California bar exam past questions and answers

California Bar Exam – Essay Questions & Answers (Feb 2025)

Question 1 – Criminal Law & Procedure

A man with a gun robs a bank. Police arrest Rob, who has a matching briefcase and gun. After receiving Miranda warnings, Rob confesses. A search of his apartment reveals more incriminating evidence.

Rob may challenge the identification procedure as suggestive. However, if the lineup was conducted properly and independently corroborated, the ID will likely stand. His confession followed valid Miranda warnings, and appears voluntary. The apartment search was executed under a valid warrant based on probable cause. Therefore, both the confession and the seized evidence are admissible under California and federal standards.

Question 2 – Trusts and Estates

A testator left a will and a pour-over trust. Later, amendments to the trust led to disputes among beneficiaries. A grandchild contests the distributions under both the will and trust.

The will appears valid on its face. Trust amendments are enforceable if they meet the trust's modification provisions and are properly executed. The grandchild may not have standing unless specifically named or an intestate heir. The pour-over clause is valid if the trust existed when the will was executed. The court will likely uphold the amended trust distributions if all formalities were met.

Question 3 – Real Property

A buyer contracts to purchase property. Disputes arise over zoning restrictions and an easement not disclosed by the seller. The buyer seeks to rescind the contract or recover damages.

Under California real property law, the seller must disclose known material facts affecting value or desirability. An undisclosed easement may constitute a breach of this duty. Zoning restrictions affecting intended use may also warrant rescission. The buyer may seek damages or cancellation if misrepresentation or failure to disclose is proven. Specific performance may be denied if title is unmarketable.

Question 4 – Contracts / Remedies

A business owner agreed to purchase goods from a supplier. The contract included a delivery date and payment schedule. The supplier failed to deliver on time, citing a supply chain issue. The business owner sues for breach of contract.

This is governed by the UCC if the goods are moveable. The supplier's failure to deliver constitutes a breach. Force majeure or impracticability may excuse performance, but only if truly unforeseeable. The buyer is entitled to expectation damages or cover costs. Specific performance may be possible if the goods are unique and damages are inadequate.

Question 5 – Professional Responsibility

An attorney represents a client in a personal injury case. During the case, the client confesses to insurance fraud. The attorney is unsure whether to disclose the confession or continue representation.

The attorney owes duties of confidentiality and candor. Under California law, confidentiality is broader than ABA rules and may prevent disclosure unless the client consents or future harm is involved. If the fraud is ongoing, the attorney may need to withdraw. Disclosure is generally not allowed for past acts unless there is a legal obligation to do so. The attorney should advise the client to rectify the fraud and consider declining further representation.

Question 6 – Torts

A store owner fails to fix a broken floor tile despite knowing it's a hazard. A customer trips and suffers injuries. The customer sues for negligence, and the store defends by claiming the customer was texting and not looking where they walked.

The store owed a duty of care to invitees. Knowledge of the hazard and failure to fix or warn breaches that duty. Causation is satisfied if the tile directly led to the injury. The customer’s texting may constitute comparative negligence, reducing but not eliminating recovery. California follows pure comparative fault, so damages are apportioned accordingly.

Question 7 – Evidence

During a civil trial, a witness testifies that the defendant “always drives recklessly.” The plaintiff offers prior accident reports to support the claim. The defense objects on the grounds of relevance and prejudice.

Under California Evidence Code, character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct. Specific prior acts, such as past accidents, may be admissible to show intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake—but not to prove the defendant acted in conformity with a reckless character. The statement that the defendant “always drives recklessly” is opinion and likely inadmissible unless it qualifies under limited exceptions. The court may also exclude it under Evidence Code §352 if unfair prejudice outweighs probative value.

Question 8 – Community Property

During a divorce, a couple disputes the ownership of a business started during the marriage but funded with one spouse’s separate inheritance. The business grew substantially during the marriage through joint efforts.

California presumes property acquired during marriage is community property. However, if separate property was used to fund the business, tracing rules apply. The Pereira and Van Camp methods are used to apportion value between separate and community property. If community effort was the main growth factor, Pereira favors the community. If capital was more important, Van Camp favors separate property. The court will use the appropriate method to divide the business interest equitably.

Question 9 – Constitutional Law

A city passes an ordinance banning protests in front of government buildings during business hours. Protesters challenge the law as a violation of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and assembly. Government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in public forums, but such restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels. The ordinance is content-neutral but may fail narrow tailoring if it broadly bans all protests. Courts will likely apply intermediate scrutiny and determine whether less restrictive means were available.

Question 10 – Civil Procedure

A plaintiff files a negligence lawsuit in California state court against a defendant who resides out of state. The defendant moves to quash service, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction.

California applies a broad long-arm statute allowing jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution. The court must determine whether the defendant has minimum contacts with California such that exercising jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. If the defendant purposefully directed activities toward California or the cause of action arose out of forum-related conduct, jurisdiction is likely proper.

Question 11 – Business Associations

A corporate officer makes a deal on behalf of the corporation without board approval, later causing financial loss. Shareholders sue for breach of fiduciary duty. The officer claims authority based on custom.

Corporate officers owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and care. Acting without proper authority may breach these duties unless the action was within the scope of implied or apparent authority. Custom and prior practice may establish implied authority, but if the decision resulted in harm and lacked oversight, it may still violate the duty of care. The business judgment rule may protect reasonable decisions made in good faith, but reckless or unauthorized acts are not shielded.

Question 12 – Remedies

A homeowner contracts with a builder to remodel a kitchen. The builder fails to complete the work and abandons the job. The homeowner hires a new contractor at a higher price and sues for damages.

The homeowner is entitled to expectation damages, which include the cost of completion and any additional expenses caused by the breach. The proper measure is the reasonable cost of substitute performance minus the unpaid contract price. Consequential damages may also apply if foreseeable. Specific performance is unavailable because money damages are adequate in construction contracts. The homeowner has a duty to mitigate damages by hiring a reasonable replacement contractor.

Question 13 – Agency

A company’s manager enters into a contract with a supplier without the company’s explicit consent. The company later denies the agreement, claiming the manager lacked authority. The supplier sues for enforcement.

Agency law focuses on whether the agent had actual, apparent, or implied authority. If the manager had express authority, the contract is binding. Apparent authority arises when a third party reasonably believes the agent has authority based on the principal’s conduct. If the manager regularly made such purchases and the company knew or allowed it, the supplier may prevail under apparent authority. Ratification may also apply if the company later accepted the benefits.

Question 14 – Criminal Law

A person is arrested for attempting to rob a jewelry store. He had a fake gun and was stopped before entering. He claims he never intended to follow through. Prosecutors charge him with attempted robbery.

Attempt requires a specific intent to commit the crime and a substantial step toward its commission. Possession of a fake gun, casing the store, and approaching with tools may be sufficient evidence. Abandonment is not a defense if the attempt was complete. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to rob and took substantial action toward doing so. The fake gun does not negate the attempt, though it may reduce sentencing if no real threat existed.

Question 15 – Evidence (Hearsay)

In a trial, a witness testifies that a friend told her, “The defendant admitted he started the fire.” The defense objects based on hearsay. The prosecution argues it falls under a hearsay exception.

The statement is hearsay: an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, an admission by a party-opponent is not considered hearsay under both the Federal Rules and California Evidence Code. If the defendant made the statement and it was relayed by someone else, it may be admissible. The chain of trustworthiness is relevant; double hearsay may apply if both layers are not independently admissible. The court may admit it if both the admission and the friend’s statement fall within exceptions.

Question 16 – Contracts (Defenses)

A homeowner signs a roofing contract, but later claims she was intoxicated during signing and seeks to void the agreement. The roofer insists the contract is binding.

A contract is voidable if one party lacked capacity due to intoxication, but only if the other party knew or had reason to know of the incapacity. The homeowner must prove she was so intoxicated she could not understand the nature and consequences of the transaction. If this is established, and the roofer was aware or should have been, the contract may be rescinded. Otherwise, the agreement stands as valid and enforceable.

Question 17 – Constitutional Law

A state passes a law prohibiting religious groups from holding public marches. A church challenges the law, citing the First Amendment.

The law likely violates the First Amendment's protections for free exercise of religion and freedom of speech and assembly. Government regulations that target religious activity are subject to strict scrutiny—they must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored. A total ban on religious marches is likely neither neutral nor generally applicable, and would probably be struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Question 18 – Property

A landowner allows a neighbor to use a path across her land for years without a written agreement. The neighbor later claims a permanent easement. The landowner denies any legal rights were granted.

This may involve an easement by prescription or estoppel. A prescriptive easement requires open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for the statutory period (typically 5 years in California). If the use was permissive, it’s not adverse. However, if the landowner led the neighbor to reasonably believe the use was permanent and the neighbor relied to their detriment, an easement by estoppel may arise. The outcome depends on the nature of use and the intent inferred from conduct over time.

Question 19 – Civil Procedure (Subject Matter Jurisdiction)

A plaintiff sues a defendant in federal court for a state breach of contract claim. Both parties are from California. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal courts require either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. There is no federal question here, and diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants. Since both parties are from California, complete diversity is lacking. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the case unless another basis, such as supplemental jurisdiction tied to a federal claim, exists.

Question 20 – Torts (Negligence Per Se)

A driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian. The pedestrian sues, alleging negligence per se based on the traffic violation.

Negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute, the statute is meant to protect against the harm that occurred, and the plaintiff is within the class of persons intended to be protected. Running a red light violates a safety statute designed to prevent traffic collisions. The pedestrian is clearly in the protected class. The violation establishes a presumption of breach of duty, shifting the burden to the defendant to rebut with justification or excuse.

Question 21 – Wills & Trusts

A testator handwrites and signs a will but fails to have it witnessed. The testator dies, and the will is contested. Is the document valid?

Under California law, a holographic will—entirely handwritten and signed by the testator—is valid even without witnesses, as long as the material provisions and intent are clear. If the handwriting and signature are proven to be that of the testator and the document shows testamentary intent, the will may be admitted to probate. Challenges could arise over ambiguity or authenticity, but the absence of witnesses does not invalidate a valid holographic will in California.

Question 22 – Criminal Law (Larceny vs. Embezzlement)

An employee is entrusted with handling deposits. Instead of depositing a day’s receipts, she keeps the money and spends it. She is charged with larceny. Is that correct?

No. Larceny requires a trespassory taking (without lawful possession) with intent to permanently deprive. Here, the employee had lawful possession of the money due to her position. Since she misappropriated funds she was entrusted with, the correct charge is embezzlement, not larceny. Embezzlement involves the fraudulent conversion of property by a person in lawful possession of it.

Question 23 – Evidence (Hearsay Exception – Excited Utterance)

At trial, a witness testifies that right after a car accident, a bystander screamed, “That blue truck ran the red light!” The defense objects to hearsay. Is the statement admissible?

Yes. The statement qualifies as an excited utterance, a hearsay exception under both the Federal Rules of Evidence and California Evidence Code. It must relate to a startling event, be made under the stress of excitement, and without time for reflection. A spontaneous reaction immediately after witnessing a collision fits this category, making the statement admissible despite being hearsay.

Question 24 – Professional Responsibility

A lawyer accidentally receives a confidential document intended for opposing counsel. The lawyer reads it before realizing the mistake. What are the lawyer’s ethical obligations?

According to the ABA Model Rules and California’s Rules of Professional Conduct, upon realizing the mistake, the lawyer must promptly notify the sender. While reading the document may have already occurred, the lawyer must refrain from further use and seek guidance from the court if necessary. Continued use of the document could lead to sanctions or disciplinary action.

Question 25 – Constitutional Law (Freedom of Speech)

A city passes an ordinance prohibiting all protests in public parks. A group challenges the law under the First Amendment. Is the ordinance constitutional?

No. Public parks are traditional public forums where content-neutral restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leave open alternative channels for communication. A blanket ban on all protests is overly broad and not narrowly tailored. It violates the First Amendment.

Question 26 – Contracts (Offer and Acceptance)

A seller sends a letter offering to sell goods to a buyer, stating the offer will remain open for 10 days. On day 6, the seller sells the goods to another party. The buyer tries to accept on day 8. Is there a contract?

Unless the offer was a firm offer under UCC §2-205 (by a merchant in writing) or supported by consideration, the offeror can revoke the offer anytime before acceptance. If no consideration was given, the seller could revoke on day 6. Since the buyer accepted after the revocation, no contract was formed.

Question 27 – Real Property (Adverse Possession)

A person occupies a piece of land openly and continuously for 5 years in California, believing it belongs to them. They pay taxes on the property. The true owner never acts. Can they gain title?

Yes. Under California law, a person can obtain title by adverse possession if they have: (1) actual possession, (2) open and notorious use, (3) hostile claim, (4) continuous possession for 5 years, and (5) payment of property taxes. Since all elements are met, the possessor may claim legal title.

Question 28 – Torts (Negligence Per Se)

A pedestrian is injured when a driver runs a red light in violation of a traffic statute. The pedestrian sues for negligence. How does negligence per se apply?

Negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a certain class of persons from a specific type of harm, and the plaintiff is within that class and suffers that harm. Here, the driver violated a traffic law meant to protect pedestrians from vehicular injury. The violation establishes duty and breach, leaving only causation and damages to prove.

Question 29 – Civil Procedure (Personal Jurisdiction)

A Florida resident sues a California corporation in Florida state court for an online contract dispute. The company has no office or employees in Florida, but ships products there. Does Florida have personal jurisdiction?

Possibly. The court would apply a "minimum contacts" test under the Due Process Clause. If the company purposefully availed itself of the Florida market (e.g., by regularly shipping goods, advertising, or conducting transactions with Florida consumers), personal jurisdiction may be proper. The court will consider fairness and foreseeability.

Question 30 – Community Property

A couple in California divorces. The wife argues that a business the husband started during the marriage is separate property. Is she correct?

Under California community property law, property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be community property. A business started during the marriage with community funds or labor is typically considered community property. The wife would likely be entitled to a share, unless the husband can rebut the presumption with clear evidence of separate origin.

Question 31 – Evidence (Hearsay Exception: Excited Utterance)

A witness testifies that right after a car crash, the victim screamed, “That truck came out of nowhere!” The defense objects based on hearsay. Is the statement admissible?

Yes. The statement qualifies under the hearsay exception for “excited utterance” under FRE 803(2). It was made under the stress of a startling event and relates to the cause of the crash. Excited utterances are considered reliable due to the lack of time for reflection or fabrication.

Question 32 – Criminal Law (Larceny vs. Embezzlement)

An employee is given company funds to deposit in the bank but instead uses the money to pay personal bills. What crime has been committed?

This is embezzlement. Embezzlement occurs when the defendant lawfully possesses the property (here, the funds entrusted by the employer) but fraudulently converts it for personal use. Larceny requires trespassory taking, which is not the case here.

Question 33 – Professional Responsibility (Conflicts of Interest)

A lawyer agrees to represent both husband and wife in a divorce to save them money. Is this allowed?

No. Representing both spouses in a divorce presents a non-consentable conflict of interest. The interests of divorcing parties are inherently adverse, and a lawyer cannot provide competent and diligent representation to both. Such representation is prohibited under ABA Model Rules.

Question 34 – Contracts (Anticipatory Repudiation)

Party A tells Party B that they will not perform their obligations under a contract set to be fulfilled next month. What are Party B's rights?

This is anticipatory repudiation. Party B may treat the contract as breached immediately and sue for damages, or may wait for performance. Anticipatory repudiation must be clear and unequivocal, and allows the non-breaching party to mitigate damages.

Question 35 – Constitutional Law (Equal Protection)

A state law denies public school enrollment to undocumented immigrant children. What level of scrutiny applies?

This would likely be subject to intermediate or heightened scrutiny. The U.S. Supreme Court in *Plyler v. Doe* (1982) held that denying public education to undocumented children violates the Equal Protection Clause. The law must be substantially related to an important governmental interest, and such a denial fails this test.

Question 36 – Real Property (Easements)

Owner A grants Owner B a written right to cross A’s land to access a road. Ten years later, A sells the land to C, who blocks access. Can B enforce the easement?

Yes. This is an express easement appurtenant, which runs with the land and binds subsequent purchasers if it was properly recorded or they had notice. Since it was granted in writing, B may enforce it against C, assuming C had actual or constructive notice.

Question 37 – Torts (Negligence Per Se)

A driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian. The pedestrian sues for negligence and introduces a traffic statute requiring drivers to stop at red lights. How does this affect the case?

The violation of the statute establishes negligence per se. If the plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, and the harm is of the type it was meant to prevent, the defendant is presumed negligent, shifting the burden to rebut.

Question 38 – Civil Procedure (Subject Matter Jurisdiction)

A plaintiff sues for $50,000 in state court under a federal employment discrimination statute. Can the defendant remove the case to federal court?

Yes. Even though the amount is below the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction applies because the claim arises under federal law (e.g., Title VII). Thus, removal to federal court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Question 39 – Wills & Trusts (Undue Influence)

A caregiver convinces a frail elderly person to leave them the entire estate, cutting out family members. What must be shown to prove undue influence?

To prove undue influence, the contestant must show that (1) the influencer had a confidential relationship with the testator, (2) the influencer actively participated in the will’s procurement, and (3) the influencer unduly benefited. If shown, a presumption of undue influence arises, shifting the burden to rebut it.

Question 40 – Evidence (Hearsay Exception: Excited Utterance)

Immediately after witnessing a robbery, a victim yells, “That man in the red hat did it!” Can this statement be admitted in court?

Yes. The statement qualifies under the hearsay exception for an excited utterance under FRE 803(2), as it was made under the stress of excitement caused by the startling event and relates to that event.

Question 41 – Criminal Law (Felony Murder Rule)

During an armed robbery, a store clerk suffers a heart attack and dies. The robber is charged with felony murder. Is the charge valid?

Yes. Under the felony murder rule, a death occurring during the commission of a dangerous felony (such as robbery) is sufficient for felony murder liability, even if the death was not intended and occurred indirectly, so long as it was a foreseeable result.

Question 42 – Contracts (Consideration)

A promises to give B $1,000 as a gift next week. B accepts. Is this agreement enforceable?

No. The promise is not supported by consideration. A gift promise, without something given in return, is not enforceable unless made under seal or otherwise supported by reliance (promissory estoppel).

Question 43 – Constitutional Law (Dormant Commerce Clause)

A state law bans out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to consumers while allowing in-state wineries to do so. Is this law constitutional?

No. The law likely violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce in favor of local economic interests. Such discrimination must serve a legitimate local purpose that cannot be achieved through nondiscriminatory means, which is rarely satisfied.

Question 44 – Real Property (Adverse Possession)

A squatter occupies a piece of land openly and continuously for 5 years in California. Can they obtain title?

Yes, if the squatter meets California's statutory requirements: continuous, open, notorious, hostile possession for 5 years, and payment of property taxes. If all are met, they may acquire title by adverse possession.

Question 45 – Evidence (Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement)

At trial, a witness testifies that the defendant was not at the scene. But during a prior deposition, the witness said the opposite. Can this prior statement be used to impeach?

Yes. A prior inconsistent statement made under oath (like in a deposition) can be used to impeach the witness under FRE 613(b), and if made under penalty of perjury, it is also admissible substantively under FRE 801(d)(1)(A).

Question 46 – Criminal Procedure (Miranda Rights)

Police arrest a suspect, question him without giving Miranda warnings, and he confesses. Can the confession be used in court?

No. Statements made during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief, though they may be used for impeachment purposes if voluntary.

Question 47 – Torts (Negligence Per Se)

A driver runs a red light in violation of traffic law and hits a pedestrian. Can negligence per se apply?

Yes. Negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a specific class of persons from a specific type of harm, and the plaintiff is in that class and suffered that harm. Running a red light qualifies.

Question 48 – Civil Procedure (Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Diversity)

A plaintiff from Texas sues a defendant from California in federal court for $50,000. Does the court have diversity jurisdiction?

No. Although there is complete diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Since the claim is for only $50,000, federal diversity jurisdiction does not apply.

Question 49 – Constitutional Law (Freedom of Speech)

A city passes an ordinance banning all protests in public parks. Is this ordinance constitutional?

No. Public parks are traditional public forums. The government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, but a total ban is overly broad and not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, violating the First Amendment.

Question 50 – Contracts (Parol Evidence Rule)

Two parties sign a written agreement. One party later claims there was a prior oral agreement that contradicts the written contract. Can the oral agreement be admitted in court?

No. The parol evidence rule bars the admission of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements that contradict a fully integrated written contract, unless an exception applies (e.g., fraud, mistake, or ambiguity).

Question 51 – Real Property (Easements)

Owner A grants Owner B a right to cross his land for access to a public road. What kind of interest is created?

This creates an easement appurtenant. It benefits the holder in their use of another parcel (B's property) and runs with the land, transferring with ownership unless stated otherwise.