JULY 2012

ESSAY QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3

California
Bar
Examination
Answer all three questions.

Your answer should demonstrate your your proficiency in using and applying
ability to analyze the facts in question, to them.
tell the difference between material and
immaterial facts, and to discern the If your answer contains only a statement
points of law and fact upon which the of your conclusions, you will receive little
case turns. Your answer should show credit. State fully the reasons that
that you know and understand the support your conclusions, and discuss
pertinent principles and theories of law, all points thoroughly.
their qualifications and limitations, and
their relationships to each other. Your answer should be complete, but
you should not volunteer information or
Your answer should evidence your discuss legal doctrines which are not
ability to apply law to the given facts and pertinent to the solution of the problem.
to reason in a logical, lawyer-like
manner from the premises you adopt to Unless a question expressly asks you to
a sound conclusion. Do not merely use California law, you should answer
show that you remember legal according to legal theories and
principles. Instead, try to demonstrate principles of general application.
 Question 1
Pam and Patrick are residents of State A. While visiting State B, they were hit by a
truck owned and operated by Corporation, a freight business.

Corporation is incorporated under the laws of Canada and has its headquarters there,
where its President and Secretary are located. State B is the only state in which
Corporation conducts its business. Corporation’s drivers and other employees work out
of its warehouse in State B.

Pam and Patrick jointly filed a lawsuit against Corporation in federal district court in
State A. In their complaint, Pam demanded damages for personal injury in the amount
of $70,000 and for property damage in the amount of $10,000; Patrick demanded
damages in the amount of $6,000.

Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The
federal district court denied the motion. After trial, it entered judgment for Pam in the
amount of $60,000 and for Patrick in the amount of $4,000.

Corporation has appealed on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack
of personal jurisdiction.

How should the court of appeals rule on each ground? Discuss.

A year ago, Wendy told Hal that she would not tolerate his drinking any longer. She
insisted that he move out of the family home and not return until he completed an
alcohol treatment program. He moved out but did not obtain treatment.

Last month, Hal went on a drinking spree, started driving, and struck a pedestrian.
When Wendy learned of the accident, she told Hal that she wanted a divorce.

Hal has consulted Lawyer about defending him in a civil action filed by the pedestrian.
He is currently unemployed. His only asset is his interest in the family home, which he
and Wendy purchased during their marriage. Lawyer offered to represent Hal if Hal
were to give him a promissory note, secured by a lien on the family home, for his fees.
Hal immediately accepted.

1. Is Wendy’s interest in the family home subject to damages recovered for injuries to
the pedestrian? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

2. Is Wendy’s interest in the family home subject to payment of Hal’s legal fees?
Discuss. Answer according to California Law.

3. What, if any, ethical violations has Lawyer committed? Discuss. Answer according
to California and ABA authorities.
 Question 3
Vicky was killed on a rainy night. The prosecution charged Dean, a business rival, with
her murder. It alleged that, on the night in question, he hid in the bushes outside her
home and shot her when she returned from work.

At Dean’s trial in a California court, the prosecution called Whitney, Dean’s wife, to
testify. One week after the murder, Whitney had found out that Dean had been dating
another woman and had moved out, stating the marriage was over. Still angry, Whitney
was willing to testify against Dean. After Whitney was called to the stand, the court
took a recess. During the recess, Dean and Whitney reconciled. Whitney decided not
to testify against Dean. The trial recommenced and the prosecutor asked Whitney if
she saw anything on Dean’s shoes the night of the murder. When Whitney refused to
answer, the court threatened to hold her in contempt. Reluctantly, Whitney testified that
she saw mud on Dean’s shoes.

The prosecution then called Ella, Dean’s next-door neighbor. Ella testified that, on the
night Vicky was killed, she was standing by an open window in her kitchen, which was
about 20 feet from an open window in Dean’s kitchen. She also testified that she saw
Dean and Whitney and she heard Dean tell Whitney, “I just killed the gal who stole my
biggest account.” Dean and Whitney did not know that Ella overheard their
conversation.

Dean called Fred, a friend, to testify. Fred testified that, on the day after Vicky was
killed, he was having lunch in a coffee shop when he saw Hit, a well-known gangster,
conversing at the next table with another gangster, Gus. Fred testified that he heard
Gus ask Hit if he had “taken care of the assignment concerning Vicky,” and that Hit then
drew his index finger across his own throat.

Assuming all appropriate objections and motions were timely made, did the court
properly:

1. Allow the prosecution to call Whitney? Discuss.

2. Admit the testimony of:

Answer according to California law.

California
Bar
Examination
Answer all three questions.

Your answer should demonstrate your your proficiency in using and applying
ability to analyze the facts in question, to them.
tell the difference between material and
immaterial facts, and to discern the If your answer contains only a statement
points of law and fact upon which the of your conclusions, you will receive little
case turns. Your answer should show credit. State fully the reasons that
that you know and understand the support your conclusions, and discuss
pertinent principles and theories of law, all points thoroughly.
their qualifications and limitations, and
their relationships to each other. Your answer should be complete, but
you should not volunteer information or
Your answer should evidence your discuss legal doctrines which are not
ability to apply law to the given facts and pertinent to the solution of the problem.
to reason in a logical, lawyer-like
manner from the premises you adopt to Unless a question expressly asks you
a sound conclusion. Do not merely to use California law, you should answer
show that you remember legal according to legal theories and
principles. Instead, try to demonstrate principles of general application.
 Question 4
Peter responded to an advertisement placed by Della, a dentist, seeking a dental
hygienist. After an interview, Della offered Peter the job and said she would either: (1)
pay him $50,000 per year; or (2) pay him $40,000 per year and agree to convey to him
a parcel of land, worth about $50,000, if he would agree to work for her for three
consecutive years. Peter accepted the offer and said, “I’d like to go with the second
option, but I would like a commitment for an additional three years after the first three.”
Della said, “Good, I’d like you to start next week.”

After Peter started work, Della handed him a letter she had signed which stated only
that he had agreed to work as a dental hygienist at a salary of $40,000 per year.

After Peter had worked for two years and nine months, Della decided that she would
sell the parcel of land and not convey it to him. Even though she had always been
satisfied with his work, she fired him.

What rights does Peter have and what remedies might he obtain as to employment and
the parcel of land? Discuss.
 Question 5
In 2004, Mae, a widow, executed a valid will, intentionally leaving out her daughter, Dot,
and giving 50 per cent of her estate to her son, Sam, and 50 per cent to Church.

In 2008, after a serious disagreement with Sam, Mae announced that she was revoking
her will, and then tore it in half in the presence of both Sam and Dot.

In 2010, after repeated requests by Sam, Mae handwrote and signed a document
declaring that she was thereby reviving her will. She attached all of the torn pages of
the will to the document. At the time she signed the document, she was entirely
dependent on Sam for food and shelter and companionship, and had not been allowed
by Sam to see or speak to anyone for months. By this time, Church had gone out of
existence.

In 2011, Mae died. Her sole survivors are Dot and Sam.

What rights, if any, do Dot and Sam have in Mae’s estate? Discuss.

Answer according to California law.

Dan had originally intended to deliver both the book and the gun to the church’s
administrators, but he changed his mind and delivered only the book. He put the gun
on the front seat of his car.

The next day, as he was driving, Dan was stopped by a police officer at a sobriety
checkpoint at which officers stopped all cars and asked their drivers to exit briefly before
going on their way. The police officer explained the procedure and asked, “Would you
please exit the vehicle?”

Believing he had no choice, Dan said, “Okay.”

After Dan got out of his car, the police officer observed the gun on the front seat and
asked Dan if he was the owner. Dan answered, “No. I stole the gun. But I was
planning to give it back.”

Dan is charged with theft and moves to suppress the gun and his statement to the
police officer under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Miranda v. Arizona.

1. Is Dan likely to prevail on his motion? Discuss.

2. If Dan does not prevail on his motion, is he likely to be convicted at trial? Discuss.