Pieper Bar Review

Pieper Bar Review With more than 40 years of experience, Pieper Bar Review will prepare you for every challenge of the bar exam. #PieperPeoplePass
Pieper Bar Review is the premier bar review course for students who must pass the Uniform Bar Exam. Why do Pieper People Pass? There are no shortcuts with Pieper: - More class time than any other bar review course where Pieper TEACHES you both the New York law and generally accepted principles of law you need for New York portion of the New York bar exam, the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) and Multistate Essay Exam (MEE) for students taking CT, NH, and DC - Emphasis on Note-Taking to maximize retention - Focus on Writing Essays (Pieper teaches and provides feedback on substance, organization, and style) - In-Class MBE Questions to improve test-taking skills and reinforce substantive law - Practice MPTs and MPT Strategies to ensure students have the right approach to organizing, writing, and emphasizing the facts and law that the bar examiners are looking for Pieper focuses solely on the New York State Bar Exam. Pieper Mnemonics assist students in rapidly recalling the minute details essential for obtaining the highest scores on each portion of the exam. Personal Attention – John, Troy, and Damian Pieper, along with their administrative staff and team of New York attorneys, guide and support you through each lecture and through every step of your exam preparation in ways that are logistically impossible for Pieper’s competitors. Size matters, and our size is one of our biggest strengths.
(20)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWA newly enacted criminal statute provided, in its entirety, “No person shall utter to another person i...
02/27/2020
Question of the Day 200227

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

A newly enacted criminal statute provided, in its entirety, “No person shall utter to another person in a public place any annoying, disturbing, or unwelcome language.” A man followed an elderly woman for three blocks down a public street, yelling in her ear offensive four-letter words. The woman repeatedly asked the man to leave her alone, but he refused.

Is the man likely to prevail if prosecuted for his actions?

(A) No, he will be convicted under the criminal statute.

(B) Yes, because speech of the sort described here may not be punished by the state because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

(C) Yes, because, although his speech may be punished by the state, the state may not do so under this statute.

(D) Yes, because the average user of a public street would consider the man’s speech and actions to be amusing and ridiculous rather than “annoying, disturbing, or unwelcome.”

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0nc6lN0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CONTRACTSAn electrician orally agreed to work on a building site for a weekly salary of $500. The term of the contract w...
02/26/2020
Question of the Day 200226

CONTRACTS

An electrician orally agreed to work on a building site for a weekly salary of $500. The term of the contract was for four months “or until the building is completed.” On the last day of his second week, the electrician quit. The homebuilder refused to pay the electrician’s salary for his second week of work.

Can the electrician prevail in a suit against the builder for $500?

(A) Yes, because the contract is divisible.

(B) Yes, because he has substantially performed the contract.

(C) No, because the electrician’s conduct constitutes a material breach.

(D) No, because of the Statute of Frauds.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0nb55h0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

Look what Mahima B. had to say about Pieper Bar Review!"Hi, I am a dual country registered attorney who completed my 2nd...
02/25/2020

Look what Mahima B. had to say about Pieper Bar Review!

"Hi, I am a dual country registered attorney who completed my 2nd LLM here. My first attempt was with another bar course provider and my MBE score was dismal to say the least.

I am very glad that I took Pieper Bar Review as my bar exam review guide and passed the present Bar Exam comfortably. Here is why I recommend Pieper to fellow students (both JDs and LLM students)

1. Pieper – all 3 of them – have a great grasp of the law and are very effective teachers;

2. Pieper method works – true, i was unable to complete the ‘dream sheet’ and i was constantly playing catch up with the dream sheet – but they did indicate this the very first day of the course;

3. True to their words – i never really had to use the Guide or any outside course materials – i did the practice MBE questions everyday, I in fact did more than necessary MPTs – I am very glad with their technique for approaching MPTs – Damian was spot on regarding this – I would be happy to share more details if needed;

4. My time management vastly improved also due to repeatedly solving MBE practice questions;

5. on actual exam day – the MBE training helped a lot – as I felt especially the criminal law and real estate questions – i was well prepared for;

6. MPTs – cannot stress how much this played a role in ensuring i completed on time and in a format that was necessary for presentation;

7. MEEs – Yes despite all the essay grading – the actual MEE 30 mins is still always be less – but as long as I followed Troy’s method of putting down the law and basic analysis, I was ok. My Feb 2017 was a mixed bag of subjects – some requiring more time than the others.

Most importantly, Pieper was well structured, extremely comprehensive and helped me overcome my terrible weakness in multiple choice questions (I am a classic overthinker when it comes to multiple choice and tend to struggle between the final 2 answer choices always and also time management suffers due to this).

I could definitely see a tremendous improvement in my MBE scores and overall I liked the method and their approach towards Bar Prep. It is targeted and well prepared course. I highly recommend Pieper to new examinees. Best of luck to all and thank you once again Pieper Family."

https://hubs.ly/H0h4jvq0

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWA city enacted a zoning ordinance forbidding theaters showing sexually explicit material to be located...
02/25/2020
Question of the Day 200225

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

A city enacted a zoning ordinance forbidding theaters showing sexually explicit material to be located within 1,000 feet of any other such theater. Just prior to the effective date of the ordinance, the owner of a chain of adult shops and theaters signed a contract to lease a gas station, which was within 500 feet of an existing adult theater. He planned to convert the gas station into an adult theater, but when he applied for a license to exhibit adult films in the building, the license was denied pursuant to the new zoning ordinance.

What is the strongest argument by the city in favor of the constitutionality of the ordinance?

(A) The plaintiff has no standing to attack the constitutionality of the ordinance.

(B) Zoning ordinances are constitutionally permissible under the police power.

(C) The city’s concern for the character of the neighborhood outweighs the specific limitation on free speech.

(D) Sexually explicit movies are obscene and can be prohibited entirely.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0n8KF70

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWA state statute required all teachers in the public school system who taught any theory of human origi...
02/24/2020
Question of the Day 200224

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

A state statute required all teachers in the public school system who taught any theory of human origin based on Darwinian theory to also teach theories based on established religious doctrines. A public school teacher in the state, who satisfied the requirements of standing and who refused to teach religious theories of human origin, challenged the constitutionality of the statute.

Is the statute constitutional?

(A) Yes, it is constitutional because there is no entanglement of church and state.

(B) Yes, it is constitutional because the state has an obligation to present to students all sides of a field of learning as important as human origin.

(C) No, it is unconstitutional because the state has no right to control school curriculum.

(D) No, it is unconstitutional as an establishment of religion.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0n7Jvf0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW A state statute required parents of minor children to submit their children to a specific vaccination...
02/21/2020
Question of the Day 200221

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW A state statute required parents of minor children to submit their children to a specific vaccination in order to protect children from contracting a deadly strain of the flu and prevent an epidemic. A group of parents belonging to a certain religious group refused to have their children vaccinated, citing grounds of free exercise of religion. The state commenced an action to enforce the statute.

What is the strongest argument in support of convicting the parents?

(A) To permit these parents to successfully defy the state law would constitute an establishment of religion

(B) The Free Exercise of Religion Clause protects the freedom to believe and the freedom to act.

(C) The state must have a compelling interest in protecting the health of the children in the state.

(D) The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of the children in the state.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0n5z7d0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CONTRACTSA seller and a buyer entered into a written agreement in which the seller agreed to fabricate and sell to the b...
02/20/2020
Question of the Day 200220

CONTRACTS

A seller and a buyer entered into a written agreement in which the seller agreed to fabricate and sell to the buyer 1,000 specially designed, custom and unique widgets. The contract required the buyer to pay half of the purchase price upon signing the contract with the balance to be paid upon delivery. The buyer tendered half of the purchase price to the seller on signing, but two weeks prior to the delivery date, the seller notified the buyer that he would not perform the contract.

Which of the following is NOT a correct statement of the parties’ legal status immediately after seller’s notice of non-performance?

(A) The buyer has a cause of action for total breach of contract due to seller’s repudiation, but that cause of action will be lost if the seller retracts his repudiation before buyer either changes his position or manifests to the seller that he considers the repudiation final.

(B) The buyer can bring suit to rescind the contract even if he elects to await the seller’s performance for a commercially reasonable time.

(C) The buyer can await the seller’s performance for a commercially reasonable time, but if buyer delays beyond that period, it cannot recover any resulting damages that it reasonably could have avoided.

(D) The buyer has a cause of action for breach of contract, but it must afford the seller a commercially reasonable time to perform.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0n4M9y0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWA state’s retirement system provided for a fixed percentage of an employee’s pay to be deducted each p...
02/19/2020
Question of the Day 200219

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

A state’s retirement system provided for a fixed percentage of an employee’s pay to be deducted each payday. Retirement benefits were paid at age 65 for the life of former state employees. The state obtained reliable actuarial statistics showing that the life expectancy of a man at age 65 was less than the life expectancy of a female at the same age. Accordingly, it paid higher monthly retirement benefits to males than to females. A female employee of the state commenced an action to challenge the constitutionality of the state’s retirement system.

What is the appropriate burden of proof?

(A) The female should be required to demonstrate that the benefit standards are not rationally related to the public interest.

(B) The state should be required to demonstrate a compelling state need for the benefit standards.

(C) The state should be required to show that the classification serves important governmental objectives, and is substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.

(D) The state should be required to show a rational purpose for the benefit standard.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0n3mVX0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

EVIDENCEA plaintiff sued the defendant for damage allegedly done to his crops by a horse owned by the defendant. At the ...
02/18/2020
Question of the Day 200218

EVIDENCE

A plaintiff sued the defendant for damage allegedly done to his crops by a horse owned by the defendant. At the trial, the plaintiff took the stand and sought to introduce in evidence a photograph of his cornfield in order to depict the nature and extent of the damage done.

Is the photograph admissible as evidence?

(A) Yes, if the plaintiff testifies that it fairly and accurately portrays the condition of the cornfield after the damage was done.

(B) Yes, if the plaintiff testifies that the photograph was taken within a week after the alleged occurrence.

(C) No, if the plaintiff fails to call the photographer to testify concerning the circumstances under which the photograph was taken.

(D) No, if it is possible to describe the damage to the cornfield through direct oral testimony.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0n2DxQ0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

EVIDENCEA contractor was sued for breach of contract for deviating from specifications. At trial, during the cross-exami...
02/17/2020
Question of the Day 200217

EVIDENCE

A contractor was sued for breach of contract for deviating from specifications. At trial, during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the contractor’s attorney asked whether the plaintiff had sued another contractor thirty years before, claiming deviations from specifications in another restaurant built for the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s lawyer did not object to the question and the plaintiff answered that she had had some "construction problems" with the first restaurant, but no suit was filed.

The contactor’s attorney then called a witness, the plaintiff’s contractor of thirty years before to testify that the plaintiff had brought suit against the witness for breach of contract for failure to follow specifications in the earlier restaurant. Many of the alleged breaches were like those now claimed to be found in the restaurant the defendant built. The witness further testified that the case was settled without trial.

Is the witness’s testimony admissible?

(A) No, because the best evidence of the former suit is the court record.

(B) No, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that it will confuse the issues and waste time.

(C) Yes, because it is proper impeachment since the plaintiff will have an opportunity to deny or explain the witness’s statement.

(D) Yes, because the plaintiff failed to object to the defendant’s questions on cross-examination relative to the prior suit.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0n1BsF0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

EVIDENCEIn a contract dispute, a plaintiff sought to introduce a relevant letter purportedly signed by the defendant. Th...
02/14/2020
Question of the Day 200214

EVIDENCE

In a contract dispute, a plaintiff sought to introduce a relevant letter purportedly signed by the defendant. The plaintiff called a salesman to the stand, who testified that he has never seen the defendant write his name, but he received letters signed by the defendant approximately five years ago and that the signature on the letter was the defendant’s. The plaintiff also called a former bookkeeper of the defendant who testified to a similar experience with the defendant’s signature, but testified he is not certain that the signature is the defendant’s signature.

Is the testimony offered by the plaintiff sufficient for the judge to authenticate the defendant’s signature?

(A) No, because neither witness ever saw the defendant write his signature.

(B) No, because the bookkeeper’s testimony contradicts the salesman’s.

(C) No, because only a handwriting expert may properly authenticate a signature.

(D) Yes, because the salesman’s testimony by itself is sufficient.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0n0p6R0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CRIMINAL LAWA man, who was attending college on a scholarship, was indicted for a felony. The issues presented at his tr...
02/13/2020
Question of the Day 200213

CRIMINAL LAW

A man, who was attending college on a scholarship, was indicted for a felony. The issues presented at his trial were complex. The man was indigent, so the court appointed a lawyer to represent him. The man refused to have the court-appointed lawyer act as counsel, and represented himself at the trial. The court-appointed lawyer sat beside the man at trial, however, and, when requested, gave him advice.

The man was convicted and appealed on the ground that he had been denied his constitutional right to counsel.

Should the man’s conviction be affirmed?

(A) No, because the man does not have a constitutional right to defend himself.

(B) No, because the man was ineffective and harmed his case as his own counsel.

(C) Yes, because the court-appointed counsel was present to give him advice.

(D) Yes, because the man effectively waived his right to counsel.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0m_kGl0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

EVIDENCEA tenant sued the owner and manager of an apartment building in tort for negligence after the tenant fell down t...
02/12/2020
Question of the Day 200212

EVIDENCE

A tenant sued the owner and manager of an apartment building in tort for negligence after the tenant fell down the stairs leading to her apartment. The owner raised the defense of contributory negligence. At trial, the owner offered the testimony of a neighbor who testified that the tenant regularly came down the steps twice a day taking two or three steps at a time. The jurisdiction follows the common law rule regarding contributory negligence.

Is the neighbor’s testimony admissible?

(A) No, because character evidence is not admissible in civil cases.

(B) No, because an instance of specific conduct is not probative of conduct at another time.

(C) Yes, because it is evidence tending to prove that the defendant took the steps two or three at a time at the time she was injured.

(D) Yes, because is it an admission by conduct.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0m-dl70

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

Address

90 Willis Avenue
Mineola, NY
11501

Telephone

(800) 635-6569

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pieper Bar Review posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Videos

Nearby home improvement businesses


Other Mineola home improvement businesses

Show All

Comments

I had my swearing ceremony today as an attorney in NY State Bar. This amazing day would not have been possible without the help of Pieper Bar Review. For a foreign trained attorney with an LL.M. from an American law school as the only legal training and education, taking the Bar exam can be challenging and complicated. The comprehensive program of Pieper Bar review, the amazing professors, and excellent material, really made the difference for me. I felt prepared when taking the exam, not only that I had studied hard, but that I had studied in a right way, that I was well instructed as to how to study and practice. I am especially grateful to my tutor, Damian Pieper for showing me the way to improving my MEEs and MPTs. Thank you everyone at Pieper Bar Review, especially because it felt that for each and everyone of us, you took our success in the Bar exam personally!
Hope papa Pieper has some martinis ready 😝
For all law students looking for the secrets to increase their chances in passing the BAR exam on their first attempt!!!!
So many happy faces last night! It was an absolute pleasure hosting the Pieper Bar Review student representative mixer. Each and every one of you does such a great job representing Pieper Bar Review. Hope to see you all again at the next event! #PieperPeoplePass