Hello All,
By now you have taken essays 4, 5 and 6 and know that Essay number 4 was Product Liability, Essay number 5 was Civil Procedure crossed with Evidence and Essay number 6 was Business Organizations (Partnerships and Corporations) all appeared on today’s exam.
I would not be surprised if today’s PT involved Constitutional Law . . . but, of course, anything is possible . . . including some Professional Responsibility.
I am anxious to hear what was on the Performance Test. So . . . when you have a chance . . . and if you are so inclined . . . please email me at: pass@barnonereview.com with any details.
Al the best to all who are taking the exam today!
Sincerely,
Lisa Duncanson
PTB = Persuasive letter to opposing counsel to persuade opposing client to perform under a contract.
Lots of facts in my mind now, but this is the gist of it,
Also, I wouldn’t necessarily call essay 5 a civ pro/evidence crossover unless you would consider a discussion of discovery seeking evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible a crossover . . .
Wow, you couldn’t be more wrong…better luck in July youngster.
Ha, ha: “youngster” 🙂 I am actually older than I look . . . but, thank you . . . LOL
I haven’t seen the essays – so clearly I can’t say for certain what was tested. But, I do recall that I did predicted: Products Liability, Civil Procedure, Tort Remedies, Professional Responsibility, Criminal Law and either Corps or Con Law (I was torn between those two subjects as to which would appear).
I think five out of six is pretty good . . but, I will try to do better next time though . . . 🙂
All the best to you,
Lisa
To “AllWorkIsEasyWork”:
I just realized that your comment above saying the person “couldn’t be more wrong” and hope they do better in July “youngster” was probably referring to one of my blog follower’s comments – and not my posting – as I had originally thought.
If you want to critique me here . . . and I have the choice of allowing you to post here . . . that is fine. But, you may not use my blog to post nasty and negative comments about other bar takers – this is not YOUR forum. If you want to be nasty and rude then go do it elsewhere. I am here trying to help people. I do this for free. I will block you if you make any further negative comments about anyone here.
I am getting increasingly disappointed with some of the new lawyers to be . . . not most, not all . . . just some. There is this mean spiritedness out there. It is not becoming of any profession . . .
I hope to see less of it.
I agree (from what I have heard) that Essay 5 was mostly Civil Procedure – but I do consider “seeking evidence” (as you put it) and a fact pattern that refers to relevance (as I am told that it did) to be a slight cross-over with Evidence. The key is to simply problem solve. I am not saying there was hearsay or anything like that. I am simply saying that it was not (in my opinion) strictly Civil Procedure – but really, a sentence or two on relevance or simply on addressing the problem (whether you thought about it as Evidence at the time isn’t the point) is all a person needs to do to succeed.
I can see how my very quick post yesterday that referred to Civil Procedure and Evidence could be construed to mean that Evidence was somehow a bigger part of the essay – that was not my intention at all. I just think (and again, I have not seen the actual exam) that there was a little bit of overlap with Evidence. Not a big deal, not anything to worry about.
Congratulations on being done with the bar exam, you must be relieved!
Try to get some rest and definitely don’t put stock in what anyone who hasn’t taken this particular exam has to say about what was actually on it – and I don’t recommend rehashing it – although it is nearly impossible to stop thinking about the test.
I will write more about what I have heard next week. But, I hesitate to do so as it will necessarily cause some to worry about what they have missed.
From what you have described, I think you did fine. So focus on it being behind you 🙂
All the best to you and thank you for following the blog and thank you for the comment!
Best regards,
Lisa
Hello RookieEsquire,
Please see my comment below . . . regarding the rude person who replied to your posting (I originally thought he/she was referring to my blog post and only just now realized that he/she was responding to YOUR comment). How rude. Anyway, please take a moment to read through my comments back about Essay 5. I agree with you that it was mostly (perhaps all) Civil Procedure. I have commented on this below in response to others concerns about whether there was in fact an Evidence issue or not. Rest easy, put the test behind you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at: pass@barnonereview.com
I am calling it a day for now. But, will check my email by Monday if not sooner.
All the best to you and my apologies for not realizing that “AllWorkIsEasy” was being rude to you.
Sincerely,
Lisa
I’m also a little confused about what evidence issues there were. The only one I can think of was relevance and I discussed it in depth, but only in terms of how the discovery was reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information. I didn’t head note Relevance and lay out the evidence rule :-(. Is the work product privilege an evidence rule? I thought it was a civ pro rule. Anyway really curious if I missed other evidence issues.
Hello and thank you for following my blog. Please keep in mind that I did not actually see the exams – so my comments come from people who write in who took the exam. I heard there was an evidence issue regarding relevance – yes, work product is a rule within civil procedure – but it does address whether certain evidence is discoverable or not. I did not mean to infer that there was a major Evidence issue, I firmly believe that the essay was mostly Civil Procedure – and I understand that one of the reasons the party who was refusing to produce reports was doing so on the basis that it was not relevant? I could be wrong – I am just going by what I heard. And, you should not worry – it sounds like you handled it fine. The last thing I was trying to infer was that this was a major Evidence essay – it was – in my opinion – Civil Procedure that touched upon an area of overlap – that of work product, relevance. But, again, I have not seen this exam. So please do not worry about it, or have concerns about it based upon anything I have said – I will have no positive idea about what was definitely tested until I actually see the essay questions. But, from the sounds of it, you addressed what you needed to address.
I hope that makes you feel better. And, don’t worry about not “head noting” relevance – you addressed it, that is what counts.
Hang tough, put the test behind you for now and be happy it is over with!
Congratulations on being done!
All the best,
Lisa
Hello and thank you for following my blog. Please keep in mind that I did not actually see the exams – so my comments come from people who write in who took the exam. I heard there was an evidence issue regarding relevance – yes, work product is a rule within civil procedure – but it does address whether certain evidence is discoverable or not. I did not mean to infer that there was a major Evidence issue, I firmly believe that the essay was mostly Civil Procedure – and I understand that one of the reasons the party who was refusing to produce reports was doing so on the basis that it was not relevant? I could be wrong – I am just going by what I heard. And, you should not worry – it sounds like you handled it fine. The last thing I was trying to infer was that this was a major Evidence essay – it was – in my opinion – Civil Procedure that touched upon an area of overlap – that of work product, relevance. But, again, I have not seen this exam. So please do not worry about it, or have concerns about it based upon anything I have said – I will have no positive idea about what was definitely tested until I actually see the essay questions. But, from the sounds of it, you addressed what you needed to address.
I hope that makes you feel better. And, don’t worry about not “head noting” relevance – you addressed it, that is what counts.
Hang tough, put the test behind you for now and be happy it is over with!
Congratulations on being done!
All the best,
Lisa
@rookieesquire – thank you.
You are welcome!
I second what rookiesquire posted. No point in calling the essay an evidence c/o if it was plainly a civ pro discovery of work product. Specifically, it was work product interwoven with facts obtainable by the tortfeasor… so it was likely something that could be admissible or separated from the actual work product/attorney thoughts just like we learned as 1Ls in civ pro.
Hello JS,
I believe it was mostly Civil Procedure. Understand, I have not seen the actual exam – you have and so you would have a better idea of what was tested. The main thing is to problem solve. I heard that “relevance” was mentioned on this fact pattern – is that true? That is what lead me to believe there was a small, minor, nod or tip of the hat to Evidence. I probably should have stated it that way on my blog. I will post about this shortly.
In any case, congratulations on being done with the exam! You should be proud of this huge accomplishment – now go do something fun!
All the best to you (I know how difficult it is to wait for bar results). But, hang in there and be confident about your work, it sounds like you did just fine.
Thank you for your comment and thank you for following the blog!
All the best,
Lisa
I agree with what a prior poster said. I mean, if you are going to weigh in on a motion to compel, you have to mention whether the requested info is relevant. I mean, that’s the whole point of discovery – to discover relevant evidence. So I included some discussion of relevant evidence.
I kind of wish I had thought of a way to mention the business records exception to the hearsay rule, but for me to do so, I would have to infer (guess is a more apt word) that the defense raised that, as the fact pattern made no reference to that being an issue. Also, you could easily solve the litigants’ dispute by simply discussing relevancy of the info, the work product exception, and explaining that plaintiff could easily find the information elsewhere for little expense.
Either way, I am not going to sweat it. I sincerely doubt this essay required a discussion of evidence rules.
Exactly! I agree with you 100% Relevance IS an Evidence rule and anytime you have to consider work product you are essentially addressing what is discoverable. The fact that the essay question mentioned relevance (so I am told) leads me to believe that one should have addressed this in some form. I think the way that you handled it sounds great and I definitely would not sweat it at all – it sounds perfect. The important thing to remember is that there are many different ways of interpreting things – take 10 leading Consitutional Law scholars, give each the same Constitutional Law question and it is likely that most will have differing opinions and views as to how something should be handled or could be handled – and guess what? They will all be correct! That is the thing about the California bar exam that many seem to miss – that the examiners are NOT looking for some exact replication of a rule statement or the exactly right conclusion. Instead, they are looking for your ability to think and problem solve. To me, it sounds like that is exactly what you did. And, given the facts as have been reported to me – I would have handled it the same way you did.
I look forward to hearing that you passed!!! Please keep me posted when results come out (if you want to). I wish you all the best. I know this test is such a grind.
It sounds like you did just fine.
All the best,
Lisa
Thanks Lisa, you are great! BTW, two other things came to mind on why I am kind of happy I did not go into an extensive recitation of evidence rules:
– You can discover evidence that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence (you just can’t get it admitted into the record, but you can use it to find other admissible evidence)
– If the defense was seeking to exclude evidence from being admissible on evidentiary rules, the question would have involved a motion in limine.
Very nice! You sound like a lawyer! 🙂
Wishing you all the best news in May!!!
Oh, and thank you for the kind words 🙂
All the best,
Lisa