Tag: Bar Exam

  • Will I pass the Bar Exam?

    I have passed the bar in three jurisdictions and I cannot think of a single time I left the bar examination hall feeling confident I had passed. After my first bar exam, which was in New York, I spent almost an hour with other examinees sharing the exam experience, and all of us were fixated only on one question: Will I pass the bar exam?

    The week after the exam is often the hardest. I have heard many examinees talk about vivid dreams where they realized the issues in a question they failed to spot, or panic that their analysis was incorrect. I can relate to those fears completely. After my February 2024 California Bar Exam, my third jurisdiction, I dreamed about the ConLaw essay at least three times that week, certain that I had failed the essay and therefore the entire exam.

    However, passing or failing an exam is more than just missing out on issues in one essay or having made a few mistakes. The bar exam is so broad and so comprehensive. It tests our knowledge of almost 3000 legal rules, our ability to apply law to the facts with clarity under time pressure and also cuts us some slack in making mistakes. So, unless one is able to recall the entire exam and analyze their performance accurately there is literally no way to predict whether they have passed or failed the exam.

    Yes, one could have a hunch, an intuition, a feeling. But I have often seen that also to be proven wrong. I have seen candidates who were certain that they had passed. But when the bar released questions and model answers, they were shocked to see missed issues or cursory analysis that lost them marks. The NCBE never releases their recent MBE questions and answers, so that score remains a big mystery to all of us.

    Last year, a week after my third bar exam, I decided to stop pondering the dreaded question of whether I had passed. I made a plan and stuck with it: I would save all my notes and be prepared to retake in July, however, during March and April I would take time off from bar prep and focus on my other activities and relaxation techniques. I also picked out a restaurant which didn’t require reservations and where I planned a small celebration, partly so that I don’t spend March and April worried or anxious.

    In May, on the day that the results came out, none of my relaxation techniques worked. That evening I logged into the portal 10 minutes early and my results had already been posted. I had passed! That Saturday, my sushi tasted heavenly.

  • Understanding the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP)

    Whether one is studying for their property law exam in 1L or studying for the bar exam, the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) has frustrated many law students. The truth is that RAP it’s complex. Let us help to break it down for you for the bar exam.

    • The Rule: No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.
    • Context: RAP was created by courts at common law to prevent landowners from controlling their estates from the grave for centuries. Prior to the creation of the RAP, a curmudgeon landowner could create elaborate conditions through a will causing contingent ownership based on uncertain events, effectively tying up land infinitely. RAP voids vague and uncertain transfers of interest and promotes certainty in land ownership.
    • Why RAP is hard: RAP requires a four-dimensional brain to calculate the creation of an interest, determining whose life is to be measured, and whether the interest has vested by the end of that life + 21 years. One must evaluate every possible scenario at the moment the interest is created to determine if it’s void or not.

    Breaking Down the Rule Against Perpetuities

    To break down RAP, let’s understand it in a simpler language.

    RAP prevents remote vesting of property interests by requiring that (1) any future contingent interest must vest no later than (2) 21 years after the death of (3) a measuring life (some life in being) which existed at the creation of the interest.

    • Step 1: Identify the future interest. RAP only applies to contingent remainders, executory interests, and vested remainders subject to open (class gifts). It does not apply to vested remainders, reversions, or possibilities of reverter.
      • Note: A remainder can go to either an ascertainable person (vested) or an unascertainable person (contingent).
    • Step 2: Find the measuring life. Look for a “life in being” at the time the interest was created, someone whose life or death affects when the interest will vest. This is often the grantor, a beneficiary, or someone named in the condition.
    • Step 3: Speculate death of the measuring life, and add 21 years. RAP does not require the interest to vest within someone’s lifetime + 21 years after death. It only requires certainty that either the interest will vest or fail within this period. If there is any possible scenario, no matter how remote, that the interest might fail to vest 21 years after the death of the measuring life then the interest is void from the start.
    • Apply the “what if” test ruthlessly. Courts assume absurd possibilities: a 60-year-old woman could have more children, a person could marry someone not yet born, etc. These hypotheticals often fail otherwise reasonable transfers of interest in land.
    • Consequences: When RAP is violated the offending language is deleted.

    Examples of RAP

    Compare (1) “To A for life, then to A’s children who reach age 18”, and (2) “To A for life, then to A’s children who reach age 25”.

    Step 1: Here, the future interest is a contingent remainder. We don’t know if A has children who would meet the condition precedent (reaching age 18 or 25) to get the estate. If A has at least one child then we have a vested remainder subject to open.

    Step 2: Here, A is the measuring life.

    Step 3:

    • In Scenario 1 (Age 18): The interest is valid. Let’s say A has a child one day before dying. 21 years after A dies, A’s child will have reached age 18. If the child dies before age 18, the interest fails but within the timeframe of RAP.
    • In Scenario 2 (Age 25): The interest is void. Let’s say A has a child one day before dying. RAP requires measuring life + 21 years. A’s child cannot turn 25 within 21 years of A’s death. Therefore, the condition violates RAP and the interest is void.

    Consequences: When RAP is violated the offending language is deleted. Here, in scenario 2, the grant will become, “To A for life”. A holds a life estate, and because the remainder fails, the grantor retains a reversion in fee simple absolute upon A’s death.

  • Study Plan for the Bar Exam For The Last Month

    The month before the bar exam is often the most stressful, but also the most defining period of your study journey. Remember that memory kicks into high gear before a significant event, and we recall information better under pressure. Therefore, this one month period matters. At this stage, your study plan should focus on three core activities:

    a) Daily Memorization of Black Letter Law,

    b) Practice MBE Questions (approx. 25-35), and

    c) Timed Essay Writing (one to two).

    1. The Morning Warm-Up: 25–35 MBE Questions

    Begin each morning with 25–35 MBE questions.

    • Switch Between Focused and Mixed: Some days, target a specific MBE subject or topic; other days, mix them up. Your brain needs to get used to “context switching” rapidly between different areas of law, just like on exam day. But it’s still early enough that you want to do a deep dive within each MBE subject.
    • The Strategy: Use these questions as a planning tool for your daily memorization of black letter law. Always track the legal topics that you missed.
    • The Rule: Don’t go down the rabbit hole of spending hours researching case law on topics you missed, or every single distractor answer choice. Note what you got wrong, find the rule, and move on.

    2. Daily Memorization of Black Letter Law

    Dedicate at least two hours each day to memorize black letter law.

    • The 50/50 Split: Devote half of your memorization time on the topics you missed during your morning MBE session. This creates a feedback loop between practice and review. Spend the other half on your known weak areas.
    • Revision is Critical: Review the law that you got right last week or last month. Revision keeps the black letter law at the front of your mind. Confidence in familiar topics fades quickly without reinforcement.

    3. Timed Essay Writing

    Put it to the test.

    • Integrate Daily Memorization of the Law with Essays: Pick essay topics that align with black letter law you just memorized. This lets your revise what you learned, and builds confidence in your ability to apply the law under pressure.
    • IRAC: Graders are looking for the IRAC methodology: Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. Their primary focus is on your knowledge of the R (Rule) and A (Analysis).
    • Analysis Over Conclusion: You earn points by spotting issues, stating accurate rules, and applying them to the facts. Even if your conclusion differs from the model answer, a strong rule and analysis can still carry you to a passing score.
    • The Review: After you finish writing your essays, review the model answer to confirm that you spotted all the issues, wrote down the rules and definitions accurately using the keywords graders look for, and analyzed facts sufficiently.

    For daily memorization of black letter law, try BarTaker.com. We organize our content by MBE subjects and topics and provide you with a personalized dashboard to help you target your weak spots. Don’t let financial inability prevent you from using BarTaker. Email us to inquire how we can help.

  • Private Nuisance in Tort Law

    Nuisance is a frequently tested topic on the MBE and essay portions of the bar exam. Nuisance can be public or private. This blog post covers private nuisance.

    Private Nuisance

    Definition: Private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with another person’s use and enjoyment of their land.

    Substantial interference is something that is annoying, offensive, or inconvenient to an average person. Unreasonable interference is when the harm caused by the activity is greater than the benefit from the activity. For private nuisance claims, the plaintiff must have a possessory interest in the land. Ownership of land is not required.

    Note that private nuisance is analyzed using an objective standard.

    Consider an example: A landlord rents their home to a tenant. The home across the street plays extremely loud music at night. The tenant is deaf and cannot hear the music. However, on one occasion the landlord is visiting the tenant and hears the loud music. The landlord wants to bring an injunction to stop the nuisance. The homeowner argues that since the tenant is deaf and the landlord does not live there, the music is not a nuisance to the landowner. Therefore, they should be allowed to play it at the desired volume.

    Here, the landlord would prevail. Subjectively speaking, the tenant is not experiencing the nuisance from the loud music because they are deaf. However, private nuisance claims are evaluated using an objective standard. Loud music at night is annoying, offensive and inconvenient to an average person. It is unreasonable interference in the use and enjoyment of one’s land. The landlord has a possessory interest in land as owner of the property.

    Remedies for private nuisance included damages and injunctive relief. Here, the landlord can obtain an injunction.

  • A Guide to Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) and Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) for the Bar Exam

    Jurisdiction is a core concept for Civil Procedure on the bar exam. The two frequently tested concepts to know are: Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction.

    The Fundamental Distinction: What vs. Who

    • Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) is about whether the court havs proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
    • Personal Jurisdiction (PJ) is about whether the court has proper jurisdiction over the parties to the action, especially the defendant.

    Constitutional Limits

    • Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal courts have limited jurisdiction under the constitution. They can only hear cases that clearly meet constitutional requirements.
    • Personal Jurisdiction: Before a forum state can exercise jurisdiction over non-resident individuals, it must meet the constitutional requirement of sufficient minimum contacts. This protects individuals from being hauled into courts where they have no meaningful connection.

    Two Ways to Subject Matter Jurisdiction

    A federal court can only exercise SMJ if the case falls into one of two categories:

    1. Federal Question: If the plaintiff’s claim “arises under” any one of the below federal law, the federal court has SMJ.

    • US Constitution
    • Federal Statutes
    • Executive Actions
    • Treaties

    2. Diversity of Citizenship: The case must meet both of the below two requirements:

    • Complete Diversity: No plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant,
      AND,
    • Amount in Controversy: The amount of damages must exceed $75,000, not including interests or costs.

    Personal Jurisdiction: State Residents vs. Non-Residents

    For State Residents: Jurisdiction can be established through any one of the three traditional bases:

    1. Consent (Express or Implied), OR
    2. Presence and Service: Defendant present and served within the forum state, OR
    3. Domicile: Defendant is domiciled in the forum state

    For Non-Residents: The Two-Step Analysis

    1. Long-Arm Statute: The state must have a law allowing jurisdiction over the non-resident.
    2. Sufficient Minimum Contacts: This is a constitutional test. The defendant must have sufficient minimum contact with the forum state such that asserting PJ over him does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This constitutional test includes four key elements:
      • Purposeful Availment: The defendant deliberately availed benefits and protections of forum state
      • Foreseeability: It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s activities in the forum state could subject the defendant to being haled into court there.
      • Relatedness of Claim: The claim arises from the defendant’s conduct or contact with the forum state.
        • General Jurisdiction: Systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state such that the defendant is essentially “at home” there.
        • Specific Jurisdiction: The claim arises from the defendant’s specific activity in the forum state.
      • Fairness Factors Even if the above elements are met, the court must consider whether exercising jurisdiction is fair and does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.
        • Convenience of forum to parties
        • State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute
        • Other interests including interstate efficiency and plaintiff’s interest in the forum.

    Conclusion

    • SMJ focuses on the case; PJ focuses on the parties.
    • Both have constitutional limits protecting different interests.
    • SMJ requires either federal question OR diversity + amount to exceed 75K
    • PJ uses traditional bases for state residents. For non-residents, PJ requires long-arm statute + “sufficient minimum contacts” test.