Thank you for following the blog and thank you so much for the kind words and messages. It really means a lot to me. I am honored to be able to reach so many people and to provide (apparently) a little sanity and calm to this process. Thank you for taking the time to write in, I really appreciate it.
I wanted to take a moment to address one more thing before tomorrow’s big day. I was asked if Torts was going to be tested “again” tomorrow. Of course, no one knows the answer to that . . . but, if Torts is tested tomorrow there are some areas that I think are a bit more likely than others. First of all – Torts was tested two essays on the February 2013 bar exam. If you will recall – products liability was tested on one essay (essay four) and Torts and Tort Remedies was tested on a separate essay. This is actually not unusual. On past bar exams, Contracts has shown up on day one and then Contract Remedies on a separate essay on day three.
So it definitely happens. What is significant about all of this is that Torts showed up twice on the last bar exam and yes, it could show up again – but it is not what I am leaning towards. HOWEVER, IF it were tested, I think that some of the miscellaneous torts like misrepresentation or nuisance could come up.
Also, just like contracts could cross over with agency or partnership – torts could also cross over with agency or partnership. I already mentioned in an earlier post that there could be a crossover with California Civil Procedure and Defamation (see my prior post from today about the yet to be tested scenario in California Civil Procedure involving an “anti-slapp” motion).
Another area to be mindful of is the possibility of Professional Responsibility crossing over with Torts. The the bar examiners have tested this combination in the past is as follows – an attorney files a lawsuit that is barred by the statute of limitations – this generates a few potential issues – 1) the obvious PR problems with regard to the lawyer filing a suit he/she knows is time barred, 2) malicious prosecution and abuse of process, and 3) the client may have a claim for negligence if they can prove that they would have prevailed under the underlying claim (which is often negligence). Other scenarios have included facts where the client asks the lawyer to “teach the opposing party a lesson” by filing a lawsuit. This also potentially generates the above issues (1 through 3). Keep in mind too that duty breaches in the above scenario would include breach of duty of candor to the court (by filing a frivolous, time barred action), breach of the duty to give candid advice (by filing a claim that is time barred) as well as a breach of the duty of competence (a competent attorney would not miss the statute of limitations nor would a competent attorney file a claim after the statute has run).
We will continue to take requests for the Evidence Handout. However, the guru is going to call it a night at some point, and so should you. Therefore, if you send a request for the handout after 10:30, it may not get a response until tomorrow. Yes, we actually respond to each email (and there have been hundreds). I greatly appreciate your comments and feedback and wish you much success tomorrow!
Best of luck to you all!
Bar None Review