It’s over. After the MBE today I raced to the restroom along with lots of other people and one of my comrades at the pissoir said something like “I feel like that Grateful Dead song, ‘Comfortably Numb…’”
That’s about it.1 Those quoted in the sidebar at right pretty much sum up my feeling about the MBE. It blew. It was hard. I have no clue how I did.
So it’s over. Scores are out September 18. Until then, I will talk about other things. I hope.
Congratulations to all who have just completed their bar exam. And if you still have a day left, may your last day go better for you than mine did for me!!!
- Although the Dar Williams version—which I learned about from my sister—is also highly recommended.↩
Comments
14 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.FYI: Comfortably Numb is a Pink Floyd song from “The Wall.”
Congratulations, though!
Pink Floyd!? Are you sure? Dude, you just can’t trust anything you hear from some guy in the men’s room after the MBE…. ;-)
In fact, you probably shouldn’t really put much stock in *anything* said by someone who has just finished the bar exam, just as a rule of thumb….
Congrats!
It is a Pink Floyd song. At least the version that Dar Williams covered is. Congratulations!!!
Wow, so glad to see you made it through alive too…also glad to hear that I wasn’t in some sort of catatonic state yesterday during the MBE, it was like that for everyone. Enjoy your freedom.
Good job man. That was a very miserable three days indeed. Still in Missoula?
Yep. Comfortably Numb is a Pink Floyd song. Hey I gotta compensate since I didn’t know squat on my MBE. Im just saying. ;)
I passed anyway. Good times.
Congratulations. I’m sure The Exam got the worse of it.
Yeah, that was no fun at all. There were more than a few questions where all four answers seemed entirely plausible. Worse yet, there a few where I tried to guess the answer before reading the answer choices, only to discover my answer was MIA. Good times, that. My dry account of the entire Utah bar is here: http://usdlaw.blogspot.com/2006/07/das-bar.html
You’ve passed through to the other side — and there’s light!
Congrats on surviving… because we all know that the bar is not-so-much a competence exam as it is a hazing ritual.
Yay, it’s over!
Congrats, Ambimb!!! I was an early reader of your law school tribulations (and how they sometimes mirrored my own). I slaved an entire extra day with the Cal Bar Exam after being reamed on the MBE. It actually made the essays on Day 3 seem so “straightforward!”
One question: Can you actually conspire to steal your own coat?
The MBE was hard as HELLLL.
As for the coat question, I recall that the boyfriend had given her a note that said “look in the closet for your gift.” Which she did not read, thus the gift had not been “accepted” at the time she solicited her friend to steal the coat (i.e. it was still the boyfriend’s coat). However, the freind actually took the coat, thus the solicitation merged with the actual crime of larceny. Therefore, she was guilty of conspiracy and larceny (at least that was my reasoning) On the other hand, was the note a constructive delivery with acceptance presumed? In that case it was her coat, and she could not be guilty of stealing her own coat? but as you may recall there was no answer choice that said she was guilty of no crime. Confused the hell out of me, like most the the questions on the afternoon exam.
The “coat” question stumped me too. I don’t remember the answer choice I put, but I remember the way I ended up concluding my analysis. The coat belonged to Girl (the only function of the “secretive gift” facts were to make Girl unaware the coat belonged to her, not to induce you to worry about whether the coat belonged to Girl); Girl could not be guilty of any property crime in relation to her own coat; Girl’s friend could similarly not be guilty of any crime in relation to the coat, because she had the coat’s owner’s permission (therefore no wrongful taking, or trespass, or however you want to put it occured).
I have written down 30 questions and answers which I remembered. Any one interested in them? Here’s an example:
1) A sets up with B a fraudulent scheme at a county fair by setting up a booth and defrauds a number of people who approach the booth. Another person, C, who notices this action sends a hated teacher of C’s to the booth in order to be defrauded. Also, a fourth person, D, merely sent another over to the booth and that person was defrauded for $50. The call of the question stated the four A, B, C, D and what each is liable for.
2) Is D liable for fraud due to his sending a person over to the booth, even though he didn’t know of the scheme?
a. Accessory after the fact for C, because he had the intent and knew about the scheme.
b. No accessory after the fact for D ( was a two part question)
3) Julia is staying in a hotel as a guest. A ‘federal’ police officer determines that she is alleged to have participated in a bank robbery two weeks prior. Without a warrant and without ‘required probable cause’ the officer uses the master key from the manager of the Hotel to enter Julia’s room, where he finds nothing except a diary on the bed, which Officer reads and learns that it was in fact, according to the diary, Julia who committed the crime. Question is whether this diary is admissible, or maybe whether her arrest based on the contents of the diary is permissible.