u/emiliabow

I'm not sure after they downsized to Centre Street -- anyone know?

I've been on the fence about posting this, but I recognize that I took an entirely unconventional approach to passing the CA bar, and honestly had a lot of fun in prepping and taking it. I'm an attorney candidate. I used only baressays and the Mary Basick books (essays and PT).

I spent my first day on baressays downloading all essay answers (graded 65+) for each subject, for about the last 20 years. I created separate PDFs that combined all essay answers for each subject using smallpdf, resulting in one PDF for each subject. I then exported each PDF into Claude (or any AI) and prompted it to give me the top 10 rule statements and issues tested, explained at an 8th grade level, and then generated colorful tables to study based on the rules. In the end, each subject had a top-down, step-by-step approach to essays. Like for contracts - governing law (UCC, CL, mixed), K formation, SoF, PER, performance and breach, defenses, remedies. I also generated another prompt to give me "trigger words" for issues, which were identified by the essays that I downloaded. Like, simply, the words "changed the title," "wrote a note," "agreed that..." may indicate transmutation as an issue. I printed all of these out and marked them up as I studied.

I also created flashcards, via prompt, of the top 10 rule statements and trigger words, which I exported and went through on Quizlet.

I started by memorizing the rules, getting familiar with the essay structure, and just trying to understand what you needed for a 65 (which is really issue spotting). In my opinion, the CA bar was different than actual practice, but even the UBE, in that it seems that CA really cares about issue spotting - and it seems you can get a 65 just by spitting out issues to maximize the possible points you can get. I spent a day for every 2-3 subjects going top to bottom with each combined PDF and reviewing the rule statements, how each person identified the rule and applied the rules to the facts, and finding patterns and best practices. And any downtime went to Quizlet and memorizing and writing out the rules.

After going through all subjects, I went to the CA bar website and downloaded all the essay questions and printed them out. I then issue spotted through each one, writing out the issues on the side of the essays, and trying to write out the rules. This went through the last 1-2 days before the exam. I made sure to get through every single exam tested and available on the website. Interestingly, by the time I took the bar in F26, I had not done a single essay, PT, or entire exam. I focused on maximizing my time purely on issue spotting and being comfortable with writing out the rules.

And so, I didn't get to PTs until the last day before the exam. I felt it was pretty routine in having the statute and case authority in front of me, reading through depo or trial transcripts, and writing a brief. I focused on studying different structures to PT answers and, funny enough, the appellate structure of the courts to understand the level of authority (Supreme Court in my state is the lowest trial court, and Superior Courts don't exist here). Of course, I did export and create a single PDF of all PT answers and then prompted AI to create templates of all possible or regular PT structures (letters, briefs, etc.).

I will add that I also found my mnemonics from my first bar which helped tremendously -- I just added to it like for CA-specific PR rules and Community Property.

On the exam day, I walked in having not done a single essay, PT, or full exam. I also used AI to predict the essays that will be tested on the day of the exam and the probability of each subject -- which I will say wasn't that useful. I will say that I was prepared for two halves, and for the first half, I was confident that there was going to be either a PR or Community Property essay and I made sure I memorized my mnemonics for both. As soon as the exam started, I went through the essays (1-3) and found PR as the third essay. I started with PR as I had memorized and dumped my knowledge of the ABA/CA distinctions first. After that, I flipped back to the first question. My style, both for the first bar and in practice, is to get through a first draft and then go back to revise, so I finished the first half with an hour left and spent the remaining time revising, spotting additional issues, and making sure my formatting was good and easy to read. I did not outline my answers and focused on reading the call of the question first, going to the top and writing out the issues identified next to each line/paragraph, and then starting to write to maximize my word count and issues spotted.

For the second half, I realized that you know what subjects had already been tested and you can throw out everything you learned or retained about them and focus on the remaining subjects. You can review which subjects are likely to be tested and then focus on those. During the lunch break, it was crunch time for me to review quickly the PT structures, and then go over Civ Pro, Evidence, Community Property, etc. While Evidence was tested in the PT, Civ Pro and Community Property was, as predicted, tested and I made sure that I freshly remembered what I needed for each one.

I finished the second half with an hour and half to spare. I went back to add and refine my answers, fix typos and grammar, and made sure I caught as many issues as possible. Even if an issue may not be entirely related to the facts, you should lean towards writing out the issue and rule, just to show the grader you know it, and it is fine to say that it does not or may not apply (i.e., remedies). For the PT, I had time to create headings, add a signature line, and make it look like a real attorney work product.

I will say that being an attorney candidate helped. My entire focus was on the essays. I brought in my day job experience and added some details that students wouldn't normally know (like judicial discretion to limit discovery rather than denying in its entirety or the importance of commentaries in statutes).

Hope this helps and gives a different, unique perspective on studying for the CA bar. I just quickly wrote this by memory, so excuse any typos and whatnot.

For what they're worth, here are some pdfs: https://we.tl/t-biQedcEjjfF4S2DL

If you leave a call back number, they say they will purportedly call back in 2-3 business days. Amazing.

Hi all, I am a practicing attorney but passed the CA bar recently (I practice in another state). I am having trouble figuring out my next steps with the moral character application. My current employer will not be happy to know that I took the CA bar, and there will be a negative fallout when they find out through the questionnaire. The implication is that will be leaving the state and job, and at that point, I will likely be summarily let go or my job will make it difficult for me to stay.

Ideally, I would like to start looking for CA jobs - but it would be like pending admission, passed bar in February 2026. I am just worried that I will have much less opportunities if I am not barred when applying. Moral character already takes months.

Has anyone had to face this issue where they passed the bar, but reluctant to proceed with being admitted because of their current employer knowing? Is it better just to apply as a pending admission candidate and then going through moral character when I have a job lined up? It sucks feeling awful for passing the bar since I can't be admitted under the circumstances as I can't have the bar notify my current employer.

Thanks for any tips and guidance!

I was reviewing a clerk's work today -- a simple, short default judgment, but there was a case citation with a quote, using a case that we don't normally cite in our papers. I look up the citation and an entirely different case pops up, essentially a labor law case on summary judgment, with the quote nowhere to be seen or anything related to the facts of that case. I search the case title/caption that she cited to try to figure out if she just made a mistake with the citation -- and I find a decision with the title/caption but a different year and again nothing to do with a defaulting party and the quote nowhere to be found. At this point, I assume it is a hallucinated case and I'm incredibly disappointed because at the very least, she should have been careful. I felt dread in having to let others know.

I redlined her draft and talked with her about the issue with the citations (there was just a second subsequent case citation that was not a direct quote and that I thought didn't stand for the proposition stated).

I felt like I already jumped to the conclusion, and assumed the worst, that she used a hallucinated case citation. But I also wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt and went back to research what went wrong. After a half an hour of additional review, I discovered that there was a second decision with the same title/caption with the correct year cited. The case citation did have a typo, which was why it was bringing me to another, entirely unrelated case. The second decision had the actual quote that she was citing, and it actually was not a hallucinated case.

I've been through papers that had hallucinated cases entirely (long memos with cases that don't exist or don't stand for the proposition stated) and it is undeniably product of AI. But then there are many other times where it sounds like AI, there's suspicion, and it brings in all the negative inferences and perceptions of AI use in the law practice. Of course, AI use can be positive to make work more efficient and the writing stronger, so long as it is used carefully. But overall, improper AI use can be devastating to careers and reputation... no one wants to be published in the law journal for being sanctioned or called out for using hallucinated cases in their law practice (S&C among other firms).

AI use at its nascent stage just makes things difficult. I'm sure it will be more refined over time, and its practice has already been more accepted by various courts. But it has certainly taken practicing law by storm, among other things, and I'm a bit overwhelmed by the assumption that I made about her using a hallucinated case and all the implications and feelings it brought in.

We're trying to buy for a friend... thank you!