美国加州&纽约州律师考试时间表:

2018年7月24-25日

2019年2月26-27日

全国免费
咨询热线

400 - 110 - 8128
400 - 102 - 1398

当前位置:网站首页宏景资讯宏景资讯
2017年7月加州律考降低了难度?有真题有真相

作为加州律考改革的首次考试,今年7月份参考的考生表现不俗,通过率高达49.6%。良好的通过率极大的增高了中国考生报考的意向,也使许多考生想一窥今年7月份的真题风采,于是就有了此文。

加州律考


 JULY 2017 ESSAY AND PERFORMANCE TEST CONVERSE 

Question 1:Community Property
Question 2:Professional Responsibility/Evidence
Question 3:Remedies
Question 4:Civil Procedure
Question 5:Torts

PT Task:Persuasive Letter--Criminal Law and Procedure

下文为加州律师考试2017年7月份的ESSAY真题,考试一共考5篇,每篇ESSAY限时1小时,此为其中2篇。

 QUESTION 1 

Wanda, a successful accountant, and Hal, an art teacher, who are California residents, married in 2008. After their marriage, Wanda and Hal deposited their earnings into a joint bank account they opened at Main Street Bank from which Wanda managed the couple’s finances. Each month, Wanda also deposited some of her earnings into an individual account she opened in her name at A1 Bank without telling Hal.

In 2010, Hal inherited $10,000 and a condo from an uncle. Hal used the $10,000 as a down payment on a $20,000 motorcycle, borrowing the $10,000 balance from Lender who relied on Hal’s good credit. Hal took title to the motorcycle in his name alone. The loan was paid off from the joint bank account during the marriage.

At Wanda’s insistence, Hal transferred title to the condo, worth $250,000, into joint tenancy with Wanda to avoid probate. The condo increased in value during the marriage.

On Hal’s 40th birthday, Wanda took him to Dealer and bought him a used camper van for $20,000, paid out of their joint bank account, titled in Hal’s name. Hal used the camper van for summer fishing trips with his friends.

In 2016, Wanda and Hal permanently separated, and Hal filed for dissolution. Just before the final hearing on the dissolution, Hal happened to discover Wanda’s individual account, which contained $50,000.

What are Hal’s and Wanda’s rights and liabilities, if any, regarding:

1. The condo? Discuss.
2. The motorcycle? Discuss.
3. The camper van? Discuss.
4. The A1 Bank account? Discuss.

Answer according to California Law.

 QUESTION 2 

Claire had been a customer of Home Inc., a home improvement company owned by Don. Dissatisfied with work done for her, she brought an action against Home Inc. and Don in California state court, alleging that they had defrauded her.

Don entered into a valid retainer agreement with Luke, engaging Luke to represent him alone and not Home Inc. in Claire’s action. Luke then interviewed Don, who admitted he had defrauded Claire but added he had never defrauded anyone else, before or since. Luke subsequently interviewed Wendy, Don’s sister. Wendy told Luke Don had admitted to her that he had defrauded Claire. Luke told Wendy that Don had admitted to him too that he had defrauded Claire. Luke drafted a memorandum recounting what Wendy told him and expressing his belief Wendy would be a good witness for Claire.

Shortly before trial, Don fired Luke. Don soon died unexpectedly.

Claire filed a claim against Don’s estate and a claim against Home Inc., alleging as in her action that they had defrauded her. As the final act in closing Don’s estate, the executor settled Claire’s claim against the estate, but not against Home Inc.

At trial against Home Inc., which was now the sole defendant, Claire has attempted to compel Luke to testify about what Wendy told him, but he has refused, claiming the attorney-client privilege. She has also attempted to compel him to produce his memorandum, but he has again refused, claiming both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.

1. Should the court compel Luke to testify about what Wendy told him? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

2. Should the court compel Luke to produce his memorandum:

a. To the extent it recounts what Wendy told him? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

b. To the extent it expresses his belief that Wendy would be a good witness for Claire? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

3. What ethical violations, if any, has Luke committed? Discuss.

Answer according to California and ABA authorities.

小编智商已下线,请自备翻译.....

你觉得难度如何?ESSAY部分答题要求考生的答案可以证明自己的法律分析能力,能对重要事实和非重要事实加以区分以及辨明问题的转折点和事实。答题的时候应该以执业律师的思维方式进行思考,将法律法规和案情进行结合,得出合乎逻辑的结论。考生不要只给出相关的法律法规,这样得分率将大打折扣。值得注意的是在进行写作部分考试的时候,一定要保证答案的完整性。

一般来说,如果考生在此部分每篇ESSAY能得分65+,基本上通过考试问题不大。辣么,小伙伴,你觉得自己能得65+吗?

因为咨询的小伙伴很多,啰嗦的小编在此强调一下美国加州律师考试的报考资格。一般来说,中国考生最适合报考的是美国加州的律师考试,因为其允许海外执业律师直接报考。也就是说,如果你有中国的律师执业证一般可获取加州报考资格。后台也有不少小伙伴咨询纽约州律师考试报考资格。如果您是中国执业律师但是没有美国本土的LLM或者JD学位,一般是不具备NYBAR报考资格的。NYBAR明确规定考生一定要有在美国接受法学教育的背景,所以报考条件限定为美国本土的LLM/JD。具体的考试详情,此链接为传送门:美国加州&纽约州律师考试详解


课程试听


宏景国际教育 · 国内唯一提供USBAR课程的教育培训机构

全国免费服务热线:400-102-1398 / 400-110-8128 Email: service@hongjingedu.com 中国总部:广东省深圳市罗湖区人民南路深房广场19F