CIVIL PROCEDURE (Law School) BLOWS.....

[Hosnon]

Hardest exam I've ever taken in my life...I don't get it...teach us X amount and test us on .1 x X. I'd be better off just guessing which 30 percent is probable.

[caligirl]

1. congrats on finishing that. I've heard its tough. I have two sons

thinking of going to klaw school. One is a philosophy major at UCSC and the other is a HS junior taking so many tests right now.

[Hosnon]

5. I got my degree in Philo as well...supposed to help in LS but meh...

[racaulk]

2. I feel the exact same way about the CPA exam!

I'm currently stuyding to take my final two sections for the THIRD time! Good luck to you, MJDuncan--I'm right there in the boat with you. <sigh>

[Hosnon]

6. Good luck as well:) nt

[ClevelandSportsCurse]

23. I have had trouble with the CPA exam too

I keep losing the guessing game of what will appear on the exam. It's so discouraging because I do all that studying and then I am never quizzed on vast majority of that stuff. They always seem to know where I didn't study very well, and I get burned. Nice business model these test administrators run.

[keithjx]

3. Hey, I remember that feeling.

Civ pro did suck. My prof (university of Wyoming) was like 106, but he knew his stuff. He just couldn't communicate it very well.

Thank GOD I never have to do that again. But congrats on getting through it. Best of luck.
KJ

[Hosnon]

7. I mean I just dont get it...I study for about 6 days and then take

the exam and wonder "what the fuck did I study cause it sure isnt helping me now"

[madaboutharry]

4. Reading your post

just gave me a falshback of my Civil Procedure Post Traumatic Stress Disorder!

[Hosnon]

8. Yes...it is done - thank GOD!! eom

[ElaineinIN]

9. Ack me too!

and then bar exam nightmares twice (NY and IN)!

Cut that out!

Actually the funny thing is that no practioner in his or her right mind doesn't have a desk book within reach for these kinds of questions, so I never did see the point of memorizing any of it.

[Hosnon]

10. Yea that's what I hate...I doubt a judge is ever going to say to me:

You wanna file a 12b6 motion? Aaaaaaaaand....GO!!!! Now!!...you have 30 minutes to give me the framework for such a motion and then apply these facts to that motion. (Then tell me if I should grant said motion)...

Total respect for any person that survives this juvenile little rite of passage.

[Kweli4Real]

15. You right absolutely right ...

I found Civ Pro and most of the other core coursework to be merely rights of passages and hoop jumping.

I still have night sweats about a Contracts professor that used to say, "Court decisions are the tools of the law, and citations are the tools' handle."

His final exam question was:

"It has been said, all problems of Contracts are merely a matter of consideration." Discuss this statement, citing any and all appliciable case law.

Yeah right :puke:

[Hosnon]

34. Right...how many times has a professor told me that a judge's

ruling depends upon what he had for breakfast that morning?

[Bake]

47. And if the judge rules against you on the basis of breakfast

What do you do? Take the order up on interlocutory appeal!

Bake, Esq.

[Hosnon]

60. Im a 1L, I dunno, haha. I guess you could always appeal

the ruling, thank god for appeals

[Bake]

Yeah, but you'd better KNOW it

Especially if you're going to be a litigator.

And a judge may not ask you if you want to file a 12(b)(6) motion, but you just may run into a situation in the real world where you have to know WHEN to file a 12(b)(6) motion or WAIVE the right to do so! And that constitutes malpractice! (And it's a situation you WILL run into!).

And the (in)famous International Shoe case? World-Wide Volkswagen? Those issues -- personal jurisdiction -- come up ALL the time.

And how about REMOVAL? Do you know that if you want to remove a case based on "new paper" with § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) as the grounds for subject matter jurisdiction, you only have one year to do it from the time the case was filed, with one narrow case-law exception? You'd BETTER know it.

Civ Pro is one of the most useful classes you'll ever take, IF you plan to be a litigator. And if you think THAT was hard, wait for Crim Pro and Con Law I and II!!!

Bake, Esq.

[Hosnon]

63. Ack! Int'l Shoe and World Wide? Is this my civ pro prof? haha:

PErsonal jurisdiction is not that bad. But with things like summary judgment where Brennan makes such a good argument against using the standard of proof because it requires the judge to review the evidence, it is more confusing.

Yea, my father is a lawyer and said that Civ Pro is the most useful class. But, only about 10% is ever practically encountered in practice.

[atre]

20. Why did you do that?

Does Indiana not take comity applicants? It's my understanding that in most states you can get a license merely by practicing in another state for X amount of years.

[ElaineinIN]

36. Didn't have enough years

...as I recall, I needed 5 and only had 3 when I moved. Not all states have it (I don't think CA lets anyone waive in, could be wrong), and some states only recognize other states (I think WA, ORE and Alaska have reciprocity, but not elsewhere..)

[Just Me]

11. Yeah. Those rules can be a pain in the ass.

Just think, those are only the beginning with all the state and local rules on top of the federal. You'll do fine. Just pay close attention in class, take meticulous notes and review those notes daily for reinforcement.

To tell ya' the truth, I hated criminal procedure more,...toughest freakin' professor I've ever had in my life. And the Bar exam is no cakewalk. Ugh! I swear they get a bunch of nuts together to figure out how to drive testers nuts (and it is always stunning who ends up passing the Multi-state).

Best of luck!!!

[Hosnon]

13. Yea I can't wait for more!! But I do know that all the nit picky crap

that we have to know will come up in .1% of the cases. Yes, I know it must be tested on but ONE FREAKIN test the ENTIRE semester that depends on some random obscure concept within 1200 pages???

I'm just bitchin...I can handle...just need to vent:)

[Bake]

51. I had to take the Miss. Bar Exam after 10 years in practice

Because Mississippi did not have reciprocity with Kentucky!

One of the essay questions dealt with FRCP 23 -- the class action rule. You probably spend one day on it in Civ Pro; most lawyers will NEVER deal with class actions and have no clue what the rule says is required for class certification. Fortunately, I had been in class action practice almost exclusively for the preceding ten years! I could cite the rule, leading cases, etc. HA!

You never know when those pesky little rules will pop up!

Bake, Esq.

[gratuitous]

12. What? They actually test you on that?

Every attorney I've ever worked for just expects ME to know the rules of civil procedure!

And then they get paid four times as much.

[Hosnon]

14. Seriously? Cause that is amazing...seems to me only a

Civ Pro prof actually knows all this shit...practicing attorneys just narrow their practice.

[gratuitous]

17. Well, appropriate to the attorney's practice

I work for a litigation and appellate firm, so I'm well-versed on jurisdiction, civil process, forms and deadlines for pleadings, discovery, and appeals. I'm fuzzier on rules pertaining to depositions and trial procedure, but those are more the province of the attorney -- who usually looks them up each time anyway.

[Kweli4Real]

16. So true ...

I my office. The paralegals and secretaries know far more rules than any of the attorneys.

[Hosnon]

18. Yea, there's a reason the damn rules are published

But then again, such is school

[atre]

19. You'll probably end up booking

If there is anything more unpredictable than law school grades, I don't know what it is. I struggle through Securities Reg and get a 95; I breeze through UCC and end up with only a B.

[Hosnon]

24. Booking? I hope that means I'll do good, haha....eom

[Sir Jeffrey]

21. How much reading/studying do you guys do for class?

I'm heading off to law school this fall. Just curious. I've heard if you treat it like a job (8-5 or 6) with classes and library time, you can manage it rather well. Thanks

[Hosnon]

25. Yea that will work...:

I do class from 8-3...work out 3-6...eat dinner...then study from 7-10. If you do that I'd imagine you could do well. However, the month before finals, push the studying to about 1 am. Also, per "paper chase" we are all scared of getting called on. Advice: It happens, you WILL look like a dumbass. Don't worry about it. Study the concepts behind each case and if you don't know which party can't bring a claim because of a preclusion rule, that is fine...look like an idiot but don't study too much on the facts.

[atre]

41. I had a pretty similar schedule...

I had class from roughly 8 to 3 (with a substantial degree of variance), and during the first year I studied in the evenings from about 7 to midnight (with a substantial degree of variance). I also worked out, but not nearly three hours a day; It was closer to three hours a week, to be honest, but that was probably because I completely neglected cardio exercises.

In the third year (which I just finished), you can take more free time for yourself.

I have to concur with MJ. Don't waste too much time on the facts of the cases, even if there is a tradeoff with your in-class performance if you are "Socratized." Unless your class grading systems are substantially different than mine, you get no points for your in-class recitations. Thus, while a detailed knowledge of the facts will help you look like less of a fool when you are stood up, they do little to help you with your grades.

[Hosnon]

42. Thanks for the input...yea the cardio took up about an hour:)

But the whole Socratic aspect is BS if your professor doesnt care

[ClevelandSportsCurse]

22. My first final is coming up on Thursday

in Criminal Law. I am going part time, thus I will take Civ Pro next year....if I get to survive for a next year. These exams are so damn hard to study for because you never know what the professor is really looking for. You also don't know how they grade as far as how many points they award per concept. I have always been a weak test taker and it has come to really bite me in the ass in law school.

Then there is the bell curve, which has just been killing me. I just don't understand the point of it. To me, it is a very elitist way of grading. There are plenty of professional schools that grade on a pass/fail basis because they know that everyone in there is pretty damn smart to begin with and that there's no purpose to telling a bunch of them that they are stupid compared to the others. Also, everyone has to pass the professional licensing exam (whether it's bar, medical, etc.) in order to practice anyway.

I have also had frustrations with the CPA exam too in that much of what I study for never appears on the exam.

[Hosnon]

26. Bell curve can help...as it did help me today...

If everyone makes a between a 50 and 70, and I make a 60, I get a C/B. Law School is bogus that they have one test at the end. I would know so much more if they tested after every chapter but it is like a frat...just training you in the ways it has always been done.

[ClevelandSportsCurse]

33. True...

I get sick of the law school people saying how it is just the "law school way" to have one exam at the end.

You're very right in that it is a frat in that they force you to conform to their way of doing things. Some people are slower or faster than others in making the adjustment, but it doesn't mean they can't make it in the long run. However, the school takes the fast learners (who could have stumbled upon some luck too) and immediately starts promoting them as the smartest ones while the rest of us are looked upon as doormats.

The game is far from over. I work part time in a law firm and I am getting great experience, which will help me for later in law school (again, if I get there). Also, since I am concentrating more in business and tax law, those classes won't come until later as well. So, I foresee doing much better in the later classes then I am now. However, the first year is the initiation into the later years.

[Hosnon]

35. Well it is not an end game...all the profs have told us that

no matter what your performance in school, after you have your first job, that does not matter.

And it is the truth. My father didnt graduate from an ABA school and consistently bested lawyers from first tier schools.

Law school ranking is how good you are at learning...once we are out there, it is a whole new game.

[ElaineinIN]

38. Its not always that way

... mostly in the first year. Some of my upper level classes had more than one test and papers.

I'm in tax, so I promptly forgot all of my civ pro, relearned it for Bar, relearned it for second Bar... I know call a litigtor, Heaven forbid you ever have me anywhere but probate court or Tax court, neither of which really count

[tabasco]

27. What I hated in law school ...

the professors ask more questions than give you answers.

We would waste 15 minutes in Civ Pro dicking around when the professor could have just said "put it in the complaint!"

I agree with the socratic method but some professors don't know how to pull it off.

OTOH, I had an absolutely excellent professor for Contracts.

[Hosnon]

28. My Ks Professor is absolutely horrible. And I agree with

the Socratic method in that it requires a student to think. However, I got my degree in Philosophy and Socrates was very reluctant to give a definite answer...which is needed in law school.

Yes, I agree there are sides to every position but one side is usually more reasonable and provable...a law professor should give that info.

[Bleacher Creature]

29. Didn't mind Civ Pro that much.

But HATED Property.

HATED IT!

[Hosnon]

30. I didn't mind Civ Pro...but take this question

If a defendant wants a court to determine whether or not def. has immunity in a case, what motion should he bring?

I think that is the question. A friend of mine that is 6 in the class of 190 had no idea what the question was asking for so I don't feel too bad about it.

Property...I like...however, that exam is a week from today so ask me then..

Any answers the the above are welcome

[Hosnon]

39. ANYONE HELP ME OUT?

[atre]

43. Eh... I don't know... Motion for Summary Judgment?

Seems like I always got a few questions on every exam that was never covered in class. On my Crim Law exam, I had four or five questions on possession, which was never covered.

[Hosnon]

44. I dunno...perhaps 12b6? eom?

[atre]

45. 12(b)(6) looks just at the sufficiency of the complaint to state

a viable cause of action. A complaint make state a colorable claim, but immunity would consitute a complete defense to the claim.

By the way, if the "immunity" of which you speak is sovereign immunity, you would make a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction (according to a source on Lexis).

[Hosnon]

46. The immunity was provided if the criminal prosecution was made

with adequate cause

[atre]

49. Was this multiple choice? If so, what were your options?

My Civ Pro class apparently wasn't as practical. We were tested more on the theory and application of Civil Procedure law, not motion and pleading practice.

[Hosnon]

53. Well the question was:

If X has an immunity, what should X do to have the court decide his immunity standing?

Not mc...essay. I thought aff. def. but that wouldnt bring it to the court to determine it. i said file an 8c aff. def. (think i have that right) and then move for a 12(c) preliminary hearing ....

I dont' really know, it was so confusing as to what was being asked.

[Hosnon]

48. I went with 8c...which i think ...actually i forget...but i went with 8c

I think:)

[atre]

52. 8(c) is applicable in that it would be an affirmative defense

... but I'm not sure the motion itself would be under 8(c).

[Hosnon]

54. Immunity would be an affirmative defense wouldnt it?

It would have to be plead unless it wasnt a logical defense as to the pleading

[atre]

57. Yes.

Moore's says that immunity (whether common law or statutory) is an affirmative defense and may be plead either through a 12(b)(6) motion or a motion under Rule 56 for summary judgment. I think the latter is more applicable because there would have to be resort outside the complaint for the evidence.

[Hosnon]

59. Well I know (due to the structure of the test) that sj under 56 was

not what was being asked...

I just don't know how you would ask the court to rule on immunity in pleading

[atre]

62. I think someone somewhere else in this thread nailed it

Immunity is an affirmative defense under 8(c), and the movant should bring a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.

[Hosnon]

66. So if you have an affirmative defense under 8(c) - immunity,

then it should be plead in the answer and THEN, a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings should be submitted?

[Hosnon]

67. Am I on the right track? eom

[Poor Richard Lex]

70. I have forgotten the federal rules of procedure

edited because I misread the question lol

[Bake]

55. Summary judgment comes after discovery is complete, usually

If you have a total defense like immunity, I'd consider filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings (because you DID, of course, fully plead immunity in your Answer to the Complaint). The rule number escapes me at the moment.

I keep the West edition of the FRCP and MRCP on my desk at all times and refer to it almost daily. But I'm a litigator. Corporate and in-house lawyers can't even find the courthouse, much less do they need to know the rules. Different strokes.

Bake, Esq.

[Hosnon]

56. So if in the answer you plead immunity then

you could on a 12b6 motion saying that there is no claim?

[Kweli4Real]

50. Civ Pro ... well ... Okay

... Property ...well ... Okay. I hated wills, estates and trusts.

I had a funny thing happen in my Prof. Ethics class. The prof showed a segment of North Exposure, where one character thought he was beating another character in a land deal. Well, he was wrong. He took it in the shorts and went to his attorney for advice on what he could do. The attorney questioned the loser about the circumstances of the deal. It came out that the deal was consummated in a restaurant and both parties had been drinking, though the loser stated he was not drunk. The attorney edged around the capacity issue
without coming out and saying drunk=no capacity=no K, because might have been suborning pergury.

The prof asked the class how they would have handled the situation. It was interesting to watch all these fresh-faced kids wax on about how they would have counselled the loser that he was done.

After class, I approached the prof and said that he really should approach that particular lesson with a caveat: "those that follow the letter of the rules; but expect to be beat by those that don't. And, they will be hungry."

My Prof asked what I meant by that. I told him that people go to attorneys because they have a problem that they want to go away. If you as their attorney can't make the problem go away, they will find one that will.

The Prof then went on and on about honor, ethics and playing by the rules.

Mind you. This was coming from a Prof that required every first year K student, every B Law sudent and every Prof Ethics student ... to buy HIS book.

Talk about situational ethics.

[Gothmog]

31. Good Luck

I guess that I was one of the wierd people who enjoyed law school. Exams were tough but fun.

The CPA exam is much harder than the bar exam.

Good luck on the rest of your exams and the rest of law school.

[Hosnon]

37. Enjoyed law school? How so? eom

[Hosnon]

32. By the way...this is the longest thread I have spawned:

Who would've thought effing law school would do such???

[Hosnon]

40. I need a lawyer or preferably a law student to respond to #30

[georgia10]

58. Immunity is a defense

Which would be raised in federal court under 8(c). You're right.

Good luck to all the law students with exams. Civ pro was my favorite class, so I can't empathize that much.

But let me tell you...you think civ pro is tough....wait until you get to Conflict of Laws ;)

Best of luck to all around with exams...

[Hosnon]

61. Haha thanks...by the way...I'm from GA so if you wanna

hook me up with a job...feel free:)

So immunity would be raised with 8(c)...how would it be forced on the court to determine whether the immunity was proper or not? Preliminary hearing (12(c)) I think?

[georgia10]

64. Actually, I'm in IL

my name is Georgia.

Actually, no hearing is necessary. For example, I worked on a case with Monell immunity (immunity of a municipality) and I wrote the opinion based on the reply and response; no hearing necessary.

Absolute and qualified immunity, because it's based usually on case law or statute, does not necessarily require a hearing. I could see the need for a hearing perhaphs where the parties are not clearly defined; i.e. in the case of congressional aides, a hearing may have been needed to determine the extent of their involvment in drafting legislation, etc. to see if they should be subject to same immunity as legislators. But generally, at least as far as I've seen so far, hearings are not required by the rules.

[Hosnon]

65. Ah, I wish I could be at GSU...u at UGA?

But the question necessitated hearing by the court?...on its face

[Poor Richard Lex]

68. Your done with it

get ready for the next exam. if you are done, have a beer and relax for a few days. The pressure can really get to you.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

69. AAARGHH! I'm having flashbacks!

The horror... the horror... But just wait til you take the federal jurisdiction course (which we called "Mystery Courts"). Yikes. It might be an elective, which you should take if you plan on doing litigation. But golly gee whiz, that stuff will give you a bodacious headache.