You're a salty sea of misery

Tonight I'm going to see Rocky Votolato in concert - the last "fun" thing I'm going to do until after the bar. It was going to be my reward for working so hard these past few weeks, but since I've failed at that, it's going to be be my reward for waking up every morning (or afternoon) and not shooting myself in the face.

I'm incapable of memorizing anything - at least by the typical memorization method of re-reading something over and over again. Outlining has helped with the memorization part a bit, but I've noticed that in my essays I tend to gloss over the basic shit that doesn't apply and get to the point. What I need to do is memorize the language given in the sample answers. So, instead of me saying that "A controlling shareholder owes the corporation a duty of care," I need to get used to saying: "In general, shareholders of a corporation do not owe the corporation any duties and my freely transfer their interests in the corporation. However, contrary to this general rule, a controlling shareholder does owe the corporation some duties, they are X, Y, and Z." The bar exam doesn't teach you how to think like a lawyer, but it may help you bill like one - going through a bunch of insanely tangential and inapplicable material before getting to the point.

ANYWAYS -

To help with my memorization issues I've decided to go back to my law school tactic - charts. Well, not charts really, but graph paper that lists out everything I need to know - at least the basic points - in lots of pretty colors. Handwriting always helps me with these sorts of things, as does color coding the major points. I'm going to try to limit myself to 2 sheets of graph paper per subject, which is probably the only amount of information I can retain going into the bar. I think that will be enough - the focus of the essay isn't going to be some random day for service requirement - it'll be something more major. At least I'm hoping that's the case.

In other news, I subscribe to a forum that talks about the Cali bar exam. A recent poster put up something along the lines of: "The bar is a test of minimum competency, and it's hard to fail." The members who replied went ballistic, especially those who were repeat takers. It looks like everyone is on edge now. It was kind of entertaining to hear people go on at length about how hard the exam is - if that's the case, shouldn't they be spending more time studying and less time replying to someone they disagree with on a listserve? There's also been some discussion on forum about the time limit for firm offers and how long they can be kept open, with people quoting various treaties because of a discrepancy between the BarBri materials and a sample answer. There wasn't a clear answer on this - but that didn't phase me - I think the point of the sample answers is that they don't have to be correct, just state the rule and apply the facts. Reasonable authorities differ on the conclusion - and that's fine.

Also funny was a sample answer I went over today that stated: "No case has ever held X." Good idea??? I doubt it. But it's in the sample answer.

I think Prof. Whitebread was correct in saying that the bar is about the basics. I've looked over a lot of what has been tested in the released MBEs and the released essays - and nothing struck me as particularly unfair. I'm sure I'm going to blow an essay, or two or there, but I still think it's possible to get a 65 on them without perfectly reciting the time frame between the pretrial conference and discovery requests. I'm starting to think that the main reason people fail is that they get freaked out before the exam, study too much material, and lose sight of the major issues. Or just fail to study at all.

Yep, I'm a sheep, and proud of it. Baaaaaaaaaaaa.