Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache
Yeah that definitely makes more sense sober. When I get ready to take my electives should I try to take things that relate to each other in some way or does it matter?
|
That's kinda up to you. Don't expect that you're actually going to learn how to practice an area because you took a class or that it will further you along or anything. Except for clinics if they have those at McGeorge. Clinics you get to do some applied semi real life stuff --sorta. My take on electives was something like this priority:
1) Was I really, really interested in the subject over all things.
2) Did it fit the schedule and would I have the opportunity to take it later.
3) Did I like/hate the instructor.
4) Was it a class, any class, that fit and I needed to graduate.
I passed on a few classes of interest because of who was teaching. I had a dude for torts who I swear doesn't fucking have a clue about the subject. I wouldn't take him a second time if it was something I thought was important. Don't get me wrong there were some teachers that, like the dude I had for property, who was not even interested in the subject at all. But he was a completely different dude when he taught tree hugging.
Short answer, I'd not leave law school without taking these classes for sure whether or not they're required:
1) evidence,
2) crim law/procedure,
3) con law,
4) contracts,
5) property,
6) torts
I'd also try to get a few of these in:
a) wills and trusts
b) business associations
c) ethics
d) civ pro
e) community/marital property
f) advanced UCC stuff regarding secured transactions and commercial paper.
You will see 1) through 6) again. Those are on the MBE portion of the bar exam. Also you might have a few essay questions out of those as well. a) through f) are typical subjects from essay questions. You will also probably have to take that ethics bar exam (MPRE?).
Here's a few sample questions from the February 2012 California Bar Exam (
http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Port...uestions.pdf):
Question 1
Sam, a widower, set up a valid, revocable inter vivos trust, naming himself as trustee, and providing that upon his death or incapacity his cousin, Tara, should be successor trustee. He did not name any additional trustee. He directed the trustee to distribute the income from the trust annually, in equal shares, to each of his three children, Ann, Beth, and Carol. He specified that, at the death of the last of the three named children, the trust was to terminate, and the remaining assets were to be distributed to his then living descendants, by representation.
When he established the trust, he also executed a valid will pouring over all his additional assets into the trust.
Two years later, Sam died. He was survived by Ann, Beth, and Carol. Within two months, Dave, age 25, began litigation to prove that he was also a child of Sam’s, although Sam had never known of his existence.
For three years after Sam’s death, Tara administered the trust as trustee. Because Ann had very serious medical problems and could not work, and because Beth and Carol had sufficient assets of their own, Tara distributed nearly all of the trust income to Ann and little to Beth and Carol.
After the court determined that Dave was in fact Sam’s child, Dave claimed a share of the trust. Beth and Carol have filed suit against Tara, claiming breach of fiduciary duties. Tara has submitted her resignation, and Beth and Carol have sought termination of the trust so that all assets may now be distributed outright to the beneficiaries now living.
1) What interests, if any, does Dave have in the trust assets? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
2) Are Beth and Carol likely to be successful in terminating the trust? Discuss. 3) Are Beth and Carol likely to be successful in suing Tara? Discuss.
Question 2 City recently opened a new central bus station.
Within the central bus station, City has provided a large bulletin board that is available for free posting of documents. City requires that all free-posted documents be in both English and Spanish because City’s population is about equally divided between English- and Spanish-speaking people.
City refused to allow the America for Americans Organization (AAO) to use the bulletin board because AAO sought to post a flyer describing itself in English only. The flyer stated that AAO’s primary goal is the restriction of immigration. The flyer also advised of the time and place of meetings and solicited memberships at $10 each.
Does City’s refusal to allow AAO to use the bulletin board violate the rights of AAO’s members under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Discuss.
Question 3
Paul sued David in federal court for damages for injuries arising from an automobile accident.
At trial, in his case-in-chief, Paul testified that he was driving westbound, under the speed limit, in the right-hand lane of a highway having two westbound lanes. He further testified that his passenger, Vera, calmly told him she saw a black SUV behind them weaving recklessly through the traffic. He also testified that, about 30 seconds later, he saw David driving a black SUV, which appeared in the left lane and swerved in front of him. He testified that David’s black SUV hit the front of his car, seriously injuring him and killing Vera. He rested his case.
In his case-in-chief, David testified that Paul was speeding, lost control of his car, and ran into him. David called Molly, who testified that, on the day of the accident, she had been driving on the highway, saw the aftermath of the accident, stopped to help, and spoke with Paul about the accident. She testified further that, as soon as Paul was taken away in an ambulance, she carefully wrote down notes of what Paul had said to her. She testified that she had no recollection of the conversation. David showed her a photocopy of her notes and she identified them as the ones she wrote down immediately after the accident. The photocopy of the notes was admitted into evidence. The photocopy of the notes stated that Paul told Molly that he was at fault because he was driving too fast and that he offered to pay medical expenses for anyone injured. David rested his case.
Assuming that all appropriate objections and motions were timely made, should the court have admitted:
1. Vera’s statement? Discuss. 2. The photocopy of Molly’s notes? Discuss. Answer according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Question 3 is a good example of a straight forward don't get too crazy. The short answer is that Vera's is inadmissible hearsay that has no exception. No point in going into shit like excited utterances, dying declarations, etc.