Man, FUCK a bar exam

To clarify:

I will have that same job in three weeks time. I didn't lose it - thankfully - because of my inability to pass yet again.

Live strong!

p.s. Who is your favorite TV lawyer?

Favorite TV Lawyer - prolly a punt on this question, and I reserve the right to amend my statement should other lawyers swim to the front of my head, but Assistant State's Attorney McCoy has always held a fond place in my heart. He's a salty old law dog.

OMG PLZ DOCUMENT THIS ONE TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whether that was sincere or not, Grady, I'm going to. I can't just yell at the wall anymore.

more dog pictures this time

And yes, I will document the countdown to the results AGAIN in November.

Fuck, I hate being a cliche. It fucking sucks.

And I'll post shots of the dog. No problems.

sorry didnt mean to get u down

:_)

You'll pass.

Its cool, man. The photos of your sartorial splendor have shown you to be a true gentleman, and one with his fellow poster's good spirits first in mind.

For those of you who are new to the "BLAM Takes the Bar Exam - AGAIN!" series, I offer the following primer on the structure of the bar exam:

The exam is a three day, six hour a day affair. Each day has a morning and an afternoon session.

The morning of the first and third days, we answer three, hour-long essays on one of ~14 subjects (depending on how you count a few that naturally go together).

The afternoon of the first and third days, we take what are called Performance Exams, which are just what they sound like - they give you a complex fact pattern and finite body of law, and an assignment, like a memo or jury instructions, and you have at it in a lawyerly way.

The middle day, both morning and afternoon, is when we take the Multistate Bar Exam, or MBE. This is a multiple choice, entirely objectively graded exam, consisting of 200 questions on six subject areas that are similar or identical accross the country. Everyone taking the bar exam, regardless of the state, takes the MBE on the same day.

The MBE tests on: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law and Procedure, The Federal Rules of Evidence, Real Property, Torts, and Contracts/Sales.

The Essays for California test on those 6/7/8 (again, depending on how you count them), plus an additional 8 - Community Property, Wills, Trusts, Civil Procedure, Partnership, Professional Responsibility, Remedies, and Corporations.

The Performance Tests test on general "lawyering skills," which is to say that the actual substantive law is given to you, but you have to keep your head about you and make sense of them and get something "turned in" in the time allotted (3 hours/PT).

So, in a general sense, that's what I'm doing - again.

Report on everything with reference with what you had to drink.

None of which is helped by the fact that some dude in an apartment that I can hear from my "study" is learning the ukelele version of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" and I want to go duet with him on it with my guitar - I know a good version of that song, too, dude!

So, I'll only ask one thing from those of you who check in here - ask random points of law of me. I'll see if I can give you an answer. It might help.

I am officially not drinking alcohol until the exam is finished.

I am currently eating a bowl of pasta with some homemade red sauce with basil, garlic, onions, zucchini and mushroom/asiago/turkey sausage in it. And drinking iced tea.

Wise.

So, I'll only ask one thing from those of you who check in here - ask random points of law of me.

What crimes are covered by statute of limitations, if there is an easy breakdown between those that are and those that aren't?

This will seem like a cop-out, but that's not on the exam, so I don't know specifics.

For the most part, a statute of limitations functions as the law saying "get busy suing, or get busy getting on with your life." The easiest way I've come to understand the way statutes of limitations work is the more important the right being protected/sued on, the longer the statute of limitations will be. For instance, a simple action in state court for breach of a contract will carry with it a statute of limitations of 3 years, whereas a charge of murder will never see its statute of limitations expire.

I've always found the aspect of "tolling" of a statute of limitations to be the most interesting - there are times when a statute of limitations would normally continue to run towards expiration of the cause of action, but the law has identified particular situations that stop, or "toll" that expiration - for instance, certain statutes of limitations can be tolled by the incapacity of the plaintiff.

A particularly interesting version of the statute of limitations is the statutory period for something adverse possession. Adverse possession is a doctrine by which the law encourages the most beneficial use of the land possible by awarding those who make the best use of it. A person can obtain title to a piece of land - no matter how small - by adverse possession if he 1) is in open and notorious possession of land 2) that is adverse to the title holder (adverse meaning not permissive) 3) for a continuous period of time provided by statute, usually ~20 years. If, at the end of that time, the person is still in possession, he can move to quiet title in his name. So, if you have squatters, you can let them be for quite a while before they have title to the land.

But adverse possession is grounds for the cancellation of a contract for the sale of land - a person who contracts to sell a piece of land must meet certain implied warranties, among which is the warranty that title to the land is clear. Although a person who has obtained title via adverse possession is seen as the rightful owner, the law maintains the buyer's ability to bail because of the potentially troublesome history of title on the property.

So, I'll only ask one thing from those of you who check in here - ask random points of law of me.

Given that Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005's primarily to curb abusive state court class actions by enlarging the federal court's diversity jurisdiction, do CAFA's settlement notice provisions apply to proposed class action settlements in cases before the district court under federal question jurisdiction?

(Kill that apostrophe after 2005. Damn typos).

(JUST KIDDING, BTW. Somewhat unsettled, new legal question. Won't be on the exam.)

Not being entirely well-versed on CAFA, but understanding the parameters of both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, I'll attempt to answer it this way:

Federal courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a person in one of two ways: Federal Question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction arises when the cause of action is one provided for by or otherwise concerning a question of federal law – the U.S. Constitution, other federal laws, treaties, and regulations. Diversity jurisdiction arises when there are parties who are citizens of different states who, in order to receive fair adjudication of their controversy, go to the federal court. In order to qualify for diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity among the parties – all must be from different states, and the amount in controversy must be over $75,000.

CAFA works to expand the federal courts' diversity jurisdiction by allowing more relaxed requirements of diversity among class plaintiffs – not ALL the class members need to be from different states. This was done, as you point out, to curb abuses of the class action form at the state level - there was concern over wrongfully certified classes on the state level, as best I understand it. This would ensure a more uniform treatment of similarly situated class plaintiffs.

Another one of CAFA’s particular protections is that it requires any class plaintiffs who are settling their claims to provide notice to identified federal and state officials of the proposed settlement. Under federal class action procedure, all plaintiffs must be afforded an opportunity to opt out of a settlement if they so choose. The notice requirement under CAFA begins a statutory period of 90 days after notice is served, during which other class plaintiffs can opt out of the settlement. If a plaintiff does not opt out during that time, he can be bound to the terms of the settlement. If he can show that he did not receive the requisite notice, he can choose to not be bound by the settlement.

Why this would not apply to a suit raised under federal question is beyond me. It seems to me that CAFA was enacted with diversity cases in mind, but its protections certainly apply to federal question cases as well. With that in mind, I don’t think that the notice requirement would not apply, because settlements in federal question cases need to be approved the same as diversity cases.

So, I would say yes – CAFA’s notice requirements apply to federal question, the same as diversity, actions.

And yes, I realize that this will NOT be on the exam. Although CAFA is in the Barbri outline, so I need to know that its there, at least.

Haha. Good answer. Not sure I agree with the idea that "Under federal class action procedure, all plaintiffs must be afforded an opportunity to opt out of a settlement if they so choose," since I believe there can be very relaxed, or even no, notice for injunctive-relief only classes certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Still, I get your point.

I'll cite to you in a forthcoming memo. B.L.A.M., "Man, F--K a bar exam," ILX (accessed 08.17.08) <Man, FUCK a bar exam;

(Don't go by me on the legal points, though. I'm just relaxing a bit. As I'm sure you know, Barbri's the Bar Bible).

Yeah, dude - in particular, the Conviser Mini Review. That is the book to know from front to back.

PMBR, while fun for shits and giggles, serves little purpose but to point out what you DON'T know.

I see your point, as well - the whole idea of the notice requirement is to allow for opting out, right? In an injunctive relief case, what is there to opt out of?

"You may continue [otherwise prohibited behavior X], but only in respect to the class members who said it was alright."

Rt. Poorly conceived and drafted, as to that point.

Don't fret over it, tho. Doubtful it's on the exam.

If'n it is on the exam, the only thing that is for certain is the mass release of EVERYONE's bowels upon coming to that question.

Not yours, tho. You've had ILX Bar Prep

(tm)

Damn formatting.

So, here's a good thing to end a long day on -

The common analytical model with regard to crimes is that some crimes have an act and a mental state required for guilt to be assigned. These are called specific intent crimes. Common law larceny requires the movement of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them of possession of the property. Common law burglary requires the breaking and entering of the home of another with the intent to commit a felony.

Crimes that are complete with just the act are called general intent crimes. Nonconsensual carnal knowledge of a woman is rape, regardless of whether you intended to do it or not. Battery is the causing of an offensive touching to someone, whether you meant to or not.

Now, people have been getting intoxicated since they knew what intoxication was. So, the law has made some allowances for it. If a person is intoxicated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and that intoxication can preclude the defendant from having the required mental state – intent, or otherwise – that person will be able to avoid guilt for the crime. In an interesting twist, most jurisdictions will only provide that voluntary intoxication will only LESSEN a charge of first degree murder to second degree murder – it won’t remove guilt entirely.

A very tricky aspect of bar examination questioning is the difference between RAPE and ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE. Intoxication can serve as a defense to the latter – it can prevent a person from having the requisite intent, but won't preclude a finding of rape itself - DRUNK rape is RAPE.

With that, I bid you all bon soir and I’ll be back in my office tomorrow.

B.L.A.M. I like your legal core dumps here. Even if you're not answering a specific question feel free to keep going with these...

in scotland, voluntary intoxication dont mean shit... leading case was abt some guy who popped LSD in his beer then went around chopping folk with a sword o_O

I <3 criminal law and hate being a corporate lawyer

o_O indeed. Yikes.

czn -

I find criminal law mad interesting, too, but could never practice it. I've dealt with a couple of clients on civil matters that could VERY easily be criminal defendants, and there's just a whole bunch of extra stresses that criminal law seems like it would put on my psyche every day.

One of my bosses has a daughter who is a state's attorney, and apparently she just finished a rotation working in the sex crime/crimes against children division - that seems like way too much stuff to put out of your mind at the end of the day.

best of luck with it, again.

blood diamonds dogg

So, here's the world I've been living in for two months:

In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder?

(A) Not intending to kill, Defendant hits a person over the head with a baseball bat. As a result, the person dies from head injuries.
(B) Not intending to kill, Defendant throws a baseball off the top of a four-story building onto a busy public street below. The baseball strikes a pedestrian, killing her.
(C) Not intending to kill, Defendant rapes victim in a remote area of the desert. Defendant then drives off leaving victim alone in the sweltering heat. The next day, victim dies from exposure as she's unable to reach the nearest town eight miles away.
(D) Not intending to kill, Defendant, at a party, pushes a nine year-old child into a swimming pool and the youngster drowns.

The answer is D. Misdemeanor manslaughter - because of the commission of a misdemeanor by the defendant, the victim dies - is a lesser homicide crime than murder. Here, battery is a common law misdemeanor, and there was no intent to either kill or cause bodily harm.

So (B) is murder?

OK, you're dispensing real advice, not just answering TV lawyer questions? Rad! I am about to sign an agreement for music distribution which states:

"This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California applicable to contracts entered into and to be fully performed in the state of California (without reference to the principles of conflict of laws thereof) and in no event shall this Agreement be governed by the 1980 U.N. Convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. The state courts of California and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California shall have jurisdiction over the parties with respect to any dispute or controversy between them arising under or in connection with this Agreement."

I have a two-part question:

(i) WTF is that UN convention?

(ii) Long shot: do you know anyone vaguely competent to look over the agreement before we sign. Our lawyer is (and we are) British. However, we have no money. Maybe this will change, but right now we are an in-debt tiny record label in a dying industry.

Go slay it BLAM. I'm down 3-nil with the Bar as well.

Yes, (B) is murder - malignant heart, as explained immediately below.

I cannot rightfully dispense legal advice, as I am not a licensed lawyer yet. Further, I am not FULLY aware of the UN Convention you ask about. I would bet, however, that they are referring generally to the UCC, which governs the sale of goods. This type of clause is called, among other things, a "choice of law" clause, which means that, in the event that you do have a dispute with the other person, those disputes will be settled by application of California state law, and the dispute will be settled in either California courts, or the US District Court for Northern California. As I understand it, unless this clause is being forced upon you because of a wide discrepancy in bargaining power, it will be enforceable.

I wouldn't sweat it TOO much - if I'm correct about it being the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) that the UN Convention of 1980 applies, which I'm pretty sure it is, the UCC is pretty good about getting things solved simply and with MUCH less fuss than general contract law.

In terms of (ii), I think that your lawyer will more than likely be competent enough to read through and suss out any weirdness in the contract before you sign. As always, a contract signed is assumed to be made between two parties with equal bargaining power, and you should not sign it unless you fully understand and either agree or can live with everything in it. Otherwise, demand a re-draft of the contract.

The murder discussion brings up another interesting discussion, one which I need to go into for my own review, because they tend to test the hell out of it.

Homicide is the killing of another person. Common law murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought. This malice can be found in one of four ways: (1) Premeditation/ intent to kill (2) intent to cause serious bodily harm (3) Felony Murder and (4) Reckless disregard for the risk of death as a result of defendant's behavior (otherwise known as Malignant Heart murder).

Now, this means that a person doesn't have to intend to kill in order to be found guilty of murder under the common law.

The felony murder doctrine is one that states that a death that occurs during the commission of a dangerous or otherwise enumerated felony will be deemed to be a murder if that death was a foreseeable outcome of the crime. An easy instance: A person is robbing a bank, a patron has a heart attack and dies as a result of fright - boom, you got your felony murder. This only applies, however, during the commission of the crime and immediate escape. So, if that same patron has a heart attack as a result of a dream he had about the robbery that night, and dies, no felony murder - the law would deem that to be too attenuated. Some jurisdictions provide what is known as the Redline limitation - this provides that a person will not be found liable for felony murder when a co-conspirator is killed as a result of resistance from the felony victim or the police.

Then, there's manslaughter, which, under the common law, has two main areas: voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is a killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation. Provocation is adequate only if:
1) Provocation that would arouse sudden and intense passion n the mind of an ordinary person, causing him to lose self-control - catching your spouse in bed with another, being threatened with deadly force
2) The defendant was in fact provoked
3) There was not sufficient time between the provocation and killing for passions of a reasonable person to cool; and
4) The defendant did in fact not cool off between the provocation and the killing.

So, if you're gonna kill your best friend and wife while because they are sleeping together, do it when you catch them sleeping together. Don't go take a walk around the block, then come back with the shotty.

Involuntary manslaughter is a killing that results from either:
(1) criminal negligence that does not rise to the level of the malignant heart killing above - a higher level of negligence than needed for torts, but less than "I KNOW what I'm doing will probably kill someone, but I'm going to do it ANYWAY." A great example is this: criminal negligence would be firing a gun into the bottom floor of someone's house at night when the lights are off, and someone dies. Malignant heart would be firing a gun into that same person's house while they're having a party on the bottom floor.
(2) misdemeanor manslaughter - a killing results because defendant committed a misdemeanor that was "malum in se," which means that the crime committed was wrong because it is inherently wrong - like pushing a child into a pool. The other side of that would be "malum prohibitum" which is when something is wrong because it is prohibited.

The distinction between first and second degree murder is statutory in nature - first degree murder is usually representative of premeditated/intent murders and felony murders, and every other kind of murder is second degree.

I'm not sure if anyone else is enjoying this, but I sure as hell am. Its nice to unload the massive amount of knowledge in my head.

I'll check back after a set of property questions.

what's even more interesting is the history and theory of criminal law. I love that; like how home robbery (hamesucken) is traditionally an aggravated assault bcs in roman times ppl didnt have lights in their houses. I'm ON IPHONE at the mo so can't look up or remember reason why. will look up when home.

xxp, thanks!

Is you common law murder (1) the same thing as mens rea in UK law? I read an essay about that by an ex before she handed it in, so it's the one thing I know about killin'.

Is your common law murder (1)

Mens rea refers to a mental state, in American legal jargon - so, it could refer to the mental state required for murder (malice aforethought), but could also refer to the mental state required for assault (intent to cause apprhension of an offensive touching), or reciept of stolen goods (knowingly recieving stolen goods).

the UK has three separate legal jurisdictions caek: NI, england & wales and scotland. scots law is as difft from english as english is fr american afaik. mens rea for scots law is intent or wicked recklessness.

S'just like cousins, comparing noses, innit?

motive is largely irrelevant as far as the ct is concerned for assessing if a crime went down but comes back in at sentencing time as either mitigant or aggravating circumstance. cf hate crimes

MR fr scots law murder tht is

scots law has weird names fr most crimes and has some seriously wack ones altogether "recklessly endangering the lieges" wut

receiving stolen goods is called "reset"

That's the problem with having a body of law that stretches back many centuries. Often, wierd little things just survive because no one changes them.

mostly they fall into desuetude tho :)

disuse?

Anywho - I'm a little tapped. I'm going to go get a snack.

Pulling a steady 75% on my multiple choice questions, which would have passed me last time.

Alright -

Had a bit of a lull in motivation. So, not wanting to totally derail my studying for the whole day, I decided I'd go see what the inevitable July 2oo8 C@lifornia B@r Ex@m bloggers were saying.

And, although none of it was a surprise, I was scared shitless.

They are all predicting Civil Procedure as one of essay topics, and I am not good in that topic at all.

So, on to a deep dive into the world of jurisdiction, joinder, and class actions. On the other side, I should be fine.

More to post later on.....

I dunno about in california but civil procedure where I'm from??? utter dullsville... sorry dude : /

in other news I am 5 wks from becoming a qualified solicitor :D

the end of 7 yrs of hard slog

Well done, sir. You are to be congratulated on your accomplishment.
You will have to give me a break-down of what goes into such a qualification, as I have wondered about it for a while.

As for Civil Procedure, it is the dullest of the dull.

For anyone STILL reading this thread who doesn't understand what Civil Procedure is - imagine studying the rules to board games. And then being tested on them.

And then put yourself in a room with 2000 other people, typing furiously, all trying to remember EXACTLY how much a hotel on Boardwalk costs, and then how much a person has to pay once they land on it.

basically it amounts to

first stage
a four years honours degree in law;
b three year ordinary (ie without honours) degree in law; or
c two year accelerated degree in law (for people with previous degree)

I did option a, the four year degree which is most common in scotland because we tend to start university a year later than those in england (at 17, instead of 18) where they complete honours degrees in three years

second stage
one year postgraduate diploma in law - this is basically the ins and outs of the procedure and practicality of practising law. while the degree teaches the substantive ideas of what is the law, where it comes from, what are the leading cases, the diploma basically teaches you what forms to fill in and how to fill them in, how to draft pleadings, how to review contracts etc

third/final stage
two year vocational traineeship with a law firm - basically you work as a solicitor (but can't yet hold yourself out as a solicitor) and depending on the firm you work for you will tend to complete (as I have) four 6month placements in different departments of the firm (I have done property & environment, banking, eu&competition, and corporate) - you can try to be admitted to the roll of solicitors at the end of your first year which doesn't mean you are yet a solicitor but you do have some rights of audience with the court - basically, only ppl who want to pursue careers in litigation do this, so they can sit their last two seats (ie placements) with litigation depts (either contentious construction&engineering or straight up litigation)... I have no interest in that and so am only now applying for admission to the 'roll' at the end of my second year

at the end of your second year, you apply for admission to the roll, your firm states you're a fit and proper person and then they discharge your training contract. at which point, you apply for your practicing certificate, which if granted means you are then A SOLICITOR

whew

again, sorry I'm not being some pedantic nationalist here, just careful - that only applies in scotland

haha you get to TYPE your exams? whew, lucky you. we do them manuscript bitches

Many states still require handwriting. I handwrote my first two times. It was a mistake, purely from an organizational standpoint.

You know - my path to being here, on the cusp of practice, is very similar. I went to four years of undergraduate university, where I majored in history.
I worked for a law firm as a legal assistant (an unlicensed paralegal - some states don't require or even have paralegal degrees) for three years prior to going to law school.
I then went to law school for three years, and worked for two different firms during the summers between years.
Once I got out to California, I began studying for the bar exam out here. Some states offer reciprocity with each other, but California isn't one of them. There are, of course, some ways in which a lawyer can practice multi-jurisdictionally, but they are on a limited basis, either subject, client, or time-wise.

B.L.A.M.: what's the difference between reversion and reverter? I keep getting those confused.

You've got my sympathy. I take the Missouri Bar Exam in 9 days. Feels like I'm on death row and anxiously trying to get clemency from the governor. I keep thinking I should order a Last Meal the night before.

I admit to loving the fact that we're about to have a bunch of fully-licensed lawyers on the board. Just get some doctors in as well and we're good for life.

hey BLAM will your results be back when me and zack come through, around oct1?

A reversion is when a grantor holds a reversionary interest in land, but has granted an estate of less than he holds when he grants it. Typically, a life estate. Operates automatically by force of law, so no need to assert it for it to become a possessory right.

A possibility of reverter is also a reversionary interest, and it also operates automatically to give the grantor a possessory interest. This is most commonly found to be a future interest attached to a fee simple determinable. That fee will exist in the grantee so long as a condition or conditions ("so long as booze isn't served here") are met. If those conditions are broken, the fee AUTOMATICALLY reverts to the grantor.

A right of entry is a future reversionary interest attached to a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent is basically saying "this property is YOURS, unless [something happens] and then we can come and claim the property as ours." The holder of the right of entry must ASSERT the right to reclaim in order for it to become possessory.

And you need to stop looking at your results as an inevitability, like an uncommutable death sentence.

You have spent far too much time, money and effort to do that to your self. You have 8 days that you can study - you can learn Con Law and Evidence ICE COLD by then, and give yourself that much more of a chance to pass.

I'm looking at the next week as a run downhill, with an ever-expanding axe of knowledge held over my head, and three victims waiting for me at the bottom - the California Essays, the Performance Tests, and the MBE.

I'm gonna go all Jack Torrance on those motherfuckers.
http://philzine.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/the-shining-with-axe.jpg

and then this will be me on Thursday, the 31st
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2264/2138593012_191f741346.jpg

The results will be coming in NOVEMBER. The waiting, as always, is the hardest part.

But they will be far enough away, Pete, that I won't be stressed about them while you and ZR are here. How many nights are you all crashing at Chez Abby?

I hadn't actually seen that last photo in full size until I refreshed.

I know 69 can attest to my having adopted that face numerous times in my life.

Oh, and although it SUCKS because I won't have any money to go and do anything, I don't start back at work for TWO weeks after the exam, due to an office relocation during my studying.

I get to do the following:
1) Not study
2) Go to the gym
3) Play guitar
4) Read at least three books, of which one will be The Shining, I have just determined.

But, with a mash-up of the Braveheart theme and "The Kiss" from Last of the Mohicans, I continue my run downhil....come get some, motherfuckers.

yeah dogg!

we'll be in LA two nights. we'll stay with you at least one of those, but no more than two. if we're not too broke, we'll hit amoeba hard, but otherwise, its just gonna be hangin w you and ashley and rory and tara.

If you REALLY want to hang, make at least one of those nights be over a weekend.

Then we'll get down, Jack Torrance style.

Oct. 1 is a Wednesday. Take a little more time getting here, and have a weekend night with us. We're a lot more fun that way.

yeah current plan is wed/thurs - we'll talk more as it approaches, but i think ill want the weekend in SF, unpacking and whatnot... luckily, ill be in CA yknow forever so plenty o t-t-t-t-time

HE JOLLYSHIP WHIZ BANG looks utterly awesome, although the songs they have on their myspace annoy me somewhat.

"forever"

Interesting.

More on that topic later.

Totally not trying to plan your trip here. So, leave out Friday morning, and get to SF - Sunday morning? You going to just PCH in one go? Long day, and maybe rushing it, but entirely doable. Ash and I left out after work one Friday and made it to Half Moon Bay - about 30 miles south of SF - in about 7.5 hours up PCH. The night time drive was ASTOUNDING, with the moonlight over the ocean.

So, do you start the following Monday, or are you going to have some settle-in time?

Oh, I've already crammed a bunch of knowledge in my head over the past week to make me think that I just might pass. My practice MBE scores weren't so hot, but I've finally begun to rally. Just going to keep jamming away, doing essays, reading and re-reading.

Word - I was just about to post and say "Uh, sorry about the tone of my last post to you."

Just keep going, dude. The "get it" moment that no one likes, but really is the point at which you figure out how to pass the bar exam, is when you realize that if you do AS MANY PRACTICE TESTS AS POSSIBLE, the chance that they throw something at you that you haven't seen before is significantly lessened.

12 days, and I'll be smiling.

No, you know what? I am smiling. Like a fucking lunatic about to go wading into battle.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Nah, dude, I needed to hear that from someone else in the same position. My natural inclination is to be pessimistic. I actually had to leave a Livejournal group about the July bar exam, because it was depressing me so much. It was full of people convinced they're doomed to failure. I don't care much for well-meaning but empty Pollyanna-ish affirmations ("you'll pass, you're smart"), but the opposite can be toxic and self-defeating.

I'm doing OK with the essay-only subjects. They're limited enough in scope, for the most part, that you can prepare a few sample fact patterns in your head and be reasonably assured the question will follow one of them. I just need to memorize all the MBE rules. And terms of art. All the feedback I've gotten on my essays recommends more terms of art. I guess we're in "horizontal privity" on that point, eh?

In that we share some similar interest? Yes. Yes, we are.

You'll be fine. Put in a solid week of work, take a day or two of light work before the exam, get good nights of sleep, don't drink/other stuff, and hit the ground running next week. Is MO two or three days?

Hey B.L.A.M., pretend you're floating on a raft on a river and a crowd of unruly troublemakers passes you on the left, and they're doing DRUGS. One of them says "It's ok man, we're not on anyone's official property, the river is everyone's property!".

(I know that's a dumb question, but the guy who drove our bus down to the raft launching site a few weeks ago was recounting a similar story and I thought it was a funny image)

PS Good luck again! :)

Now, I took NO admiralty courses. BUT my gut instinct on this is as follows:

Unless they DO something to you or in some way cause some harm to come to you, you really have no cause of action against them.

People who have property that fronts navigable waters have the right to use that water freely, and in a reasonable manner. If someone impedes that right - polluters, damming the river upstream in certain situations, and their ability to use the river is negatively impacted, they have a cause of action.

A person who is simply out on a navigable waterway in a boat and sees another person doing drugs can't do anything to them based on their own rights, but still could call the cops. But what a dick move, right?

All I know is that if O promises you Blackacre, don't count on ever actually receiving it. O is always pulling shit like giving the same executory interest to three relatives, two strangers, his butler, his old school, a museum and an animal shelter. Who needs the aggravation?

Well, if he's giving the SAME executory interest to you and nine others, wouldn't it just go by first in time, first in right?

I don't know, dude. The actual practice of law - with the possible exception of the use of evidence in trial/depos - is SO entirely different than anything the bar exam tests. And so much cooler.

But you can't like every battle. You just have to continue focusing on winning.

Oh wait can we ask you questions?

Oh wait can we ask you law like questions?

Massachusetts is going through a lot of legal conundrums with the commonwealth laws being debated...
and, BLAM. I don't expect you to know anything about it. But.

I have an entirely different question. What is the difference, legally, between assault and battery and simple battery, and how does that appear on a criminal record?

Well, assault is either an attempt to commit a battery, or the intentional creation of reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Whereas the battery is the actual unwanted touching that causes harm or is offensive. You don't have to have assault to have battery, although assault can establish the mens rea for battery.

How this translates to a criminal record, I don't know. I can tell you (entirely unrelated, but I'm proud of remembering this) that it's a battery if you go into a hospital for an operation, and another doctor operates on you without your consent, it's a battery even if the other doctor did a good job.

Hey, man! Get your own bar exam thread!

Just kidding. We can be dueling stress cases.

I'm not satisfied with that answer. I need another lawyer!

Assault presumes battery, but battery doesn't presume assault?

No.

You can be touched in an offensive manner without KNOWING it, which is the key to an action for assault. Assault is complete when a person feels fear or apprehension over an offensive touching. Battery is complete when that touching occurs, regardless of whether or not the person knows about it.

The surgery example is a good one - If you are unconscious, and a doctor performs surgery on you that you knew about, and then proceeds to perform additional surgery that you didn't know about, that could give rise to a cause of action for battery. There has been an offensive touching to your person - the unauthorized surgery. But at no time were you placed in a state of fear or apprehension of that surgery, so no assault.

As to your original question, I would bet that the phrase "simple battery" is a statutorily created one, made for offensive touchings that did not include an aspect of fear or apprehension of an offensive touching, but do not rise to the level of felony battery, which would be battery with the intent to cause serious harm or death.

Assault and battery go together like spaghetti and red sauce - its EASILY the most common scenario in which either arise. But, as explained above, you can have one without the other. No touching, but fear of touching? Assault, no battery. Touching, but no fear OR no knowledge of the touching prior to its happening? Battery, no assault.

If you look above at the discussion of general intent crimes v. specific intent crimes, this will make a little more sense - A general intent crime is one that you can be charged with when the act occurs, regardless of your mental state. A battery - I swing a baseball bat intentionally, and hit someone I didn't see was in front of me. They still suffered the harm, and I intended to swing the bat. Rape is carnal knowledge of a woman, not your wife, without her consent. You don't have to INTEND to rape her, just have sex with her. The fact that you did what you did completes the crime.

A specific intent crime, however, requires a specific mental state, or mens rea as we say here in the States, in order for the crime to be complete. Assualt requires an intent to cause the fear or apprehension in the person. Murder requires an intent to kill.

A third area of crimes is strict liability - a strict liability crime takes the mind set totally out of the picture, and an act automatically = criminal liability. These are typically regulatory things that carry minimal sentences, but that involve facts that are easy to prove. Serving liquor to underage folks - criminal liability, even if the fake was THAT good. The person being served liquor is part of the group that the law is seeking to protect by not allowing underage people to be served, so they can't be at fault - so the blame falls squarely on the server. Other ones, like over-watering your yard, not picking up after your dog, etc., are typical of the "low penalty, easily provable" rubric. The one that EVERYONE remembers, however, is the red-haired stepchild - statutory rape. It doesn't matter if she said she was of age, if she graduated two years early from high school, and is majoring in "Slut Studies" at a very good college. If she's under the age of consent, and you're over it, and you have sex with her, statutory rape, my friend.

I could think of nothing more original than "Slut Studies."

I apologize.

I think it is unfortunate that you put it right after dog droppings.
As an action and consequence kind of thing.

Huh? I'm not getting that.

I passed the NY bar on the second go around; missed the first time by 7 points out of 1000 - that's life, you deal with it. You will get it this time if you were super close last time. Drink red bull during the exam, don't talk to anyone at the testing center, and just stay focused. Review contracts a few more times as that's the hardest multistate subject, and do as many multistate multiple choice questions as you can stand until test day. I knew people who took adderol and ritalin on test day, but I didn't mess with that stuff.

Thank you for the words of advice. I was not quite THAT close, but close enough for it to be frustrating.

I'm feeling a lot better now than I was two days ago. I've got down enough of Property, Torts and Crim Pro to get through the MBE. Today I've been trying to commit the confusing hearsay rules to memory - for some reason I'm having an even harder time on that than Property's various present possessory estates and future interests. Haven't tried Contracts yet; that's tomorrow.

The closer we get to test time, the more I retain. The more I retain, the less painful the stress headaches.

So the plan is to go over all the subjects one last time this week, and then do a full-day MBE and at least a couple of MPTs this weekend. Monday I drive to Jeff City. Tuesday is the first day.

Stay the course, my man. I am having a severe deficit of motivation today. Gotta plug on, though. Better to do the work now and not be surprised later.

You lumped civil offenses, such as not picking up dog droppings with statuatory rape...in a way.

"Other ones, like over-watering your yard, not picking up after your dog, etc., are typical of the "low penalty, easily provable" rubric. The one that EVERYONE remembers, however, is the red-haired stepchild - statutory rape. It doesn't matter if she said she was of age, if she graduated two years early from high school, and is majoring in "Slut Studies" at a very good college. If she's under the age of consent, and you're over it, and you have sex with her, statutory rape, my friend."

I'm not THAT bothered by it!

The law just got tricky in Massachusetts. Age of consent because it's 16, and a situation happened in a school.
"Slut Studies" is pretty powerful - and offensive - language, unless you want to apply it to all genders.

So, given the law in Mass. - a teacher is accused of having "an affair" with a student. There is nothing illegal that has been done. The community is outraged.

How would you prosecute, and/or how would you defend?

Can ASK A LAWYER be a board?

After you rock star law guys leave us...

Right after Ask A Drunk.

The goal should be Ask a Drunk Lawyer

I intended to lump not cleaning up after your dog and stat rape together. They are both strict liability offenses.

Re: Slut Studies. I mean, sure....we could apply "Slut Studies" to all genders. All both of 'em. Sorry if I offended.

As for the Massachusetts child, if Mass follows the normal definition of statutory rape, then if the kid is under 16, and the teacher is over, then yes, stat rape.

Adding to that is the fact that the teacher is in a power of authority.

Remember this woman? Mary Kay LeTourneau is the woman who had like two or three kids with a former student.

I think Ask A Drunk Lawyer might be gaining some credibility...

So, I'm at a familiar point in studying, but with entirely different results -

There literally is SO much to know for this damn exam (not as much as medical boards or some other licensing exams, but up there...) that I could totally psych myself out of a good score by thinking about things that I don't know. But, unlike the last times taking this blasted thing, all I have to do is keep my head about me and the answer somehow...floats to the surface. Its hard to explain.

But yeah...I think I can pass this fucking thing now. A little freaked out over here, but not terribly.

Ok, getting terribly. Eek.

I had a medium-sized anxiety attack at the library this afternoon, brought on entirely by not having a ready answer for a Secured Transactions question. I kept my composure, but ended up having to leave the library and head to Starbucks. That really helped, actually. I think I've finally banged the meaning of a Purchase Money Security Interest into my head.

I can't believe I have to do this in two and a half days. Argh.

I am so so glad I don't have to know Art. 9. Or Tax. Woot.

Is a Purchase Money Security Interest anything like a purchase money mortgage?

So, t-minus two days....

Full-blown panic attack earlier. Brought on my lack of food, mostly. Lunch cured it.

So, here's an interesting doctrine - the Common Authority Rule.

Basically, it means that anyone who has an equal right of control, or who possessed common authority, over a premises can consent to a search of the areas over which that common authority can stretch.

Basically, two situations apply:
1) A person can consent to a search of property b/c of someone ELSE if the person consenting could have consented to their own search.
2) Defendant had assumed the risk that a co-defendant might permit a search

The interesting question comes up when you start talking about searches of people's rooms/closets and other separate spaces.

Bottom Line: Even if you don't get along with them, work out with your roommates that you will never consent to a search of your dwelling without the other person being there. That is ALL.

This has actually come very close to biting me in the ass in the past. It didn't, but it cam damn close.

Also - college roommates be REALLY careful.

So, here's an interesting doctrine - the Common Authority Rule.

I've totally forgotten about this entire body of law. BTW, you sound v. prepared. I think (and hope) you'll pass. Minutes after you finish taking the exam, all the knowledge you've stuffed into your head preparing for it will drain out like water whoosing down a bathtub drain, leaving a thin "ring of legal knowledge" around the top of the tub.

Ahhhh . . . I meant "whooshing."

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I hope its just as much in the tone of my posts as in the substantive law, as some of these have been written with the help of reference materials.

I have put in an enormous amount of time studying for this thing. Just running through my note cards one last time, then going to be early. I really want to pass this time, and I know that I can. So, go kick its ass, then go to Napa for the weekend afterwards.

SWEET!

One word of advice, which I'm sure you've heard this 100 times before: Don't let yourself get caught up in discussion loops with friends during the exam. Before Day Two of the Florida Bar Exam the year I took it, I made the mistake of talking to a friend (who has an extraordinary legal mind). I thought Day One's portion of the exam was fairly difficult, but just before we began Day Two, my friend said, "Didn't you think Day One was the easiest test you've ever taken?" That innocuous little comment really shook me. Now, as it happens, I passed the exam, but I was almost sick during Day Two (and certainly afterwards), wrongly convinced I had failed the Day One exam miserably. Don't make that mistake. Trust your own work, don't worry about what others say or do, and you'll be fine.

I am FIRMLY of the mindset that the post-mortem conversation should ALWAYS be avoided. Always have been, since freshman chemistry.

Its actually pretty fun going through these notecards this last time. The amount of knowledge I've succesfully integrated into my brane in the past two months is awesome.

It's going to feel even better to forget 3/4 of it.

No worries. You'll re-learn what you need to know when you're a first-year with Jones Day.

No big firm for me. Small civil lit position waiting for me to come back to in in the middle of August.

BLAM Mr. Que and I are sending good vibes from DC! The Mr. is of course a law librarian so he can look up psychic west-coast requests and return answers if necessary! But it sounds like you have it very well under control. Break a leg!

Re the postmortem convo: I plan on not talking to ANYONE until I've handed in my MBE scantron. If it turns out that I totally flubbed a question...well, there's nothing I can do about it then.

It's like, I found an online group for bar-takers early in this process, when I was despairing at memorizing anything. At first it seemed like refreshing candor - a bunch of people complaining about the bar exam. It took exactly two days for me to realize I needed to get the hell away from that group. It was doing serious damage to my self-confidence, precarious as it already was. It was a feedback loop of people who seemed to be rooting for each other to fail.

Fuck that. If I fail - and hopefully I won't - it's not going to be because I let myself get psyched out by some strangers on the Internet.

Tonight I go through some of my trouble spots - Trusts, Secured Transactions, Contracts and Property. Tomorrow I drive out to the testing site and do one last review - I thought of just doing nothing and relaxing, but I still need to cram some last-minute material into my head. Tuesday morning at 7:15 am, I bring my computer to the testing site.

Best of luck to us all. May we all be bar members in a few months.

And to you, mike. I was thinking the same about not doing anything tomorrow besides going to my hotel, but I've found that keeping your brain at least partially busy will add to your ability to wake up and kick ass on test day.

Fuck, I wish it were test day. I hate all of this damn waiting.

Day one down, and I can officially say that I have survived my first earthquake, in addition to the first day of the California Bar Exam.

Con Law, Professional Responsibility, and Contracts for the morning, and Torts related performance exam in the afternoon.

Multiple Choice section tomorrow.

Keep 'em crossed for us folks. And NO MORE NATURAL DISASTERS GOD!

Earthquake during exam = good luck duder.

Keep it up, BLAM. I'm sure you're doing a great job.

And Mike A, also, of course!

good luck dudes!!

Good lord, the essay section was tough. I am positive I quoted exactly the wrong law for at least two of the 10 questions. It didn't help that my brain began to shut down in the last half hour of the afternoon section. But this was counterbalanced by the couple of questions that I definitely knew.

The MPT was fine. I'm confident I did well on that. It's not as if I needed to remember anything. Almost wish we had two of them like CA does.

Today is the MBE. Still a challenge, but nowhere near the essay section.

Then I go home. And sleep. Ah, sleep.

Good luck.

i've passed everything i needed to pass and jumped through all the hoops... and thusly am getting admitted to the bar next Monday! yay. good luck all.

Fingers still X'd for B.L.A.M. here.

All done. And this is the last I shall speak of it until mid-September, when the results come in.

I passed! Yay!!!

Huzzah!

Hey, way to go! :)

EXCELLENT NEWS!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

sweet!

congrats, mike a ESQUIRE! welcome to the learned profession!

:-)

Right freaking on! Congratulations!!

he passed :)

:-D

I assume he's out getting horribly drunk right now.

http://hans.presto.tripod.com/products/royl_blam350x300.jpg

best news all day

killer

A++++

OMG this is supersupersuper news, huge congrats on a job well ass-kicked!

HOORAY!!!!

whew

EXCELLENT!

Do you have to sign up to that Barbri shit?

i don't understand what your question is

do you have to sign up for barbri to pass the bar? i think it's possible to pass without barbri, but i wouldn't recommend trying.

Congratulations, B.L.A.M.!

No, you do not have to sign up for Barbri. I got some self-study books, saved thousands, passed first time out.

what state?

Mass.

which is known as one of the easier of the big markets

you recommend barbri, gabbneb? I think I missed the deadline for 1Ls to "lock in rates!!! for $100 deposit!!!"

I'm in Ohio, and most of the people who I know who didn't pass the first time out chose the self-study route. Bar-Bri's kind of like insurance.

"which is known as one of the easier of the big markets"

blah blah blah Passachusetts blah blah blah. The test itself is difficult in Massachusetts; it is the grading curve that is very forgiving. I passed by a very wide margin.

well arent u the best lil lawyer that ever was

i haven't the faintest idea how much i passed by

Whatever. If y'all want to keep thinking law school and the bar exam are SUPERHUMANLY DIFFICULT you are welcome to; I was simply trying to let cutty know that the bar prep courses (and especially the big ones) are a bit of a scam, and that you don't need them to pass the bar.

i don't need to know that. i assume burt will be taking the NYS bar exam. not passachusetts.

if you trust yourself enough to make a solid studying routine then, by all means study for it on your own. barbri's results speak for themselves.

either way, focus on your 1L finals, the bar exam shouldn't even by on your mind yet.

Yeah. All my 1L classmates have already signed up for Barbri and I"m like, "what the hell is that?"

Agreed that it's silly Burt to be freaking out over the exam now. I would also encourage him to think seriously about leaving law school if he's really having a crappy time (not enough people are brave enough to quit -- these end up being the ones who are not brave enough to leave lawyer jobs that they hate later on)-- but before it comes to that, he should try to spend some time insulating himself against the "THIS IS THE TOUGHEST OF ALL HUMAN ENDEAVORS AND WE SUFFER FOR THE LAW" mentality of entirely too many law students. It's not actually as hard as most people say if you calm down and look at the material.

x-post, but that's exactly the kind of thing you've got to ignore if you want to have a good time in law school.

PASSchussetts lol

poor massachussettes. one day a portmanteau truly worthy of you will be invented.

It's not actually as hard as most people say if you calm down and look at the material.

law school itself isn't hard. it's the competition/curve that is hard.

Right -- exactly the sort of stuff that can only mess you up if you pay attention to it. So you don't pay attention to it and it ceases to be any kind of factor.

yeah, the material isn't bad at all, and I"m on top of it all. It's that every kid at the school I'm at is desperately clawing to make a return on their investment. Even the top students here are having a hard time getting good jobs (though I'm sure it's thanks in part to the fine state of the economy).

If law school were just ... work hard, do pretty well, and find a decent gig, then yeah, I'd be in hog heaven. But no ... I had to choose a school like this. :-{

(the pressure isn't the work for me, it's the worry over a horrible return on investment ... if I'm going to be poor and struggling, I might as well just be a weirdo by trade)

http://music.download.com/troubadourtunes/3600-8965_32-100150393.html

It IS just work hard, do pretty well, and find a decent gig. Do not drink other people's flop sweat.

Hey, so - I've been a licensed lawyer for over a year now.

Jaysus, this thread seems EONS ago.

Thanks for the support, y'all!

Haha, I just found this post through Google while googling "Fuck the bar." CA bar taker in July, about a month left in BarBri, just starting to have a revelation of being scared shitless.

2008: worst summer of my adult life. This thread brings it all back.

Six years. Holy shit.

I mean, when I look back on how stressed out I was then, I laugh my ass off. It sucked. Yes, it did. But the level of understanding for all the points of law is SO superficial when compared to actual practice. Like comparing a 5 mile mud run obstacle course to an open ocean combo swim race and deep sea treasure hunt.

I'm actually kind of surprised how (relatively) chill and confident I seemed in this thread. That's not how I remember it.

I know I might sound like a dick for saying this, but I really did not find the bar exam to be all that stressful. It's a lower stakes test than people make it out to be -- pass/fail, vast majority of people pass, and you can take it again if you fail. First year finals, THAT was stress. Studying for the bar exam was great -- I could put in like 6 hrs a day knowing it was more than enough, spend a few hours in the gym, hang out with friends at night, no other responsibilities, etc. The bar exam itself is a miserable test to take for sure.

Long weekends in the office are far more miserable than the bar.

currently in bar prep; no nerves but seriously bored

I liked law school for the most part but this is everything about it I didn't like piped through my computer speakers for 3 hours a day (which drags to 6 as I pause and peruse the internet whenever I can't take it anymore)

Yeah bar prep is like the worst law school class ever

Here is nothing interesting at all, just a bunch of acronyms to memorize about rules that don't affect anything you actually want to do in your practice

planning bar trip as a separate and interesting goal to keep me sane, but that's only gonna take so much longer -- any other tips to not lose it between now and the end of July?

one of our acronyms is SKEET. said to myself I wouldn't forget that one and, welp, here we are -- but at least I know it's out there somewhere

Well mine was going to the gym a lot and playing a ton of bball. Gave me something to look forward to every day.

I've been biking like 5 miles daily, probably in my best shape since I started law school; should start setting workout goals though good thought

The bar exam 15...pounds of muscle mass.

Yeah I was absolutely in the best shape of my life during bar study, not even close.

For me, the stress was not in the bar exam itself, but the fact that I'd recently left my BigLaw paralegal job, had no attorney job lined up, was having a hard time picking up document review gigs from my local legal temp agency, and had two very young children and a spouse with only a part-time job. I actually had the big anxiety attack after passing the bar but before getting my first lawyer job.

Still, fuck a Blackacre and its eccentric owner.

fuck a bar exam indeed

embarrassment of not passing despite a 95% in-state pass rate at my alma mater (including, presumably, LLM students), and delight of working full days and coming home to more time in front of a computer to study for December through February

reallly wish I would've taken things more seriously when I had devoted time to prep for this

Here's the thing - you know all that you need to know to pass. Of that, I am 100% sure, and you should be, too.

Spend the next five months taking practice exams. That's it. Make yourself a schedule, stick to it, and just keep doing them.

I speak from well-earned experience.

thanks BLAM. the score specifics (brutal essay scores, good enough MBE to almost make up the difference) make clear it was mainly my writing approach. coincidentally, I literally never took the time to draft a full essay and get feedback in my prep last summer ("I wrote well enough to [do well at a competitive school/impress employers/etc.], why do I need to work on that?"). I guess that's what I'll be doing until February, tail firmly between legs.

I passed by the skin o my teeth, prob just luck more than anything

Hey! Indicative of absolutely nothing, I'm taking the "Out of State Attorneys Exam" in Maryland next Tuesday. It's a three hour open book essay exam on Maryland codified law where the hardest thing is issue-spotting and I'm supposed to provide citation to the code sections I rely on. Essentially speed memo writing.

I have been studying a fair bit, and there is just no stress at all when you're already gainfully and stably employed.

I still have family in Maryland, and being licensed in two jurisdictions (three, whenever I get my DC application in) would be a bump in pay and added flexibility once California cracks off and falls into the ocean.

Anyone want to place bets?

sure what odds do you want on not passing

Passed!

Fuck yeah!

Congrats

NINE YEARS since I took the MO Bar.

I look at my posts from the era and barely remember what most of these terms mean anymore. "Purchase money security interest." "Blackacre." "Horizontal privity." WTF?

I just want to note my relief that this all happened 10 years ago.

ha, hi mike. say hi to pete.

LOL at my deeply offending folks by suggesting BarBri wasn't a benevolent necessity.

miss you and your bro!

I couldn't have passed without BarBri. But I also couldn't have passed if I only used BarBri.

Though I'm hardly ever on ILX anymore, I find myself returning to this post every year around this time. Perhaps I just need a periodic reminder that no matter how bad things are in the world right now, things could be worse, and that specific "worse" would be preparing for a bar exam.