| INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
RESULTS WHEN THE DEFENDANT ENGAGES IN EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS
CONDUCT THAT TRANSCENDS ALL BOUNDS OF DECENCY AND CAUSES PLAINTIFF
TO SUFFER SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
HERE, JOHN KNEW THAT KATHY ADORED HER
PET CAT, SHEBA, AND JOHN CUT SHEBA'S HEAD OFF IN FRONT OF
KATHY, WHO SUBSEQUENTLY SUFFERED HORRIFYING NIGHTMARES WHICH
REQUIRED PSYCHIATRIC CARE. THUS, JOHN IS LIABLE FOR INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
In the above example, the failing candidate
identified the correct issue, provided a good rule statement,
identified the pertinent facts, and provided the proper conclusion.
However, the candidate's thought process is not apparent,
nowhere to be found. Merely identifying pertinent facts does
not equal legal analysis, and the above example is a failing
effort, even though it is apparent that the candidate knew
the law. Hmm?
And,
that is why knowing the law is not enough.
If the essays were designed to simply find
out how much black-letter law you know, then you would probably
be asked questions like: "Explain Felony Murder in 500
words or less?" "Explain the concept of Proximate
Cause in 500 words or less?" "Explain the concept
of Standing in 75 words or less?"
Think for a moment. "Could it actually
be that the Bar Examiners want to see if I know how to think?"
"Could it be that I need to do more than simply demonstrate
an ability to memorize?" "Is that why so many people
who know the law keep failing?" Yes, to all three questions.
And, for many, that is what makes the California bar exam
difficult.
Until you perfect your thought process and
your skill at transcribing your thought process (i.e., analytical
writing), hours spent learning law, making flash cards will
have little effect on your chances of passing. ("I can't
believe I failed! I knew the law! I was in the library studying
from 10 AM to 10 PM everyday!" You should have been in
the library perfecting your skill level, and that is why Barperfect
is an activity-oriented review.)
Your
rule statements, no matter how good or how bad, have little
impact on your chances of passing or failing. In a superior
essay answer, the rule statement can be completely covered
(or eliminated) and the candidate's legal knowledge still
shines through. Most failing essays are "law rich"
and "analysis poor".
(Is that so? Did
the California Committee of Bar Examiners issue a Press Release
that said, "We do not even read your exam books."?
Well, we have former bar graders on our staff. And we know
that your books are read. Word for word. Quickly, the graders
are looking for issues spotted . . . and . . . an analytical
thought process.)
All candidates are given the
law. A Performance Test is certainly not a legal-knowledge
test - it is, first and foremost, a thought-process test.
What additional facts are needed? Can you determine what discovery
devices will best help you find these facts? Can you determine
if a jury trial or a bench trial is best for your client?
Can you determine if your client's goals are unethical? Can
you sufficiently use case law? Can you distinguish, compare
and contrast cases? Can you skillfully compare the facts of
your file to the facts of the cases in the library? Can you
skillfully distinguish a case that looks like it has absolutely
nothing to do with this particular Performance Test? Can you
do more than pull facts and a holding from a case? And so
forth.
(In the real world, do you think a lawyer
can simply cite a pertinent holding to a judge? "Your
Honor, we respectfully request that you follow the holding
of John v. Doe?" "Uhh, counselor, what are
the facts of your case and what are the facts
of John v. Doe? Please enlighten me, that way I can
tell if John v. Doe is pertinent to your set of facts.
Actually, counselor, I would rather that you demonstrate this
for us . . .")
Because a Performance Test is a thought-process
test, there is more to a Performance Test than simply "following
directions". Much more.
That
portion of the exam is definitely a thought-process test.
There are no fill-in-the-blanks questions designed to simply
see how much law you memorized. "Which of the four following
rule statements is the correct one for Acceptance?" Wouldn't
it be great if it were that easy?
But, most of all, you
need to understand that legal knowledge, in and of itself,
does not pass the California bar exam. Candidates who know
the law and are skillful at applying the law are the ones
who pass. Remember, the bar exam is not a legal-knowledge
exam - it is, first and foremost, a thought-process exam.
A photographic memory, without application skills, is of little
use.
WHAT SEPARATES BARPERFECT FROM ALL
OF THE REST?
QUALITY: Professional guidance
With
Barperfect, you know who you are dealing with. You
have seen our ads in the Law Student Journal since 1994, the
year our company was founded. Year round, bar review and law
school tutorials are all we do.
Our founder and
program director, Steve Liosi, Esq., has run the Learning
Resource Centers of two prominent southern California law
schools. Additionally, he is a former Faculty Tutor at Chapman
Law School. A Law Review Invitee, Mr. Liosi passed the California
bar exam on his first attempt. Most important, he is skilled
at making law students and bar candidates skillful.
[By the way, this unsolicited e-mail from
a 1L just found its way into our e-mailbox this very morning
(Tuesday, May 22, 2007):
My last Concord quiz was the best
score to date in Contracts. You
were "sitting next to me" screaming "you don't
need to write a bunch of law to answer that!" Anyway,
your tutorial has a prominent place in my notes. Later, Steve.
Looking forward to your continued advice. - John
Smith]
Jeff Cancilla, Esq., in charge of Barperfect
product development, has passed six (6) bar exams on his first
attempt, including California's.
Add our staff of former bar graders to the
mix, and you know that you will be professionally guided through
the process of perfecting your skill level so that you can
pass.
INTEGRITY: No unrealistic
guarantees
.
Not every Barperfect client passes the California bar exam,
and we cannot "guarantee" that you will pass.
. Such an offering implies
that the offeror has no insight into the true essence of the
California bar exam, nor the inherent differences in bar candidates.
Don't you think there is a significant
difference between a Stanford grad who just missed by 10 points
and a non-ABA grad who struggled to get Cs in law school and
just failed by more than 200 points? Don't you think there
is a significant difference between a high-LSAT (>172)
and a low-LSAT (<155) candidate? Of course there is.
We can only guarantee that you are enrolling
in a high-quality, activity-oriented course that will professionally
guide you through the process so that you can sit for the
next exam with the highest possible skill level imaginable.
After that, it is up to you.
A "guaranteed pass" program? Uhh,
no thanks. You get no marketing gimmicks from us.
VALUE: No overcharging, no
gouging
But
we know that law school was expensive enough, and many of
you already are into the process for thousands of dollars.
In
fact, you can spend as much as $12,000 for a certain classroom
course. (But, hey, it is held at a "luxury" hotel.)
And you can pay as much as $10,000 for a one-on-one tutor.
(But, hey, you get the tutor's personal cell phone number.)
We don't play that game. Our prices
are competitive and realistic and not intended to gouge.
INTERESTED?: Serious inquiries
only, please
"YES! YES! YES! I want to sit for the
next bar exam with the highest possible legal knowledge and
skill level so that I can pass!"
"I do not want to passively sit in
a crowded lecture hall with bothersome, clueless know-it-alls!
I want Professor Liosi and Professor Cancilla and a staff
of former bar graders to be my study partners!"
|