Something you might know if you've seen any of my videos is that I find it interesting
to take a look at the different exams that people have to sit around the world and for
various subjects.
So when one particular exam was in the news recently, I was intrigued to take a look at
it.
Last week, Kim Kardashian revealed that she had failed her Baby Bar Exam, something taken
by first year law students in California before they're able to go on and study for three
more years to eventually take the big California Bar Exam, which would qualify them to practice
as an attorney.
The fact that Kim is even studying law may be news to you.
That's okay.
But I found this story and this exam to actually be pretty interesting.
In short, Kim has been trying to use her massive public profile for good and help people who
have been done wrong by America's criminal justice system.
She met with Donald Trump and was successful in getting him to grant clemency to several
people who she had fought for, including Alice Johnson, who had already served 21 years of
her life sentence, given to her for a nonviolent first time drug offence.
Kim has been working alongside human rights attorneys to help reform aspects of America's
prison system.
But now she wants to be more than just a celebrity attached to the work and she wants to be a
qualified attorney herself.
Kim said that the best way to change the system is to know the system.
The traditional way to become a lawyer is to go to law school for three years after
a four year bachelor's degree.
But Kim is doing it a slightly different way that is similar to an apprenticeship.
She is working with an attorney 18 hours a week for four years before she'll be able
to sit the final California bar exam to become qualified.
After the first year of this she's able to sit the Baby Bar exam to prove that she's
on the right track.
But this has become a bit of a hurdle.
The Baby Bar is offered twice per year, and I've been able to figure out that Kim would
have sat the June 2020 exam, which means that these here are the actual questions that Kim
would have got on her exam, and they're from the State Bar website.
So let's have a look at them.
The exam goes for seven hours and consists of essays and multiple choice questions.
These are some of the essay questions.
The first one is about torts law, which is when someone commits a wrong against another
person.
It says Mel was late for an important meeting and was driving at least 35 miles an hour
on a residential road.
The speed limit on this road was 30 miles per hour.
As Mel rounded a curve in the road.
Nigel suddenly backed out of his driveway in front of Mel.
Mel's headlights were on and his lights would have been visible if a driver had looked carefully
to avoid hitting Nigel's car.
Mel both braked hard and turned into the centre of the street, crossing a yellow line and
partially entering the lane of oncoming traffic.
Otto was driving towards Mel while adjusting his car radio.
As a result, Otto did not see Mel in time.
Had he been attentive, he likely could have avoided an accident.
Instead, the two cars collided, left the road and ploughed into Penny, who was walking on
the sidewalk.
Nigel's car was not touched.
Penny was seriously injured.
Then the question asks what claims Penny can make against Mel, Otto and Nigel.
Now I don't have any background in law.
But we can take a look at one of the examples solutions that scored highly.
It's actually pretty in depth and goes through all of the possible charges for everyone involved.
Here it's starting with Penny verse Mel.
It's looking at whether Mel has been negligent or breached his duty to act as a reasonably
prudent person.
There is a need to establish actual and proximate causation and to assess any defences that
Mel might be able to use.
Then the same thing over again for Penny verse Otto, where Otto may argue that glancing at
the radio every now and again doesn't count as unreasonable behaviour and who actually
caused the accident will again come into dispute.
And then for Penny verse Nigel, the one who backed out of his driveway.
It is likely that Nigel will be found to have been in breach of his duty to act reasonably
given that he hadn't looked carefully when he was backing out.
In conclusion, Penny will likely be successful in a negligence claim against Nigel but will
most likely fail in her claims of negligence against Mel and Otto.
It of course wouldn't be enough to just state a conclusion of the case.
But rather to argue every point for and against each person and really show an understanding
of applying all the legal principles.
Question two is about contract law and regards a buyer who purchased 10 $5,000 guitars for
$50,000, and agreed that any complaints about the condition or quality of the guitars must
be made within 10 days of delivery, and that payment is due on delivery.
However, the buyer did not pay the invoice.
And two weeks after the instruments were delivered, found that none of their customers wanted
to buy them in his store, and so sent them back.
The seller sued the buyer for breach of contract, and we're asked what arguments the seller
could make in support of her claim, and what defences the buyer may use.
Also, what would be the likely outcome?
So then, in this example, answer, we've got a few pages of going through all the definitions
and things that were agreed to in this contract, establishing that we did have a valid contract,
and what terms it was reasonable to expect the buyer and seller to abide by.
It might have been okay for the buyer to return the guitars without paying for them if the
guitars had not been conforming in quality or some other means, but just because the
guitars weren't selling in the store does not speak to any nonconformity of the guitars.
And so the seller is not in breach, and the contract expressly required that the buyer
make this determination within 10 days of delivery, not 14.
So in conclusion, the court would find that the buyer was in breach of the contract, and
would be liable to seller for $50,000.
This third question is a real doozy and it starts off pretty intense.
Doug decided to kill Bob, the owner of a small grocery store because Bob had twice falsely
accused Doug of shoplifting.
It only gets more and more intense from here.
This question is an example of criminal law.
Doug went into Bob's store and killed Bob by shooting him twice with a handgun.
After the shooting Doug notice the cash register, went over and opened it and took all of the
money out.
Doug then saw a customer Sally, hiding behind some shelves.
He pointed the gun at Sally, took her purse and tied her hands behind her back.
Doug then heard police sirens and ordered Sally at gunpoint out of the store and into
his car.
Officer Fran, who was responding to a report of gunshots at Bob's store, saw Doug speed
out of the parking lot in his car.
Officer Fran chased him for several blocks until Doug pulled into an empty parking lot.
When he got out of his car Doug fired several shots at Officer Fran, who responded by firing
her gun at Doug.
She missed Doug, but one of her bullets went through the window of the car and hit Sally,
killing her.
As Doug tried to run away.
Officer Fran tackled him and knocked the gun out of his hand.
Doug got up and punched Officer Fran with his fist.
Officer Fran then subdued and arrested Doug.
Heck.
With what crimes can Doug reasonably be charged?
What defences if any, may he reasonably raise and what is the likely result?
Going through the charges here we've got the murder of Bob, first of all, the state will
be able to show that Doug was the cause of Bob's death, and they'll be able to show that
there was malice and intent, then they'll need to decide whether they want to charge
Doug with murder one, murder two or voluntary manslaughter.
For murder one, they would need to show that Doug murdered Bob with premeditation and deliberation
and for that the state is likely to charge Doug with murder one and for him to be convicted.
Then there are all the other crimes, there's a likely charge for the robbery of Bob's money
from the store.
There's also the robbery of Sally's purse, the assault of Sally and the battery of Sally,
continuing we have the false imprisonment of Sally, the kidnapping of Sally, the assault
of Officer Fran and then they'll need to consider the murder of Sally as well.
The state will need to go through the same analysis that they did with the murder of
Bob.
But then who would be charged with this?
Would it be Doug as well?
Or would it be Officer Fran since it was a bullet from her gun?
Well, apparently that depends on which version of the law certain courts follow in certain
areas.
If the courts follow the common law, the state will be able to show that Doug did murder
in the first degree Sally under the felony murder rule.
But if that can't be shown then the state may have to consider charging Doug with involuntary
manslaughter for Sally's death.
Actually in neither of these cases is Officer Fran charged.
And then the last charge for Doug would be the battery of Officer Fran.
And there's a fourth question here that we can just take a quick glance at.
It's another torts question.
It's about someone who does some work on their land that also affects their neighbours vacant
lot.
Even though the neighbour is away for a year, they chop down the neighbor's tree and instal
a septic system which infringes on their property.
When the neighbour gets back, they're angry about this and decide to sue for the damages.
A spoiler here is that despite the involvement of an innocent contractor, who actually is
the one who did the work, it is the guy who ordered the work to be done who would remain
directly liable for the tortious conduct he exhibited.
The maximum score is 800.
And to pass you need 70%, which is 560.
Kim's scored 474.
And she said she studied for six weeks 10 to 12 hours per day for the exam, which is
a solid effort.
Kim was clearly disheartened and upset in the announcement of her results.
But really, Kim hasn't done that badly, especially when you consider the passing rate for her
exam.
For first time takers in June 2020 it was only 27.6% meaning that most people need to
retake this exam.
And from what I can tell the way that Kim is pursuing her studies isn't any easier than
the conventional path.
Having to learn a lot of these concepts through largely self-led reading may be harder in
some aspects than being taught by professors and surrounded by peers.
I have nothing bad to say about Kim.
I respect that she is trying to better herself and is open to sharing her failures along
the way.
I do hope that she passes her next attempt at the exam, which may have been the November
2020 one, or the upcoming June 2021 exam.
Thanks for watching this video.
I have a whole playlist full of other exam videos, although mostly physics and math ones.
Thanks to my Patreon supporters for making these videos possible.
And a special shout out to today's Patreon cat of the day Krishna.