Category: News Feeds

“[G]ratutious interference in other people’s lives is bigotry. The fact that it is often religiously motivated does not make it less so.” — Richard A. Posner

It is a continually remarkable fact that, nearly every week, one can see, in a nationally respected publication, religion being described as though it is under some form of attack through “punitive action” by the state. It is remarkable because it is a rather obvious, legal fact the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause has been operating for decades at its absolute zenith of protection. Indeed, the expansion of free conscience liberty entirely has proceeded in a way that facially favors religious belief at the great expense of the deeply held personal convictions of nonbelievers. The fact that criminal liability for the same act is now dependent upon whether you subscribe to religion or not, for example, grossly offends the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

It is also remarkable to see those who are supposedly so concerned with the state of free conscience rights never say anything about the current Attorney General repeatedly declaring that anyone who does not subscribe to Christianity or Judaism is not morally fit to be a citizen. Or, more importantly, that nonbelievers are regularly stripped of their basic civil liberties on a scale no religious group in this country could possibly identify with, such as the right of nonbelievers to address their own legislatures with messages of inclusiveness, teamwork, and a government that serves all regardless of religious belief. Or that religious advocates are currently fighting for (and winning in federal courts!), to deny nonbelievers the ability to hire celebrants that share the couple’s personal beliefs at their own weddings. It is in this context, with a Free Exercise Clause operating at its zenith (for Christians only), and where support for, or adherence to, religion is regularly being forced onto nonbelievers by the state, that the upcoming Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case is going to take place in.

The Fulton case was brought after Philadelphia refused to refer any of its foster children to a religious institution for adoption placement after the city became aware the institution would refuse to place children with any same-sex couple, regardless of how qualified the couple is to take care of the child. In lay terms, what the religious institution in the Fulton case is asking the Supreme Court for is to interpret the Free Exercise Clause as empowering the religious institution with the ability to strip adoption benefits from qualifying foster children in a government-run program.

I describe the case in those terms because the simple fact is the children that qualifying same-sex couples adopt derive substantial economic and social benefits. These substantial benefits are precisely why Philadelphia does not want institutions operating within its adoption program to exclude same-sex couples. In other words, the city wants each child to have access to the entire eligible adoption applicant pool. Moreover, the religious institutions denial to same-sex couples when they would otherwise qualify confers no benefits for the children in any way, shape, or form. The only justification for the institutions policy therefore is “gratifying feelings of hostility towards” same-sex couples.

In what should be a conscience-shocking irony, the religious institution in Fulton is arguing that if the government does not allow religious institutions to deny foster children access to qualifying same-sex couples within government adoption programs, it is the government that is being offensively discriminatory. If the Supreme Court agrees with the religious institution’s argument (which it will, more on that below), it would, in effect make “the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.” Put simply, any local or state government that wanted to create an adoption program that offered every foster child the full spectrum of qualifying parents would not be able to. States and local governments would be forced to place children in institutions that deny access based on reasons that violate government law. Moreover, in Fulton the discrimination by the religious institution involves same-sex couples. If the institution wins, however, it is difficult to see how religious institutions that discriminate based on race could be denied either.

To be clear, whether a private religious institution that runs its own adoption program can discriminate against same-sex couples is an entirely different question that the one presented in Fulton, which deals with a government-run program. Furthermore, although I view the refusal to place foster children in the loving homes of caring, qualified, couples based entirely on the sex of the parents as grotesque and appalling, unlike the religious institution in Fulton, I am not demanding in this piece that government step in and enforce my views onto third parties. In other words, the key issue in Fulton is not my or the institution’s beliefs, it is about the children, and their right to access to the entire pool of eligible, loving adoptive homes.

Because a majority of this current Supreme Court has shown a willingness to favor Christianity in the law, however, those that have been following religious liberty cases know that a decision in Fulton favoring the religious institution is all but assured. Accordingly, we have a religious liberty standard that allows the state of Texas to disqualify, literally, a fifth of its population from performing private wedding ceremonies simply because they do not subscribe to religion. The City of Philadelphia will be denied the ability to disqualify religious institutions from government programs even when the religious institution refuses to execute the essential goal of the government program, and in fact seeks to deny foster children access to loving homes. Such a standard could not honestly be described as upholding free conscience “liberty” for all, but rather one that effectuates theocracy on the express behalf of Christion nationalists.

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

The coronavirus exists outside of a natural economic downturn. We don’t know yet how it will effect our business but we’re watching it very closely.

— Reed Smith global managing partner Sandy Thomas tells law.com that the rapidly spreading coronavirus is throwing a kink into Biglaw’s recession planning. And, yeah, that recession is coming. As Chase Simmons, tCEO and chairman of Polsinelli said, “Everyone always says old age does not kill an expansion or a bull market. But one of the reasons why we’re talking about there’s going to be a recession is it’s been so long. We also see our distressed practices were up this year. We had a lot of bankruptcy activity. We had a lot of loan enforcement activity. We saw that click up right at the same time we saw a ton of continued debt lending.”

“So where are you staying?” The frequency with which we ask and are confronted by this question is informed in no small part by a general sense of interest in the hospitality industry that we all share. We love to share hotel horror stories, where rooms and service do not rise to the level of our expectations, just as much as we like to extol the virtues of our favorite hotel. Discussing hotels is often an easy conversation to have with business colleagues when small talk is in order. It is also a safe topic for those cagey snatches of polite conversation when forced to share space with opposing counsel for any period of time. Hotel talk — a safe fallback for whenever we need to actually speak to others.

As an IP lawyer, I was forced to confront the demands of travel very early in my career. Frequent travel is in some ways one of the defining characteristics of a productive career as an IP litigator. In fact, there are periods where an IP litigator can be compared to a traveling salesman, such as during deposition season in a case, where hitting three cities in a week is not an unheard of itinerary. With that volume of travel comes exposure to a variety of hotels, whose relative levels of comfort (or when lucky even luxury) are often defined by the budget of the client or the location of the action for which one is traveling. But whether work takes them to Dubuque or Dubai, any regular traveler soon appreciates just how competitive the hotel industry actually is.

With competition comes the temptation to take shortcuts. Especially where the competition is at its most cutthroat — which is pretty much everywhere in the hotel industry. Budget hotels compete fiercely for each and every price-sensitive customer, with offers of free breakfast and free HBO, just as much as corporate-travel mainstays like Westin and Hyatt compete for the loyalty of road warriors with club lounges and points programs. Likewise, some of the industry’s fiercest competition (as it is with law firms) is at the very pinnacle of the market, where super-luxury brands from Park Hyatt to the Four Seasons strive to capture market share at the expense of each other. Knowing full well that only a small slice of the population can afford entry through their doors, luxury hotels understand that satisfying the pickiest and most demanding of clientele is key to their survival. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear of a juicy corporate espionage story being told in a California court proceeding involving two of Los Angeles’ most prominent luxury hotels.

On one side of the dispute we have the Peninsula Beverly Hills, a five-star entrant in Forbes Travel Guide and one of LA’s grandest places to stay. (I remember attending a small-cap investor conference in West Hollywood one year, where it seemed like everyone who needed to let everyone else know where they were staying was letting slip that they were at the Peninsula.) There is real power to the Peninsula brand, reinforced by the company’s advertisements in magazines geared toward affluent consumers, ads that star smiling white-gloved bellhops and impeccably attired front desk staff. Across the globe, the fleet of green Rolls-Royces parked outside the iconic Peninsula Hong Kong stands eveready to shuffle guests to and from the airport. In short, Peninsula hotels are synonymous with luxury — and are priced to match.

On the other side of the dispute — which dates to 2017 and is scheduled for trial later this year — we have perhaps the hottest hotel star in the Beverly Hills firmament, the Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills. Touted from its 2017 opening date as the “hotel to beat in LA,” the Waldorf is the huge Hilton chain’s flagship property (at least until the Waldorf NYC reopens after a long renovation) and a worthy competitor to LA’s longer-tenured luxury establishments. According to the Peninsula, however, the Waldorf’s immediate impact on the LA hotel scene was ill-gotten, as the Waldorf’s inexperienced management allegedly executed a scheme with a former Peninsula employee to use the Peninsula’s trade secrets as a way to get an immediate foothold in the super-competitive local luxury hotel market.

At the center of the dispute is the Peninsula’s “former diplomatic sales manager,” Houssem Tasco, whose job responsibilities included the all-important work of sourcing lucrative Middle Eastern clients who “routinely run up multimillion-dollar bills for their stays.” In the Peninsula’s latest filing — a proposed fourth amended complaint that lays out new details concerning the alleged theft of trade secrets by Tasco for his new employer the Waldorf’s benefit — Tasco is accused of harboring confidential Peninsula documents on his personal computer. Included in the information Tasco allegedly misappropriated are key details concerning the all-important Middle Eastern guests. As well as Tasco’s illicit taking and transmission to his new employer of the Peninsula’s operating manual. Much is made of the fact, as would be expected in the Peninsula’s proposed amended complaint, that the true scope of Tasco and the Waldorf’s malfeasance has only come to light during discovery. And that Tasco has been promoted twice during the pendency of the lawsuit.

In response, the Waldorf’s ownership has pointed to the Peninsula’s supposed penchant for trying to stifle competition using legal means. Publicly, at least, the case has developed into a bit of a mutual smear campaign, with both sides unafraid to characterize the other as the bad actor. While the marketing impact of a lawsuit like this should not be underestimated, particularly for an incumbent like the Peninsula hoping to reinforce its status as the standard-bearer in the local market, there is always the risk that a potential client finds the entire situation distasteful — and decides to take their business elsewhere.

Ultimately, this case reinforces how trade secret disputes can escalate across a number of fronts. Discovery often reinforces the allegations of the plaintiff, while the passage of time allows defendants to argue that they are the victim of a bullying campaign rather than the perpetrators of a scheme to unfairly benefit from the confidential information of a competitor. For observers, these cases provide an interesting look at the measures competitors will take to get — or stay — ahead. Because hotels are welcoming places, just not for their competition.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

The honorable proprietors of the Sunset Strip Gentleman’s Club had occasion to inform the local constabulary of a heinous breach of gentlemanly etiquette on Friday when a local attorney at law allegedly absconded without remitting proper remuneration for a tasteful dry humping.

The gentleman advocate, identified in the area newspaper of record as Dylan Vinzant, allegedly procured a 15-minute diversion to a private dance area in the company of a comely lass for the agreed upon modest sum of $200. But authorities say this blackguard fled into the blackberry bushes without fulfilling his end of the transaction. Or, more likely, Marionberry bushes as the locals insist on calling their blackberries.

Escaping the briar, Sunset Strip’s gentleman caller supposedly sought to avail himself of the public transportation concern. Finding the light rail train already departed, authorities claim that the counselor skulked toward a darkened train shaft, a haunting metaphor of where the night’s events did not lead him.

Thankfully, dear reader, this esquire did not find an oncoming train within the confines of the tunnel but instead representatives of the Sheriff’s department who staked out the other side and waited for him to emerge.

He was taken swiftly to jail and booked on “suspicion of theft and trespassing.”

With this unpleasantness behind it, the Sunset Strip can return to serving the proper gentleman of the greater Portland, Oregon area.

Oregon lawyer refuses to pay for $200 lap dance, leads cops on foot chase near strip club, authorities say [Oregon Live]

Joe 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.

Welcome to Super Tuesday 2020, where the most important story is HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS! And not just any emails, mind you. These are the emails pertaining to the 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Because we live in hell.

The rabid conservatives at Judicial Watch — which was founded by none other than Larry Klayman, although they’re currently on a break — are going to get Hillary Clinton if it’s the last thing they do, dangit. And finally the big prize is almost within their grasp! Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Secretary Clinton to submit to deposition in Judicial Watch’s FOIA suit against the Department of State over her buttery, buttery emails from eight years ago.

Soon they will find the smoking gun that proves Clinton ordered those marines to stand down and allow American patriots to be slaughtered in Libya, and then they can impeach her and lock her up forever! Or … they’ll just get the same stuff that Clinton already said under oath during 11 hours of televised testimony before Congress. Definitely one or the other.

Back in 2018, Judge Lamberth held that State had failed to adequately scour its own records for documents pertaining to the Benghazi attack, particularly those which might have been on Secretary Clinton’s private email server. So the case continues, with Judicial Watch now litigating for yet more information about the search for documents itself, and specifically why the responses to prior FOIA requests have been so desultory. Is it because known Deep Stater Bill Barr is still trying to protect Hillary Clinton?

Probably! Bill Barr’s Justice Department did just clear Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing with regard to her private email server, AGAIN. But luckily Judicial Watch is on the case, and so is Judge Lamberth, who has so many questions unanswered by Clinton’s “incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best” responses to written interrogatories in the case.

For example, how did [Secretary Clinton] arrive at her belief that her private server emails would be preserved by normal State Department processes for email retention? Who told her that—if anyone—and when? Did she realize State was giving ‘no records’ response to FOIA requests for her emails? If so, did she suspect that she had any obligation to disclose the existence of her private server to those at State handling the FOIA requests? When did she first learn that State’s records management employees were unaware of the existence of her private server? And why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?

No doubt the Secretary’s recollection of events eight or nine years ago will be refreshed by the presence of a video camera to record lots of footage to selectively edit for Judicial Watch’s next Twitter video. Similarly, the organization will scrupulously heed the judge’s admonition to “focus on whether she used a private server to evade FOIA and, as a corollary to that, what she understood about State’s records management obligations.” Just ask Judicial Watch’s president Tom Fitton:

We will never, never escape 2016 as long as we live.

Judicial Watch v. Department of State [Case 1:14-cv-01242-RCL (D.D.C., March 2, 2020)]
Hillary Clinton can be deposed about her emails, judge rules [CNN]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Earlier today, we reported that a New York lawyer was the second confirmed case of coronavirus in the state. We can now confirm that one of his children is an undergraduate student at Yeshiva University in New York City and that a student at Cardozo Law has been put into self-quarantine due to contact with the coronavirus patient’s law firm.

At about 2:30 p.m., an alert went out to the Yeshiva University community to let them know that the student in question had not been on campus since Thursday, February 27, and is in quarantine with the rest of his family. The school is working with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Office of Emergency Preparedness and Response to ensure everyone’s safety.

Cardozo Law Dean Melanie Leslie quickly followed up on that email with a message to the law school community, attempting to keep everyone calm:

I am writing to follow up on the University’s alert regarding the Cardozo student who is in voluntary quarantine. The student has no symptoms of the illness and has been assessed by the New York City Department of Health, which has told the student that they are likely not in any danger and do not need to be quarantined. In an abundance of caution, the student decided to remain in their home for the time being.

Nonetheless, we are in the process of disinfecting the building. We will also begin recording classes.

“I want to assure you that we are vigilantly monitoring the situation, and that the University is working very closely with the state and local health officials,” Dean Leslie said. “Please remember that most cases of the Corona virus are not life-threatening.”

We will be closely following these latest developments. What is your law school or law firm doing to protect students and employees from coronavirus? Please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “Coronavirus Response”). Stay safe, everyone.

(Flip to the next page to see Dean Leslie’s message in full.)

Earlier: This Lawyer Has New York’s Second Confirmed Case Of Coronavirus

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The Februrary 2020 administration of the bar exam has officially come and gone, and now there is nothing left for would-be lawyers to do but await their pass/fail fates. Here’s something to distract recent test-takers while they play the months-long waiting game and make other members of the legal profession gasp as they take in the abject horror of a truly frightening bar exam nightmare.

This tale of terror comes from a familiar face to Above the Law. You may remember Kay Lorraine as the oldest woman to graduate from University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law at the age of 70. Here is her story:

I am now 73, and I had a mild stroke during the morning of day one of last week’s bar exam. I have taken the bar exam a couple of times (it’s rough to retain huge amounts of info when you are in your 70s). In 2018, I withdrew from the bar exam in order to fly to Texas to work pro bono for nearly 8 months with RAICES, reuniting children with immigrant families.

I went into the February 2020 bar exam feeling pretty confident. I had hired a tutor and I was relaxed and ready to go. Unfortunately, about 35 minutes in, I had a Transient Ischemic Attack (which is not terribly uncommon but mine lasted for about an hour and 40 minutes, which is uncommon). I went to Straub Emergency Room and they took good care of me.

I also fully intend to take the July bar exam and, damn it, I intend to pass.

According to the American Stroke Association, a TIA stroke is “a temporary blockage of blood flow to the brain” with warning signs that couldn’t possibly have boded well for someone who was in the middle of taking the bar exam:

• Weakness, numbness, or paralysis on one side of the body
• Slurred speech or difficulty understanding others
• Blindness in one or both eyes
• Dizziness
• Severe headache with no apparent cause

We wish Kay good health and the best of luck on the bar exam this summer. Please let this serve as a reminder to take care of yourselves before, during, and after the test.

What was the craziest thing that happened during the February 2020 bar exam? If you survived or witnessed some horror story in action, let us know. You can email it to us (subject line: “Bar Exam Horror Story”) or text us (646-820-8477).

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The death of a loved one is often the beginning of multiple court filings and appearances.
This is the case for basketball legend Kobe Bryant, who also was the subject of various court
proceedings during his lifetime. Bryant passed away with his daughter Gigi on January 26, 2020, in a Calabasas, California, helicopter crash that killed all nine people onboard.

If someone dies with assets held in his own name, a last will and testament is filed with the local probate court in order to distribute the estate in accordance with that last will. If someone passes away with children and there is no surviving parent or guardian, the probate court will address
issues of personal and financial guardianship for any minors. Whether Kobe
Bryant died without a last will and testament, a living trust, or another
testamentary vehicle to dispose of his assets upon his death remains unclear.
If the decedent dies as a result of someone else, there may be a cause of action to be asserted on his behalf. In many cases, an executor or other personal representative must be appointed by a court to assert that claim, or a surviving spouse or child can put it forward. This is often the case
if someone dies as a result of a car crash, shooting, or any kind of accident. When a person dies as the result of the wrongful act or negligence of another, a wrongful death claim can be filed in civil court. The personal representative or family sues for monetary damages, which if granted are paid to the decedent’s survivors. Sometimes an estate can sue for personal injury damages on behalf of the decedent, if it is thought he suffered injury immediately prior to death. In that case, the damages are paid to his estate.

In Los Angeles County Superior Court, Vanessa Bryant — Kobe Bryant’s widow and the mother of Gigi — has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Island Express Holding Corp. and Island Express Helicopters, the companies that operated the helicopter. The complaint argues that pilot Ara Zobayan was negligent and failed “to use ordinary care in piloting the subject aircraft.” Specifically the defendant “directed and/or permitted” the fatal flight, knowing that there was unsafe weather. It has been alleged that the flying conditions on the day of the crash were unsafe and particularly that it was too foggy to fly.

Vanessa Bryant has retained Kansas City, Missouri, attorney, Gary Robb,
who practices in helicopter crash litigation and has written a book regarding the topic. Robb has spoken of an allegation that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department disseminated photos from the crash site. Bryant had personally requested that the crash site be marked as a no-fly zone and that photographers not be able to gain access. Allegedly the Sheriff’s Department gave assurances that they would work to protect the privacy of the victims’ families. News outlets, however, have reported that deputies shared photos of the crash site. Bryant has demanded an investigation. On her Instagram account, Bryant called reports that first responders shared photos of the crash site “inexcusable and deplorable.” The argument is that the sharing of such photos is a violation of human decency and also a violation of the victims and families’ privacy rights.

In this day and age when information, including photos are so easily disseminated via email and the internet, issues of decency and privacy are sure to abound. Additionally, Kobe Bryant’s larger-than-life status and the circumstances of his death pervade all people’s newsfeeds. In these cases, however, it is important to be mindful that this tragedy, like all deaths, still concerns several individuals and families. Surely Kobe Bryant’s fame and death will be the impetus for many legal and ethical conversations as his family and fans navigate life without him.

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.

The bar exam. Few things invoke a stronger reaction in law students, and not in a good way. There’s no getting around the fact that sufficiently preparing to pass the bar is an intense, time-consuming process. But thanks to Crushendo, founded by BYU Law grad Adam Balinski, it no longer has to be a boring one.

For decades, bar prep services have relied on primarily two main methods for delivering the information they think you need to know to pass the exam: long, talking-head lectures and outlines so voluminous they could serve as doorstops. Even as law students have seen more bar prep options enter the market, they haven’t seen much change in the way study materials are structured.

Until now. Crushendo is changing the bar prep game with audio and visual outlines that are accessible and engaging. Combine that with online flashcards, practice questions, and prices that won’t break the bank, and Crushendo is turning the bar prep industry on its head.

A New Approach to the Traditional Outline

Crushendo’s whole approach to bar prep is to help you memorize crucial information faster. This starts with informative, visually appealing outlines that are easy to digest and accompanied by audio.

The outlines provide convenient breakdowns of how often certain topics tend to be tested on the bar exam. From there, each topic is presented in discrete, logical chunks through the help of hundreds of proprietary mnemonics, color-coding, and illustrations. The idea here is to instill visual images that are easy to recall come testing time.

There are mnemonics for almost everything, and they have a handy color-coding system to aid with memorization. Mnemonics presented in green (or avocado) imply “and” logic, meaning all elements are required (“avocado” = “a” = “and”). Those in orange involve “or” logic (“orange” = “o” = “or”). If a mnemonic is simply a list without relational logic, it appears in black.

The outlines also include handy blue hyperlinks that will take you to many of the underlying cases or statutes.

As cool and engaging as these outlines are, they’re just the beginning. The real game changer is when the audio comes in. Crushendo intends for their outlines to be read in full as a first step, but you have options for how you do this, depending on your personal preferences.

If you’re a studier who can’t stand noise, you should read your outline for the first time in complete silence at your own pace. For those who can tolerate, or even prefer, background music, you’ve got two options – you can read along as the written outline is paired with an audio outline, or you can also add classical background music to the mix (each subject has its own optional background song). The key is finding the right level of audio engagement that works best for you.

After you’ve digested the whole outline once, your Crushendo bar prep experience allows you to listen to each section of each outline as an audio file any time, anywhere. Throw on a torts track while hitting the weights at the gym. Listen to the civil procedure course while you’re grocery shopping. Or if you’re like this Google reviewer, you can even use Crushendo to increase your quality time with your pets: 

“I became instantly hooked by Crushendo’s use of mnemonics, concise outlines, and their tips and tricks from ONE YouTube video, that I had to get their MPRE package. It was the best decision ever. Although I had already purchased an MPRE outline from a popular bar company, it was simply not helping me memorize rule statements. Now, with Crushendo, I am able to go on my hour-long walks with my husky and be repeating the audio outlines, with awesomely vivid mnemonics, and feel like the rule statements are sticking! I have already recommended Crushendo to several classmates and can’t wait to buy their UBE package. Thank you, Crushendo!!”

The idea is to listen to each and every track 7-10 times so you eventually memorize all the concepts in convenient chunks. The combination of the information and music, especially when paired with mindless, enjoyable activities (stress relief, anyone?), is the best way to cement your knowledge of the concepts that will help you to pass the big exam.

Most bar prep products are designed to be used exclusively for that – studying come bar time. That’s why you get sold on expensive courses (more on that in a bit) and don’t see any materials till much later. Crushendo is different.

You get the materials right away, and you can use them throughout your law school experience to gain a deeper understanding of black letter law that will help you through your courses and finals, not just the bar exam itself. Take it from one successful Facebook user:

“I used Crushendo’s Civil Procedure outline during 1L and received my best grade in law school in Civil Procedure. I now listen to Evidence and Criminal Procedure during my daily commute and the repetition and the mnemonics are real game changers. If you commute and want to make that time more productive, you NEED Crushendo!”

Praise doesn’t get much better than that. (And speaking of Facebook, Crushendo gets an impressive 5 out of 5 stars).

Beyond Outlines (Stop! CrammerTime)

The Crushendo experience doesn’t end with the audio outlines and visual outlines. You also get compelling audio flashcards and online visual flashcards to help you further visualize and cement key concepts, as well as loads of official practice questions to prepare for the big day.

Flashcards are a great way to drill down those mnemonics and help with chunking – putting the right concepts in the right buckets so you’ll better remember them. With Crushendo, you get your flashcards in audio format, dubbed “CrammerTime,” accompanied (or not) by classical music tracks, according to your preference.

The final piece of any bar prep puzzle is practice questions, and Crushendo has you covered. Crushendo provides over 2000 practice questions, which they get directly from the NCBE itself – the folks who produce the Uniform Bar Exam – so you know they’re more reliable than many of the things you’ll randomly find on the internet. Even better, the essays and MPTs come with the actual bar grader reference point sheets, so you’re getting the best possible feedback instantly on your practice answers.

And since convenience is everything, all your Crushendo materials are available on both your computer and mobile devices. There’s even a blog and creative videos for more tips and tricks for surviving the bar. It’s hard to imagine how Crushendo could make bar prep any easier.

The Most Enjoyable Way to Crush Bar Prep

Crushendo is different than any other bar prep course you’ll come across, and that’s a great thing. The bar exam may be a rite of passage that will stand the test of time, but study materials have long needed to catch up with the modern age.  That’s exactly what Crushendo has done.

Whether you’re preparing for law school finals, the UBE (or any its subparts – MBE, MEE, or MPT), your state bar exam, or the MPRE, Crushendo is the flexible study system that gives you the freedom to study and cram when and where you want. You get lifetime access to your materials for a fraction of the cost of any other equally comprehensive study program, and there’s even financing available if you need it. There’s also a 30-day, no-questions-asked, money-back trial period for you to test it out (though if you’re like 98% of their users, you won’t change your mind).

Let’s face it. The bar exam will always be hard and prepping for it will always be a ton of work. But it doesn’t have to be miserable. Break free from the lectures and outlines, and let Crushendo guide you to a more flexible, engaging, and effective study experience.