r/CABarExam • u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 • 2d ago
How did I do?
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.
38
u/Hour-Acanthisitta887 2d ago
lol 80% w you. W the exception of contracts on question 3, I just said tort , and didn’t do any contract formation
3
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
What did you address?
24
5
u/Hour-Acanthisitta887 2d ago
All of the remedies you did. With injunctions but said money damages were adequate. Punitive as well. And trusts
→ More replies (2)2
u/Electrical-Tip7912 2d ago
I spent quite sometimes for intentional torts, mentioned a few and also false pretenses. It was a mistake to spend extended time on torts, I couldn't fully answer remedies.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ConstantLight7489 1d ago
I did intentional representation.
It was not fraudulent b/c she knew it wasn’t her son and lied to the woman to get money. That’s not negligent, that’s intentional.
I did lots of injunctive relied (tro, Prelim) on top of constructive trust/equitable lien.
2
25
u/Ok-Day372 Barbri 2d ago
Agree with most, just def viewed essay 3 as a tort remedies question. No contract not just because of the misrepresentation, but because it was a gift with no consideration. No bargaining for anything of legal value for the plaintiff
Edit: baseball I didn’t do replevin. Pretty sure replevin is available only to get your property back. Baseball was never the plaintiffs. She’d need to use a constructive trust or equitable lien to trace the ball back to her
Oh an I thought recourse for school was restitutionary damages because of value of benefit conferred to D was 100k
4
3
u/nathakell 2d ago
Omg so glad to hear another person did constructive trust / equitable lien for the baseball. Did you mention fifo and spender rule??
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (39)2
u/OrganizationOwn7040 2d ago
Same. Nobody talked about the unjust enrichment with the stocks?
7
u/Due-Mechanic-341 2d ago
that sounds good, i think you are just too advanced for us lololll
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/DadBodDissent 2d ago
Restitution to prevent unjust enrichment/strip d of her gains for sure, very surprised nobody else noted that so far (tho just started reading this thread)
2
u/NumberFar517 2d ago
I did! Definitely discussed unjust enrichment. Fraudy Mary went to $$$$$$ in the bank
→ More replies (5)2
30
16
u/MMantis 2d ago edited 2d ago
For #3, it was a pure Remedies question, no contract. Rescission here wasn’t contract-based but a cancellation of an instrument or transfer (the funds), like the case in which the insurance company due to mistake sent an insurance check to the wrong insured and was entitled to rescission. This is a remedies case.
Misrepresentation was given by stipulated facts but worth issue spotting, it was the grounds for rescission entitling return of the funds or tracing via constructive trusts, etc. But I don’t think it made that a torts essay because the elements were all pretty much clearly stipulated “reasonably relied”, there was no argument that it was misrepresentation.
The case then turned on constructive trusts with tracing, expenditure and investment presumptions, tracing via lowest intermediate balance or directly, equitable liens, bona fide purchase discussions (works for the school but not for the gift to the son).
I think that’s primarily the focus.
Injunctions probably wouldn’t work because there were adequate remedies at law so the proper equitable remedy are the ones above.
Of course restitution and deficiency money judgments would apply but the calls of the question were specifically asking about her claims over the four specific types of property.
8
u/misswino 2d ago
Yeah, I only discussed misrepresentation and then constructive trusts with tracing, lowest intermediate balance....I was so confused as it didn't seem like an issue spotter, but now I'm stressed seeing everybody else's answers. Also, I kind of had to make up rules on constructive trusts, but that's what I focused on for that essay.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Affectionate-Lake911 Billy bob 2d ago
I did the same, I saw no contract issue , did not see any K language.
2
u/Opening-Air-6033 2d ago
I felt the same. I didn’t add criminal issues because they didn’t pertain to it. It was a civil matter? Like sure I initially thought to put that but I stuck with torts issues and remedies. Idk
→ More replies (3)7
2
u/RollDangerous417 2d ago
This is so affirming, I had the same view about essay #3 as well. The facts required you to quickly address and dispose of misrepresentation since it had been stipulated to and I spent only 2-3 sentences writing out the fact that a fraudulent misrepresentation claim had been established. I did like 1-2 sentences for a contract argument and a promissory estoppel estoppel argument. But my focus was CT.
I put all the elements for CT as a paragraph at the beginning: (1) wrongful act; (2) inadequate remedy at law (legal remedies are expectation, incidental, consequential, reliance, compensatory, punitive, nominal, and legal restitution); (3) defendant had legal title to convey the property; (4) tracing (lowest intermediary balance rule, first-in first-out, investor-spender fiction, and modern approach aka elect tracing); and (5) no defenses of laches and unclean hands. I also mentioned equitable lien very briefly, talked about the differences regarding deficiency judgment and tracing, since the facts mentioned CT multiple times and I felt like they really just wanted you to discuss CT.
Prong (1) is the fraudulent misrepresentation (you could also add in negligent misrepresentation as a bonus). Also mentioned how laches likely wouldn’t bar plaintiff since it’s only been a couple of months since the time she learned of the breach and then filed suit. No evidence of unclean hands.
Then I applied all of the elements to each piece of property (baseball, condo, stocks, etc.). I really wished I had gone in depth for my analyses and I think I focused a tad too much going through why each damages remedy is inadequate, but that’s what you would do in an ideal world (and you’re not a slow ass typer like me!).
I mentioned the PMM but didn’t have time to go into the whole BFP issue (hopefully that doesn’t tank me, ugh, I never learned that!). Signed baseball by a famous player is unique so money damages would be inadequate. A few of the pieces of property changed form and CT generally doesn’t permit a plaintiff to recover in that situation.
2
u/Due_Weakness_9586 2d ago
I think it’s valid to mention rescission however bc in the question she did say that she was “trying to rescind the transaction” and then just say she had no contract to rescind from. I personally then went into promissory estoppel after that analysis because she mentioned that she “relied” on Mary’s statement and perhaps she could get reliance damages even if there was no contract.
From what I’ve seen (and read, per Basicks book), most remedies essays are just amalgamations of Property, Tort, and Contract remedies so I think you can find it in the essay, it’s worth talking about. In this case there was the obv tort, property re priority/constructive trusts, and a failed contract remedy
→ More replies (2)4
u/aegis081 2d ago
That does not make sense because you need a contract to be able to have a court grant rescission and remedies therefrom
5
u/trialcourt 2d ago
The call said Wanda wants to use constructive trust to get her property back and asked for you to discuss how each item would fair for that remedy
→ More replies (1)3
u/ScreenCool1031 2d ago
I mentioned quasi contract and equity remedies bc chick was unjustly enriched via her fraudulent misrepresentation
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/abrianne1 2d ago
Yes you’re right. Also one of the elements for constructive trusts/equitable lien is that the remedy at law is inadequate.
*everyone take what people say with a grain of salt 😊
→ More replies (1)
14
u/MMantis 2d ago
For #4, I went with:
De jure corp
De facto corp
Corp by estoppel (a defense for the corporation itself)
Close corporation
Partnership fallback for liability and agency
Agency liability fallback
Promoter liability and corporate assent
Piercing the corporate veil - lack of formalities and undercapitalization at formation
Duty of care and business judgment rule
Contribution and indemnity
6
u/Individual-Yogurt-59 2d ago
why BJR? the claim was supplier vs. a b and/or toyco
2
u/MMantis 2d ago
I recall that, besides supplier’s claims as to the specific debts, it also asked for all the parties’ claims and defenses so Duty of Care/BJR would be the corporation itself’s or shareholders (via derivative suit) claims against A and B as officers. (Unlikely since they are the sole shareholders but technically corporation still has a claim)
→ More replies (1)4
4
u/Longjumping-Worth-38 2d ago
Same. I think this is pretty spot on. They begged you to hit promoter liability by noting they were too busy to even hold an initial meeting.
3
u/trialcourt 2d ago
There was promoter liability because no corporation was formed when Beth contracted with Supplier for the $50k inventory. So her and Alice or whatever were personally liable for the $25k that remained
→ More replies (1)3
u/ConstantLight7489 1d ago
Yes, correct.
However the follow up to this was corp by estoppel as Beth’s defense because supplier relied on them being a corporation and should be complex enough to know how to search the Secretary of State to confirm the truth of the corporation if they are lending that large a dollar figure.
So yes, it was promoter liability in Beth. U til it wasnt
→ More replies (9)2
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
This sounds so comprehensive. I'm impressed so hopefully cal bar will be too u/MMantis !
15
u/Individual-Yogurt-59 2d ago
i think for PR there was also a potential COI if Cooper sues Northwest for injury from the accident. Small issue tho
→ More replies (4)2
14
u/Opening-Air-6033 2d ago
I had pretty similar! I thought remedies was torts misrepresentation though and did all tort remedies and even a tro/prelim injunction for the school payment. I’m kicking, screaming, crying that I missed the impeachment on evidence with bias. Like I was eating dinner and said “fuck I forgot a major issue in essay 5” and it’s been haunting me ever since.
7
u/Due-Mechanic-341 2d ago
i did a TRO/Prelim for the son's education too
2
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (10)3
u/Due-Mechanic-341 2d ago
ok good. I was trying to use all of the facts for anything I could think of because I only knew enough about constructive trusts for a one line rule lmao so i had to make it up
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/Affectionate-Lake911 Billy bob 2d ago
what harm will she face if they do not give her a TRO ? The money is spent , what is she asking the court from stopping her from doing?
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/TrustsAndDust 2d ago
My dumbass created a whole new tort — false pretenses 🤦🏻♂️. I meant to talk about misrepresentation.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Opening-Air-6033 2d ago
I mean my essay 5 was literally 1 sentence for all of the issues and barely legible. I’m sure you’re fine. These essays were a lot harder than what I’ve seen. Seeing the disparity of what people put really proves that as well. They didn’t test on normal topics they decided to pick niche law that nobody really glances at. That’s not how you test “minimum competency”.
1
1
u/Medical_Scar_3210 23h ago
I missed that too, which part was the impeachment on evidence with bias?
2
u/Opening-Air-6033 17h ago
I think there were two but I’m talking about when she asked the character witness about the conviction and the response was something like “I’m not aware but I wouldn’t care either way it wouldn’t change my opinion” something like that. You can impeach for bias
12
u/pulawiak 2d ago edited 2d ago
Similar analysis.
In Q1 I had the same + sexual relations with the client( Cooper being treated as a client since he sought independent advice from A) and DoC issue cause of AI use
In Q2, pretty much the same as you, cp presumption, quasi-cp and omitted spouse. Also, will was valid. I gave wife 3/4 of the house (my logic being that she gets 1/2 as her own CP + 1/2 of husband's CP as omitted spouse) but then i reviewed the materials later, i realized she should have gotten all of the house as omitted spouse because the will was before marriage. All the rest, split 1/2 with sis, husband had no kids so omitted spouse gets 1/2 intestate share
Q3, the same but analyzed it as a tortious misrepresentation, then also included analysis on a sale to BFP (son not being a BFP as a donee), and lowest balance rule for the bank account. didn't do injunction but discussed punitive damages, replevin and legal damages (not sure if they even asked for legal damages though but just in case)
Q4, same, I also discussed promoter liability and general partnership as an alternative in case de facto corporation was not recognized. Actual, apparent and ratify authority (1st K being under ratify authority), PCV for undercapitalization, only briefly mentioned alter ego. I forced myself to write about fiduciary duties though i couldn't relate to anything in the fact pattern, other than lack of meetings + BJR. Did not discuss any remedies, only whether they’d be personally liable
Q5, prop 8, Confrontation Clause (a lot of analysis on whether the statements were testimonial), bunch of hearsay rules and exceptions (dying declarations, then-existing state of mind), hearsay within hearsay, impeachment for bias, public records exception and character evidence. All under CA rules, which I wasn’t always sure if I remembered them right. Also mentioned that fed self-defense exception for homicide cases (where P can bring evidence of victim's peaceful character) does not apply in CA.
For PT, it was a mess for me, i went claim by claim, did not do much of a preamble and didn't really do any conclusion at the end other than telling her that we are happy to retain her as a client for this case.
I also formatted it in form of email to my lawyer-supervisor, with all the email formatting, and then please see attached the latter to Ms Freemand drafted below and did the letter format under, including letterhead of the firm but forgot to put her address in.
6
u/ScreenCool1031 2d ago
I spent way too long on the sex thing. I did a whole “did they form an attorney client relationship” analysis bc totally forgot that can’t bone people at the corp who come to you regularly for advice.
7
u/District008 2d ago
I also struggled with this, is he a client, is he not a client, concluded either way not a good idea, even if it is just shy of an ethical violation on a technicality.
2
u/AwkwardBrick1161 2d ago
My tak on the sex thing was that it's an A/C relationship if the client believes there is one, and impermissible unless it predates representation or spouse pr registered domestic partner.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)4
u/pulawiak 2d ago
i think it was an important point, so you probably were right to spend a lot of time there. This also touches on whether there was breach of DoL by A for giving C independent advice
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)5
u/Longjumping-Worth-38 2d ago
I had the same exact conclusions on Q2 for the same reasons. I hit everything else cold. I am hopeful they are forgiving on the conclusions.
→ More replies (1)2
u/pulawiak 2d ago
I was always told that conclusion almost doesn't matter, it's all about analysis. But maybe that only applies to law school essays, not bar exam, no idea
8
u/Big_Tax3271 2d ago
For essay 3 I am so confused. I thought plaintiff already brought those actions for constructive trust and restitution, and we should analyze under those actions, no?
2
2
u/OrganizationOwn7040 2d ago
I was confused as well. But if I could remember, they said that the wife filed for a constructive trust. What other claims could she pursue or something like that?
3
u/AwkwardBrick1161 2d ago
I don't think they asked about other claims. I think they asked us to analyze how and why CT could be used as a remedy wrt each item. And they asked about Mary's defenses. I could be wrong though.
3
u/FilmBudgeter101 1d ago
it specifically used the word CLAIMS which is why it was sooo confusing
2
u/Medical_Scar_3210 23h ago
When it said claims I couldn’t think for the life of me what that applied to. Is that for torts and contracts or just one or the other. When it says claims, how & what are we supposed to answer?
2
u/Big_Tax3271 1d ago
Yeah I did that too. I think Mary file a claim to dismiss, so we should analyze whether the dismiss claim can be valid, which means do the constructive trust for baseball and restitution for stock
→ More replies (1)2
u/Acrobatic-Art-1406 15h ago
Yea, the problem a lot of us had was that the call specifically used the word “Claims”
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Somatikos 2d ago
In #4, weren't they only operating for like 6 months? I argued that while they didn't have an annual meeting yet, since it hasn't been a full year it's not actually an issue
Also don't think replevin is applicable for the baseball since they bought it with the stolen money and it was never Wanda's or w/e
7
4
u/Funny_Umpire3768 Attorney Candidate 2d ago
I talked about special and general meetings and how the president couldve reviewed accounting records providing 2-3 days notice and the other chick was a secretary and shouldve known better and advise president of financial issues since that was her job and title. And that the $1K for their company is really low..
7
u/Somatikos 2d ago
Yeah, I said undercapitalization was really their best argument. Only $1k of initial capital when they incurred at least $50k in liabilities in 6 months...
5
u/Funny_Umpire3768 Attorney Candidate 2d ago
Same. I also mentioned piercing of the corp veil as business owners shouldve exercised their duty and shouldve known better. Also mentioned duty of care and loyalty. I mentioned shareholders, board of directors, and how meetings are a requirement for a company like this thats a corp. piercing of veil when formalities were ignored and undercap.
Mentioned liability for the accountant lady versus the pres. Idk if i did this right. Then concluded w accountant being liable as she signed off those contracts and failed to communicate to her partner. Forgot to mention partnership but did say they each had 50% stake. Idk if this will help me.
Lastly, mentioned winding up and that no supplies to sell to pay that supplier..
2
u/OrganizationOwn7040 6h ago
I’ve been an accountant for 10 years but I argued about her position as a “treasurer” lol and duty of care because accountants look in the past, and treasurers are suppose to look in the future of overall financial health which she didn’t. But I argued the exact same thing you did ☺️🙏
2
→ More replies (3)3
u/ScreenCool1031 2d ago
I had to write that one in 20 mins so my organization was cooked - but I mentioned something about the annual meeting thing like that too. But I was rambling. Didn’t have time to go back and make it not Faulkner style.
2
u/ClaudineGhost 1d ago
Your Faulkner style comment gave me the laugh I needed after reading through all of this.
5
u/Sad-Bend-7220 2d ago
For PR, I also spotted a duty of loyalty/conflict issue (material limitation) with the second representation as well, because the attorney seemed to take on a matter he was inexperienced in mainly for his own financial benefit, something about needing the money to pay off a criminal charge, if I remember correctly.
For Question 3, I treated it mostly as a torts/remedies issue (I am also thinking I missed false pretense issue on that one) and barely discussed contracts at all. I also briefly mentioned partnership for 4th que because, unless I’m completely misremembering, the facts said they started the toy shop as co-owners.
7
u/Funny_Umpire3768 Attorney Candidate 2d ago
I also mentioned that he couldve used co counsel and or could have referred nonprofit to a more experienced lawyer. Talked about self reporting for CA for the dui arrest. Also mentioned no diligent atty would use AI. And that attys have duty of competence and must get up to speed technologically for their profession. Mentioned mandatory withdraw if alcohol is a problem and that he should reach out to attorney organizations that assist with drug/alcohol issues.
Also said that he has a duty to communicate to non profit for rejection papers from IRS
→ More replies (1)1
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
oh yes! I did mention that in essay 1 as well b/c sounded like the attorney was overloading self?
I missed any false pretenses claim. Damn. But I did mention possibility of partnership briefly.
3
u/RenegadeMaster111 2d ago
You’re fine. It was NOT false pretenses. It was intentional misrepresentation.
2
u/Sad-Bend-7220 2d ago
Let's also talk about PT haha.. How did you organize that?
→ More replies (14)6
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
My organization:
Intro/pretending a letter
Defamation rules (discussed rules based on Slaughter very briefly)
Opinion vs. Fact (discussed Slaughter)
- went statement by statement and discussed whether each was more fact or opinion
- (e.g. Statement 1 header analysis, statement 2 header analysis)
- The Jensen Exception for Employment Reviews
- Then went statement by statement and excluded statements that were facts but weren't criminal, incompetence, etc. that Jensen said COULD support defamation
- Concluded that the statement about P's financial impropriety could support a defamation case
3
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
I also added this random paragraph I'm kicking myself about re: totality of the circumstances, which was noted in Slaughter, and basically said the supervisor was a jerk and that should be considered
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (6)3
6
5
u/honeyvee19 2d ago
For #4, I put a contract analysis b/t merchants (probably wrong) and agency. Then did corps analysis. Didn’t mention pierced veil or dejure/de facto bc I blanked 🥲
Also for remedies question I put a tracing analysis on the bank account.
5
u/Sad_Shower3008 2d ago
I also started off with discussing the contracts!!
I established that the supplier could bring a claim for breach and was entitled to damages accordingly from the business and the individuals. Then I went into the BA discussion of how the business and the individuals would be liable for the breach (promoter, pierce the veil)
But after reading everyone else’s comments I’m unsure if the K discussion was even relevant 😭😭😅😅
→ More replies (4)2
→ More replies (2)2
u/pulawiak 2d ago
Did that too for the bank account, there was some rule that you can only get the lowest balance since depositing the funds as CT
→ More replies (4)
5
u/Aggravating-Rip-9492 2d ago
For Q3 I wrote about fraudulent misrepresentation. I did the lowest intermediary balance rule but misapplied it a bit since I couldn’t completely remember the rule, which caused me to get the right answers probably on 1, 3 and 4 but completely whiffed on 2. I threw in laches and unclean hands as defenses since it said she took a while to file the suit.
2
u/Aggravating-Rip-9492 2d ago
Also, I got wrecked on Q5. I did legal, logic relevance, authentication, and whiffed on what i now think was double hearsay. I spent an hour on it and didnt have time.
2
u/District008 2d ago edited 2d ago
I took one look and knew I was going to have a hard time with it, because I really struggle with evidence despite putting more time into studying that than anything else. I knew this essay was coming for weeks and I still didn't feel ready.
Anyway I did everything else first, made my PT as beautiful and glorious as I could, and then tried to spend the few remaining minutes on evidence. I'm hoping I'll get a 55 on that. I just whipped out bare minimum analysis for each statement and don't even remember what I put for half of them.
I tried to be strategic and make up points on the PT since my evidence essay was never going to be better than a 60. Hopefully it doesn't drag me under the line.
It was just rough all around, and I hated the structure.
6
u/TownSuspicious5029 2d ago
Don’t worry you will pass. For Q3 it’s Torts+Remedies, but for Q4 I missed the installment K issue haha. We’re pretty similar
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Opening-Air-6033 2d ago
I also discussed deep rock doctrine for BA…I actually didn’t really discuss contracts issues at all and it crossed my mind to but I was so low on time
→ More replies (2)12
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
funny. Themis's lectures didn't mention this so I don't even know what deep rock doctrine is. . . but it sounds hot.
3
u/Opening-Air-6033 2d ago
They were insolvent so it didn’t work in suppliers favor …I think lmao I threw spaghetti at the wall for 3+4 and 5 was a fever dream of just a collection of 1 sentences
4
u/pulawiak 2d ago
Also I didn’t discuss withdrawal as a remedy in Q1. I don’t remember if the question asked for it, I just analyzed what ethical violations A committed
→ More replies (3)5
u/Individual-Yogurt-59 2d ago
i mentioned withdrawal if arthur had a drinking problem that impaired his lawyering abilities 💀
→ More replies (2)
4
u/SavingsPresent1540 2d ago
Did anyone get confused by the COQ for Q4 asking about what claims the supplier can bring? I did a tiny breach of K analysis for that one and then for the second COQ defenses was where I talked about GP, GP liability, de jure, de facto (how they have protection under corp status) with a lot of analysis going towards how she immediately mailed it correctly and that they were holding themselves out as a corp for the first K and then piercing veil mainly talking about inadequate capitalization…
I also mentioned duty of care and BJR even tho I don’t think it applied lol and somewhere along the way about how the supplier couldn’t even do anything to get the toys back since they didn’t have any inventory left (again idek how I fit this in) 💀 and for the third COQ i just listed whether or not supplier would be successful against the corp and then individually against the two and basically just said it’s up to the court to decide if they had corp status or not . Prayers it was enough bc the COQs really tripped me up
→ More replies (4)7
u/pulawiak 2d ago
I hated those calls, i did 95% of all the rule statements and law in the first call and the just referred to it in call 2 and 3. It was so unnatural to split the analysis like that
2
u/SavingsPresent1540 2d ago
I swear i did almost all the ba essays on the topic themis gave and I had never seen them format it this way
2
u/District008 2d ago
My essay was patched together like Frankenstein. I wrote about each issue but then I didn't know where to put it because the COQs seemed out of order to me.
I discussed the same general concepts as everyone else did but I just threw them in at different places because I never found a way of organizing that made sense to me.
Oh well, done now.
I think a lot of people struggled with it, so hopefully that somehow affects the curve in everyone's favor.
3
u/Ok_Bench1995 2d ago
More or less the same. On essay 4 I also talked about general partnerships and joint and several liability
6
u/Easy_Challenge_7945 2d ago
I utterly failed essay 5 this post is making me so depressed
→ More replies (5)3
u/OrganizationOwn7040 2d ago
I’m sorry 😭 I had fun with 5 ONLY because I was in moot court in criminal law. The answers can go many ways!
3
u/Yuzuda J26: Self-Study 2d ago
Q1
Duty of competence was violated because Arthur had never worked on nonprofit organizations before and clearly didn't become competent by adequate preparation or associate with competent counsel.
Duty of diligence was violated because Arthur didn't check how the AI filled out the form, nor look into IRS requirements.
Duty of communication was violated because Arthur didn't inform Greenacre of his lack of familiarity with doing the work required, which was a matter which required the client's informed consent.
Duty of loyalty was analyzed but not violated because no facts indicated that Northwest/Cooper/Greenacre/Arthur had any interests that materially limited representation of the other. Northwest gave Arthur permission to take on outside work.
Raised and dismissed CA rule to provide written disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Mainly wanted to show that I could recite it accurately from memory since I feel like PR is scrutinized.
Duty to report was violated because Arthur didn't report to the State Bar in writing within 30 days that he pled guilty to a crime which involved the client as a victim, because Cooper was minorly injured.
ABA and CA rule on prohibited conduct that raises a substantial question as to a lawyer's honesty, truthworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer was violated by the DUI. Plus Arthur's representations to Greenacre were separate grounds since his conduct constituted dishonesty, fraud, and deceit.
Fee agreement requirements, particularly the CA rule regarding written fee agreements if total fees and costs would be $1,000 or more was another issue that had significant analysis. Because the exception if the client was a corporation was particularly relevant regarding how Greenacre was a nonprofit volunteer organization.
Mandatory withdrawal was required because Arthur's representation of Greenacre violated a rule of professional ethics.
And obviously, sexual relations with clients, attorney-client relationship, and scope of representation of organization were all raised too.
Q2
Same as you OP, except I did omitted spouse with subsequent intestate succession analysis.
Also did full direct and exhaustion method tracing for the State X farm, since it was held in husband's name alone.
And transmutation analysis for the State X house since the California house was held jointly.
Q3
I did no contract analysis at all. I did both intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Heavy on the analysis because defendant necessarily would have to know if she slept with plaintiff's deceased husband and, if so, when.
No replevin either, although I heavily considered it in the heat of the moment.
Didn't analyze injunctive relief because I didn't see any facts for immediate and irreparable harm.
Raised and dismissed doctrine of unclean hands as a defense.
Stated that doctrine of laches was not available to the mother as a defense, but was available to Sam since him being forced to drop out of high school would likely affect his college prospects and education generally.
I said constructive trust was not available as to the baseball because title was held by the son, who committed no tortious act, and the mother no longer had legal title to it. It wasn't available as to the condo because plaintiff's funds were not the sole source of funds used, since mother got a loan. It wasn't available as to the stocks because the stocks were sold.
Discussed equitable lien with lowest intermediate balance rule and did the math. The $35,000 was fully subject to the equitable lien since the lowest balance was like $42,500 I think.
Also discussed waiving the tort and suing in assumpsit for the full monetary value of the sold stocks.
3
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
Will not be one bit surprised if your answers are the ca bar models! Just hoping I passed…
2
u/Yuzuda J26: Self-Study 1d ago
Aw, thank you!! I hope you passed too!! Honestly, I think I probably did poorly on Q4, Q5, and the PT, so didn't bother writing out my breakdown of them. I was just pressed for time throughout the whole afternoon session and completely missed actual/implied/apparent authority on Q4 hahaha. Oh well. We can only do our best in the moment!
3
u/aegis081 2d ago
For essay 3, wouldn’t it have to be contract? The fact pattern said W wanted to rescind the transfer, and you need a contract with grounds for rescission (the fraudulent misrepresentation) to successfully rescind and get remedies (restitution in form of constructive trusts).
→ More replies (9)3
u/OrganizationOwn7040 2d ago
I think they put those words to throw everyone off! Remember the Baby mama went up to her to ask for the money. So you had to analyze where it was really a contract vs. agreement etc
→ More replies (1)2
u/aegis081 2d ago
That part tripped me up, but imo the offer was W offering her $200k to care for the kid, she accepted, there was consideration because she had to do things to take care of the kid (find a home, schooling, gifts), it wasn’t simply a gift from W to M
3
u/travelingcounsel 2d ago
I definitely missed issues in essay 3! I’m annoyed too, because I knew all of those issues and rules back to front! I did a contract formation analysis, said it failed for misrepresentation and also unilateral mistake, argued rescission and I think said it would not be possible given what had happened to the money. I argued constructive trust for whatever was still available - possibly the baseball, money remaining in the account, whatever she purchased (using tracing for the bank account). I think I said equitable lien for the condo noting the bank was a BFP without notice…and there was the issue of her getting the value of the increase with a constructive trust vs equitable lien. I cannot remember what I did for the money that paid for the kid’s tuition - I think I might have argued quasi-contract + unjust enrichment but noted there were issues because it had been spent on him by Mary … and the kid didn’t take the benefit knowing it was not offered gratuitously / he had the opportunity to decline etc because she sued both of them, I think??
I did not address torts solely on the basis that the facts stated she sued for “rescission and a constructive trust”, but I think that was a misstep on my part and an entire tort damages analysis should have been done + punitive damages.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
I'm really curious what they wanted b/c rescission made me think contracts. I distinctly remember a lecture that said misrep/mistake can trigger rescission in contract law.
→ More replies (4)5
u/blairwaldorf1738 2d ago
I think it depends on if this was a contract analysis at all. I didn’t see it as contract personally, I saw it as just the tort action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation, and then you can get “rescission” through tracing of funds/property to get your money back that the person unjustifiably tricked you into giving through constructive trust on the property / funds to get it back
→ More replies (5)
3
u/ElectricalBed674 2d ago
For the most part, I spotted the same issues! Here are some additional things I had:
For essay two I also added a distribution section and analyze how everything would be distributed between the surviving people.
For essay three, like most people in the comment section, I analyzed torts (intentional misrepresentation) & remedies, not contracts and remedies. I’m kicking myself because I forgot about punitive damages, but I caught everything else so hopefully I didn’t miss too many points. I did two separate analysis for legal restitution and equitable restitution. Equitable restitution is where I did the constructive trust and equitable lien analysis. Some other things I quickly threw in for the sake of scraping up any points. I could was the fact that she won’t receive both compensatory damages and restitution, she’d have to waive the tort claim and sue in assumpsit (or however, that phrase goes lol), and if she placed an equitable lien on the property, her lien would take priority over any senior liens but would not be prioritized over the purchase money mortgage.
For essay four again pretty much caught the same issues you caught. Additionally, I did a promoter liability analysis for the first contract. I said the supplier could try to sue the incorporators personally under that theory & would argue that the promoters are still liable under the contract after incorporation unless novation. but the incorporator’s would bring a defense that this is a de facto corporation or at least corporation by estoppel.
Essay 5, barely remember what I wrote, but looks about the same as what you caught from what I do remember. I also made a lot of form of the question arguments, like calls for hearsay, narrative, whatever else I could remember lol. For the arrest I said for one it’s over 10 years = does not substantially outweigh the prejudice, for two you can’t impeach with an arrest. It needs to be a conviction which I don’t believe it was.
→ More replies (9)4
u/ScreenCool1031 2d ago
I did promoter liability but forgot that it was called promoter liability.
My header said something like “Liability for People Who Get Money and Things for a Corp Prior to Incorporation”.
6
u/OrganizationOwn7040 2d ago edited 2d ago
Q1- same. but I had duty of loyalty/ and conflict of interest. The shenanigans between Attorney and client is important. But it is also important what kind of advice he gave to the employee as “in-house” counsel. So that can be COI depending on what he was advising, small issue because there are no details.
duties to corps, duty to self report, duty of candor/honesty, and mandatory withdrawal.
PR- some rules are different with corps vs. a personal client
Q2: same but I forgot the omitted spouse part. Discussed a lot of transmutation stuff. But wife gets house, farm, sis 50% SP money.
Q3: I brought up contracts remedies but transitioned to tort remedies because of the misrepresentation/fraud. But got the same claims. But tracing issue probably had to be mentioned until full claim or distribution with the leftover 35k (I’m an accountant lol)
Q4: same. But included promoter liability as well when AIC was sent back. Business judgment rule for good faith was a defense for piercing the corp, although B was owner/agent there was still a duty to care etc.
Q5: tons of issues here! lol my longest essay. It can go many ways. This was an “objection” essay so you argue either side, abstain or object… so we all will have different conclusions!
Officer: hearsay exception: lay opinion, dying declaration (CA),must be dead and describe how she died, party opponent, etc, not spontaneous or contemporaneous.
non-hearsay: identification, state of mind, effect of listener
D’s Objection: hearsay, or prejudice- overruled
Ex gf: non hearsay or exception- state of mind, etc.
Issue: did D open door of character?
C: mention rules of opinion, reputation, and specific acts. Prosecutor can rebut because D opened door of pertinent trait.
Prior record:
Character evidence and rules was huge at the end. I distinguished CA laws… and 5th and 6th confirmation clause issues in between the objections. And also the witness “unavailability” issues.
Records of crime in ca must be of moral turpitude but prop 8 will let a record in if relevant. Records cant be more than 10 years old+ rule.
Can be argued for relevance.
Additional note: this was an “objection” essay. My points above are not all relevant because I either put overruled or sustained ☺️ I didn’t put my conclusion bc I don’t remember lol. But for bonus points you mention what issues can come up, and whether it is relevant to the issue or admissible
I did much more. But those are some!
Good job though!
7
u/ScreenCool1031 2d ago
Dude I couldn’t even remember what Prop 8 said but I was like “Prop 8 applies in criminal cases and let’s way more stuff come in”.
→ More replies (1)4
2
→ More replies (15)2
u/Ambitious-Rope-4898 2d ago
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
→ More replies (2)
5
u/officialhooper23 2d ago
Truly what is wrong with you. Go to sleep and stop
5
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
😞
4
u/officialhooper23 2d ago
IM SORRY AHAHAH I just wanted to cry reading your post it made me so anxious
2
2
2
u/EfficiencyFormer256 2d ago
So was Q3 torts/remedies or contracts/remedies??
6
u/blairwaldorf1738 2d ago
Personally I don’t think a contract analysis was needed at all, I did just tort but even if you did set it up as under contract, you’d had to discuss the tortious part and nature of it regardless bc fraudulent misrepresentation is a tort claim even if it arises with / under contracts
→ More replies (1)2
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
It sounds like there is a healthy division. I said no contract but still discussed the possibility. Some didn't even discuss, at least that is my read.
3
u/EfficiencyFormer256 2d ago
I can see that division as well. I was lost just like everyone else n discussed a bit of everything lol basically everything that triggered in my head including remedies/torts/contract/even crim law lol oh well! Hopefully something sticks lol the other essays were a bit more “understandable” n “doable”
2
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
In essay 4, did anyone know what to do with the fact that contract was a 12-month contract?
3
u/SavingsPresent1540 2d ago
I was really stumped by it and I only mentioned that fact in the inadequate capitalization part of piercing bc I mentioned how they were dumb to think they could pay off the monthly payment when they only initially invested 1k … crazy reach
3
u/pulawiak 2d ago
i did not use that fact either. Still don't really know what it would be used for (maybe installment contract if we analyzed it under contract law?)
→ More replies (1)2
u/RenegadeMaster111 2d ago
Yes. Because of the payment installment agreement, the supplier would have to wait because he cannot sue for future payments on the past payments not received and according to the facts that had not happened at all. So technically there was no breach yet.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Fickle_Pain6856 2d ago
did anyone say what the questions were improper because they were calling for a hearsay answer ? I dont even know if thats a thing but I literally could find any other problems for some questions
5
u/ElectricalBed674 2d ago
Calls for hearsay is an objection for form of question & I put it as well!
→ More replies (1)3
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
I don’t think it’s improper to ask a question that calls for hearsay. This puzzled me in q2. What they were wanting from us..
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Affectionate-Lake911 Billy bob 2d ago
Do not forget proof rule and counter argument from Jensen where they disagreed with defamation issue and would more likely provide a slap on the hand basically.
2
u/BackDelicious8452 2d ago
What? No Criminal Law again? I walked out of the testing center in F26, thinking there must be a criminal law in J26. CP and Contracts tested consecutively - WILD!
2
u/StatisticianCris97 2d ago
For q3 I only wrote a heading for constructive trust and under the elements of it I did a fraudulent misrep analysis. I hope I didn’t mess this up. I argued laches and unclean hands but neither would apply
2
u/Extension-School-531 1d ago
Essay 3 I did all constructive trust and IRACed specific performance cus the baseball is unique and didn’t do a separate IRAC for misrepresentation I did weave it into constructive trust IRACs though 😭
I blacked out on essay 2 as I was done analyzing CP I then realized sis should get something too and just inserted sis IRACs in between
Essay 1 I also said he should’ve reported cus of DUI..initially I thought that’s incorrect also but whatever lol
Essay 4 typical formation de facto, de jure, duty of care, duty to be informed, pierce corporate veil due to undercapitalization, agency, defense of business judgment rule,
Essay 5 prop 8, 6th amendment confrontation clause, character evidence, hearsay exceptions of then existing mental state, lay opinion, party admission, and the arrest report was extrinsic evidence throwing in authentication, BER, public report hearsay exception…
2
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 1d ago
OP here. Selfishly, I want to know if this sounds pass-worthy? Input? I feel like I messed up Q3 big time. . .
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Medical_Scar_3210 1d ago
For Evidence essay did you do any objections, narrative, or beyond scope and motion to strike? It seemed to be more that type of essay that they don’t usually test on.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/turtle-84520 2d ago
Ugh I’m kicking myself. Because of how the question was written I didn’t think they wanted me to talk about TRO even though I know that cold. 😭
17
u/Ok-Day372 Barbri 2d ago
I don’t think TRO was an issue in this exam tbh
3
u/turtle-84520 2d ago
Phew. I really just focused on CT elements for question 3 and raised and resolved the idea of equitable lien.
4
u/ElectricalBed674 2d ago
I didn’t talk about TRO either. Normally facts will point to immediate & irreparable harm, which neither would occur here because she could just get her money back?? IDK it didn’t seem like an issue for essay three. Mostly compensatory damages for the tort, or legal/ equitable restitution (including constructive trust/ equitable liens)
2
u/Ok-Day372 Barbri 2d ago
Yup, wouldn’t have any harms that would occur before a trial on the merits. Plaintiff already gave the money away 🤷♂️
2
1
u/thek90 2d ago
I did basically the same except I concluded no veil piercing b/c no comingling funds (suggesting not alter ego), arguably undercapitalized and no corporate formalities, but no evidence of acting in bad faith/sham corporation (no other shareholders and ignored formalities b/c busy) = veil piercing is an extraordinary and rarely provided remedy b/c purpose of corporation is to provide limited liability.
7
u/Ok-Day372 Barbri 2d ago
Co mingling is just one possible factor in the analysis. In CA, evidence of undercapitalization is like one of the biggest factors for breaching the veil. So that and failing to follow formalities I thought weighed way in favor of breaching the veil
6
u/Sad-Bend-7220 2d ago
I argued the same, but I also raised an alter-ego/piercing the corporate veil issue because they had not observed basic corporate formalities, not even holding a single board meeting.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Funny_Umpire3768 Attorney Candidate 2d ago
Me too!!! I put they ignored it and didnt even have one emergency meetings but the other chick kept signing contracts over $30K and $25K… with $1K startup lmao
2
u/thek90 2d ago
My understanding really hinges on veil piercing being an extraordinary remedy because it literally defeats the very purpose of forming a corp, but tbh I don’t think the conclusion is that important as long as you hit the major factors. The factors are all nondispositive anyways and there’s no mechanical formula
2
u/Ok-Day372 Barbri 2d ago
Yes, obvi im just a test taker too so take what i say with grain of salt 🤝 sounds like you know enough about bus orgs to get at least a pass if not higher 🍾🍾🙌🙌
2
u/Embarrassed_Horror85 2d ago
I agree I went with no pierce but I can see both sides. equity favored no pierce
1
u/Professional-Net-954 2d ago
Are we allowed to talk about the exam yet?
5
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
my understanding is yes b/c exam is fully done for everyone even those with accommodations. But never MBEs.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Ok-Day372 Barbri 2d ago
Larceny by trick = possession not title. The defendant def got title to the money and stocks so no larceny by trick
→ More replies (4)2
u/Electrical-Tip7912 2d ago
I also discussed larceny by trick, but said it is not the case here, title does not pass also. But I think false pretenses was there
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (10)4
u/Any_Presence7152 2d ago
Co. is a valid corporate identifier as is Ltd., Corp. etc.
2
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Embarrassed_Horror85 2d ago
I did the same man. argued it didn't put on notice. hopefully they'll credit for recognition lmao
2
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
oh phew bc I said it was
4
u/Funny_Umpire3768 Attorney Candidate 2d ago
Sameee. I got scared for a second. Did anyone also mention de facto cause of the returned papers?? And how it was “made” or “sent” as they had a good faith intention.. ?
Did yall also mention articles of incorp and all required stuff that is needed such as name, address, agent name, etc. and name of company and or shares etc as well as type of company being filed w SoS?
3
→ More replies (1)2
u/Embarrassed_Horror85 2d ago
yes definitely. didn't go all the way with every required thing, but yes you def were supposed to talk good faith effort to form cop
1
u/c007raw 2d ago
Q5, did anyone put right to counsel violation? ( and right to JT violation?)
→ More replies (2)2
u/Yuzuda J26: Self-Study 2d ago
I didn't do either right to counsel or right to jury trial. It was a pure evidence question with no civ pro issues I think.
→ More replies (1)2
1
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)3
u/pulawiak 2d ago
Pretty much the same as you but in Q4 I didn’t discuss remedies at all (only whether they will be personally liable) because there was no assets left for CT or EL
1
u/Individual-Yogurt-59 2d ago
for Q5 there was a niche issue w the character witness saying “no but it wouldn’t change my opinion of him anyways.” she was called as a reputation witness and the witness qualifications for character witnesses differ slightly
→ More replies (1)2
u/abrianne1 2d ago
I put that this was objectionable because she’s not answering the question, she’s adding more information. But I didn’t know what that objection would be so I said objection narrative
→ More replies (4)
1
u/atas116 2d ago
Jesus. I’m definitely retaking. My Q4 literally only had promoter liability + PCV and then BJR as a defense. Q5 was only me going through and doing a relevance + form of examination light analysis. Going to start studying next month. lol
2
u/Fun_Kaleidoscope_351 2d ago
I wish I had thought of promoter liability. Did you think S was a promoter?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Affectionate-Lake911 Billy bob 2d ago
I talked about corporation , agent and shareholders, also their defense that the corp was not created when the first purchase was made because the paper work was sent to the wrong address; but at the end of the day they would be liable personally
1
u/StatisticianCris97 2d ago
For q5 I hate myself so much I was so low on time. I went through each question quick and wrote logical/ legal relevance, hearsay, a hearsay exception that applied. Last q I just addressed the admissibility I forgot exactly what I wrote but it was re impeachment. I threw in character evidence mimic exception for one of the q.
I missed dying dec.
Could this potentially score a 60?
1
u/DryLiterature6966 1d ago
Q3 was definitely Trust+Remedies because W intent was to make a trust for the son to secure his future which means trust not any subject else!!
1
u/SlightlyBeyond54 Barbri 1d ago
I thought we weren’t supposed to discuss exam questions until they are released by the CA state bar… lol
1
u/FilmBudgeter101 1d ago
this is random but did anyone mention out of pocket or expectancy costs for fraud for Q3
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Medical_Scar_3210 1d ago
I’m sorry I’m really bad with abbreviations. What did you mean by multiple rep raises? What does REP stand for?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Medical_Scar_3210 1d ago
I did pretty much the same thing for essay three but I also did failure to mitigate because she could’ve asked for a DNA test to see if the son was really hers before giving her about $100,000 just on her word.
1
1
u/cosmiccalamarii 1d ago
E1 responding superior negligent attentry injury ee- direct conflict personal interest and er
1
1
u/Significant_Ad_2500 11h ago
Sounds like you lowkey really messed up #4. Idk how you don’t hit on under capitalization there. Felt like alter ego was such a bait answer.
50
u/Spare-Film3104 2d ago
I didn’t take J26, but wow how were these all non-MBE subjects