BarReviewSolutions.com FYLSX Newsletter

Hello California Baby Bar Examinees,

Welcome to the latest installment of our California Baby Bar Exam (FYLSX) newsletter. In this issue, we consider:

• Important Upcoming FYLSX Dates
• Recent BarReviewSolutions.com FYLSX News
• FYLSX Essays In-Depth: Avoiding "Issue Tunnel Vision"
• Newsletter Discount

Important Upcoming FYLSX Dates

• Final Filing Deadline: September 15, 2011
• FYLSX Exam Date: October 25, 2011

Recent BarReviewSolutions.com FYLSX News

Select a link below to learn more...

June 2011 California Baby Bar Exam (FYLSX) Essay Assessments Now Available

FYLSX Essays In-Depth: Avoiding "Issue Tunnel Vision"

A common problem individuals often encounter on FYLSX essays is the tendency to overlook additional, germane issues beyond the "major" issue suggested by the call of the question. This focus on only the major issue results in "Issue Tunnel Vision," blinding an examinee from other pertinent issues. For example, individuals often fail to identify additional, lesser crimes and concentrate on only a major crime like Murder even when the question calls for a discussion of "all possible crimes." The following are common examples of Issue Tunnel Vision across all testable subjects (note, we fully explore issue recognition on FYLSX essays in Chapter 4 of our FYLSX Essay Solution Workshop):

Torts

• Omitting lesser intentional torts, like Assault and Battery, in favor of more complex claims like Negligence
• Ignoring alternative claims applicable to the same set of facts (e.g., Strict Products Liability AND Products Liability Negligence)

Contracts

• Focusing on the general rule only and omitting consideration of special alternative rules applicable to the same overall issue (e.g., Offer AND Merchant Firm Offer or Compensatory Damages AND Consequential Damages)
• Ignoring alternatives to normal Contract Formation (Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration) discussions (e.g., Detrimental Reliance or Promissory Estoppel)

Criminal Law

• Ignoring lesser crimes and concentrating on only major crimes (e.g., False Imprisonment AND Kidnapping, Assault AND Battery, Murder AND Manslaughter)
• Identifying only 1 defense when multiple defenses are applicable (e.g., Self-Defense AND Defense of Others)

Issue Tunnel Vision Caveat: Respect the Call of the Question

With practice and understanding, your ability to recognize alternative, complementary issues will improve. However, whether an issue should be included in your essay answer is always dictated by the call of the question itself. If the question expressly limits your discussion to specific issues, then, obviously, limit your discussion to those issues. Keep in mind, you will simply receive no credit from the grader for discussing issues that are not germane to the call of the question. However, if the question is open-ended, be alert for, and avoid, Issue Tunnel Vision. In such cases, your issue discussions are rarely narrow and straight-lined. Instead, they are often multi-branching and dependent upon alternative, plausible issues that are fairly raised by the fact pattern.

Newsletter FYLSX Discount: $50 Off June 2011 FYLSX Essay Assessment

If you are retaking the FYLSX, then you can receive $50 off our June 2011 FYLSX Essay Assessment. There is no discount code. Simply follow this link to learn more about our FYLSX Exam Essay Assessment.

Questions? Comments?

If you have any questions or comments about this newsletter or any of our FYLSX programs, then please feel free to Contact Us.

Study smart,

-The BarReviewSolutions.com Team

Hello California baby bar exam applicants,

Welcome to the latest installment of our California baby bar exam (FYLSX) newsletter. In this issue, we consider:

• Important Upcoming FYLSX Dates
• FYLSX Essays In-Depth: Common Negligence Problems, Duty
• Newsletter-Only Discounts

Important Upcoming FYLSX Dates

• FYLSX Exam Date: June 28, 2011

FYLSX Essays In-Depth: Common Negligence Problems, Duty

Negligence is, perhaps, the most frequently tested claim/issue presented on any bar exam, including the FYLSX. In an FYLSX essay context, Torts is the most frequently tested subject. Typically, 2 of the 4 FYLSX essays are devoted to Torts (on occasion, 2 Contracts essays will appear). Moreover, ordinary Negligence, and its' derivatives like Products Liability Negligence, is the most frequently tested claim on FYLSX Torts essays. Given the relative importance of Negligence, individuals preparing for FYLSX essays should consider, and avoid, several common, recurring Negligence problems. In this issue, we focus upon two of the most common Duty problems in the context of a prima facie case of ordinary Negligence.

2 Common, Recurring Negligence Duty Problems on FYLSX Essays

As demonstrated below, in the context of a prima facie case of ordinary Negligence (Duty, Breach, Actual Cause, Proximate Cause, and Damages), Duty should be the first element of the Negligence case that you evaluate in any FYLSX essay when the question presented raises a possible claim of ordinary Negligence.

Considering the above prima facie case of Negligence, there are 2 major, common mistakes that many individuals make when addressing the element of Negligence Duty:

1. Individuals fail to recognize that Duty consists of 2 parts: a) whether a Duty is owed in the first place and b) the scope of such a Duty (i.e., the standard of care).
2. Individuals provide a premature discussion of Breach instead of addressing the question of Duty.

To prevent these common mistakes in your FYLSX Torts Negligence essays, employ the following solutions.

Solution: Negligence Duty Consists of 2 Parts: 1) Whether a Duty is Owed and 2) the Standard of Care

First, your statement of the law, and subsequent analysis, for Negligence Duty should explain and address whether a Duty is owed by the Defendant to Plaintiff (use the competing Cardozo and Andrews viewpoints). Far too often, individuals overlook this key aspect of Duty. Instead, individuals consistently exhibit a tendency to skip directly to discussing the appropriate standard of care.

Second, your statement of the law, and subsequent analysis, for Negligence Duty should also explain and address the appropriate standard of care after you examine whether a Duty was owed in the first place. Your standard of care discussion should always address the ordinary standard of care ("reasonably prudent person under like or similar circumstances") and any special duty, if applicable. If a special Duty applies (e.g., Invitee), you should still examine the ordinary standard of care in addition to the applicable special Duty.

Solution: Avoid the Tendency to Evaluate Whether a Duty is Violated (i.e., Breached) in Your Duty Analysis

Remember, strictly limit your Duty analysis to whether 1) a duty is owed and 2) the appropriate standard of care. Reserve any discussion for whether the Duty was, in fact, violated for the subsequent issue of Breach, as noted in the model approach above.

Model Approach for Negligence Duty

Keeping these common problems and their solutions for Negligence Duty in mind, let's review a Model approach for the sub-issue of Duty in the context of an ordinary case of Negligence on a FYLSX Torts essay:

Please keep in mind, the above discussion is limited to two of the most common Negligence Duty problems individuals face on FYLSX essays. Of course, any effective discussion of Negligence should consider and address all the elements of a prima face case of Negligence plus any possible defenses. We address all of your individual Negligence problems, and provide steps and suggestions to correct them in our 1-on-1 FYLSX essay preparation programs.

Newsletter-Only FYLSX Discounts

Subscribe to this newsletter to receive discounts and specials on our FYLSE products and services directly in your inbox.

Questions? Comments?

If you have any questions or comments about this newsletter or any of our FYLSX programs, then please feel free to Contact Us.

Study smart,

-The BarReviewSolutions.com Team

Hello,

Welcome to the latest issue of our FYLSX Newsletter. This is the last issue of our FYLSX Newsletter prior to the October 2010 exam. If you are taking the upcoming administration of the California Baby Bar Exam, we wish you the best of luck. For those of your preparing for a subsequent administration of the FYSLX (e.g., June 2011), our FYLSX Newsletter will continue. In this issue, we consider:

A. FYLSX Study Strategy: A Summary of Strategies
B. Essays In-Depth: The Defective Product in a Strict Products Liability Claim
C. Newsletter-Only Discount: FYLSX Essay Solution On-Demand Workshop
D. Next Issue Preview

A. FYLSX Study Strategy: A Summary of Study Strategy Tips for the FYLSX

Over the past couple of months, we have described a number of study strategies to improve your preparation for the FYLSX. As a refresher, consider the following as you prepare for the exam:

• The Importance of Constructive Essay Practice During Your Baby Bar Review
• Balancing Studying the Law vs. Improving Exam-Taking Skills
• Utilizing the "Testing Effect" to Your Advantage
• Utilizing the "Spacing Effect" to Your Advantage
• Multiple Choice Error Logs
• Creating a Reference System for Periodic Review
• Outlining Practice Essays
• Practice Writing Law Statements for Possible Essay Issues
• Issue Checklists:
• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

B. Essays In-Depth: The Defective Product in a Strict Products Liability Claim

Our Essays In-Depth feature is an abbreviated excerpt from our Essay Solution: Workshop or one of our subject-specific Torts, Criminal Law, or Contracts FYLSX workshops. This feature is designed to identify common mistakes individuals make on their FYLSX essays and provide solutions to correct such mistakes. If implemented, these solutions will result in higher scores on your essays. In this issue, we identify, and provide solutions to, common mistakes individuals make when discussing the Defective Product element of a Strict Products Liability claim.

Common Mistakes With the Defective Product Element of a Strict Products Liability Claim

In our experience, there are several recurring, common mistakes individuals commit when evaluating the Defective Product element of a Strict Products Liability claim in a FYLSX Torts essay. As a refresher, a Strict Products Liability claim contains the following elements: a defective product, actual causation, proximate causation, and damages. The defective product element is the focus of this discussion. Some common mistakes applicable to the Defective Product element of a Strict Products Liability claim include:

1. Omission of the Defective Product element entirely;
2. Failing to define and explain the standards that establish a Defective Product; and,
3. Failing to apply the pertinent Defective Product standard to the product that is the subject of the Strict Products Liability claim.

Solving These Common Problems With The Defective Product in Torts Essays

Recognizing the above problems with the Defective Product element of a Strict Products Liability claim, consider the following solutions:

1. As with a Negligence discussion, your Strict Products Liability discussion should be organized around the elements of the Strict Products Liability claim. Since a Strict Products Liability claim cannot occur without a defective product, then an omission will not occur in your answer if you remember to examine the claim with this element-based approach.
2. In your Statement of the Law* for the Defective Product element of a Strict Products Liability claim, be sure to include and explain the 3 ways a product defect can be established, which include a defect in design, manufacture, or warning.
3. In your Analysis* of Defective Product, identify the type of defect (design, manufacture, or warning) that is presented by the facts and explain whether this defect does or does not meet the pertinent defect standard (design, manufacture, or warning). Also, be cognizant that a product might contain more than one type of defect. For example, a product that 1) is contaminated in the factory and 2) creates dangerous side effects, even in the absence of contamination, which are not disclosed to the consumer, is defective both in warning and manufacture.

*Please note, the above-asterisked concepts are fully defined, explained, and illustrated in our FYLSX Essay Solution on-demand workshop, which is available as a stand-alone program or included as part of all of our 1-on-1 FYLSX essay preparation programs.

C. Newsletter-Only Discount: $25 Off Our FYLSX Essay Solution On-Demand Workshop

Subscribe to this newsletter to receive newsletter-only discounts in your inbox.

D. Next Issue Preview

In our next issue, we will examine how to construct a long-term study plan for the June 2011 or October 2011 California Baby Bar Exam. As a reminder, if you've missed a previous issue of this newsletter, all of our previous FYLSX newsletter issues are available on our site. If you have any questions about this newsletter or are interested in beginning a program for a 2011 exam now, then please feel free to Contact Us.

Study Smart,

-the BarReviewSolutions.com Team

Hello,

Welcome to the latest issue of our weekly FYLSX Newsletter. Hopefully, if you plan on taking the October 2010 California Baby Bar Exam, your exam preparation is well underway. If not, substantial time remains to fully prepare for the October exam. As a reminder, if you have been considering one of our full essay preparation programs, then time remains for you to complete either our Paced or Fundamentals program. In this issue, we consider:

A. Exam Study Strategy: Checklists (Part 3 of 3)
B. Essays In-Depth: Malice
C. Newsletter Discount
D. Next Issue Preview

A. Exam Study Strategy: Checklists (Part 3 of 3)

This week we complete our discussion of issue checklists. In previous issues, we discussed the nature and importance of issue checklists for your exam preparation and illustrated a sample checklist. This week we demonstrate how to utilize an issue checklist in action with a mini-question.

Sample Checklist Refresher

If you recall, last week we provided a sample checklist for intentional torts (minus defenses). For sake of economy and illustrative purposes, we will use this same sample checklist and limit the "universe of testable law" for our mini-question to Intentional Torts only (again, omitting defenses). As a reminder and caveat, the purpose of both the sample checklist and this mini-question is to illustrate the nature of checklists and their application in a concise, easy to understand fashion. Any Torts checklist(s) you rely upon for the actual exam should cover the entire testable subject. Our sample checklist for Intentional Torts included the following:

• Assault
• Battery
• False Imprisonment
• Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Trespass to Land
• Trespass to Chattels
• Conversion

Mini-Question:

"D works with A and B. During a normal workday, D had a heated argument with A over a malfunctioning printer and the best method to fix the malfunction. During the argument, D picked up a toner cartridge and threw it at A. A covered her head with her hands and ducked to avoid the cartridge. The cartridge missed A but hit B who was passing by the printer room in an adjacent hallway. The toner cartridge broke B's wrist. The toner cartridge was the property of D, A, and B's employer.
What intentional tort claims, if any, do A and B have against D? Discuss."

How Our Sample Checklist Can Help You Answer This Mini-Question

Keep in mind, the function of an issue checklist is to provide you one method to help you identify "issues" germane to the question presented. For purposes of this question, the "issues" are "intentional tort claims" (again, for sake of economy, discussion of pertinent defenses is omitted). Also, you should recognize the limitations of issue checklists. Such checklists do not include the elements of the "issues" (i.e., the rule statements that naturally accompany their discussion in an actual essay answer). Instead, in this variation of an issue checklist, the sole purpose is to assist in the identification of legal "issues" germane to the question presented. Also, of course, you will need to be able to recall any checklist from memory during the actual examination.

Looking at our sample checklist above, we know there are only 7 possible intentional torts claims in our universe of mini-question Torts law. Since the question only asks for intentional tort claims, and knowing there are only 7 such claims, we can quickly evaluate our checklist to see if any of these intentional torts fit within the question. Quickly, we can eliminate most of the 7 intentional torts. Since the facts state that the toner cartridge was the property of their employer, we know (or should know) all property-related intentional torts can be omitted, including Conversion, Trespass to Chattels, and Trespass to Land (remember, we are looking for claims A and B might have against D and not the claims of the employer). Also, since no emotional distress was mentioned in the facts and neither A nor B were forced against their will to stay in one location, we can eliminate both Infliction of Emotional Distress and False Imprisonment. The only claims that remain from the checklist are Assault and Battery. Since we know (or should know) a Battery can include objects put into motion by a defendant, then the throwing of the toner cartridge will suffice for the inclusion of Battery in our answer. Also, since we know (or should know) apprehension of an imminent battery is an Assault, then we can include Assault in our answer based upon A's covering her head and ducking (in most cases, one only covers their head under imminent apprehension of something hitting their head). At this point, our checklist should now resemble something like this:

• Assault
• Battery
• False Imprisonment
• Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Trespass to Land
• Trespass to Chattels
• Conversion

The stream of consciousness narrative of the preceding paragraph should only take you a few minutes on an actual exam utilizing a full checklist. Even if Assault and/or Battery was apparent to you after reading the question, and prior to considering the checklist, you could still utilize the checklist as a verification tool and to ensure no other issues are omitted from your answer. Then, after identifying Assault and Battery as the claims germane to the question presented (i.e., "the issues"), you would continue organizing the answer to this mini-question by creating an essay outline (please note, we provide a complete illustration of the essay outlining process in our FYLSX Essay Solution: Workshop).

B. Essays In-Depth: Malice

Our Essays In-Depth feature is an abbreviated excerpt from our Essay Solution: Workshop or one of our subject-specific Torts, Criminal Law, or Contracts FYLSX workshops. This feature is designed to identify common mistakes individuals make on their FYLSX essays and provide solutions to correct such mistakes. If implemented, these solutions will result in higher scores on your essays. This week we identify and remedy common problems individuals encounter when discussing Malice as an element of Murder on a Criminal Law essay.

Common Problems With Malice Within a Murder Issue

In our experience, there are several recurring, common mistakes individuals commit when discussing the concept of Malice within the issue of Murder, including:

1. NOT treating Malice as an independent sub-issue of Murder; far too often, individuals will gloss over or summarily conclude Malice is or isn't present without further explanation or Analysis.*
2. Failing to present all 4 forms of malice.
3. Failing to identify and explain when multiple forms of malice may be applicable.

Solving These Common Malice Problems

Recognizing these common problems with Malice, consider the following solutions:

1. Treat Malice as an independent sub-issue within any Murder discussion. Remember, Malice is an essential element of a charge of Murder since murder is a homicide with malice aforethought.
2. List and identify all 4 forms of Malice prior to any Analysis* of the pertinent forms of Malice. The 4 forms of Malice include: intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily harm, willful and wanton disregard for human life ("depraved heart"), and felony murder.
3. Identify and evaluate all plausible forms of Malice. Your Analysis* of Malice should include all plausible forms of Malice for the facts presented. For example, if intent to kill and felony murder are both applicable, based on the facts, then a discussion of both, and not just one, is needed.

Ultimately, any Malice discussion should convey to the grader that you know the 4 forms of Malice and know which forms of Malice apply in the instant case, explaining fully how the pertinent forms of malice apply. (*Please note, the above-asterisked concepts are fully defined, explained, and illustrated in our FYLSX Essay Solution on-demand workshop, which is available as a stand-alone program or included as part of all of our 1-on-1 FYLSX essay preparation programs.)

C. Newsletter-Only Discounts

To receive Newsletter discounts in your inbox, Subscribe to this Newsletter.

D. Next Issue Preview

In our next issue, our Essays In-Depth feature will address common problems with the integration of UCC principles in Contracts essays when the UCC is the applicable law. As a reminder, if you've missed a previous issue, all of our previous FYLSX newsletter issues are available on our site. If you have any questions about this newsletter or any of our programs, then please feel free to Contact Us.

Study Smart,

-the BarReviewSolutions.com Team

Hello,

Welcome to the latest issue of our weekly FYLSX Newsletter. In this issue, we consider:

A. Exam Study Strategy: Checklists (Part 1 of 3)
B. Essays In-Depth: Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence
C. Program Highlight: FYLSX Trial Essay
D. Newsletter-Only Discounts
E. Next Issue Preview

A. Exam Study Strategy: Checklists (Part 1 of 3)

Over the next three issues, we will discuss Checklists and their usage in improving your California baby bar exam essays. This Part discusses the nature and importance of a checklist. In part 2, we will provide a sample checklist. Then, in part 3, we will demonstrate checklists in action with a mini-question.

1. What Exactly is a Checklist?

In simplest terms, a Checklist is a highly synthesized subject outline in a list or other format (e.g., a "Torts Checklist"). Generally, each entry in a checklist will be a cognizable "issue" for the subject being tested. Continuing with the Torts example, a Torts Checklist might include, among other items, each testable intentional tort.

Checklists can be created in a wide variety of formats. A simple list is one possible format for a checklist. Other formats include acronyms or other mnemonic devices. Regardless of the format, the substantive content of the checklist will not vary: cognizable legal issues.

2. How Can a Checklist Help Me?

The function of a checklist is to serve as an aid in recognizing and/or recalling possible issues for the particular subject being tested. For many individuals, the task of issue recognition on essay questions is problematic. Checklists are designed to alleviate issue recognition problems by providing a definitive list of possible issues, which can be relied upon and "checked" when such individuals are unable to recognize legal issues being tested from reading the fact pattern alone. Additionally, a subject checklist can serve as a mental security blanket for an individual during the exam itself. When time or exam pressures mount, a checklist can be an invaluable tool for an individual to rely upon.

B. Essays In-Depth: Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence

Our Essays In-Depth feature is an abbreviated excerpt from our Essay Solution: Workshop or one of our subject-specific Torts, Criminal Law, or Contracts FYLSX workshops. This feature is designed to identify common mistakes individuals make on their FYLSX essays and provide solutions to correct such mistakes. If implemented, these solutions will result in higher scores on your essays. This week we evaluate common problems individuals encounter when discussing the issue of Voluntary Manslaughter on a Criminal Law essay.

1. Common Problems with Contributory and Comparative Negligence

Contributory Fault is a commonly tested defense to Negligence on FYLSX essays (Note: this discussion is limited to Contributory Fault as a Negligence defense). Contributory Fault consists of two separate, but related, concepts: a) Contributory Negligence and b) Comparative Negligence. In the course of assisting individuals prepare for FYLSX essays, we've identified several common mistakes that occur when individuals attempt to address Contributory Fault issues. First, individuals often fail to distinguish and delineate the two forms of Contributory Fault in their essay answers. Instead of clearly delineating and presenting each concept, Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence, as separate, independent issues, individuals often combine these separate concepts into one issue. Second, besides combining two separate, independent concepts into one, individuals will often only address either Contributory Negligence or Comparative Negligence and simply omit the other form of Contributory Fault. Lastly, another common mistake is complete omission of Contributory Fault as a defense to Negligence. It is important to note that individuals rarely have problems with the Statement of the Law* for Contributory Fault defenses to Negligence.

2. Solving Common Contributory and Comparative Negligence Problems

To remedy these common problems, individuals should recognize that Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence are separate, independent defenses to a claim of Negligence (in reality, only one form of contributory fault will apply in a particular jurisdiction; however, for purposes of the exam, the discussion of both forms of contributory fault is warranted).  Although both concepts fall under the umbrella of Contributory Fault, the operative effects of each concept are very different (complete bar to recovery of damages versus diminution of recovery of damages). Accordingly, on Torts essays questions, each concept should be presented as independent, separate issues.

To prevent the unnecessary omission of either Contributory Negligence or Comparative Negligence in a Torts essay, individuals should always organize and include both defenses to Negligence unless the call of the question directs otherwise. Since the applicability of both Contributory Fault defenses rely upon the same facts (Plaintiff's own negligent conduct), the discussion of one defense necessitates the discussion of the other defense too.

To prevent the entire omission of Contributory Fault defenses for Negligence claims, individuals should always consider the applicability of Contributory Fault defenses anytime a claim of Negligence arises on a Torts essay. Along with Assumption of the Risk, Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence are the most frequently tested defenses to Negligence on FYLSX essays. In almost all cases of Negligence, the discussion of both forms of Contributory Fault will be warranted.

3. Putting It All Together: Key Reminders for Contributory and Comparative Negligence

Here is a summary of key reminders to avoid common Contributory and Comparative Negligence mistakes on FYLSX Torts essays:

• Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence are separate, independent defenses to Negligence
• Never raise just one form of Contributory Fault; always include both forms
• Contributory Fault is almost always a defense to Negligence (unless the question directs otherwise)

*Please note, the above-asterisked concepts are fully defined, explained, and illustrated in our FYLSX Essay Solution on-demand workshop, which is available as a stand-alone program or included as part of all of our 1-on-1 FYLSX essay preparation programs.

C. Program Highlight: FYLSX 1-on-1 Trial Essay

As a reminder, we offer our FYLSX Trial Essay for individuals considering one of our full programs like our Paced or Fundamentals programs. The FYLSX Trial Essay is a 1-essay program designed to introduce you to our 1-on-1 FYLSX essay preparation programs. You can learn more and signup today for our FYLSX Trial Essay program.

D. Newsletter-Only Discounts

To receive Newsletter discounts in your inbox, Subscribe to this Newsletter.

E. Next Issue Preview

In our next issue, we'll continue our discussion of Checklists, including a sample checklist. Also, our Essays In-Depth feature will address common mistakes individuals make when addressing Consequential Damages in a Contracts essay. If you have any questions about this newsletter or any of our programs, then please feel free to Contact Us.

Study Smart,

-the BarReviewSolutions.com Team