February 2020 MEE Seminar Predictions

Accuracy of JD Advising’s February 2020 MEE Seminar Predictions

Below we discuss the accuracy of JD Advising’s February 2020 MEE Seminar predictions. We also note which issues surprised us! Overall, we are pleased to report that many of our predictions for the February 2020 Uniform Bar Exam were completely accurate.

Accuracy of JD Advising’s February 2020 MEE Seminar Predictions

Civil Procedure

Beginning with February 2016, the Examiners stopped testing Civil Procedure on every exam. Because Civil Procedure was tested in February 2019 and July 2019, we did not expect it to appear on the February 2020 MEE—but it did! The primary issues tested in this question were whether a plaintiff may permissively join defendants in a lawsuit and impleader. The Examiners had not yet tested when a plaintiff may sue multiple defendants in the same lawsuit, so this was not explicitly mentioned in our materials. However, our MEE Seminar provided the rule for when plaintiff(s) may permissively join other plaintiffs (which has been tested before)—and the elements are the same! Further, the Examiners have only tested impleader once on the essays (February 2015), so this rule was not included in our MEE Seminar materials. Thus, the issues on the Civil Procedure were somewhat surprising.

Contracts

We did predict that Contracts as our wildcard subject, and indeed, there was a Contracts question on the exam. The Examiners often choose to repeat one or two subjects from the previous administration, and the issues may also be very similar from one exam to the next! We predicted nearly all of the issues in this question: contract formation (offer, acceptance, and consideration), whether UCC or common law governs, substantial performance, and damages for breach of contract, including expectation damages.

Evidence

We told our seminar students that it was highly likely that they would see an Evidence question and that it might be combined with Criminal Procedure. Examinees did see an Evidence question—but it was not combined with Criminal Procedure.  Our MEE Seminar covered a majority of issues in this question, including logical relevance, hearsay, statement of a party opponent (hearsay exclusion), whether character evidence may be admitted in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, impeachment (prior conviction, bias).

Some students reported that the question also included some Criminal Law issues (battery and self-defense). If the Examiners do classify the Evidence question as a crossover with Criminal Law, this would be the first time that this crossover has appeared on the MEE. Further, until now, the issues of battery and self-defense have never appeared on a Criminal Law question on the MEE, so these rules were not included in our MEE Seminar booklet.

Real Property

We told our seminar attendees that Real Property would likely appear on the exam, and it did! The essay mostly focused on how to create and sever a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, a joint tenant’s rights if another joint tenant leases his interest, and the rights of a tenant in common if the other tenant in common leases his interest in the tenancy. And we told our students that a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship could be tested and even told them to review the February 2009 essay—which is the last time this issue had been tested!

Secured Transactions

We did predict that Secured Transactions would be on the exam, and it did appear on the MEE. Our MEE Seminar booklet covered nearly one-third of the issues presented in this question—when UCC Article 9 applies, attachment, and perfection. In particular, the fact pattern tested whether a lender could take a security interest in a debtor’s accounts receivable and whether the account debtor received proper notification directing it to make payments to an assignee. We were somewhat surprised that the Examiners chose to test Secured Transactions in this specific context, as accounts and account debtors are not heavily tested and were most recently tested in July 2017.

Torts/Agency

We told the seminar attendees to look for a Torts essay combined with Agency, and this is exactly what appeared on the exam! We predicted nearly all of the issues in this essay, including actual authority, apparent authority, whether a principal may seek indemnification from an agent, and whether a principal is directly liable for negligently hiring an agent.

On the whole, our seminar students had a significant advantage going into the February 2020 Uniform Bar Exam as we predicted nearly all of the issues in the Contracts, Evidence, and Torts/Agency essays. Further, we predicted at least half of the issues in the Real Property essay and nearly one-third of the issues in the Secured Transactions question! As a result, our students had the upper hand on almost every question!

We hope you found our post about the accuracy of our February 2020 MEE Seminar Predictions helpful!

If you would like to sign up for our Multistate Essay Exam seminar for the upcoming bar exam, you can do so on this page.

Looking for other MEE options? mee guide, highly tested mee topics mee one-sheets, jd advising one sheets, multistate essay exam one sheetsmee seminar, multistate essay exam seminar, jd advising seminar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.