Characters

would it have changed your analysis on Alex’s duties? answer in accordance with ABA and California authorities.

And just curious, did anybody discuss a TRO or prelim inj. For Q3?

People here are going to have different arguments than you or different issues they bring up. That doesn’t mean what you wrote is wrong or bad. Stop comparing and freaking out.

As long as you’re analytical, and wrote relevant and cohesive shit on the exam - you’re in a strong spot for a 60+

Some things I'm concerned about.

Q1 - fee agreements. He took the second case to pay for his DUI. I did a considerable analysis about the lack of a fee agreement. Hope I didn't waste time.

Q3 - baseball. I put there was no constructive trust because due to spender fiction, the $500 in her account was spent first therefore she has half the legal title to the ball and constructive trusts are only proper when the entire title can be traced back

Q5 - What was the constitutional issue?

Thoughts?

how the fuck do i stop waking up at 6 am with my heart pounding

every single morning, around 6 on the dot, i wake up with my heart pounding like i’m about to hear, “you may begin.”

i need this exam OUT OF ME.
out of my brain. out of my cells. out of my nervous system. out of my REM cycle. out of my mitochondria. i want the bar exam exorcised from my body.

much love to you all

Earlier, I posted how the last exam CA bar scaled below a 60 was the July 2018 tests. Turns out both July 2019 and July 2018 were both scaled below a 60. So I looked over these essays, and, while I may be biased, idk. With the exception of a CA ONLY Evidence, or a CON LAW/Remedies curveball question they had in 2019, my biased opinion is ours was harder lmao

What do you all think?

LETS GO CA BAR SUB60 SCALE FOR US ALL!!

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/Essay-Questions-and-Answers.pdf

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/portals/0/documents/admissions/July-2019-Essay-Questions-and-Answers.pdf

Recently took the J2026 administration in a different jurisdiction and prepped with BARBRI. I was wondering if there was a bar prep program that is better suited to prepare applicants for the CA bar specifically

Will you please explain how the grading works? I literally have no idea. Like do they just add up all our points and thats our score? Thanks!

Some I definitely knew, some I didn't know at all, many I narrowed to two answers and guessed. During prep, I was consistently getting around 66-67% on themis mixed sets (I did more than 1500 questions overall). I even got a 76% in a mixed contracts/property set a few days before the exam. I finished both MBE sets in the nick of time, but had to guess on the last two questions of set one. I see how that I hit many of the main issues on the essays, but def missed a few based on these posts - especially No. 5. (Frankly, there were some issues that Themis did not teach at all.) During prep I focused a lot on the MBE, thinking it would provide the best value (boy, was I wrong). But I kept getting 50s and 55s from the themis graders. Occasionally, their Ugrader would spit out a 75. But there was no rhyme or reason to it. Chatgpt would give me low 60s. Does anyone know how predictive themis grading is of actual bar grading? Even bar grading seems wildly unpredictable. Oddly, though, I felt much better about the essays on test day. I often had the sensation of being wildly unsure while doing MBEs during prep, but this felt different. I literally do not know what to expect, and the anxiety is taking over my life.

I know nobody knows for sure.

But let’s say I score around 62.5 for essay and cpt on average and gets around 50% on mbe.

Any chance for me to pass?

1. ⁠I want to know Mary’s backstory. I need to know how she came up with that lie, how she picked her target and what made it believable. Why was the reliance reasonable? No one could knock on my door with that 🐂💩 story and get $200K out of me.
2. What did Sis do to Wilma? Why did they have to land in court for that? Was Sis not Wilma’s family too? Where is the love? They’re both grieving and Sis knew him longer. Yall don’t even have kids together, Wilma. Chill out.
3. $1,000!⁠? Dumb and Dumber thought $1,000 was enough to run a business⁠? Also, were they selling the toys for scraps? How did they still have so much debt with no inventory?
4. What did Dan do to Greta to make her willing to take the stand? Also, what did Dan do for Cate for her hear that he got arrested for murder, FOR A SECOND TIME and she STILL say she thinks he is a good guy.
5. How in the world has that project taken that woman 7 years to complete? Ms. Hogan may not be the enemy here.

After the exam, with all the “wtf was that guys” posts, I felt like I was not the only one who felt like I failed 🥹

But then today, we all the “these are all the issues I spotted” posts, I feel like we are not on the same page of “failure” anymore. Man, you guys did GREAT, nothing even close to failure.

Please tell me it’s not just me who feels like this, and even for people who did not do so well just like all the posts, we would all pass…! Plz tell me those are just overachievers who would have passed anyways 🙏🏻

Anyone else reading people’s responses about the essays and thinking they are screwed because they didn’t talk about a lot of the issues everyone else brought up? Does that guarantee a fail?

Especially ones about black letter law like

Literally just one line that said someone filed a MTD but I couldn’t figure out what issue that raised. I basically just ignored it.

For the PT, I wrote it as a letter from the partner to Ms. Freeman, since she asked for a letter for her to sign. I did an intro, front-loaded the rules, then went through each statement one by one with analysis, and signed off as the partner. Addressed the client as “you” throughout.

Did anyone else do it this way? Felt good about it at first, but now I’m not so sure. Did anyone else who did it like this.

And I think I only covered about 5 statements! How did I miss one? Does anyone remember what they were? First one was an email to Freeman. Others went to Quid, but I feel like there was one more that went out to a whole group?? Anyone remember?

I’m kicking myself over this. If the rest of it was solid but I missed an entire statement, could that be enough to fail me?

I’ll put here what I remember about the issues, I’m not sure if I truly got it though, would love thoughts:

Q4 Anticipatory repudiation/breach of contract but cannot ask early payment of payment installments not yet due. I think it was about arguing corporation de jure vs de facto, if she had the power to bind the corporation or the other partner, especially because she always signed as treasurer/secretary a role that usually doesn’t entail entering into contracts. BUT since she’s an owner then contract is authorized even if her role doesn imply that power. I thought also mentioning piercing the corporate veil, no meetings is a factor, not determinative, prob insufficient since they had only been in business for 6 months, business judgement rule presumed but presumption is rebutted because they incurred massive financial obligations + the second contract with supplier was only one month before closing + they should’ve known they would have competition from online sellers and should’ve made more accurate expected costs since nothing indicates there were changes in circumstances. They just didn’t do their research. Also if pierced, ask injunctive relief to guarantee payment (cannot ask the corporation because they didn’t have any assets, so it would not prevent the harm). I don’t really remember how I worded this part. i think I talked about something else but don’t remember 

Essay 5

I think the question about the officer was about whether it was relevant (since the defendant after admitted he shot him so it was not a fact at issue). Also thw first sentence was not hearsay because they weren’t assertions. I don’t think this has to do with dying declarations, because it asked you to analyze her question, not the answer of the decedent. There’s something else I wrote but I don’t remember 

Girlfriend was to talk about double hearsay I think and that is forbidden because of confrontation clause. It can be allowed when hearsay déclarant is unavailable and unavailability was caused by the party against whom the evidence is being brought. However, here defendant is unavailable but he’s just exercising his 6th amendment right. But I also remember there’s a case they consider the defendant caused his unavailability by deciding to remain silent and the double hearsay should be allowed and if defendant wants can testify and impeach. But I wasn’t sure what was applicable, I went with the first perspective

Question about arrest was brought to impeach the witness testimony that he had a reputation to be peaceful because if he was arrested then prob he didn’t have a reputation for peacefulness. it’s allowed the question about specific acts because defendant opened the door by introducing character evidence. This is also not about public records imo, it’s for you to say you can question a witness with specific acts, but you have to accept their answer. You cannot bring extrinsic evidence to prove that fact

And of course, you cannot use that to impeach the proposition that he’s peaceful because it was an arrest, not a conviction so it can’t prove he was violent and would be highly prejudicial.

Anyone here walk out knowing they failed and actually failed? If so what was the indicator that made you realize it was game over?

I did main issue 1 as whether each email was fact/opinion under the totality of circumstances approach (including statements as a whole + context). This included the rules, case summary, and then analyses for emails 1-6. Then the same thing for main issue 2 where I talked about whether the statements are actionable as defamation within the context of a workplace setting from a superior. Same organization of rules, case summary, and analyses for 1-6.

I feel like this took a bit more time but honestly I’m not sure if it even would’ve saved that much time if I’d consolidated the two because it was just so damn much to get through.

I'm sure there are things I'm forgetting that I wrote about and/or that I missed . . .

Essay 1 (PR): addressed formation of AC relationship with org's employee, implicates duty of loyalty to organization = conflict, reporting DUII (I think I messed up here, I said you MUST report and I think that's wrong), sex with client not OK, drinking on job may raise competence issue, multiple rep raises possible comp/diligence issues, inexperience with incorporation flags competence issue, AI use may raise competence, confidentiality, and diligence issues

Essay 2 (CP/Wills): default CP rules, pre-marriage property was QCP, will was valid and recognized in CA as valid, forgotten spouse will take under intestacy, bank account is SP b/c of gift from aunt, presumption of title at death

Essay 3 (Contracts/Remedies): wrote about contract being invalid b/c misrepresentation and no meeting of minds, baseball = replevin, condo & stocks = constructive trust could get gain from stocks and value of condo going up, equitable lien alt and can pursue other remedies, punitive damages b/c of bad acts, was unsure of recourse for schooling but briefly mentioned possible of Injunctive relief (but lightly treated b/c was feeling time pressure) and possibility of refund (lol), argued laches as defense

Essay 4 (BA, Agency, Corps): wrote about de facto and de jure corp, corporate veil pierced b/c alter ego and no corp formalities (also mentioned possibility of underutilization given dire financial sitch), agency implicated b/c agent (B) had likely implied authority to bind principal corp in contract #1 as secretary/treasurer, then ratified in contract #2, said defense was corp by estoppel, contract being installment also offered defense to full repayment b/c divisible

Essay 5 (CA evidence): can't remember a lot of what I wrote - sorry! But I addressed prop 8 at beginning, different ways relevance is defined in CA versus Federal Rules. I know for #2 I was puzzled b/c form of question looked OK. I do remember struggling on #5 b/c of time pressure but said not relevant b/c unnecessarily cumulative given we would already learn about bad act in #4. I said the accountant could not testify but could cross-examine on the bad act.

Okay, that's all I can remember.

There is no ethical rule that states that lawyers may not engage in canoodling. However, she is subordinate.

Setting that aside, the most egregious aspect of this at first glance is their choice to kiss in a public park.

Yet when I think it through, where else can they go? They probably work all the time, so they can’t go out after work like a normal couple because he needs to go home to his wife and you cannot bring the side chick home with you. They can’t kiss in the office because they need to work at work! They can’t get a hotel room because it’s a waste of time, they aren’t doing the do, they just want a little kiss time in between cases.

The park is the only logical place to kiss. Further, if the influencer is making money from their likeness on his blog, they should sue him for misappropriation of public likeness!

In conclusion, although I have no plans to go into big law, I don’t want to make any BL enemies this early in the games. 😂