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

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.