BarBri's "
most up-to-date materials" for Utah have been awful and useless. For example, 16 years ago in
American Vending, Utah's courts "extinguished the doctrine of de facto corporations." See if that's in your Utah materials. What's worse, it appears that what information is there hasn't been reviewed for 5 or 6 years. It's lame that BarBri didn't notice that Utah's probate code was
changed this summer. But 6 years out-of date? That's a ripoff.
A.BarBri botches Utah's capital punishment law:
If the court imposes the judgment of death, the defendant is entitled to select, at the time of sentencing, either a firing squad or a lethal injection as the method of execution; however, if no selection is made, the judgment of death must be by lethal injection. [§77-18-5.5]
That version of the statute was superseded in 2004. Ever since it was Amended by Chapter 51, in 2004, the
statute has provided that "lethal intravenous injection" has been the only "option" offered with a death sentence. This mistake is found under the subsection "UTAH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE," pg. 10-11.
B.BarBri biffs Utah’s version of
Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.17:
Utah has only adopted part of Rule 1.17 relating to the sale of a law practice. Utah requires only provision iii) that seller’s clients be notified in writing of the sale, of any change in fee arrangements, the client’s right to retain other counsel or take possession of their file and that their consent to the sale is presumed if there is no objection or response in 90 days.
In reality,
Utah’s rule includes all 4 parts of model rule 1.17, and has since a
2005 amendment. Utah’s rule specifically prohibits any increase in fees in connection with the sale of a law practice. This mistake is under the subsection “UTAH PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY," Pg 2.
C.BarBri bungles the grounds for modifying a custody decree in Utah:
The court may order, modify, or terminate joint legal or physical custody if:
a. the circumstances of the child or one or both of the parents have materially and substantially changed; or
b. a modification would be an improvement for and in the best interest of the child. [§30-10.4(1).]
In reality, there is only one test.
§ 30-10.4 provides an “and” where BarBri says “or.” The code’s conjunctive test is misrepresented as two alternative tests. This has been true at least since the
2007 amendments. This mistake is in the subsection “UTAH FAMILY LAW” pg. 15.
D.
BarBri butchers the statute of limitations for collecting back child support. In the Essay Approach Outline for Utah civil procedure, BarBri pulls this out of its hat as part of a list of SOL's:
8 years- child support
Um, actually, the SOL isn't even a fixed number of years at all. I don't know where they got 8 years, but the statute gives until the last child turns 18 plus 4 years. As far as I can tell, it's been that way for years and years and years.
ConclusionRipoff.
Randy M. Lish presented on a few topics. Plus he went to school with my boss.
Ariane H. Dansie also presented twice. And this is the second lawyer I've drawn from Durham Jones & Pinegar, since I also drew an adjunct professor from DJP.
John A. Snow presented on Ethics, and he has all the rules memorized. So I'm sure he'd appreciate this one.
Aaron's an associate at the firm I work for. Here he is asking for a bench warrant on an opposing party that failed to appear. As soon as the judge agreed, opposing counsel came walking in. Those bench warrants work quick!
Ritchie Eppink
Howard Belodoff
BarBri's "most up-to-date materials" for Utah have been awful and useless. For example, 16 years ago in American Vending, Utah's courts "extinguished the doctrine of de facto corporations." See if that's in your Utah materials. What's worse, it appears that what information is there hasn't been reviewed for 5 or 6 years. It's lame that BarBri didn't notice that Utah's probate code was changed this summer. But 6 years out-of date? That's a ripoff.
Roberto Corrada gave a rather straightforward lecture on admin law. Some say that admin agencies are the 4th branch of government. These are so called "functionalists." I see them as a conglomerate of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd combined.
Prof. Epstein lectures on contracts for Barbri, and writes "the best contracts and sales casebook." His lectures are actually very good, and include a fair bit of humor. Ah gathah he's from Texas.
I am now 3 days into BarBri and it's not so bad. It's not exactly fast paced yet. This here lecturer covered Con Law and Torts. If you take the pre-tests, DO NOT look at the answers to those questions. If you do, you will be bored to tears during the lectures covering the same material.
Mr. Adam S. Affleck, of Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler, argues on a motion for summary judgment. In this case, the crucial issue was a very important coma which was omitted in a very important legal filing. By way of random example, "LLC & M, L.L.C." and "LLC & M. L.L.C." are two distinct entities registered in Utah (see the coma?). The motion for summary judgment was granted.
Professor Hansen teaches the Law of Trusts. The textbook was written by him, Dallin H. Oaks, and two other guys. This drawing is a choppy photoshop doodle, which detracted its quality, but the convenience was wonderful.
