Ah-ha!

For the past month and a bit, I've successfully put the horrors of the bar out of my head. I figured, there's nothing I can do about it now, so why dwell on it? Right? Right. It's worked. I haven't given that silly exam much thought in the interim. I long ago resigned myself to the fact that I may have to take it again in July.

Particularly because of the essays. There was one essay which really stumped me. And that especially bugged me because I usually can write something. In fact, I'm very good at writing essays. Well, I did write something, but I was sure it wasn't what they wanted.

And I was right. I didn't know what I was talking about. Today, on the bus ride across town, it came to me.

It was the missing torts question. One of the things which left me uneasy me about the essay section was that I couldn't find the torts question. I thought it was really odd that there wasn't one. Well, there was; I just didn't recognize it.

And here's the rub: it wasn't a tort that was taught either in class or through the Bar/Bri lectures. It was a fraud tort, which I sorta guessed at but didn't know well enough to walk through the elements. Oh well.

Lesson: review the Bar/Bri handouts completely. I did, but not enough so that it stuck in my head to recognize immediately and jump off the page.

But ya' know what? It feels so much better to know what the heck that question was rather than just being confused by it, even if I pretty much blew it. And, from what I understand, the MD bar does this every year -- deeply disguises a question. For February it was torts in a contracts-skin. In July it was the other way around, contracts masquerading as torts.

And that's why I think I may not pass the bar. But then again, it's only one question. And I don't have to think about it for another month.