Only one more multistate bar exam (MBE) subject left to go: Torts. Theoretically, if I can do very well on these six subjects and ok on the rest, I will pass. At least I know these subjects will be ON the bar. The rest it's an educated guess.
PR tomorrow and hopefully I can start Torts as well. We'll see.
I'm getting a bit sick of trying to catch up. Ugh.
I'm stunned at how much of this I remember from law school. I think my first-year contracts professor must have done an excellent job. I honestly feel like I could take this section of the bar right now.
So that makes one section. ;)
Not a big fan of hearsay. It's confusing. That is all.
I don't think I like Simons quite as much for evidence, but evidence is just more boring. He's definitely not bad, but it just feels like rule after rule after rule.
I'm kind of excited to get back to a lecturer I know I like. Or at least I liked his criminal law lecture. I wasn't a huge fan of evidence in law school, so we'll see if Simons can do anything with it in BarBri land.
Going over Con Law stuff reminded me of something I had forgotten. Con Law has some coherent principles, but not many and is riddled with exceptions. A lot of times it just seems to be who is on the court matters more than what the Constitution says.
I like Con Law, but this is the more boring, structural half. This half is interesting when there is discussion and debate, but as a black letter law subject, it's not too hot. It's fairly straightforward and I've found that I remember almost all of it already.
Again, this post got up late. Apologies to all my loyal readers.
The topic was pretty straightforward, but the lecturer drove me crazy. It made me want to go back to Property!
This post got up a bit late, but I loved the Property lecturer. She was about as good as I can imagine a BarBri lecturer being. I might even remember something about Property law as a result!
