Delta Loan

When individuals pool resources, engage in a business for profit, and share in its management and profits, they form a general partnership by default. Partners in a general partnership are personally, jointly, and severally liable for all partnership debts. A corporation is a separate legal entity and is not automatically liable for pre-incorporation contracts made by its promoters. However, a corporation can become liable if it "adopts" the contract, either expressly or implicitly. The promoter who signed the contract (Ann) remains personally liable unless released by the creditor through a "novation."

At the time of the Delta loan, Ann, Bob, and Claire were operating ABC Shoes as a general partnership. They each provided capital, participated in daily operations, and agreed to split profits equally. Ann signed the loan papers on behalf of this partnership. Therefore, the partnership itself is liable for the debt. As general partners, Ann, Bob, and Claire are each personally, jointly, and severally liable for the full $30,000. Delta could sue any one of them or all of them for the entire amount. ABC Inc., which was formed later, would only be liable if it adopted this pre-existing debt. The facts do not indicate any such adoption.

In Conclusion, Ann, Bob, and Claire are personally liable for the Delta loan. ABC Inc. is not liable unless it can be shown that it adopted the loan.

Echo Loan

A fundamental principle of corporate law is limited liability. A validly formed corporation is a distinct legal entity responsible for its own debts and obligations.

Here, The Echo loan was made to "ABC Inc." after it was validly incorporated. Ann signed the note in her official capacity as "President". There are no facts to suggest any grounds for piercing the corporate veil, such as commingling of funds or fraud.

Therefore, only ABC Inc. is liable for the Echo loan.

The Big Shoe Co. Contract

A corporation is bound by the acts of its agents, such as a corporate officer, if the agent was acting with legal authority. This authority can be actual (express or implied) or apparent. Implied actual authority is the authority that an officer reasonably believes she has as a result of the position she holds. Apparent authority exists when the corporation's actions lead a third party to reasonably believe the officer has authority to act on the corporation's behalf.

Here, Ann signed the contract as "ABC Inc. by Ann, President." Although she lacked express actual authority because she did not consult Bob or Claire, she almost certainly possessed both implied and apparent authority. As the president of a retail shoe store, Ann has the implied actual authority to enter into contracts for the purchase of inventory, as this is an act reasonably necessary to carry out her duties and run the business. Furthermore, by holding Ann out as its President, ABC Inc. created apparent authority. Big Shoe Co. was entitled to reasonably rely on Ann's title and believe that she had the authority to bind the corporation in an ordinary business transaction like purchasing inventory. Because Ann acted with at least implied and apparent authority, her signature bound the corporation. As with the Echo loan, the corporate veil protects the shareholders from personal liability.

Therefore, Only ABC Inc. is liable for the contract with Big Shoe Co.

Peter’s Injuries

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior (or vicarious liability), an employer is liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of their employment. The employee who committed the tort remains personally liable as well. The corporate veil generally protects shareholders, officers, and directors from personal liability for the torts of a corporate employee.

Here, Fred was an employee of ABC Inc. At the time of the accident, he was "driving to pick up inventory," which is a task squarely within the scope of his employment. Because Fred was acting within the scope of his employment when he negligently injured Peter, his employer, ABC Inc., is vicariously liable for Peter's injuries. Fred, as the active tortfeasor, is also personally liable for his own negligence. Peter may sue either ABC Inc., Fred, or both. The corporate form shields Ann, Bob, and Claire from personal liability for a tort committed by a corporate employee.

While ABC Inc. is vicariously liable to Peter, the law generally gives an employer a right of indemnification against the employee who committed the tort. This means that after paying Peter's damages, ABC Inc. could potentially sue Fred to recover the amount it paid.

In Conclusion, ABC Inc. and Fred are liable for Peter’s injuries. Ann, Bob, and Claire are not personally liable.

(776 words)

1

Liability of Ollie

To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages. Under the principles of premises liability, a landowner’s duty is determined by the status of the person entering the property. An individual present for a business purpose, such as an athlete playing in a rented venue, is considered a business invitee. To such an invitee, a landowner owes the highest duty of care: the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, which includes the obligation to conduct reasonable inspections to discover and either repair or warn of any hidden dangers.

Here, Yvonne was a player on a team that rented the field, clearly establishing her status as a business invitee to whom Ollie owed this high duty of care. Ollie performed an inspection of the field on the afternoon before the game but did not inspect it again prior to the start of play. A jury could determine that this was a breach of his duty. Given that a field accessible to the public could have new hazards appear overnight, a reasonably prudent landowner preparing for a contact sporting event might have conducted a final inspection on the day of the game. Ollie’s failure to do so allowed the broken glass, a hidden danger, to remain on the field.

Therefore, because Ollie owed a duty of care to Yvonne as an invitee and likely breached that duty by failing to reasonably inspect the field, leading directly to her injuries, a court would likely conclude that Ollie is liable for negligence.

Liability of Barry

A coach, by virtue of their position of authority and their role in directing play, owes a duty of care to all participants in a sporting event, including opponents. This duty requires them to refrain from encouraging or directing their players to engage in conduct that is reckless or falls outside the scope of risks ordinarily associated with the sport.

Here, Barry's actions constituted a clear breach of this duty. He specifically instructed Kate to "play more roughly," knowing that she was a "very aggressive player" with a history of starting fights as a result of such instructions. This was not a standard coaching tactic; it was an affirmative act that foreseeably created an unreasonable risk of injury to opposing players.

In conclusion, by intentionally encouraging reckless conduct that exceeded the normal risks of the game, Barry breached his duty of care to Yvonne. As this breach directly and foreseeably caused her injuries, a court would find him liable for negligence.

2

Yvonne's Claim Against Kate

The tort of battery is defined as an intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive contact with another person.

A primary defense to battery is consent. In the context of athletic contests, participants are understood to consent to contacts that are a normal, foreseeable part of the game, even if those contacts might otherwise constitute a battery. However, this consent is not unlimited; it does not extend to acts of violence that are unrelated to the normal play of the game or that occur outside the course of play. While Yvonne did consent to being tackled, bumped, and even knocked down within the course of play, Kate's punch falls far outside the scope of that consent.

Another defense to battery is self-defense. However, it is a well-established rule that mere words or verbal provocation are not legally sufficient to justify a physical attack. Here, Yvonne's question may have provoked Kate, but this verbal taunt provides no legal defense for Kate's physical retaliation.

As all the elements of battery are met and no valid defense exists, Yvonne will be successful in her suit against Kate for battery.

Kate's Claim Against Yvonne

See ruls above.

Yvonne pushed Kate immediately after Kate had punched her. It was objectively reasonable for Yvonne to believe that she might be subject to further attack. Her response—a single push—was a reasonable and proportional use of force intended to create distance and prevent further harm. The action was defensive in nature rather than retaliatory.

Because Yvonne’s push was a justified act of self-defense in response to Kate's initial attack, she is privileged in her action. Accordingly, Kate's claim against Yvonne for battery will fail.

3

The rules for allocating damages among multiple tortfeasors differ by jurisdiction. The majority rule is joint and several liability, under which each defendant may be held responsible for the entire judgment, leaving it to the defendants to seek contribution from one another. To resolve the contribution claim, a jury would be required to allocate the percentage of fault between defendents.

Therefore, Yvonne can collect her entire damages award from either Ollie or Barry. Whichever defendant pays the full amount will then be able to sue the other for contribution to recover the portion of the damages that corresponds to the other’s percentage of fault as determined by the jury.

(848 words)

A. The Petition to Dissolve the Farm Trust

The Farm Trust is a charitable trust, as it is established for the benefit of the public, specifically the "general benefit of the City." Charitable trusts are subject to different rules than private trusts and are favored by the law, meaning courts are reluctant to terminate them.

Standing: The Attorney General vs. a Party with a Special Interest

As a general rule, the state Attorney General has the exclusive power to enforce a charitable trust on behalf of the public. A member of the general public, even one who may benefit from the charity, typically lacks standing to sue.

However, a critical exception exists for a person who holds a "special interest" in the trust. This special interest arises when the trust instrument provides that upon the failure of the charitable purpose, the assets are to be distributed to a specific, non-charitable beneficiary. This provision, often called a "gift-over" clause, gives that named beneficiary a direct, albeit contingent, property interest.

Here, the will states that if the trust should "fail, for any reason," its assets are to be given to "the children of my granddaughter Betty." Betty's only child, Darcy, is the sole contingent beneficiary of this clause. This gives Darcy a special interest sufficient to confer standing to argue that the trust has, in fact, failed and that her interest should therefore vest. Betty, acting on Darcy's behalf, can properly bring this petition before the court.

Precatory Language vs. Mandatory Direction

The will states that Grandma preferred the farm be used as an active organic-certified farm without chemical pesticides. The word "preferred" is generally considered precatory language, meaning it expresses a wish or a desire rather than a legally binding command. It is a guideline for the trustee, not a condition subsequent that would cause the trust to fail if not met. The primary and overarching purpose of the trust is for the "general benefit of the City." As long as the farm continues to operate for the city's benefit, this primary purpose is being fulfilled.

The Doctrine of Cy Près

Even if the organic farming provision were considered a primary purpose, its failure would not automatically terminate the trust. When a charitable trust's specific purpose becomes impossible, impracticable, or illegal to perform, a court can apply the doctrine of cy près (from the French for "as near as possible"). This doctrine allows the court to modify the trust and direct the assets to a new charitable purpose that approximates the settlor's original intent.

Because the trust's general charitable purpose remains viable, the court will favor modifying the trust's administrative terms over terminating it. Termination would frustrate Grandma's primary intent, whereas modification would preserve it.

B. The Petition to Dissolve the Ancestry Trust

A fundamental principle of trust law is that a trust will not fail for want of a trustee. While Tom, as trustee, engaged in serious misconduct and subsequently died, these events are not grounds for terminating the trust itself.

Upon Tom's death, the office of trustee became vacant. The trust instrument did not name a successor. In such a situation, the court has the inherent authority to appoint a successor trustee to continue administering the trust according to its terms. The trust's purpose—to distribute income annually to Tom's successors in interest (his estate until closed), Betty, and Carol—remains perfectly achievable.

Since the trust's purpose has not been fulfilled, become impossible, or been rendered illegal, there are no grounds for its termination. The proper judicial remedy is to appoint a new trustee and ensure the trust's assets are restored.

C. The Order to Compel Tom's Estate to Repay the Trust

A trustee owes the trust and its beneficiaries the highest duties of loyalty and care. The duty of loyalty strictly prohibits a trustee from using trust assets for their own personal benefit, a practice known as self-dealing.

When Tom wrote a check from the trust's assets to pay his personal medical debt, he directly violated his duty of loyalty. His intention to repay the trust is legally irrelevant to the fact that a breach occurred. The loss to the trust is the amount of money he took.

A trustee is personally liable for any financial loss to the trust resulting from their breach of duty. This liability does not disappear upon the trustee's death. The claim for the misappropriated funds becomes a debt of the trustee's estate. The successor trustee, once appointed, or a beneficiary (like Betty) has the right to bring an action to "surcharge" Tom's estate, which means compelling the estate to make the trust whole for the loss he caused.

Therefore, Betty's petition on this point is proper, and the court will grant the request to order Tom's estate to repay the full amount he misappropriated from the Ancestry Trust. This action is necessary to restore the trust principal and ensure its proper administration for the beneficiaries.

（823 words）

近期UBE的各州开始陆续放榜，继昨日德州学员考试通过的喜讯后，晚上纽约考区再传捷报！昨晚9点，NY BAR公布了25年7月考试成绩。

我们第一时间在学员群内通知大家查分，袁律和小林随即陆续收到参加了本次考试的学员发来的好消息。截至目前，本次考试学员通过率接近80%！远超NY官方发布的外国考生46%的通过率！

我们由衷地为成功的学员感到骄傲！许多学员特别反馈，我们提供的备考服务在实战中“非常有效”“非常贴近真实”“逻辑清晰、考点分明”。感谢大家的认可，我们也非常开心和荣幸能陪大家共度这一段努力的经历并见证大家取得好成绩。

对于暂时失利的学员，我们也将协助进行针对性分析、定位薄弱环节，为下一次的冲刺做好准备。

对于美国市场我一直都是躺平的态度，但助手依然坚持要给我安排去美国的行程。她说，今年不见得要说服法学生们来报课，但好歹要让他们知道新生代，不至于和往年一样，压根不知道你的服务和学员的通过率。

所以在美国停留了三周，平均每个工作日拜访了一所法学院。临行之前还被安排了拍摄vlog的任务，所以你可以在B站和小红书看到大概十几所法学院的现场视频和简单介绍。当然，每天一所的访问也不会有什么深入了解，但我已经从排名、天气、学费、生活成本、社团活动、就业、移民等方面尽可能介绍了一些我所知道的，希望对明年申请LLM的法学生们提供一些帮助。

让人欣慰的是，很多人在我去之前就已经知道了我。没有什么比直接被人认出来更开心的事情，如果有，那就是当面夸我教得好或者长得帅了。

即便本次访问是市场性质的，但我是个i人，当面推销这种事情我做不出来。所以在USC的两场交流会上介绍课程的部分也是一笔带过。9月13日线上那场也会是同理。让大部分新入学的法学生知道我的存在，我已经非常满足，至于是否要选我反而并没有那么重要，用服务、教学和通过率说话就可以了。所以我回国之后，短期内不会有太多宣讲活动了，我会把从现在到明年2月考试之间的时间用来专心做内容。

最后感谢在各法学院遇到的学员和非学员们，期待明年7月纽约州的考场再次相遇。

千呼万唤始出来！袁律美国名校线下讲座来啦！

近期很多网友学员看到袁律的美国名校法学院探访系列vlog后都来问，袁律来美国啦？待到什么时候呀？来都来了，什么时候开美国交流会呀？

朋友们！你们要的线下交流会来啦！

感谢多方邀请和协助，在9月开学季，我们将在USC连开两场交流会，欢迎大家来现场交流！

第一场​

时间：美西9月4日 2:00PM-3:50 PM 地点：USC 法学院 Room 130

第二场​

时间：美西9月5日 10:00 AM-12:00 AM 地点：USC 法学院 Room 101

两场内容完全一样，任选一场参加即可

讲座内容​

• 各州考试的申请资格，选课注意事项 - 10分钟

• 考试内容 - 10分钟

• 复习方法 - 10分钟

• 附带聊聊执业和移民的问题 - 不超过5分钟

• 袁律课程的介绍 - 不超过5分钟

• 剩下的时间留给答疑

不需要提前报名！欢迎Walk-in!

欢迎分享/转发给身边的小伙伴，一起来参加！

有任何问题都欢迎随时联系助手号咨询！

给LLM在开学季折扣是一开始就注明在官网上的，整个8月或者9月，如果你是今年秋季入学的美国、香港或者深圳研究生院的LLM/JD新生，都可以享受以9000元人民币购买的优惠。

很抱歉我们无法给到更多折扣：我们的服务本就性价比很高，而今年又新增了很多内容，可以保证你未来2-3年不需要再购买其他任何材料。而且在入学季提供折扣，也是鼓励大家早点开始听课和刷题：每年都有很多到6月甚至7月才来报名课程的LLM学员，这个时候再来报名，无论花多少钱、报名多少家的课程，如果前期不是已经做了大量的备考，大概率已经无法通过考试（JD会好很多）。

但如果从现在开始准备明年7月（或许2月都来得及，如果你已经是国内律师，可以考2月加州），尤其是纽约的话，只要方法正确大概率都可以通过。我们的课程在报名后立刻开通，答疑全年无休，就算圣诞、元旦和除夕也依然保持12小时内回答的惯例。对于大部分LLM来说，本来就只有不到1年的时间，课业又繁重（而且课程和考bar没什么太大关系），我们始终认为，LLM无论什么时候开始准备考bar都不算早。

今年的开学季还有如下活动。

袁律师线下见面​

如果你是9月美国LLM新生，希望获得关于考Bar面对面的建议，有机会在8月底或者9月初在学校见到袁律！目前确定会去的学校包括：USC，Northwestern，Chicago, WUSTL，Penn State，NYU，Boston，Georgetown，Stanford，UCB和UCLA.

我们还会在稍晚的时候在香港大学、香港中文大学、香港城市大学和北京大学国际法学院线下宣传。

如果你的学校不在清单中，或者虽然在清单中但想知道袁律师具体什么时候来贵校，请联系助手。

线上宣讲​

我们定于美国时间9月13日（周六）在腾讯会议（美东：EST 9月13日晚上9点；美中：CST 9月13日晚上8点：美西：PT 9月13日下午6点）为LLM进行更详细地介绍考试内容、资格申请和备考方法。大约半小时介绍内容，半小时答疑。

袁骏律师邀请您参加腾讯会议

会议主题：线上LLM考bar分享会

会议时间：2025/09/14（周日） 09:00 中国标准时间 - 北京

点击链接入会，或添加至会议列表：https://meeting.tencent.com/dm/DF2MwwPGxQDe

#腾讯会议：240-366-285

根据需求的变化，也可能提前有其他针对具体院校的线上或线下介绍会。

再次强调，袁律师的课程本来就已经非常便宜，除了开学季以外没有其他优惠活动，线下见面、线上宣讲也不会有折扣了。只会回答专业方面的问题。

考试季7天洛杉矶之行随着USC交流会的结束告一段落。第一天我在Pasadena，第二天在Ontario，上午我和大家一起排队，中午在考场门口提供午餐、咖啡和水果。考前两天还在Ontario附近带学员去购物和送了一些文具。相信大部分学员并不缺这些，顶多算是一些心理支持，以及既然袁律师来了，电脑遇到任何问题都可以解决。我是第一次去现场，获得了很多关于考场环境的一手资料，明年如果还是线下的话，想必可以更好的服务学员，比如建议Ontario考场的学员一定要多穿衣服，最好穿羽绒服。

考场收获最大的就是关于教研重要性体会。前期刷UWORLD已经是所有人的共识（有一些非学员仅仅因为我不断强调UWORLD的重要性就来感谢我），但最后两个月最重要的复习季应该干什么则是我在免费课里没有说的。而且，每个学员的水平不一样，给出的建议自然也不尽相同。NCBE最新的200题已经是将近5年前放出的（而且这200题偏难怪，和考场上知识点重合度不高），在此之后UWORLD几乎没有什么变化。再上一批的210题就要追溯的2017年（这次反而契合度很高）。随着时间的推移，考场上的热点已经不再是UWORLD这些机构能掌握的了——大型培训机构比如Barbri或许可以掌握，但他们本来就并不十分应试，更不屑于在课堂上一再强调所谓近期的热点。所以真正能给华人律师给出相对准确的热点的，也就只剩那么两家机构。所以我最近看到突然有一些新人想进入来卷这个行业——实在是没有必要，第一是你很难卷过我，好好干律师比干我这行赚多了，第二是如果你刚进入这个行业，根本不知道考场上喜欢考什么，如果真的收到了学员，我是捏把汗的。 对论文来说，我一直的观点是短期内无法快速提升，考前只需要2-3周时间准备。大部分备考的学员发了论文来改，我对每个人会提出具体的建议。目前我发现PT有必要单独介绍一些重点，加上现在我已经对过去几年的PT如数家珍（改论文改出来的熟练），所以我会在下一阶段考虑PT的教研。至于小论文，合作机构SmartBarPrep的材料已经很好。我给一个JD学员介绍国内律师备考的方法是背rules而不是用自己的话陈述rules直接给他惊呆了。我不反对背rules或许有唬住考官的奇效，但那太痛苦了。

对选择题来说，除了那25个测试题，答案只有对或者错，不存在模棱两可。考前答疑群里一定要把所有提出的问题彻底辩明白。除非的确是实务上存在争议并不会出现在题目中的知识，否则任何人答错了——包括我在内——必须被纠正，不留模糊的空间。考场上遇到了就一定要选中正确答案，这是选择题教研的核心。 所以考出来，Reddit等论坛老外对题目叫苦不迭，而我的学员并没有太大意外。完全出乎意料的知识点有没有？不可避免的有，但很少。大部分考场上遇到但UWORLD里面没有或一笔带过的知识点在考前一个月内被非常科学的教研手段弥补了。最终大家都是带着几乎完备也没有错误的知识体系上考场。所以，即使还要等3个月才出分，我已经可以断言11月学员们会带来喜人的成绩。

我今年花了2个月时间就单单准备考前的教研，而不是去更新已经比较老的精讲视频，现在看来时间花的非常值。当然，我会更新那些老视频，但那并不是我课程的重点——虽然学员付费后第一时间收到的是教材和视频课，但那只是你的课费买到的相对不重要的东西。教研才是我课程的竞争力。作为北师大的学子，我本科和硕士相当一部分课程是学习如何把人教懂，相信不会有人在这方面轻易领先我。答疑和批改论文本来也是核心竞争力，但现在有了AI，大部分时候比我自己答疑和批改要详细和耐心，我的角色目前只是调教AI、输入学生的问题，以及检查AI回答的正确性了（或许很快连这都不需要了）。现阶段，和AI的配合或许算是我的核心竞争力之一吧。 所以，这也是为什么我这次一定要去洛杉矶的原因，为考生服务固然重要，但更重要的是在考后coffee chat的只言片语中记录和思考明年的教研。

（如果明年换Kaplan出题，请不用担心，没有人比我更懂Kaplan的教研，虽然他们自己的示范题都一堆错误着实让人捏把汗）

7.26 Oakland交流会​

时间：7月26日 13:00 - 16:00

地点：星巴克，200 Broadway Ste 4, Oakland, CA 94607

7.28 Anaheim交流会​

时间：7月28日 13:00 - 16:00

地点：星巴克，1800 S Harbor Blvd Ste 101, Anaheim, CA 92802

上述两场不会分享和考试本身（考题）有关的信息，可以解决技术问题和领一些文具。请大家以在酒店复习为主。饮品仅限蒸汽奶或热巧克力。

7.29（考试day 1） Pasadena现场考务​

早上和中午，Pasadena门口给大家提供帮助（学员优先）

7.30（考试day 2） Ontario现场考务​

早上和中午，Ontario门口给大家提供帮助（学员优先）

7.30 Ontario交流会​

时间：7月30日 17:30 - 随缘结束（营业时间到24点） 建议吃完晚饭过来

地点：星巴克，111 N Vineyard Ave Ontario, CA 91764

7.31 Pasadena交流会​

时间：7月31日 9:00 - 随缘结束 但不会持续到午饭

地点：星巴克，300 E Colorado Blvd, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA

8.1 USC交流会​

时间：8月1日 13:00 - 16:00

地点：星巴克，3584 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90007

Q & A​

Q：学员和非学员都可以来吗？

A: 都欢迎。但文具优先供应给学员。

Q：不在交流会期间需要技术支持，如何联系？

A: 请联系助手号。学员可以在群里呼叫袁律师。

Q：会不会有考过的学员前来分享经验？

A: 欢迎即将考过的你前来分享经验。

加州​

这次加州通过率确实很高。我的学员通过率在75%左右，这比加州整体的55%还要高出不少。往年我的学员通过率通常介于外国律师通过率和整体通过率（包括JD）之间，这次算是一个突破。中国地区考生这次表现也确实亮眼，有学员查了留中国地址通过的有98人，这还不包括那些留美国地址的华人LLM。

但对于这种高通过率，我想强调调分是主要因素。我教的好不好，大家自有公论，但和2月这次的通过率峰值没有绝对的直接关联。我教的再好，今年7月通过率也不大可能超过50%。所以，2月这次机会，抓住了就是幸运，没抓住也不必过于纠结，应尽快调整心态，着眼未来。

通过的关键是什么？还是选择题。和我沟通的未通过学员，多数是UWorld一遍都没完成，少数是刷完一遍但投入不够。当然，也有极个别刷了两遍UWorld仍未通过的情况，这可能涉及到刷题，但属于绝对少数。

不刷UWorld能不能通过？理论上可行，尤其2月份只要论文表现尚可也能通过。但对多数中国考生而言，单纯依靠论文通过考试，难度不小。我的学员中，论文突出让我觉得选择题可以不怎么学的有，但人数不多，而且基本都是JD。所以，想稳定通过，还是要靠选择题。这次2月未通过的成绩单，论文固然有不足，但选择题的表现是决定性的。

点击查看加州2月论文点评

纽约​

纽约方面，学员通过率略少于一半。此外还有两到三成的学员分数在260-266这个区间，加上这部分学员通过率就很可观了。对于这部分学员，我们一直在探讨用这个分数去申请那些接受260分标准的州的执照，毕竟NY的华人律师数量远超这些州，这意味着即便拿到了NY Bar，后续的职业发展路径可能会更拥挤。因此，对于部分考生而言，与其在NY这座“独木桥”上竞争，不如考虑用一个尚可的成绩，去一个执业压力相对较小的州，过几年如果确有需要，可以考虑transfer到DC或WA等大州，不失为一种更具性价比的选择。

让我比较欣慰的是，LLM学员的数量有所增加，虽然在LLM群体中选择我的课目前仍然是少数，但是个积极的信号。恳请各位LLM学员务必在班上多多宣传。

关于备考和未来的一些看法​

选择题是核心：这一点我反复强调。无论是加州还是纽约，这本质上是一个选择题决定结果的考试。选择题分数够高，通过的确定性就大得多。

论文的投入回报：我目前也在尝试AI辅助批改论文，希望能提高效率。但实话实说，考前一两个月集中攻克论文，分数提升的上限通常在40-50分。而选择题，如果方法得当，短期内提升100多分并非不可能。所以，备考后期，主要精力还是应该放在选择题的错题整理和知识点巩固上。论文可以每天分配少量时间练习，掌握基本技巧即可。

经验贴的参考价值：今年2月加州通过的经验，参考性可能有限，核心就是UWorld刷透。很多学员写了经验分享，我没有发在公众号，部分原因也是不想在平台过多提及或比较友商。他们大多在小红书有分享，大家可以自行搜索。

考试趋势展望：今年7月是NCBE命题。明年加州若回归Kaplan，大家也不必担心。我对Kaplan的真题体系比较熟悉，甚至超过NCBE。Kaplan的模拟题可能风格独特，但真题相对会常规且简单一些。核心还是掌握好选择题。

再次恭喜2月通过的学员。