Greedy Blog

Monday, August 01, 2005

Bar Recap
Day 1
Morning: 3 1-Hour Essays (each 6.5% of the final grade)
California essays can test roughly 13 subjects, 6 matching the MBE subjects (contracts, constitutional law, criminal law and procedure, evidence, real property, and torts) and 7 others (CA community property, CA wills, trusts, federal civil procedure, federal and CA professional responsibility, corporations, and remedies). I say "about" because remedies really ties into contracts and torts, and sometimes wills and trusts are lumped together. Anyways, any of those can be on the test, but most will not. All need to be studied, but there are patterns that justify studying some more than others. For instance, CivPro is almost always on the summer test and CommProp has never been skipped twice in a row. Based on the winter test, we were unlikely to see: contracts, especailly concerning the UCC, real property, trusts, corporations unless it was federal securities, and ConLaw. We could almost bank on CivPro, wills, CommProp, and a torts/remedies crossover. PR was also quite likely.

Question 1: Community Property
I felt like I had a pretty good handle on the subject and the question, but I was done after only about 45 minutes. I made sure I used every fact at least once and talked about any fringe non-issues, but couldn't expand it. I may have missed a huge issue because of the time, but hell if I could see it.

Question 2: Real Property / Contracts / Remedies
This was a triple crossover, something I'd never seen before. It was also two subjects that were unlikely to appear. However, after reading other blogs and overhearing conversations, I felt like I had a decent handle on it. A lot of people didn't discuss remedies, which is how I framed my answer. That is, the first element of specific performance is a valid contract, which is a great place to talk about the contract's validity. I wouldn't have known how to organize it well otherwise. This one easily sucked the extra 15 minutes I had leftover from the first question. Maybe it was by design?

Question 3: Corporations / Professional Responsibility
Ugh, wasn't expecting corporations. As I blogged before, at one point I had a great handle on this subject, but when I went back to it, it seemed quite foreign. I did manage to memorize the duty standards for care and loyalty, the business judgment rule, interested director/officer transactions, and major corporate changes. Basically that and and analysis got me through. The PR part was because a lawyer was a director. I saw PR coming, but have blogged about my difficulty with it, but tried to talk about conflicts of interest. Luckily, only a small part of one essay rather than a full blown essay.

Afternoon: 3-Hour Performance Test (13% of the final grade)
Basically pure legal analysis based on cases and statutes. Nothing tricky. Hopefully a slam dunk.

Day 2
Morning: MBE 1-100, 3 Hours (17.5% of the final grade)
This was more difficult than I expected, but I still got through it in about 2.5 hours, which was important in order to get 2 hours for lunch instead of 45 minutes. If you are finished, you can leave at any time unless it is within the last five minutes. Then you have to wait untill all tests are collected, which takes over an hour, and have to pass through the four doors of the testing center with over 1,000 others, which takes about 15 minutes.

Afternoon: MBE 101-200, 3 Hours (17.5% of the final grade)
This was even more difficult. On many questions, I couldn't even identify the subject. Many questions seemed to be testing rules I'd never or nuances that were left out of the Conviser Mini Review. There seemed to be a pure wills question. At any rate, I still felt better than a lot of the people I heard complaining outside, especially because it was difficult for everyone and is curved.

Day 3
Morning: 3 1-Hour Essays (each 6.5% of the final grade)
Okay, based on last winter's test and Day 1, the possible subjects were more narrowed down. I was banking on CivPro, wills, and criminal procedure. Other really good possibilities were torts and evidence.

Question 4: Evidence
Like #1, this one had me a little confused. I could see the hearsay, but no exceptions seemed to fit. At all. I think they were looking for a grasp on non-hearsay because a statement is not offered for its truth. I really hope so. This took a full hour, so I hoped there wouldn't be other doozies.

Question 5: Real Property / Contracts / Remedies
Wha??? I had never seen a triple crossover before. I had never seen the same subjects tested twice in one exam before. I had never seen a triple crossover tested twice before. Ugh. Same thing, though. I knew the subjects fairly well and think I got most of the issues.

Question 6: Professional Responsibility
Okay, now they're just fucking with us. More PR??? Luckily, this was the type that I blogged about being good, which means things like contingency fees. I was unsure about sleeping with clients (I think CA allows it), but otherwise did pretty well.

Afternoon: 3-Hour Performance Test (13% of the final grade)
Basically more pure legal analysis based on cases and statutes, but persuasive. I think this was looking to trick people with one foot out the door into arguing for the wrong side, because the client's side was ridiculous and most of the facts tilted the other way. I think I did fairly well again.

My Essay Grading Guesses
#1: 60 because I think I missed an issue.
#2: 65 just because it was difficult.
#3: 60 because I might have messed up the PR part.
#4: 65 because of my lack of hearsay exceptions.
#5: 70 because it was difficult but I felt good.
#6: 70 because it was the only type of PR that I could kill.
PTB #1: 75.
PTB #2: 75.
Total: 690

They are flaky on exact grading mechanisms, but you usually want about a 65, which means that I could get a scaled 670 on the MBE (no way I did that bad) and pass. We'll see on November 18.

Posted by Gel 10:48 PM Post a Comment

Real Friends' Blogs
Random Rantings
Fancy Dirt
Force Paintball

Locations of visitors to this page

Other Blogs
Baseball Musings
Tim Blair
Mark Steyn
Chris Lynch
Donald Luskin
Neal Boortz

UT School of Law
Jim Rome

Powered by Blogger
Listed on Blogwise