California Bar Exam Results: A Breakdown By Law School (July 2019)

We already know the general trend of California bar exam results this year (up, after an abysmal 2018), but now we’ve got a breakdown revealing just how each law school’s graduates faired on the exam.

There’s lots of good news. 100 percent of test takers from Duke Law and University of Chicago Law School passed the Cali bar. Harvard Law School and University of Michigan Law School had a 97 percent pass rate, and New York University School of Law clocked in 96 percent, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and the University of Virginia School of Law had a 95 percent rate, Stanford at 92 percentage passage, Columbia Law at 93 percent passage, and Yale Law had 91 percent pass the exam.

As you can see, Stanford is the only California law school that cracked 90 percent, but Berkeley (89 percent) and UCLA (88 percent) also had noteworthy showings.

And all law schools did as well or better than the results of the 2018 bar exam. The biggest jump, amongst California law schools are University of California, Hastings College of Law, from 60 percent to 79 percent; Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law from 66 percent to 82 percent; and the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law from 50 percent to 63 percent.

Congrats to everyone who passed, and check out the full results below.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Sketches of Torture

(Image via Getty)

As a practicing criminal defense trial attorney, I’ve seen a lot of grim pictures in my day — photos of crimes, of bodies cut open for autopsies, of gaping wounds. I’ve visited taped-off police scenes just after the crime was committed and sidestepped blood from stabbings and shootings. But last week I saw something I’d never seen before that both moved me and made me sick — line drawings of a person being tortured, penciled by the torture-victim himself. While the drawings were basic and the technique primitive, they speak volumes about the horrendous acts our government permitted against people perceived to be its enemies. They also show how far our country went, post-9/11, to justify unjustifiable acts in the name of patriotism and the quest to stop terrorism.

The drawings were done by Abu Zubaydah, an alleged terrorist captured in 2002, who is still being held by the U.S. in a detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

When his drawings were declassified (a surprise in and of itself), Mark Denbeaux, a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law, contacted Zubayah’s lawyers and, with his students, wrote a 95-page report titled, “How America Tortures.”

The report (which includes the drawings and notes from the prisoner) is a grim look at the codification of torture, officially making legal “enhanced interrogation techniques.” From the moment the “high value detainee” is captured, he is made to feel the sting of his apprehension. In Zubayah’s case, when he was moved by plane to his eventual place of detainment (the “rendition”), he was shackled like cargo to the plane floor. Earmuffs, blindfolds, and a hood were placed over his head for sensory deprivation. He wore a diaper because he was not permitted to use a bathroom.

Once interned at a “black site,” he was waterboarded, sleep-deprived, beaten, exposed to loud noise, kept naked and cold, then caged in a box so cramped, even getting into a fetal position was difficult.

According to the report, Zubaydah had already been interrogated by the FBI, who were satisfied that he told them all he knew, when he was picked up by CIA agents and brought first to a black site in Thailand for further questioning. The CIA had no handbook for enhanced interrogation at the time so contracted two psychologists experienced in training special military-op forces to withstand enemy torture.

Although Zubaydah was waterboarded several times a day, up to 86 times in all, kept from sleeping for weeks, and made to stand on a badly injured leg for hours with his hands cuffed to an overhead bar, he gave no new information. According to the report, “Other personnel at Detention Site Green were ‘profoundly affected’ by what they saw in the interrogation sessions, sometimes ‘to the point of tears and choking up.’”

The report leads to many questions: Who are the people assigned to inflicting such harm on a fellow human being? What do their consciences say? Do they extract such pain for “love of country,” or are they prompted by something darker like sadism or blind revenge?

One of the main goals of terrorism is to destabilize the democratic underpinnings of the system under attack. Terrorists want to cause chaos and fear. By upending systemic safeguards for those charged with crimes (that means all crimes, including terrorism), ignoring the presumption of innocence, and willfully causing others harm, we hand terrorists a victory.  We’ve upended our system of law.

The drawings are not only revelatory about what Zubaydah underwent but also provide a window into how our system willingly turned its back on process and order.

Torture doesn’t work. It might elicit information, but by its nature, that information is suspect. Meanwhile, our humanity and values have been compromised for questionable, if any, gain.

While the drawings are hard to look at, it’s our obligation to do so and make sure that every prisoner, no matter the charge, never undergoes such treatment again.


Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Law School Professor Gives Students Gift Of Wholly Recycled Exam Questions

It feels like every year we have a professor decide to reuse an old exam setting off a firestorm when students realize that some of the class had prior access to the exam — and sometimes the grading rubric — and others didn’t. The school gets involved and crafts a solution that pleases pretty much nobody while gunners complain that they shouldn’t be punished for having dug up every exam the professor’s ever given. And frankly they’ve got a point. If being a lawyer is about doggedly researching every angle to get the best result then it’s hard to say they did anything wrong — it’s not like they knew the exam they looked at would be copied. Consider this “practice ready” education.

But something has to be done for those who couldn’t get access to the old exam and that’s where there is — and we repeat this all the time — never a good remedy to reusing an exam question.

This year, the short straw was drawn by Cornell Law School where Professor Winnie Taylor reused a contracts exam essay question. To her credit, she *thought* she was in the clear because she had given the previous exam at her old stomping grounds of Brooklyn Law School and didn’t think anyone would dig those up.

Someone dug those up:

Professor Winnie Taylor’s contracts class exam essay was verbatim borrowed from her Brooklyn Law contracts class. Select international students obtained said exam prior to its administration. Upon complaint to the law school by the entire class, Dean of Students Markeisha Miner issued an unclear statement as to what part of the exam would be struck, citing the wrong portion of the test that wasn’t even at issue. The writing portion of the exam was worth 50% of the total class grade, thus leaving a poorly-written multiple-choice section constituting the entire four credit contracts grade. Students are extremely upset and the school refuses to address the issue of fairness considering students who previously obtained the exam had extra time to flush out the remaining parts of the exam.

Note, it was also supposedly Cornell Law School the last time this happened, though some tipsters disputed the original intel. If that story was correct, you’d think they’d be getting good at dealing with this by now.

In any event, there’s no way to please everyone here which is why it’s so essential to never put the class in this position. Why do professors ever think this will work out? It’s just a profound failure to appreciate the gumption of your gunners. If this is a professor’s first exam ever, a couple of students are still going to find her 1L class notes to dig for clues. The great game of the legal academy is forever professors against gunners in a constant struggle to keep the exam predictable enough to be fair but fresh enough that it’s not rite regurgitation. With the internet giving everyone access to everything, this is harder than ever. But when professors underestimate the students, this is what you get.

Professors probably should write new exams every time out of the fate, but if you HAVE to skimp for some reason, consider trading exams with some other professor. Use your next academic conference to build relationships with folks working out of the same casebook and throw your exams into a mutual google drive or something. Just don’t tell people your plan.

Earlier: A Note For Law School Professors That We Regrettably Have To Repeat: There Is Never A Good Remedy To Reusing An Exam Question


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

During Final Exams, Law Students Should Heed The Words Of Legendary Basketball Coach Jim Valvano

Happy thoughts! (photo via Getty)

Ed. note: This post was originally published on December 1, 2017. We have republished this article to bring peace of mind to our law school audience during this stressful period.

“Without a wrinkle in today, cuz there’s no tomorrow/Just a picture perfect day that lasts a whole lifetime.” Jay-Z

It’s the final month of the year. For law students, this means it’s the end time (also called end times, end of time, end of days, last days, final days, or eschaton) or, better known to the general-education audience: final exams.

Unlike grading in other schools, curriculums, or type of studies, law school courses often base your grades completely on the final exams.

This makes law school quite an intense learning atmosphere as well as a stressful environment that can cause adverse mental health effects. One grade can make you feel like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, while another mark may make you feel like an abject failure. But rest assured, do the reading and put the time in, and you will be okay. We’ve all been there.

This week also marks the 11th Annual V Week for Cancer Research. It’s a good annual reminder not to treat each situation (or final exam for that matter) as life or death because you’ll die a lot of times. Write that down.

Almost two decades ago (in 1993), ESPN awarded the legendary and national-title winning basketball coach Jim Valvano its first Arthur Ashe Courage and Humanitarian Award. Valvano would pass away from cancer one month later. In his last months of his life, he founded the V Foundation with the purpose of researching a cure for cancer. Since its inception, over $200 million in cancer research grants has been awarded nationwide by the V Foundation, which donates 100% of all its donations.

As the 13th Annual V Week gets underway, you will likely see a highlight or two of Jimmy V’s acceptance speech. During his last month on earth, he gave one of the greatest acceptance speeches of all time. At the time, he may have needed help off the stage, but over twenty years later he is remembered for the ten minutes of energy, passion, and wisdom he gave on stage at the inaugural Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly Award ceremony.

Law students, I implore you to take ten minutes from your finals cramming sessions to watch Valvano’s farewell address. Turn it on during your Domino’s Pizza, Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, or Sour Patch Kids snack break. Or listen to it during your midnight drive home while you’re having an existential crisis. It will certainly help you take a moment to relax and gain some proper perspective on the challenges facing you.

Many lines from his speech have been highlighted and recited before, but I thought I’d share my favorite part of Valvano’s speech with you:

It’s so important to know where you are. I know where I am right now. How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal. You have to be willing to work for it.

I just got one last thing; I urge all of you, all of you, to enjoy your life, the precious moments you have. To spend each day with some laughter and some thought, to get your emotions going. To be enthusiastic every day, and Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Nothing great could be accomplished without enthusiasm,” to keep your dreams alive in spite of problems whatever you have. The ability to be able to work hard for your dreams to come true, to become a reality.

I often revert to Valvano’s words when I’m going through a trying time. I hope you’ll remember his sage advice during your next few weeks of testing. You have to be willing to work for it — do the reading and put the time in, and you will be okay.

Final exam season is notoriously difficult. It may not seem this way right now, but you will be better because of it. Keep the dream alive!

After all, you are one step closer to becoming an attorney … or at least a few weeks away from winter break.


Renwei Chung is the Diversity Columnist at Above the Law. You can contact Renwei by email at projectrenwei@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter (@renweichung), or connect with him on LinkedIn.

House Judiciary Produces Another Impeachment Report For The Benefit Of History And No One Else

Jerry Nadler (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

I haven’t read it. The House Judiciary Committee released a report early Monday morning, detailing (again) the case for impeachment of Donald Trump, and explaining the two charges that the full House will vote on this week. The report is listed at 182 pages, but when you pull it up in Adobe it’s 658 pages and… I haven’t read it. I don’t think I’m going to. I have been defeated by the Republican Party. I do not know what it would take to make elected Republicans perform even the most basic and cursory execution of their Constitutional duties, I doubt I will find anything buried in a 658 report that will change their calculus.

If there are still persuadable voters, I doubt they will read this latest report. Indeed, to still be “persuadable” at this point requires such a devoted avoidance of hearing and processing information that expecting such people to even read a snippet of the report is like expecting dog to use a toilet. People who have been paying attention have already made up their minds, people who haven’t been paying attention are not going to start now, and are certainly not going to start with this.

A Senate trial would be an opportunity for low-information voters to get more knowledge about the various crimes and abuses committed by President Trump. But, that is precisely why Mitch McConnell and Republican Senate lapdogs will have no such trial. To know more about Trump is to learn additional details about why he is unfit for office. The Republicans do not want people to think too critically about what is going on here, and so they won’t provide an opportunity to think about, or deliberate, these charges.

They won’t even put on a defense of their guy and their eventual vote to acquit. In a normal political universe, a President would want an opportunity to put on a defense. Senators poised to acquit him would want to put on some sort of a showing to justify their eventual votes. But it appears that Republicans are not interested in any of this. They’re confident that their base wants Trump to get away with his crimes, and they seem supremely confident that they will suffer no electoral retribution for being in Trump’s pocket.

What I’ve gleaned from the House Judiciary report, through topic sentence skimming and the reports of others who have read the thing, is that it contains additional arguments making the case that Trump committed actual crimes: namely bribery and wire fraud. I feel like that has been obvious for some time. If waving around a giant report makes people feel more confident when saying that, I guess that’s a good thing.

As for me, I feel like Gandalf at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm. Swords are no more use here. Neither are facts. Trump is a Balrog, a demon of the ancient, authoritarian world. Republicans are goblins, cowering and scattering in fear of his might. Do the Democrats have a wizard? No? Then I think we’re all going to die.


Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Jamie Dimon Will Conquer Wealth Management Instead Of The White House

Lawyering While Legally Blind

This is the fourth article in the monthly “An Interview With” series! In this series, I  connect with people from all parts of the legal profession and at all stages of their legal careers to learn who really makes up the legal community and what they are actually doing with their legal degrees. 

This month, I am talking with Logan O’Reilly, who is a Tax Consultant at Ernst & Young. Logan is a 2017 graduate of the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University and 2019 LL.M. graduate of Georgetown Law. In addition, Logan has a vision condition called Stargardt’s macular dystrophy, colloquially known as juvenile macular degeneration. The disease is progressive and causes Logan to slowly lose his central vision acuity until he will be legally blind. In this interview, Logan shares valuable insight into his experience as a lawyer and law student with a vision impairment.   

KS: Please share what your journey navigating law school, the bar exam, and your LL.M. program was like in light of your vision impairment. Please speak specifically to any challenges that arose and how you overcame them. 

LO: My vision problems started in high school where I realized that I had trouble seeing who was walking toward me, and I had trouble seeing the whiteboard. Flash forward to law school: my eyesight got worse, and my struggles with accommodations began. At the time, my law school did not have a Director of Disabilities on-site, and the individuals who managed the accommodations did not do so full time. This made it difficult because working with someone who is ADA-knowledgeable is helpful as they would have ideas on how to handle accessibility issues and devices you never knew existed.

My vision problems also caused a financial burden. I needed electronic versions of all of my reading materials. In order to get the rights for these, I would have to buy all of my books brand-new. I ended up spending close to $1,000 on my books each semester, which really hurt my budget.

Furthermore, many professors did not understand my disability, which is understandable as my disability was invisible, and they didn’t see an apparent need for my accommodations. However, it was difficult not having enlarged handouts in class and not being able to see the projector, especially in legal research. I still don’t know how to Bluebook, and citations scare me! I was also contributory negligent (throwing bar exam terms out there) because I didn’t know how to advocate for myself. I tried and was met with resistance. My final exams in the first year were a disaster! I had to use scantrons and I did not know where the line was that I was supposed to fill out. Luckily for me, I used this experience as a learning lesson and I helped teach the Registrar’s office about my disability. I became very close with the people in the Registrar’s office.

The bar exam was not so difficult to get accommodations for because I had about 80 pages of medical documentation. However, the process of getting bar exam accommodations required endless doctor’s signatures and forms to be filled out. If you’re taking the bar in July, start getting all of the materials and applications together in the fall. For those of you applying for accommodations for the [New York] bar exam, be prepared to have to take it in Albany! This was such a hassle because when you’re visually impaired, how does one get to Albany?

It was during my LL.M. at Georgetown Law where I truly accepted my disability. Georgetown has a team dedicated to students with disabilities. It was here where I learned how to advocate for myself. I was given an office with assistive technology, and I was told where I could go within the city to get services. Furthermore, I was finally comfortable using a red/white cane to put people on notice that I am an individual with a disability. 

I currently work at a firm that sees me beyond my disability and has worked with me to get my accommodations put in place. 

KS: As one of the most positive people I know, I’d love for you to talk about any ways you feel your vision impairment has been a strength to you. 

LO: I learned compassion which allowed me to look at everyone in a different light. Everyone works differently! My low vision has allowed me to learn material differently and given me the chance to prove people wrong. This experience has proven that having a disability doesn’t mean you are weak but makes you work 100 times harder to prove yourself.

KS: What inspired you to go to law school?

LO: I wanted a career in which I would always be learning and be challenged. As a gay man, there were so many obstacles I saw individuals have to break down for equality. When I was in college there were only a handful of states which allowed same-sex marriage. I wanted to help build a more equal country. 

KS:  What are some challenges you have faced in your first year as a tax consultant and how have you overcome them? 

LO:  As a tax consultant, I come up with plans that companies can use to minimize their tax liability. I write advisory opinions on how likely a company is to be taxed and how their worldwide income will be taxed to the state. One of the struggles I deal with is the compliance aspect of tax. There are times where I have to use an Excel spreadsheet to figure out how one subsidiary’s income will affect the whole parent and subsidiary’s combined return. Excel is hard for me to use as rows can go on for pages and with my magnification software, I can’t always see the headers. 

KS: What, if anything, did you do in law school that you found really helpful in preparing you for your first year of practice? In retrospect, is there anything you wish you had done differently to be better prepared? 

LO: I think the classes offered by your school’s academic support team are a must! They really teach you how to analyze and to think like a lawyer. I think another great thing to do is network and build a network of people who will support you and give you career advice. Also, don’t be afraid to ask for help. It took me to my 2L year to gather the courage to go to my academic support center, and, once I did, I made lifelong friends there. They helped me with everything through my finals to the bar exam, and with all of my interpersonal issues in between.

KS: I can say from knowing you through law school and the bar exam that there is no challenge that will knock you off the path or make you back down. However, I  think a lot of people in your situation might have given up or not gone to law school in the first place because of the difficulties and challenges. What advice do you have for law students who need to overcome challenges? 

LO: Talk to people about your challenges. Let them lift you up and encourage you. Don’t give up on your dreams. Use your challenge as a way to find a new, more innovative solution. 

You can connect with Logan here.

Know someone who would be great to profile in this series? Send an email to info@vincoprep.com with “An Interview With” in the subject line.


Kerriann Stout is a millennial law school professor and founder of Vinco (a bar exam coaching company) who is generationally trapped between her students and colleagues. Kerriann has helped hundreds of students survive law school and the bar exam with less stress and more confidence. She lives, works, and writes in the northeast. You can reach her by email at info@vincoprep.com.

 

The Upside Of Brexit? More Transactional Work

The overall view across the firm is that the result has given certainty. It removes what has been holding businesses back. Overwhelmingly, partners would rather have remained in the EU. But it’s now got to a point where we can see a stable government and the pound going up, so we’re now optimistic and hopeful.

Litigation has retained business, but transactional work has been challenging. But those concerns, we hope, are now lifted. We’re hoping for a Brexit bounce. There has been a political paralysis, and that wasn’t good for confidence and overseas clients.

— Michael Chissick, managing partner at Fieldfisher, tells Legal Week what law firms expect following the stunning UK election. Other legal heavyweights agree, the increased political certainty following Boris Johnson’s win will lead to more deals that have been languishing as the will-they-or-won’t-they question is now resolved.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Zimbabwe vice president’s wife arrested for suspected fraud, money laundering – The Zimbabwean

Marry Mubaiwa

Marry Mubaiwa was arrested on Saturday evening and will likely appear in court on Monday, ZACC spokesman John Makamure said. He declined to give further details.

Mubaiwa could not be reached for comment on Sunday.

Appointed by President Emmerson Mnangagwa this year, ZACC is under pressure to show that it can tackle high-level graft, which watchdog Transparency International estimates is costing the country $1 billion annually.

An internal ZACC memorandum of the charges seen by Reuters showed that between October 2018 and May this year Mubaiwa is accused of unlawfully transferring $919,000 to South Africa under the guise of importing goods, which it claims she never did.

The timing of Mubaiwa’s arrest will likely raise eyebrows after local private media reported two weeks ago that she was going through a divorce with her husband Chiwenga.

The ZACC memo accused Mubaiwa of fraudulently obtaining a marriage certificate without Chiwenga’s consent earlier this year when the vice president was ill. The two have been married under Zimbabwe’s customary law since 2011 and have two children.

Chiwenga returned home last month after spending four months in China receiving medical treatment for a blocked esophagus. He has not been seen with Chiwenga in public, including at the annual ruling party conference that ended on Saturday.

Critics of ZACC say the agency is conflicted because its head judge, Loice Matanda-Moyo, is the wife of Zimbabwe’s Foreign Minister Sibusiso Moyo, a top ally of President Emmerson Mnangagwa.

Zanu PF feasts – Zimbabwe Vigil Diary

Post published in: Featured

Jury awards BMS subsidiary $752M in CAR-T patent infringement suit – MedCity News

One of the two companies that markets CAR-T cell therapies for blood cancer will have to pay more than $700 million to a competing company and a cancer hospital over allegations that its product violated one of their patents.

A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles ordered Gilead Sciences subsidiary Kite Pharma to pay $752 million to Juno Therapeutics – now part of Bristol-Myers Squibb – and New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center after finding that Kite’s Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) violated an MSKCC patent that Juno had licensed. The suit was filed in 2017.

The award includes $585 million in damages and 27.6% of running royalty on sales of Yescarta. Sales of Yescarta were $264 million in 2018. Gilead acquired Kite for $11.9 billion in 2017.

On Friday, shares of Gilead closed down 2.75% on the Nasdaq from their Thursday closing price.

The patent in question, U.S. Patent No. 7,446,190, concerns the processes used to encode T cells with chimeric antigen receptors, or CARs, costimulatory domains and other components that enable them to target CD19. CD19 is a protein widely expressed on the surface of cells in certain blood cancers, particularly acute lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Kite won approval for Yescarta in October 2017 as a treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a form of NHL. The other marketed CAR-T therapy is Novartis’ Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel), for DLBCL and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Juno’s lead product candidate is lisocabtagene maraleucel, for which it intends to file for FDA approval by the end of this year.

In an emailed statement, Gilead said, “We remain steadfast in our opinion that Sloan Kettering’s patent is infringed and is invalid. Given that Kite independently developed Yescarta and assumed all of the risk in its discovery and development, we do not believe Sloan Kettering and Juno are entitled to any level of damages.”

In an emailed statement, a BMS spokesperson said the company was pleased with the verdict. “Bristol-Myers Squibb is committed to defending its intellectual property and that of its research partners and protecting the incentives that drive innovative research, including our pipeline of CAR-T therapies,” the statement read.

Kite had sought to invalidate the claims in the ‘190 patent by filing an inter partes review in August 2015. However, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld the patent in its final decision, in December 2016. Kite subsequently partnered with researchers at the National Cancer Institute, and Juno alleges in its complaint that it used MSKCC’s patented research to develop its own CAR-T construct, Yescarta, which at the time carried the development name KTE-C19.

In a note Friday afternoon, Baird analyst Brian Skorney wrote that investors expect Gilead to divest Kite, following an announcement by CEO Daniel O’Day that Gilead would have the company operate as a separate business.

“All told, we continue to expect that, regardless of the ultimate outcome of this litigation, the $12B acquisition of Kite by Gilead will ultimately be viewed regrettably (if it isn’t already),” Skorney wrote. “The market for CAR-T therapies simply does not seem to be large enough to support the high price Gilead paid for Kite and the [cost of goods sold] now (should this order hold) are likely to make any future margin close to non-existent.”

Photo: Getty Images