July 2024 Bar Exam Results

Almost all states release some data as to how the candidates in their state performed and I'll organize all that data below as it comes in.

Once scores are released, I'll post here in this post the pass percentages for each state. Listed, for comparison, will be the percentages for both July 2024 and July 2023. Also listed when available will be the number of examinees in each state who took the most recent exam. 

Alabama:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 57%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 54%

# of test takers: 561

Arizona:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 69%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 68%

# of test takers: 505

Arkansas:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 72%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 70%

# of test takers: 261

Colorado:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 80%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 74%

# of test takers: 744

Connecticut:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 63%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 56%

# of test takers: 411

Delaware:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 67%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 64%

# of test takers: 199

Florida:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 65%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 61%

# of test takers: 2,892

Georgia:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 70%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 70%

# of test takers: 1,181

Hawaii:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 68%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 63%

# of test takers: 168

Idaho:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 71%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 66%

# of test takers: N/A

Illinois:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 72%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 70%

# of test takers: 2,276

Indiana:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 73%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 70%

# of test takers: 466

Iowa:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 84%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 86%

# of test takers: 189

Kansas:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 76%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 77%

# of test takers: 156

Kentucky:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 77%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 76%

# of test takers: 366

Louisiana:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 66%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 70%

# of test takers: 535

Maine:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 73%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 68%

# of test takers: N/A

Michigan:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 64%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 55%

# of test takers: 769

Mississippi:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 80%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 73%

# of test takers: 151

Missouri:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 80%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 81%

# of test takers: 640

Nebraska:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 79%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 70%

# of test takers: 229

Nevada:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 65%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 63%

# of test takers: 359

New Hampshire:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 75%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 63%

# of test takers: 115

New Jersey:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 65%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 61%

# of test takers: 1,038

New Mexico:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 69%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 71%

# of test takers: 196

North Carolina:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 74%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 69%

# of test takers: 882

North Dakota:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 69%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 60%

# of test takers: 68

Oklahoma:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 77%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 68%

# of test takers: 407

Oregon:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 74%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 69%

# of test takers: 421

Pennsylvania:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 77%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 71%

# of test takers: 1,497

South Dakota:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 74%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 74%

# of test takers: 80

Tennessee:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 72%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 67%

# of test takers: 759

Texas:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 75%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 71%

# of test takers: 3,323

Utah:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 88%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 92%

# of test takers: 336

Vermont:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 53%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 58%

# of test takers: 49

Virginia:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 74%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 75%

# of test takers: N/A

Washington:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 73%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 70%

# of test takers: 734

West Virginia:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 72%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 72%

# of test takers: 132

Wisconsin

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 62%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 58%

# of test takers: 120

Wyoming:

July 2024 Pass Percentage: 65%

July 2023 Pass Percentage: 80%

# of test takers: 52

States That Have Adopted The NextGen Bar Exam

This post will be ongoing and updated as new states/territories adopt the NextGen Bar Exam. Also listed is the date of first administration.

Arizona:
July 2027

Colorado:

July 2028

Connecticut: 

July 2026

Florida:

July 2028

Georgia: 

July 2028

Guam

July 2028

Illinois:

July 2028

Indiana

July 2028

Iowa:

July 2027

Kansas:

July 2028

Kentucky:

July 2027

Maryland:

July 2026

Minnesota:

July 2027

Missouri:

July 2026

Nebraska:

July 2027

New Mexico:

July 2027

North Dakota:

July 2027

Oklahoma:

July 2028

Oregon:

July 2026

Tennessee:

July 2027

Texas:

July 2028

Utah: 

July 2028

Vermont:

July 2027

Washington:

July 2026

West Virginia:

July 2027

Wyoming:

July 2027

Termination of an Easement

Assume that a valid easement has been created. Easements do not, necessarily, last indefinitely, so it must be determined how a valid easement that has been created can be terminated. And there are quite a few ways to do so. 

Estoppel pops up from time to time in multiple areas of law. Here, too, even an oral expression of an intent to abandon an easement might terminate the easement if the person burdened by the easement materially changes his/her position in reasonable reliance on the easement holder's assurances that the easement will be abandoned. 

Easements created by necessity can, likewise, terminate as soon as the necessity ends. If the land burdened by an easement (the servient estate) is destroyed, any easement on the land is terminated. 

An interesting issue that sometimes shows up on the exam is sort of a hybrid easement/eminent domain issue. Imagine that the land burdened by an easement is rightfully condemned by the government. Any easement on the land condemned is terminated. Whether the easement holder is entitled to any of the compensation required to be paid by the government is a question not entirely agreed upon by the courts. 

Another avenue for terminating an easement is through release. A release by the person benefitted by the easement to the person burdened by the easement will terminate the easement. Similarly, abandoning the easement will terminate it, but be sure that there is some physical act (rather than just an oral promise to abandon) that evidences the intent to abandon (for example, building a structure that blocks the easement).

An important method for terminating an easement is termination by merger. An easement is extinguished when title to the easement and title to the land burdened by the easement become vested in the same person. If the same person acquires ownership of both the easement and the servient estate, these merge and the easement is terminated. 

Lastly, an easement may be terminated by prescription. Here the owner of the land burdened by the easement adversely possesses the easement in such a way that the easement is terminated. The elements are similar but slightly different than the elements traditional to adverse possession. To terminate an easement through prescription, the owner of the servient estate must continuously interfere with the easement holder's right to use the easement, and that interference must be open/notorious, actual, and hostile to the easement holder. As with creating an easement by prescription, the element of exclusivity is not required. 

Confusing a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition vs. Confusing a Sufficient Condition for a Necessary Condition (LSAT)

Two different answer choices might show up on the LSAT. The first says that a flaw has occurred because someone has confused a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. The other says that a flaw has occurred because someone has confused a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. These sound alike but they are different. In fact, the same question might contain both of these answers choices! 

Imagine a school teacher says, "only if you hand in the permission slip can you go on the school trip."

A student hands in the slip and thinks "I can go on the trip!"

Not exactly, no. The teacher said that handing in the slip is a necessary condition for going on the trip. The student assumed, though, that handing in the slip is all that is required for going on the trip. In LSAT lingo, the student has taken a necessary condition and confused it for a sufficient condition.

Now, instead, assume that someone says "if you score a 180 on the LSAT, you'll get into Yale Law School." A listener who scores a 175 presumes that he won't get in because he did not score a 180.

Again, incorrect. Scoring a 180, as stated, was enough to get in to Yale Law School; it was sufficient. But the listener thought it was required. Here, again in LSAT lingo, the listener has taken a sufficient condition and confused it for a necessary condition.

These two answer choices mean different things, so be sure to understand the differences!

Creation of Easements

In a recent post, I outlined the different types of easements that show up on the bar exam. But the first part of any easement analysis will be to determine whether a valid easement has been created. There are multiple ways in which that can happen, and the most straight-forward way is by grant. 

To grant an easement, that easement must be memorialized in writing and signed by the holder of the servient tenement (the land burdened by the easement) unless its duration is brief enough to be outside of the Statute of Frauds. 

A writing is not, however, required to create an easement by implication (an implied easement). Rather, implied easements are created by operation of law, and can take many forms. The first form is known as an easement implied from preexisting use (sometimes referred to as a quasi easement). Here, one person owns two lots. The person who owns both lots sells one of the lots without any mention as to whether the buyer will have an easement over the other lot. The court will imply an easement for the buyer to use the other lot if the previous use of the other lot was apparent to the buyer when the buyer purchased the land from the seller, and if it would have been reasonable for the buyer to expect that the use of both lots would continue after the sale of one of the lots to buyer. 

There are also implied easements without preexisting use. In one scenario, lots are sold in a subdivision with reference to a recorded plat or map that shows streets leading to the lots. Buyers of those lots have an implied easement to use the streets to access those lots. In another scenario, anyone with a profit a prendre (the right to take resources such as minerals or timber or etc. from the land of another) will have an implied easement to pass over the surface of that land in order to extract those resources. 

Another type of implied easement, and one that is often tested, is called an easement by necessity. This easement will be implied if a landowner (the grantor) conveys a portion of land and the buyer has no way out from the purchased land except over some part of the grantor's remaining land. In other words, the buyer is landlocked. 

If you understand well adverse possession, you'll also understand the next type of implied easement called an easement by prescription. Just as with adverse possession, to acquire a prescriptive easement requires continuous and uninterrupted use of the easement for the statutory period, open and notorious use of the easement, actual use, and hostile use. You might notice that the difference between a prescriptive easement and adverse possession is that the use need not be exclusive to acquire a prescriptive easement. To be sure, an easement will never be exclusive since by its nature someone is merely using the land of another. Title is not acquired by a prescriptive easement as it is by adverse passion. What's gained is the right to continue to use the property of another person. 

Lastly, once an easement has been created, the scope of the easement must be determined. That's easy enough if the easement was created by grant: the scope is determined by the terms of the grant. If an easement is created by implication, then scope will be determined by the conditions that created it. A standard of reasonableness is a good rule of thumb.

The landowner burdened by the easement may select the location of the easement as long as that selection is reasonable. If there are no specific limitations selected, courts assume that the easement was intended to meet both present and future needs of the person benefited by the easement. 

The landowner burdened by the easement generally may use the burdened land in any manner, provided that such use does not interfere with the easement. The person benefited by the easement must make repairs to the easement if that person is the sole user of the easement. If both the benefited person and landowner burdened by the easement are both users of the easement, court will apportion repair costs among them. 

 

Types of Easements

The topic of easements quickly becomes complex. But a great place to begin is to understand that there are two main types of easements: affirmative easements and negative easements. And then within each type, there are appurtenant easements and easements in gross. With that backdrop, it's easier to fill in the details. 

Most easements are affirmative. An affirmative easement gives the easement holder (sometimes called the dominant tenant) the right to do something on the servient tenement (the land imposed upon by the easement). 

A negative easement, on the other hand, entitles the dominant tenant to prevent the servient tenant from doing something on the servient tenement that would otherwise be permissible. Unlike affirmative easements, negative easements can be only be created expressly by a writing signed by the grantor. 

Both positive and negative easements can be either appurtenant or in gross. An easement appurtenant is one that benefits the holder of the easement in the physical use of the easement holder's own land. Think of it this way: two parcels of land are involved in an easement appurtenant, and the ability to use another's land benefits a person in that person's use of his own land. The classic example here would be when the holder of an easement is given the right of way across another's land.

An easement in gross, in contrast, benefits the holder of the easement, but the benefit is a personal or pecuniary benefit that is not related to the holder's use of the holder's own land. As an example, imagine a holder of an easement is given the right to swim on another's land. The privilege has nothing to do with the holder's own land: the land on which the holder of the easement can swim is burdened, however. 

This distinction might seem academic, but there are practical consequences. An appurtenant easement passes automatically if the holder of the easement (the person benefited by the easement) transfers the land benefited by the easement. This is true regardless of whether the easement is mentioned in the conveyance. It's said that the easement "runs with the land." 

Likewise, if the land burdened by the easement is transferred, the purchaser of the burdened land will be burdened by that easement unless the purchaser is a bona fide purchaser without notice of the easement. An easement in gross, in contrast, in not transferable (it does not "run with the land") unless it is for commercial purposes. 

The next post will focus on the various ways that easements are created. 

Depositions, Interrogatories, and Medical Exams

There's a lot to know about discovery for Civil Procedure on the bar exam. Three avenues for discovery (though this is not an exhaustive list) are depositions, interrogatories, and medical exams. Each has nuances to keep in mind. First, depositions.

The questions in a deposition can be either oral or written; both parties and non-parties may be deposed, and all are under oath while answering deposition questions. A subpoena is not required to depose a party to the lawsuit; a notice of deposition is sufficient. In contrast, a non-party must be served with a subpoena. 

Unless a non-party agrees otherwise, the farthest a non-party can be required to travel to a deposition is 100 miles from where the non-party resides or is employed. The party taking the deposition cannot take more than 10 depositions nor may the party depose the same person twice without court approval or stipulation. Depositions cannot exceed seven hours in the same day unless the court orders otherwise or unless the parties stipulate otherwise. 

Depositions serve multiple purposes: first, they can be used to impeach the deponent at trial. They can be used for any purpose if the deponent is an adverse party, and they can be used for any purpose if the deponent (party or non-party) is unavailable at trial unless that absence was procured by the party seeking to introduce the deposition testimony. 

Another avenue for discovery is interrogatories. Interrogatories are written questions that are answered in writing under oath. In contact to depositions, interrogatories are sent only to parties, never to non-parties. Although this may vary by court order or stipulation, the maximum number of interrogatories is 25, including subparts. 

Interrogatories must be answered within 30 days from the time they are served upon the recipient, and they must be answered based upon information reasonably available. Sometimes, answers to interrogatories might be found in business records. If the burden of finding such answers would be about equivalent for either party, the responding party can allow the requesting party to have access to those business records.

Another avenue for discovery is the medical exam (either physical or mental). A court order is required to compel a party (or a person in the party's custody and control) to submit to a medical exam. If making such a request, there are requirements: A party must show that the person who will be subject to the exam has a health issue that is in controversy and that there is good cause for requesting the exam. The requesting party chooses the licensed medical professional to perform the exam. 

Once the court orders a medical exam, the medical professional will write a report and then provide that report to the requesting party. The person undergoing the exam is also entitled to a copy of the report, if requested. 

If that party then receives the report, that party must (on request) produce all medical reports about the same condition by the party's own doctor. Any doctor-patient privilege that the party might have had with that doctor is waived regarding that specific medical condition. 

Class Action Lawsuits

Both procedural and substantive aspects are tested in the area of class action lawsuits. This post will cover both. 

A class action lawsuit is distinguished from other types of lawsuits in that in a class action lawsuit, representatives sue on behalf of a group.  There are four requirements that must be met to qualify for a class action lawsuit.

First, there must be so many class members that the traditional rules of joinder would not be practicable. There also must be issues in common to all class members. It also must be true that the class representative's claim are typical of the claims of the class. Lastly, the class representative must fairly and adequately represent the class. 

If the four requirements above are satisfied, next is to ensure that the action falls within an acceptable type of class action lawsuit. There are 3 acceptable types. In type 1, class treatment is necessary to avoid prejudice either to class members or to non class members. In type 2, the class action seeks an injunction or declaratory judgment because defendant treated all class members alike. In type 3, common questions must predominate over individual questions, and, thus, a class action is the more appropriate method to handle the dispute. More to say on this third one in a bit. 

Procedurally, a case is not a class action until the court grants the motion to certify it as a class action. Likewise, the court must define the class ( along with class claims, issues, and defenses) and appoint class counsel who must fairly and adequately represents the interests of the class. An immediate appeal as to the court's decision on certification (an interlocutory appeal) is allowable.

In a type 3 class action lawsuit (and only in that type), the court must notify class members that they are in a class. The purpose of the notice is to allow reasonably identifiable members of the class to opt out. The notice informs the members that they will be bound by the judgment if they don't opt out, and that they can enter a separate appearance through counsel. 

Settlement of class action lawsuits vary a bit from settlement of non class action lawsuits. Court approval is required to settle, and the court must give notice to the class members to get feedback on whether the case should be settled or dismissed. In a type 3 class action lawsuit, the court also might refuse to approve the settlement unless members are given another opportunity to opt out. 

There are a few nuances to understand about subject matter jurisdiction in class action lawsuits. Federal question jurisdiction is the same as it is for non class action lawsuits. If jurisdiction is based on diversity, only the citizenship of the class representative is considered and only the class representative's claim must exceed $75,000. 

Also worth noting is the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Under CAFA, a federal court can hear a class action (regardless of federal question or diversity jurisdiction) if there are at least 100 class members,  any class member (not just the representative) is of diverse citizenship from any defendant, and the aggregated claims of the class exceed 5 million dollars. And under CAFA, any defendant (even one domiciled in the state where the case is brought) may remove the case from state to federal court 

Pleadings

As with so much in Civil Procedure, there's a lot to cover on the topic of pleadings. I think the best way to organize this topic is to consider what you need to know about plaintiff's complaint, and then to consider what you need to know about defendant's answer. Then, a bit about amending pleadings. To begin, plaintiff's complaint. 

There are 3 things that must be included in the complaint. First, a statement of grounds for subject matter jurisdiction. Next, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. And, lastly, a demand for relief sought. There is one exception to keep in mind: when a complaint alleges fraud, mistake, or special damages, the complaint must be pleaded with more detail. It's said that in such instances, the complaint must be pleaded with particularity or specificity.

When stating a short and plain statement of the claim, plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to support a plausible claim. If defendant believes that plaintiff has not done that, an opportunity arises for defendant to file a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. 

Once the complaint has been served to defendant, defendant has 2 options. Defendant can answer the complaint, or respond by motion. Regardless, defendant must respond no later than 21 days after being served with process. That time is extended if defendant waived service; if waived, defendant has 60 days to respond from when plaintiff mailed the waiver form.

A variety of motions are available to defendant when responding to plaintiff's complaint. A rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is made prior to an answer and is used when the complaint is so vague or ambiguous that defendant cannot respond. A rule 12(f) motion to strike asks the court to remove redundant or immaterial things from a pleading. 

A 12(b) motion can set forth a variety of defenses. Some of those defenses are waived if not included in the first response to the complaint. Those waivable defenses are lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, improper process, and improper service of process.

Other defenses are not waived. Both the defense of failure to state a claim and the defense of failure to join an indispensable party can be made as late as at trial. A defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. 

If defendant makes a 12(e), 12(f) or 12(b) motion and that motion is denied, defendant must then serve an answer no later than 14 days after notice of the denial. 

Next is the answer. In the answer, defendant either admits some or all of the allegations in the complaint, or denies some or all of the allegations. Another option is for defendant to state that there is insufficient knowledge to either admit or to deny some or all of the allegations. Any failure to deny an allegation will be deemed an admission except regarding the amount of damages.

Defendant can also raise affirmative defenses in the answer. When defendant asserts an affirmative defense, there is no need for plaintiff to respond; the allegations in defendant's answer are deemed denied. 

One final area worth discussing here is the amendment of pleadings. Plaintiff has a right to amend a complaint once no later than 21 days after defendant serves the first response. The defendant has a right to amend an answer once no later than 21 days after serving it. Importantly, if defendant's first response was an answer that did not raise a waivable defense (for example, lack of personal jurisdiction), defendant has the right to amend that response to include the defense. In other words, the defense is not waived if the answer is properly amended. 

Once the 21 days to amend is up, the rules change. To amend after this period, the amending party must seek leave of court (or get written consent from the opposing party). The court will grant leave to amend if "justice so requires". 

It's possible that a party might want to amend a pleading after the statute of limitations has run on a claim. This is possible, provided that the amended pleading relates back to the original pleading. The amended pleading will relate back to the original pleading if the amended pleading concerns the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original pleading. 

The rules above relate to parties amending claims within a pleading. There may be instances, however, when plaintiff wants to amend a pleading to change a defendant. If the statute of limitations has run on the claim, then to do so, relation back will be required. Such an amendment will relate back if the amendment concerns the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original claim, the new defendant had knowledge of the case such that the new defendant will be able to avoid prejudice, and the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake, the new defendant would have been named originally. Put simply, these elements require that plaintiff sued the wrong defendant first, and that the right defendant knew this. 

Scores Are Looking Up

 

Service of Process

I'd like to try to hit upon in this post all the little nuances that the MBE might test on the topic of service of process. And it all begins with the reasons why there is even a requirement that a defendant is served with process. 

A defendant is entitled to notice that he/she has been sued. The notice must be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action." Both a summons and a copy of the complaint must be served. 

Who may serve process encompasses a rather large set of people. Anyone who is at least 18 years old and is not a party to the action may serve process. This process must be served (if the defendant is to be served within the United State) within 90 days of the filing of the complaint. The 90 period may be extended for good cause. 

There are numerous ways by which process might be served. The simplest is personal service. For personal service, process is given to the defendant personally. A commonly tested method other than personal service is substituted service. Substituted service, as the same suggests, is a substitute for personal service. Service is effected at the defendant's "usual place of abode," with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there. Substituted service may be used even if personal service is possible. 

Another method for serving process is to deliver to the defendant's agent. This is most common when service is in the scope of agency (for example if the defendant, by contract, appointed an agent to receive process.)

It's important to note that along with the federal rules above, methods for serving process that are permitted by the law of the state where the federal court sits or the law of the state where service is made are also permitted. 

The rules differ a bit when serving process on a business organization in the United States rather than on an individual. A business organization may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint  to an officer (for example, the CEO), or by using any method permitted by either the state where the federal court sits or the state where service is to be made. 

If serving a minor or incompetent person in the United States, service may be made only by a method permitted by the law of the state in which service is to be made. if serving anyone (adult or minor) in a foreign country, any method allowed by international agreement may be used. Lacking such an agreement, it's allowable to look towards both US law and foreign law provided that any method used is subject to the constitutional requirement that the method is reasonably calculated to provide notice to the affected party. 

Service of process can be waived. Plaintiff requests a waiver from defendant by mailing defendant a notice and a request to waive service. Plaintiff must include a copy of the complaint and two copies of a waiver form, with a pre-paid means of returning the waiver. Defendant then has 30 days to waive (if located within the United States) or 60 days (if located outside of the United States). Waiver is effective once plaintiff files the waiver with the court.

If defendant chooses not to return the waiver form (so that plaintiff is required to serve defendant personally or by substituted service), defendant will be required to pay the costs of service if defendant did not have good cause for not returning the waiver. 

As mentioned above, personal service occurs when the defendant is served personally. There's an important exception to keep in mind: if the defendant goes to a state to appear as a party, witness or attorney in a different civil case in that state, defendant cannot be served with process for a civil case in federal court in that state. This is a type of immunity from service that has shown up in questions on the exam. 

Good Luck!!

All best to those who will be taking the bar exam next week. Posting for the February 2025 bar exam and for the LSAT will resume shortly. 

MBE Tip: The Firm Offer Rule (UCC)

Assuming all other requirements (merchants, etc) are satisfied:

~ If no time is stated as to how long the offer will remain irrevocable, it'll remain irrevocable for a reasonable amount of time but not exceeding 3 months. ~ If a time less than 3 months is stated as to how long the offer will remain irrevocable, it'll remain irrevocable for that stated amount of time. ~ If a time greater than 3 months is stated as to how long the offer will remain irrevocable, it'll remain irrevocable for 3 months, but no longer than that.

MBE Tip: Strategy

The NCBE has decided on the order of the 200 (175 scored) MBE questions that you’ll see on the day of the exam. But you’re the captain of this ship.

That’s to say, you want to see every question on the exam before you get hung up on the especially tricky ones. Probably the worst strategy would be to feel obliged to spend extra time on some difficult questions and then miss a few easy questions at the end because there simply wasn’t enough time to work through them. That’s not good MBE game playing. Instead, if you come to some random question testing the difference between cooperatives and condominiums (for example) or a Civ Pro question that’s so long it could be made into a movie, pick an answer and mark it down as a question to do once you’ve seen every question on the test. Essentially, let the hardest questions be the questions you do once everything else has been seen.

Some Final Week Advice

My advice for the final week (next week) of bar prep (this is UBE specific but could apply elsewhere):

Drill lots of MBE questions. Serve a bunch of tennis balls and you get better at serving tennis balls. The same is true with the skills that are needed to score high on the MBE. Won't get those skills from a 150 page Property outline, though. Read through many of the released bar exam essays and the model answers to those essays. Determine whether you would have spotted the legal issues in the essay and if you wouldn't have, learn the law a bit better that would have allowed you to spot them. By not spending too much time writing out answers, it allows you to work through more of these essays (see the tennis ball analogy above). Continue to write some answers out if additional practice with IRAC is needed. It's kind of tough to prep for the MPT. I wouldn't want to see one of those strange things for the first time while taking the exam, though. It's a good idea to familiarize yourself with how they work before hand.

Florida Adopts the NextGen Bar Exam

Some big bar exam news out of Florida.

Florida has adopted the NextGen Exam, and will begin testing it in July 2028. At first, this seems significant. If I'm thinking about this correctly, it's the first state that had not adopted the UBE and has now signed on to this new NCBE exam.

But I find Florida's wording of this announcement interesting. They're referring to the NextGen exam as "a component of the Florida bar exam." In other words, just as the MBE was a component of the Florida exam, the NextGen will replace the MBE as that component. But, unlike the MBE, the NextGen is a full bar exam! Depending upon how much of the Florida portion the Florida Board ends up retaining, this new Florida exam might end up as daunting. All those subjects covered on NextGen + all the subjects already covered on the Florida portion of the exam will be..a lot.

Florida might cut some subjects from the Florida portion of the exam. It should do that. The NextGen is already, apparently, intended to test for minimum competence. But it's Florida, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

More on this news is @ https://www.floridabarexam.org/static/20240718_Press_Release_re_Florida_Bar_Examination.pdf

Future Interests (a quick review)

 A quick review:

From x to y and y's heirs:
y: fee simple absolute
x: nothing

From x to y for life: y: life estate x: reversion From x to y for life and then to z. y: life estate z: remainder x: nothing From x to y so long as y doesn't drink on the property. y: fee simple determinable x: possibility of reverter From x to y, but if y drinks on the property then x has the right to reclaim it y: fee simple subject to a condition subsequent x: right of re-entry From x to y but if y drinks on the property then to z y: fee simple subject to an executory limitation z: a shifting executory interest x: nothing And one last tough one: From x to y if y doesn't drink on the property and then to z so long as z doesn't drink on the property. y: fee simple subject to an executory limitation z: a shifting executory interest determinable x: a possibility of reverter That's really all you need to know on this stuff. They can always combine these to make them more difficult, but this is the foundation of it all. #MBE

MBE Trap: Indictments

MBE Trap:

If a Crim Pro question seems to be leading you in a definite direction ("huh, this one seems suspiciously easy") make sure to read carefully the call of the question. No matter how crazy the police act (no warrants, no miranda, no nothing), none of that matters if the call asks you whether the indictment should be dismissed. The Exclusionary Rule, to which all of the above will be very relevant, will keep a lot of evidence out of trial, but it won't affect whether the defendant will be indicted. Can indict a ham sandwich, and all that.

Essay Writing

For use in a couple weeks:

The Issue: Tell the grader the question that you hope to answer in your conclusion. It should be clear, since there are points awarded for issue spotting. The Rule(s): Imagine the # of rules needed to analyze the legal issue above is "x." Try not to include in your rule statement more than x or less than x. That said, the lesser of the mistakes is to include more than x. In other words, bringing tools to a job that you don't end up using isn't as bad as forgetting to bring tools that you can't complete the job without. But make that a goal: only the rules you need. The Analysis: Take those rules and apply them to the provided facts. Maybe the most common mistake I see when reading essays is that students will sort of think that the work of getting the rules down is over and then treat the analysis as if it's entirely separate from the rules. Refer back to the rules and mirror them in the analysis. Simply doing that will exhibit legal analysis which is exactly what you're graded on. That's why people say "if you don't know the rule, make one up." You can still get points if you analyze incorrect rules. When appropriate, argue both sides because each side will use the same rules to further their own theory of the issue. The Conclusion: Tell the grader which side from the analysis has the better case. Don't be too certain: law isn't calculus with a definite answer. Show some modesty by expressing an element of doubt unless there's absolutely a definite answer.