Some things to focus on:

• Lay out the rules first. However, try to only introduce rules that you are going to use. This keeps your answer tight and gives you more time to talk about the facts and other issues. If you are spending a ton of time writing about the rules, you may not have that luxury. Also, don’t introduce new rules after you start talking about the facts or applying another rule.
• Focus on completely identifying the issues. Ask yourself, what are they trying to test you on with these fact patterns? The more you solve similar fact patterns, the more you’ll see issue patterns you can whip out on the exam. Also, sometimes it’s better to have more issues identified with less analysis, especially for broad calls of the question. Professional Responsibility is one such subject where you want to focus on the issues and rules first (cook the essay), then fill in your analysis as time allows.
• Be clear with your organization and presentation. You want to make it easy for the grader to know what issue you’re discussing, what the rule is, and where you are applying the rule. And of course what your conclusion is. Use headings and paragraphs liberally. The easier you are to understand, the more likely they will give you points. Remember that reading thousands of these essays is exhausting for the grader. Give them a breath of fresh air. Writing bar essays isn’t just about legal knowledge; it’s doing a service for your client.
• Address all the questions completely.

From the applicant:

Here are a few of my thoughts: 

1. Essay #1 – The 25 point discrepancy between the first and second grader makes absolutely no sense to me.  When I read my response, I cannot understand how I possibly could have been given a 55 by the second grader.
2. Essay #3 – I broke out all the elements for the equitable remedies (TROs, Preliminary Injunctions, Permanent Injunctions) because this was a remedies-heavy question.  So again, not sure what I did to receive only a 55 on this essay.
3. PT – Because the bar exam was back in person in February, I had the ability to make a strategic decision to do my PT first (before Essay #4 and #5), which I did.  All I could hear anyone talking about after the afternoon session on the first day was how they did not finish the PT.  This made me feel even more confident because I did finish.  I even spent 5 extra minutes on the PT to make sure it was bulletproof to avoid what happened to me on the PT in July.  In July, I missed the infamous “Blue Pencil” issue and did not finish concluding.  Yet, I got the same exact score on the PT in February as I did in July.  When I walked out of the afternoon session on day 1, I thought I at least got a 65 on the PT, but I honestly was expecting a 70 or 75.  With how much the PT is worth, this dropped my raw writing score significantly.
4. MBEs – my percentiles went up in most areas compared to the July bar, but my scaled score was lower.  I understand the scaling changes for each exam, but not quite sure what else I can do for the MBEs when I spent 90% of my time during bar prep preparing for the MBEs.

My feedback:

First, I have to say that this was one of the hardest CA exams, with a 33.9% pass rate as you know. Even with a higher raw written score, you received a lower scaled score. Unfortunately, that’s just the casualty of whatever statistical adjusting they do. Theoretically, scaled scores are equivalent to one another… Theoretically. 

Essay 1: 

I agree with you that the disparity in scores for Essay 1 is unusual. I don’t see how it deserves a 55. You pretty much did textbook IRAC, identified numerous issues, and organized and presented it all in a clean format. The only thing I can think of is that you didn’t actually connect the rules to the facts step by step. If you analogize it to an algebra problem, each line is a small step to the answer. Here’s an example:

Rule = perfect. (Note that I also had perfect rules on my first attempt.)

• “Here, Jim and Fred both armed themselves with handguns and went to the store on Avon street.” Great.
• “As an accomplice, Jim can be liable for any foreseeable crimes if he aided, encouraged, or abetted the crimes.” What made Jim an accomplice? The bridge is missing. One way to tell if you are bridging the rule to a relevant fact is if you can use the word “because.” The better thing to say here is to say what Jim did that would qualify as aiding, encouraging, or abetting. I don’t think the facts say such a thing.
• “Here, it can be inferred that Jim partook in these crimes and aided, encouraged, or abetted the target crimes and any foreseeable crimes.” I disagree with the “inferred” part. You should cite a fact from the hypo to support this. You talk about conspiracy below this, which is closer to what happened in the fact pattern.

My guess is that the 2nd reader read the essay more carefully since it was a reread in the gray zone.

I didn’t read through the rest in the interest of time, but one thing that’s evident is that essay grading is subjective. Hence, any “best practices” you can do to make it easy for the grader to give you points will help. I think your formatting is nice and clean. I love how you break down the issues, and you know your rules. You’re in a great place in terms of knowledge. Perhaps better usage of the facts will help next time around. 

Essay 3: 

You did a great job on the remedies question. When the selected answers come out, take a look at what other torts there could have been. At first glance, you probably got the major ones.

PT: 

Without doing a deep dive, I can only say that it was hard to see where the application of the facts was. I saw a lot of statutes being recited, and noticed your usage of facts in the middle of one of the paragraphs.

Raw written score:

Your average written score is 61.8 (432.5 / 7). You needed a 62.78 for this exam. That’s just 7 more raw points (~439.5 vs. 432.5). Can’t help but think that you would have “passed” the essay portion if they’d kept your first read.

1. Great job on identifying a good number of issues. Some of the issues, however, are not really “issues.” 

For example, in your PR essay, you state:

“using improper means or improper influence to gain a favorable out come in a matter

Both the ABA rules and California rules prohibit a lawyer of using or even infering the use ofimproper means to gain an advatage in a case.”

I don’t believe this is a legal issue tested in PR, and it appears sort of “made up.” “Improper means” could be anything.

2. Incorrect analysis? More careful reading of facts will help. Let me know if I’m mistaken, as I’m going thru this quickly… Your Civ Pro essay says:

“In the facts we are aware that Shearer the plaintiff in this matter is a Nevada citizen , the fact pattern however is silent on jiff (the defendants state citizenship or where he resides).As such the element of Shearers state citizenship is irrelevant as it is not a ground inwhich venue is determined.”

However, the facts mention “Jiff, a California citizen who resides in Truckee, California.” Isn’t California Jiff’s resident state?

I believe this led to insufficient and unclear resolution of the question asked.

3. In general, keeping a mechanical IRAC format will work to your advantage. Try to state the premise (rule) every time you analyze an issue, even if it’s a small one.

4. The PT was a closing argument, but it read more like a legal memo. It would have been better to make it sound like a speech. PTs typically ask for a memo or brief, so I think your next PT score will be better if you keep this format. I haven’t looked at the PT assignment, but there may be more legal authorities and law to apply.

The recurring theme I see in your essays (nice job on the PT) is that issues are missing. I think your IRACing is good. However, you can’t do the IRACs if you don’t bring up the I (issue) in the first place.

To this end, Approsheets may be helpful. In addition, I’ve heard good things about Mary Basick’s blue book (2nd ed.) 

Sample answers aren’t out yet, but I’d suggest looking at the higher-scoring answers in the essay answer bank for reference

Examples of things you could have discussed:

Q1. NIED. What recovery is possible (part of the questions)

Q2. PR essays typically have general calls (what violations or obligations are there)… Issue identification is especially important.

Q3. Valid contract formation. Could have discussed more specific sub-rules and corresponding facts for the elements for specific performance (final call of the question)

Lesser point: Since you’re handwriting, presentation becomes more important. Try to leave enough spacing between issues and discussions so that it’s easier for the grader to see where discussions end and begin.