View Current Issue.........5
Contact Us.......................10
Links/Resources...............15


JDblogger......................31
Newsletter.......................32


Archived Articles............41
Archived Issues...............43



Ad Rates/Sizes.................52

 

 

December 2008 Archived Front Page Articles

 

Despite High Overall Pass Rate, Repeaters Still Struggle With the California Bar Exam: All Repeaters: 27%; Non-ABA Repeaters: 16%
Archived Article December 2008....

The State Bar of California's Committee of Bar Examiners reported today that 61.7 percent of the applicants passed the July 2008 General Bar Examination (GBX). If the 5,330 people who passed the July 2008 exam satisfy other requirements for admission, they will become members of the State Bar.

Preliminary statistical analyses show that of the 8,637 applicants who took the GBX, 72.4 percent were first-time takers. The passing rate for 6,257 first-time applicants was 75.0 percent overall. The passing rate for the 2,380 applicants repeating the examination was 27.0 percent overall.

Preliminary statistical analyses show the first-time and repeater percent passing the GBX (rounded to whole numbers) by law school type as follows:

School Type First-Timers Repeaters
California ABA 83% 35%
Out-of-State ABA 75% 28%
CA (but not ABA) Accredited 37%
17%
Unaccredited 33% 15%
All Others 50% 30%
All Applicants 75% 27%

The applicants not included in the above totals either were attorneys admitted in other states who either chose or were required to take the GBX, attorneys admitted in foreign jurisdictions, law students in the Law Office/Judge’s Chambers Study Program or law students who qualified to take the GBX through four years of law study.

More detailed statistics, including passing rates by individual law schools, will be made available in approximately four to six weeks and published on the State Bar’s Web site at www.calbar.ca.gov/admissions

The pass rate on the general bar examination is the highest it has been since the July 1997 administration of the examination. As is standard, an analysis of the examination will be prepared by the Committee of Bar Examiners’ psychometric consultant, but that report will not be available for several weeks.

Gayle Murphy, Senior Executive, Admissions, noted that the bar exam passing rates for many other jurisdictions were higher in July than in the recent past. "The increase could be explained in part by the high MBE (the national 200-item multiple-choice portion of the examination) scores that were achieved by applicants taking the examination," she said.

"The MBE is scaled to ensure the difficulty of an examination remains the same from administration to administration; thus, one could assume that the applicants taking the July 2008 bar examinations were better prepared to take it," said Murphy.

The three-day General Bar Examination is given twice a year, in February and July. The exam consists of three sections: a multiple-choice Multistate Bar Examination (MBE), six essay questions, and two performance tests that are designed to assess an applicant's ability to apply general legal knowledge to practical tasks. The mean scaled MBE score in California was 1475 compared with the national average of 1456.

In addition, the Committee announced that 154 (43.6 percent) of the 353 lawyers who took the Attorneys' Examination passed.

The Attorneys' Examination, which consists of the essay and performance test sections of the GBX, is open to lawyers who have been admitted to the active practice of law in good standing for at least four years in another United States jurisdiction.

Successful applicants who have satisfied other requirements for admission – those who have not been reported by local district attorneys for being in arrears with family or child support payments, who have received a positive moral character determination and who have passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination – may either take the Attorney's Oath individually or participate in admissions ceremonies held throughout the state during December 2008.

During the morning session of the first day of the July 2008 administration of the California Bar Examination, an earthquake struck the Southern California area. There was approximately 15-20 minutes time left in the session. Timing at the test centers continued as scheduled, although the examinees at one test center were given an additional 5 minutes to complete the session.

Following conclusion of the morning session, staff proceeded to ensure that all those taking and administering the examination were safe and each test center was inspected by the facilities’ engineers to confirm that the buildings were structurally sound.

The afternoon sessions began on time without any further major seismic incident. Immediately following conclusion of the examination, the Committee asked its psychometric consultants to investigate whether the earthquake may have had an impact on examinee scores. The Committee’s consultants found that the earthquake appeared to have impacted some of the nine Southern California test centers differently.

Based on the calculations and recommendations of its experts, the Committee decided to adjust the scores of some examinees, by test center, with additional points as a function of how much, if any, the test center where they were taking the examination was impacted.

The report of the study can be found on the Admissions’ portion of the State Bar’s Web pages at www.calbar.ca.gov/admissions

The Committee believes that the process by which the scores were adjusted for the July 2008 California Bar Examination is the fairest for all examinees and that it has taken appropriate steps to adjust the scores of those who were impacted by the earthquake.

Reprinted from the California Bar Journal

Back to Archives

FEATURED MODEL ANSWER FROM BARPERFECT: Model answer to Essay 3 of the July 2008 California Bar Exam

Archived Article December 2008......

[WRITER’S NOTE: Remember, ultimately, a response is a good response if it demonstrates problem-solving ability. Your final conclusion could differ than what is set forth herein. As long as your thought-process was evident, however, your grade would be a good one. Even if your law is a little bit off.

Stylistically, this writer is not a fan of lead-in / roadmap paragraphs. First, such paragraphs do not propel your analysis – they are a waste of your time. Second, your lead-in / roadmap paragraph could be wrong, and that could taint the grader’s view of your entire essay, making her maybe stop reading altogether. So, you will not find a “Builder’s rights against Owner will depend on whether . . .” paragraph here.

Turning to the conclusions within this particular essay. (1) Could you argue that there was no contract in place between Owner and Builder? You probably could as long as you provided the necessary analysis. To this writer, though, there was a fence-building contract in place and all analysis that followed flowed from that contention. (2) Could you argue that Owner only agreed to have a fence built and not necessarily a redwood fence, and, therefore, Builder bore the risk of building a redwood fence? Of course you could – just be sure to provide the analysis to support your contention. (3) Could you argue that there was no genuine dispute and Owner was simply trying to extort a cheaper price? You could; but your analysis would still need to center on whether there was a valid agreement for Owner's proposed price of $5,500, even if you did not think the facts warranted an accord-and-satisfaction analysis.

Lastly,  this essay response was purposely written WITHOUT rule statements. Yes, you can write a good response WITHOUT rule statements.]
    
PRELIMINARY NEGOTIATION
Owner’s (O) asking Builder (B) for an estimate would likely be construed as a Preliminary Negotiation. Such a request would fall far short of an offer because it certainly did not create in B the power of acceptance.

OFFER
B’s estimate, in turn, for both the cedar fence and the redwood fence would be classified as an Offer. Certainly, B’s estimate created in O the power to accept in that O simply had to say yes or no to B’s fence-building offer. All said, when B gave O signed estimates that articulated fence building with specific prices, B outwardly manifested and communicated his intent to be bound by contract, to O.

ACCEPTANCE
While O did say she wanted to think about a redwood fence, she, nonetheless, stated that she wanted the fence completed by June 1st because of a charity event being held in her backyard. Given the circumstances, this communication by O could certainly be viewed as an acceptance of B’s offer to build O either a redwood or cedar fence. O has accepted B’s fence-building offer.

CONSIDERATION
Consideration is present as money is being exchanged for fence building.

U.C.C. or COMMON LAW
While it appears that mutual assent is present in the O and B agreement, there could be a question as to what law will be applied. Is this a contract for services or goods, or both?

PREDOMINANT-PURPOSE TEST
While B’s estimate includes prices for both labor and goods, ultimately fence-building will be viewed as labor-intensive and service-oriented, even though the cost of wood for the redwood fence, at least, is more than the labor. All said, the common law will likely govern the contract between O and B.

 

 

 

CEDAR FENCE or REDWOOD FENCE?
As discussed supra, there is a fence-building contract in place between O and B, but there is an ambiguity as to what type of fence O is obligating herself to. B will argue that O obligated herself to a redwood fence because she never returned his call when he in essence said that he would start to build the redwood fence if she did not return his call. B will argue that O indicated on her answering machine that she would be checking her messages daily and would return calls promptly. When O did not get back to B in a timely fashion, B will argue that he had every right to interpret O’s silence as an acceptance. To strengthen B’s argument, the facts indicate that O did in fact receive B’s message, which means that O should have called B back immediately, especially since B indicated in his voice message that he would begin building the redwood fence if O did not get back to him otherwise.

While B seems to have a strong argument that O authorized the building of the redwood fence, O will of course argue that she never agreed to a redwood fence – she only agreed to a fence being built, and that B therefore assumed the risk of building the more-expensive redwood fence without her explicit approval.

Both sides considered, O’s not getting back to B when she in fact was in undisputed receipt of his voice message regarding going forward with the redwood fence, would probably make a jury side with B. Ultimately, B should be paid by O for the building of the redwood fence, which was indeed built in time for the charity event that O spoke of. B fulfilled his contractual duties and conditions.

ACCORD & SATISFICATION?
While there did not seem to be any genuine dispute over price until O offered to pay B $5,500.00, -- and even then there was no dispute in that B immediately acquiesced --, O’s offer to not sue and pay B only $5,500.00 for the redwood fence and B’s subsequent acceptance of the reduced price, could be viewed as a valid accord and satisfaction. In such a situation, B’s mere acceptance would suffice as the consideration. If viewed as a valid accord and satisfaction, O would only be obligated to pay B the $5,500.00 (which appears to be the average price quoted by B for the building of both fences: $4,000 (cedar) + $7,000 (redwood) = $11,000). Incidentally, O’s offer to pay B $5,500.00 seems to indicate that O herself believed that she had obligated herself to at least have a fence built, if not a redwood fence.

If B’s agreement to accept the lesser price is viewed as valid, O’s subsequent change of heart will have no effect. Once B accepted, the accord and satisfaction was binding. In reality, B was not “too late”.

QUASI-CONTRACT / UNJUSTMENT ENRICHMENT
If, for some reason, there is no contract found between O and B, B will likely to be able to receive an equitable amount from O, especially because B, under the circumstances, was not a mere volunteer. There were enough dealings between the two parties for a jury to likely find at least a quasi-contract between O and B. Under such a theory, O would be unjustly enriched if she paid B nothing.

                This answer was provided by Barperfect Bar Review (www.barperfect.com). To access the text of the question’s fact pattern, visit www.calbar.org

 

 
   

 

 

Back to Archives

 
Front Page Archived Articles View Current Issue Archived Issues Contact Us Forum Newsletter Preview Ad Rates/Sizes
clsj1994.com copyright 2005-2020