time posting, so I apologize if this has already been addressed!

For the new California PR rules, it appears that there is no longer any requirement regarding potential conflicts of interest. Is that right? Not sure if I am missing something... Many thanks!!

[Happy88]

Hey guys,
Can anyone confirm if on essay day they usually give the MBE topics in the morning and the CA topics in the afternoon with the PT?

[mimim8]

Hey guys,
Can anyone confirm if on essay day they usually give the MBE topics in the morning and the CA topics in the afternoon with the PT?

this is not a thing.

[a male human]

Hi all,

This is my first time posting, so I apologize if this has already been addressed!

For the new California PR rules, it appears that there is no longer any requirement regarding potential conflicts of interest. Is that right? Not sure if I am missing something... Many thanks!!

By my understanding, COI rules are similar to ABA rules (rather than doing away with it entirely?)

Some add'l information here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ms ... qZJs9NizUg

[rcharter1978]

Hey guys,
Can anyone confirm if on essay day they usually give the MBE topics in the morning and the CA topics in the afternoon with the PT?

When I took the exam the very first essay question in the first morning session was California evidence. I remember because I said to everyone "if these assholes put California evidence on this exam I'm going to fake a heart attack or pull the fire alarm"

And we had just come back into the exam room after someone had pulled the fire alarm.

tl;dr -- I don't think that's a thing

[jimmyjustice]

Also, Bar Guru last time around predict Real Property, with either Landlord/Tenant or Real Covenants.

Any word on what they predicted this time around?

[rose409]

Hi all,

This is my first time posting, so I apologize if this has already been addressed!

For the new California PR rules, it appears that there is no longer any requirement regarding potential conflicts of interest. Is that right? Not sure if I am missing something... Many thanks!!

By my understanding, COI rules are similar to ABA rules (rather than doing away with it entirely?)

Some add'l information here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ms ... qZJs9NizUg

Thank you so much for this. I really appreciate it.

Unfortunately I'm still a bit confused -- it looks like the new Rule 1.7 literally does not even mention a "potential conflicts" distinction. (I did a control-F to check and the word "potential" does not appear anywhere in Rule 1.7.)

So, do you think it is safe to say that, definitively, (1) there is no longer any CA requirement to disclose potential conflicts, and (2) the conflicts-of-interest rule officially only applies to "actual" conflicts, without any special consideration for "potential" conflicts?

Thank you so much in advance for any help/insight!

[a male human]

Hi all,

This is my first time posting, so I apologize if this has already been addressed!

For the new California PR rules, it appears that there is no longer any requirement regarding potential conflicts of interest. Is that right? Not sure if I am missing something... Many thanks!!

By my understanding, COI rules are similar to ABA rules (rather than doing away with it entirely?)

Some add'l information here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ms ... qZJs9NizUg

Thank you so much for this. I really appreciate it.

Unfortunately I'm still a bit confused -- it looks like the new Rule 1.7 literally does not even mention a "potential conflicts" distinction. (I did a control-F to check and the word "potential" does not appear anywhere in Rule 1.7.)

So, do you think it is safe to say that, definitively, (1) there is no longer any CA requirement to disclose potential conflicts, and (2) the conflicts-of-interest rule officially only applies to "actual" conflicts, without any special consideration for "potential" conflicts?

Thank you so much in advance for any help/insight!

Ah, I see what you're getting at!

New Rule 1.7 indeed no longer mentions "potential" COI. It may have been replaced by different potentially (heh) analogous language:

(b) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each affected client
and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if there is a significant risk
the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s
responsibilities to or relationships with another client, a former client or a third
person,* or by the lawyer’s own interests.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/docu ... edline.pdf

Subsection (a) deals with actual COI, and in contrast, (b) deals with "significant risk." (c) seems to deal with personal conflicts by L or another L in the firm. (d) is basically covered by other duties under the rules -- diligence and competence.

This "significant risk" language seems potential-COI-ish... I would use that language, but I don't think it would be a big deal if you slipped and said "potential" instead. Would you agree?

[rose409]

Hi all,

This is my first time posting, so I apologize if this has already been addressed!

For the new California PR rules, it appears that there is no longer any requirement regarding potential conflicts of interest. Is that right? Not sure if I am missing something... Many thanks!!

By my understanding, COI rules are similar to ABA rules (rather than doing away with it entirely?)

Some add'l information here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ms ... qZJs9NizUg

Thank you so much for this. I really appreciate it.

Unfortunately I'm still a bit confused -- it looks like the new Rule 1.7 literally does not even mention a "potential conflicts" distinction. (I did a control-F to check and the word "potential" does not appear anywhere in Rule 1.7.)

So, do you think it is safe to say that, definitively, (1) there is no longer any CA requirement to disclose potential conflicts, and (2) the conflicts-of-interest rule officially only applies to "actual" conflicts, without any special consideration for "potential" conflicts?

Thank you so much in advance for any help/insight!

Ah, I see what you're getting at!

New Rule 1.7 indeed no longer mentions "potential" COI. It may have been replaced by different potentially (heh) analogous language:

(b) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each affected client
and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if there is a significant risk
the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s
responsibilities to or relationships with another client, a former client or a third
person,* or by the lawyer’s own interests.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/docu ... edline.pdf

Subsection (a) deals with actual COI, and in contrast, (b) deals with "significant risk." (c) seems to deal with personal conflicts by L or another L in the firm. (d) is basically covered by other duties under the rules -- diligence and competence.

This "significant risk" language seems potential-COI-ish... I would use that language, but I don't think it would be a big deal if you slipped and said "potential" instead. Would you agree?

Thank you so much for this. Very helpful! Yes, I absolutely agree. So, the concept of a potential conflict can be addressed by the rules, but it's not an official separate rule that would require a separate heading or paragraph (which may have been appropriate on an exam using the old rules). Many thanks again!