Game 1: The First Half
When it was announced that we were to begin, it was almost like Zeus releasing the kraken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SqC_m3yUDU&feature=related). It was time to do battle and go at it.
I was very prepared with my supplies. Most people type up answers on the bar exam, but you have to be prepared just in case everything goes to hell in a handbasket. I had my pens and my highlighters just in case I had to write out the exam if my computer crashed. I had my glasses just in case a contact just popped out of my eye. I had my medication too. You may or may not know this, but I suffer from extreme acid reflux in the morning. When I wake up, without fail, I will start gagging and sounding pretty gross. When I’m nervous, the same exact thing happens. I had with me in the bar a bottle full of tums. I also had my acid reducers and a bottle of Tylenol just in case. The first hour of writing, I was popping tums like they were candy because I had to hold the acid down. Yeah…it was pretty bad.
I’m starting to talk about the substance of the test. I was THAT tempted to be a jerk and start talking about the essays were on different subjects than they actually were. “Did you know that essay 2 was a PR/Remedies/Con Law crossover?” But none of that from me. It is interesting, though, how the memory of the fact patterns and the subjects and the questions asked are so vividly etched in my mind.
For the first question, the first thing I saw, “What are P’s rights against 1. Homeowner, 2. Burglar, 3. Movieowner.” “GOOD!” I thought to myself. Its torts, I know that! Second question, “what ethical violations has Lawyer committed?” AWESOME! Professional responsibility. I think of myself as fairly ethical, that should be alright. Last question, the first thing I see is “answer according to California law.” Then five questions regarding five pieces of evidence. Great…I know this, but I’ll have to really racehorse through this bad boy.
So, I start working on the first question. It was very reassuring that this was the first question. The fact pattern required a discussion on intentional torts and negligence as the primary issues. Those are areas that we learned in the first semester of torts in the first year in law school. It was a heck of a question because there were a lot of things to bring up and to discuss, but it was VERY fair. After an hour, I felt like I talked about what I needed to talk about and although I couldn’t go as in depth as I like, that was as good and “lawyer-like” as I could make it.
Second question was on professional responsibility and I look over it and start thinking, “this is a little too simple.” And it’s one of those questions that, if you really take it for granted, you can easily fail it. The fact pattern involved three clients and joint representation and we had to identify the ethical issues. As I looked deeper into it, there were a lot of things wrong with the situation. Although most of them dealt with the “duty of loyalty” and conflicts of interest, we had to discuss specific instances where the lawyer violated that duty of loyalty and what she was actually required to do.
The third question, I believe, was BY FAR the most difficult question among all the questions on the written portion of the bar examination. It wasn’t so much that it was difficult to understand. The fact pattern is simple: guy gets charged with crime. Both sides seek to introduce evidence against and for him. Five pieces of evidence. Discuss. The issues are extremely straightforward. The problem is that there just isn’t enough time to talk about them all.
I think for 4 of the 5 calls we had to talk about hearsay. One of the hearsay questions was discussing multiple levels of hearsay. For each of the hearsay questions, there were about 2-3 exceptions that needed to be discussed. 4 of the pieces of evidence had serious character evidence implications and relevance issues that needed to be addressed. One of them involved the California secondary evidence rule. A couple of them had serious foundational testimonial issues. That’s just a lot to write in an hour. Basically all we had time for was to headnote, write the rule, plug in facts, and state a conclusion. I was rushing through the whole time. But the good thing about that question is, that I at least finished it.
One thing that I noticed about the first day was the adrenaline rush that I had. The anxiety that I felt quickly translated to some hyper-concentration. That was as locked in as I ever felt in my life. I would be typing and it seemed like I was typing for seconds, but I find out 5 minutes passed by. I would look up and be wondering to myself “why is it so bright in here” time to start writing again. Things just really flowed and it felt really good. I guess it’s what people who abuse adderall feel like.
So when the proctor called time, there was a real sense of relief. The first session was over and I survived! No real catastrophic mistakes or occurrences. Maybe I can be a lawyer after all! As soon as we’re let go, there’s a mad rush out of there. You could almost hear the collective sighs. People immediately start talking about what they wrote on and what they should have written on or forgot.
