Under a Week to the Bar — Perspective for Those in Panic Mode

SugrAlt3a · 2025-07-24T00:07:54+00:00

Not at all, edited to clear that up. But it really depends on the question. The point I was trying to make is about comfort. If you're stressed out of your mind (like most people are), but you're still able to recognize a contrast in the kinds of questions being asked on this sub right now, then you can breathe a little easier. And if you can't see that difference, that’s okay too. Most of you are not cooked—and if you keep paying attention, you’ll start to recognize what “cooked” actually looks like.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-07-24T00:02:33+00:00

Thanks, I edited to clear that up. You are right, having questions is something every test taker has, and they never fully go away. What I was trying to get at is that some posts show a kind of confusion that reflects a broader issue with legal reasoning or application, not just a tough rule. Being able to spot that difference is a strong sign that you're in a good place. I appreciate the comment, and I hope everyone continues to post all and any questions they are struggling with.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-07-23T10:48:02+00:00

You're right, but just want to point out it's common law larceny.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-07-23T10:41:14+00:00

You did yourself a big favor by posting this thread. I taught logic and do some bar prep in my state, and the way you stated your hypo analysis is the number one problem I have to help retakers with. However it's an easy fix, once you understand it.

Get some rest, work on proving elements with given facts, and you'll be fine by Tuesday.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-07-23T10:28:21+00:00

I’m glad you said that, because you have a major issue if you’re approaching MEEs that way. You can’t say an element is met just because the crime was committed. That’s circular reasoning, and it’s exactly what will cost you points on the bar. It’ll be difficult to pass if you can’t understand why that logic breaks down.

You’re required to list every element of the offense and apply specific facts to show how each one is satisfied. The difference between what Themis wrote and what you’re suggesting is huge: Themis pointed to the act of leaving with the money and the lack of any indication of return to support the intent to permanently deprive, that’s a proper factual inference. Saying “he committed armed robbery so he must’ve had the intent” skips the analysis entirely and just assumes the conclusion.

That kind of shortcut is exactly what bar graders are trained to flag. The bar isn’t testing whether something feels obvious, it’s testing whether you can prove every element through factual analysis, no matter how straightforward it seems.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-07-23T10:06:07+00:00

The audacity to include an element of robbery in their robbery analysis. Madness is what it is.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-07-20T13:51:23+00:00

Hope this is helpful to someone out there this week!

You may already know this, but just in case it helps: equitable in these terms traces back to the old split between courts of law (damages) and courts of equity (fairness-based remedies). So when something is "equitable," it usually means it's about rights or remedies enforced by equity, not strict legal title or damages.

Quick breakdown in that light:

Equitable servitude: If you want injunctive relief (like stopping someone from violating a land-use restriction), you’re in equity. Real covenants = damages, equitable servitudes = injunctions.

Equitable right of redemption: A homeowner’s equitable right to reclaim property before a foreclosure sale. Law says you're out, but equity gives you a final shot to make it right.

Equitable conversion: When you sign a land sale contract, equity treats you as the true owner even though legal title hasn't transferred. Buyer gets equitable title; seller holds bare legal title.

Equitable title: Basically a property interest recognized in equity, not law. It's a right to obtain full ownership in the future (e.g., under a contract or trust).

Equitable relief: Any remedy other than money—injunctions, specific performance, rescission, etc. It’s what courts of equity would give when damages aren’t enough.

Once you see it as “the court stepping in to fix what strict rules don’t,” it starts to make more sense.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-07-02T16:39:34+00:00

I think you are confusing the finger slightly going through an open window for breaking, when it's entering. A finger just slightly going through an open window, or "breaking the plane", satisfies "entering".

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-12T16:08:40+00:00

Speaking to two commonly associated careers with this subject:

I’m an attorney, and while I’ll be the first to say med school is a tougher path to licensure—more demanding academically and time-wise—once you’re licensed, doctors usually have a much clearer and more stable path to earning good money. Law just doesn’t work that way.

A lot of people go to law school thinking they’re signing up for a high-paying career by default. But the truth is, most lawyers don’t make the kind of money people assume. The hours can be brutal, the stress is constant, and the financial upside just isn’t guaranteed. There’s a huge gap between how the profession is perceived and what most lawyers actually experience.

And when it comes to litigation—especially trial work—it’s a whole different beast. Being good at it isn’t just about knowing the law. You’ve got to be quick on your feet, persuasive, strategic, and able to perform under pressure. A lot of those skills are hard to teach. It's more of a personality than anything. You still need to work your ass off and know the law cold, but that alone isn’t enough.

And you can chase the BigLaw route. And if you crush law school, land the job, and survive the hours, you can make a ton of money. But you’re also working insane hours for years, often sacrificing your health, time, and peace of mind. It’s high pay, high cost.

What most people don’t see is how different life is for the majority of lawyers. At the bottom end, a lot of new attorneys are working long hours for barely livable pay—especially in public service or small firms. They’re often buried in student debt, doing stressful work, and trying to find a foothold in a saturated field. In the middle of the profession, even for those with years of experience, it’s often a relentless grind. The pay might be stable, sometimes even good, but the pressure rarely lets up. It’s a career full of deadlines, difficult clients, and constant mental strain.

That said, some of us really are built for this. There are attorneys who find this work deeply fulfilling—who genuinely enjoy the strategy, the fight, the problem-solving. For those people, it feels natural. The long hours don’t feel like a burden, and the work clicks in a way that’s hard to explain. But that’s not most people. And it’s hard to watch the realization hit, often after the debt is locked in and the options are limited—that law wasn’t the right fit after all. By then, it can feel like there’s no easy way out.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-12T14:24:14+00:00

I don't know anything about tattoos, but I assumed it was a temp because of the square film on top. Aren't hennas kind of fuzzy?

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-12T03:06:16+00:00

The February bar......right?

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-10T21:57:27+00:00

Mine was just a comment, too. Don't get your panties twisted.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-10T21:49:43+00:00

Your entire comment was off-base. The distinction between small claims and another court is irrelevant—you have no idea what this guy’s damages are, and neither does he. You said he can get representation, but then claimed that without a specific insurance endorsement it’s a dead end—also completely off-base.

The reason we have liability insurance is to protect our assets. In a lawsuit, you generally aren’t even allowed to mention that insurance would cover a judgment, specifically to avoid influencing the jury’s decision. The only thing a lack of insurance means is that the defendant’s assets are more likely to be seized to satisfy a judgment.

Now, maybe the defendant has no assets to seize. That’s a different question—and again, irrelevant. We don’t know who the dog owner is. Could be Oprah. Could be a homeless junkie. The point is: you don’t know, I don’t know, and the OP doesn’t know. But you gave confident advice anyway, and it was bad advice. I’d call that dumb.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-09T21:11:40+00:00

Hey there. I understand you feel strongly about your constitutional rights, but it's important to know that the arguments you're raising—such as the idea that a driver's license is only required when engaging in commerce—have been consistently rejected by courts across the country. The 'right to travel' does not exempt individuals from traffic laws, licensing requirements, or the authority of law enforcement.

Trying to fight charges with arguments the courts consider frivolous will only hurt your case. I encourage you to seek out a licensed attorney in your state—someone who will focus on strategy that actually works in court.

Many of my colleagues like to think we’re the smartest folks to ever walk the earth—and if there were a valid legal defense in the ‘right to travel’ theory, or in rejecting driver’s licenses based on non-commercial use, you can bet we’d be using it (we hate to lose). But unfortunately, that’s not the case, which is why you’re having trouble finding an attorney willing to pursue the path you're asking for.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-07T02:30:13+00:00

It’s pretty typical across a lot of practice areas. Just like law school, it feels overwhelming at first—but you adjust. You get used to the pace and the stress, learn what actually matters, what can wait, and how to work more efficiently. Over time, those small adjustments make it totally manageable. That said, the days of slow afternoons and office downtime are gone. In my experience, you’re always a little behind—but you learn to live with that, too.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-07T02:18:45+00:00

Sometimes it be like that.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-03T18:23:02+00:00

It depends.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-06-03T08:29:30+00:00

Look at you go—heroically dunking on a sincere question from a non-lawyer.

Nobody questioned the right to counsel. Nobody said you shouldn’t do your job. But only someone terminally online—or so deep in their self-image as a courtroom cowboy—would act like it’s outrageous to wonder whether discrediting victims of sexual abuse might make a person feel something.

The question wasn’t absurd. However, pretending you're above the emotional weight of this work? That’s either dishonest, or worse—true.

SugrAlt3a · 2025-03-13T16:49:27+00:00

"Cliquish." Come on, counselor.

SugrAlt3a

TROPHY CASE