Lacklustre Lawyer

How is the recession affecting barristers and pupillage chances?

2009-06-15T20:18:00.003+01:00

Read an article in today's Times that says that 10,000 solicitors have lost their jobs because of the current recession. On top of this, many law firms are deferring their trainees for a year.

What I would be interested to know is: how has the recession affected practising members of the Bar and is it somehow affecting pupillage chances too for wannabe barristers?

I would be grateful for anyone's thoughts but also if anyone could direct me to some articles in the press that have discussed this question, that would be great too.

Oral v. Written Communication

2009-04-18T16:33:00.004+01:00

I was thinking recently about just how good my communication skills are. To begin with I was just wondering how I came across to other people. A friend told me recently that she always found that I always spoke with a lot of weight. When I asked her to go into more detail, she said that if we were talking in a group and I started saying something others would have to stop talking and listen. When I said that was probably for the simple reason that we don't talk over each other, she said no - it was more than that. I think I finally got to the bottom of what she was trying to say when she concluded that I had a voice that people enjoyed listening to. I was very surprised to hear such remarks. It made me start listening to my own voice critically. When I spoke to her on another day she said I sounded different. I said that couldn't possibly be the case: since the last time we had spoken my voice hadn't changed one bit. I couldn't convince her - she said I was trying too hard now! Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't.

Anyway, now I've been thinking about the importance of oral communication skills to a barrister. The one point of comparison that I do have is with my written communication. I have always felt that my written communication - especially when arguing points in essays etc - is stronger than my oral communication. I don't believe its the case that I have the opportunity to revise my written remarks for submitting a final version. In fact I hardly ever do that. I just feel that when I put pen to paper, ideas flow more freely and in a more organised fashion. It could be that because writing takes more time, I have a little bit more time to think. I'm convinced that is not the case though.

What I want to know is if this is the case for any other wannabe barristers or practising barristers out there? Are your written communication skills better than your oral communication skills? And would you say that you are at a disadvantage to practitioners who are the opposite?

As a side issue: I asked a friend of mine who recently secured tenancy at her chambers what surprised her about a barrister's life during pupillage. Her response was that she had underestimated the importance of skeleton submissions to judges. So maybe it isn't all bad if my strengths are in my writing rather than my speech.

I know anyone reading this doesn't know how I sound but I'm interested in your opinions generally on these two forms of communication.

Thanks for your help.

Encounter with the Court Usher at the County Court

2009-03-07T15:49:00.001Z

I arrived at the County Court at 9.05a.m.in my usual hurried and unsatisfactory state. My tie was reaching down to my knees and this was supposed to be my lucky one. I felt like I hadn’t eaten for 48 hours.

As is usually the case, the Court Usher was not to be found behind his desk, so I rang the bell. Probably racing through the corridors of the building moving parties from room to room, I thought. I always like how they wear security outfits: it really shows that they mean business.

When he appeared, it was from the same entrance that I had just come through. I introduced myself and said that I was here to work.
“You’re late”
“Oh, I’m sorry, the traffic was…”
“You walked here”. I did but how did he know that my facial expression inquired.
“You’re out of breath and I saw which direction you came in because I was outside the building”
“Oh…” I said flustered.
“You can’t lie to me, boy; I know everything there is to know about everything. Now what do you need me for?”
“Could you tell me where I need to be please. It’s my first day and…”
“Second floor. Take the stairs not the lift. Ask for Mrs Needle at the desk.”
“Thank you”

I was at the County Court for one reason only: to meet barristers. Specifically barristers from a nearby set of chambers where I would really like to complete my pupillage at. It’s a Chambers where I did a mini-pupillage at last summer when my decision to pursue a career as a barrister was made. The next step of course is to do the Bar Vocational Course but as my decision came so late in the year I was forced to take an impromptu year out.

In the meantime I have been working at a local supermarket for the money. During this time, I have found myself questioning my desire to become a barrister. With academic study of the law completed, I have found myself outside of the law so to speak. Although, I have often found myself recalling my knowledge of Contract law when remembering whether an offer to buy is made when customers pick up items from the shelves or when they present them at the counter. I started thinking about something else that I could do that could help my career option. The thought occurred to me that maybe I could see if there were any jobs available at the local courts. There was and that is how I found myself at the County Court on Monday morning.

At the desk on the second floor I rang yet another bell and found myself waiting for Mrs Needle. The time was 9.13a.m. Big smile, I thought – still plenty of opportunity to make a good impression. Mrs Needle has to be one of the thinnest women I have come across when she came and introduced herself. She cannot have weighed more than a flower and I prayed that I would not sneeze in front of her for fear that I would blow her across the room. I cannot say for sure what Mrs Needle’s job is: she didn’t tell me and I didn’t ask. We went to her desk which is just outside the office of the Court Manager’s – maybe she is her secretary? But then we were given a thorough rendition of the safety rules around the office, where the fire exits are, what to do with any suspicious packages I saw lying around (I’m still not sure but I’d feel stupid asking) and a whole host of other tips and rules. My favourite was the take-home booklet I received on how to prevent data from being lost – better not forget that document on the bus, I thought.

When we got down to business, I was told that I had been assigned to the family section for the time being. I was introduced to the three members of the section: Kenneth, Diane and Leanne. Kenneth was the section’s fountain of all knowledge and, rather appropriately, I thought was a towering middle-aged man. Diane had been the section’s longest serving member having worked there for nearly forty years. Her story was in her pronounced facial expressions and in the way she moved around the office. Leanne was the youngest member of the team; her defining features were her mouth and hands. Unfortunately for the Ministry of Justice, rather than putting these features to use whilst on the phone and handling files, Leanne preferred to feed herself continuously. These weren’t all the members of the section. There were the same number of empty desks and I was assigned to one of them. My task for the day would be to deal with a backlog of divorce petitions that had to be put into the system.

This proved to be quite an informative exercise actually. My decision never to have chosen to study Family law seemed to be the right one for me because I find the whole area to be just one big soap opera. Divorces, custody disputes, non-molestation orders: its your average episode of Eastenders and I can’t stand it. I did get an enormous amount of pleasure, however, in reading the statements backing up the ground upon which divorce was being petitioned for. Especially the ones for behaviour and adultery – they really stood out from the more the more basic reason that the married couple had lived apart from each other for an extended period of time. My favourite was this 35 year old woman who was petitioning for divorce because she repetitively caught her husband on premium rate sex phone lines. Her statement detailed each and every way that she discovered her husband’s fetishes and the sort of compromises they came to try to make their marriage work. By the end of the statement, the wife had discovered that her husband had moved onto visiting local prostitutes. Ouch.

Before my day was over I had to pass Edward, the Court Usher, in order to leave the building. I had hoped that I would be able to pass without drawing attention to myself but the confines of the reception area and Edward’s watchfulness prevented me from doing so.
“End of the day for you, is it?” Edward asked.
“Yeah and I’m glad for it because I’m knackered” I replied, “How about yourself? When do you finish?”
“Oh, I’m always the last to leave the building.”
“Really, I thought they would have let you go earlier.”
“Who would let me go?” he demanded.
“Well….your boss…whoever is in charge of you”
Edward let out a laugh with his head tilted back and then became serious all at once. “Nobody is in charge of me, boy. I am the highest authority in this building” he said gravely.
“Really?” I remarked rhetorically.
“You bet. I am in control of everyone who comes into this building. Everyone from the judges to the employees at the bottom of the ladder”
“Well, that clears that up then. Goodnight.” With that still in the air, I turned my back and left the building after my first day as an employee at the County Court. Not yet a practising barrister and not even a flea on the Court Usher’s black jumper, I had been told.

Just Bonuses!

2009-02-12T19:03:00.003Z

I was discussing the topical issue of Bankers and their bonuses with a solicitor today who wanted to know my opinion based on my knowledge of contract law.

I caught most of the recent parliamentary committee meeting with the Bankers (the one where they all apologised) and I watched the Prime Minister before a different parliamentary committee this morning. I thought all of these hearings were pretty tedious and I can't see how much good could come out of it. I think the government could have done a better job of preparing for the current public disquiet over bonuses when it decided to bail them out.

One of the bankers before the committee informed the MPs that, having sought legal advice, they had been told that they were obliged to pay bonuses if they were stipulated in an employee's contract. With this in mind, I found one particular question by an MP quite surprising. This MP asked a banker whether he could appreciate the view of the wider public that these bankers should not be paid the bonuses they were promised in their employment contract and that surely they shouldn't be paying them out. I thought it was strange how this MP was being so callous in his analysis of an employee's right to be paid their due.

My conclusion is: the bankers aren't to be blamed in this respect. I think there is an inherent problem in the word 'Bonus'. By itself, it suggests that its something surplus to standard requirements; and, in a banking context, the wider public see it as something of an excessive windfall. Now, I acknowledge that, applied to certain bankers, this definition rings true. But it absolutely doesn't for certain bankers in the low-mid level of the profession.

If this issue was to be litigated before the courts, it seems to me that the word 'bonus' itself should be considered closely. For some employees, a bonus isn't a bonus in the real sense of the word but rather no more than their standard salary. The court's assessment should take into account the employee contract itself and what the employee has come to expect in practice in light of the work he does. If its clear that a windfall is being made where not a lot of work is being done, then they should not be rewarded.

Finally, the government is partially to blame for their failure to consider the Bonus issue at the time they bailed out the banks.

The best form of defence is attack!

2009-01-15T17:26:00.003Z

Apologies for the absence of recent posts on this blog.

I mentioned a while back that I got a job as an assistant at a local supermarket. The pay is good and the hours aren't too bad. Also I need to start saving now to pay off those expensive BVC fees I will be dealing with soon.

The job is quite enjoyable really. Most of the people I work with and serve are really intersted in my prospects of a legal career. You won't believe the number of people that have told me that they will be my first customer as soon as I start practising. Whilst this is a very nice thing to hear it always makes me think of the many mountains that I still need to climb to get where I want.

Others want their legal advice sorted out immediately. I recently spent an hour and a half talking to this one guy who wants to sue this 'large company' because he wasn't satisfied with the service he got. By the way, I'm not being intentionally simplistic in this description because of client confidentiality! This is literally all that he gave me to go on and he wanted an answer. I have absolutely no idea of what sort of services this company offers or what his complaint is. An hour and a half, can you believe that?!

More interesting, though, are the people who stop me to talk about topical legal issues. I've spoken to loads of people about the recent De Menezes court case. This required me to have more knowledge about court procedure, jury cases and coroner's direction than I knew. Initially I was satisfied just to guess and use a confident tone; however, I decided that that wasn't the best way to go about things, so I've been trying to get more informed and keep ahead. The best form of defence is attack.

There's No One as Irish as Barack Obama!

2008-12-22T13:25:00.002Z

This is a very catchy song that I can't get out of my head. Watch it and sing along. Its great!

No one as Irish as Barack OBama O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and O'Hara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

You don't believe me, I hear you say But Barack's as Irish, as was JFK His granddaddy's daddy came from Moneygall A small Irish village, well known to you all

Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a lama There's no one as Irish As Barack O'Bama

He's as Irish as bacon and cabbage and stew He's Hawaiian he's Kenyan American too He’s in the white house, He took his chance Now let’s see Barack do Riverdance

Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a lama There's no one as Irish As Barack O'Bama

From Kerry and cork to old Donegal Let’s hear it for Barack from old moneygall From the lakes if Killarney to old Connemara There’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama

O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and O'Hara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama From the old blarney stone to the great hill of Tara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

2008 the white house is green, their cheering in Mayo and in Skibereen. The Irish in Kenya, and in Yokahama, Are cheering for President Barack O’Bama

O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and O'Hara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

The Hockey Moms gone, and so is McCain They are cheering in Texas and in Borrisokane,

In Moneygall town, the greatest of drama, for our Famous president Barack o Bama

Toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a loo, toor a lama There's no one as Irish As Barack O'Bama

The great Stephen Neill, a great man of God, He proved that Barack was from the Auld Sod They came by bus and they came by car, to celebrate Barack in Ollie Hayes’s Bar

O'Leary, O'Reilly, O'Hare and O'Hara There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama

Who is your favourite fiction writer?

2008-12-14T15:47:00.006Z

I will be logging onto Amazon sometime soon and purchasing a fair few books. Some will be Christmas presents but mostly they will be for me. When it comes to Christmas presents and deciding what to get to someone, I always find it easiest to decide which book to buy for them (if that is the type of present I have chosen for them). I think this is because of two reasons. Firstly, because I love wandering about bookshops and perusing literary review articles and thinking whether I would enjoy a particular book. Secondly, because there is just so much to choose from and so you are bound to find something. The thing about books is, there may seem to be an awful lot of them but you can always find a good bookshop that sells all the books you could want to buy for someone under one roof.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to ask some blawgers what their favourite novels are and who their favourite literary writers are. Its just a point of interest for me really. I want to see whether I am surprised by anybody's choice. They don't necessarily have to be law-related i.e. the likes of Bleak House or To Kill a Mockingbird but if you want to state your favourite in that category, do so.

Finally I thought I would mention one novel that I will be re-reading over the Christmas period: Netherland by Joseph O'Neill. I read it shortly after it was long-listed for this year's Man Booker Prize. The reason that I will be re-reading it so soon is because its turned out to be on everybody's Christmas favourite list. I do remember feeling that the novel made me think a lot after I finished it but I can't, for the life of me, remember why. Joseph O'Neill by-the-bye was formerly a barrister practising in Ireland. The novel is about cricket a subject dear to about 95% of the barristers that I have come across; but, interestingly, the plot takes place in New York. So why do you suppose a novel about cricket in New York has turned out be so popular - read it and find out for yourself is my advice.

EDIT By the way, I can't explain why the front cover of Netherland has a picture of an ice-skater on it. I remember thinking that I didn't come across any ice-skating happening in the novel. The only explanation that I have is: if the front-cover had a batsman on it, it wouldn't be flying off the American bookshelves as it has been.

The Barristers on the Beeb

2008-12-06T16:16:00.002Z

I have of course been closely watching 'The Barristers' on the Beeb and have to say that I have enjoyed it very much. The series has been successful in getting across the role of the barrister in the legal system, how they go about their work and how tough it is to become a barrister.

I was left stricken, though, by the final episode of the series. In this episode, Kakole Pande - having been awarded tenancy in the previous week - was facing the possibility of having her tenancy revoked just shortly after her first appearance in a Crown Court as defence counsel. The head of Kakole's chambers first told us that having awarded tenancy to some of its pupils, about four old members of the chambers were now having second thoughts. Accordingly, Kakole was summoned back to her Chambers - to face up to, we were told, 30 members - for another interview for a position she had already been told she had. I was shocked. In the end it went just fine for Kakole who was able to vindicate herself in the eyes of the members of chambers that had a problem with her.

Unfortunately, just like we didn't get to see the House of Lords in session during the progression of a case, we didn't get to see the members of chambers who had a problem with Kakole! I'm guessing it was because they didn't want to be shamed on national television. The camera did after all follow Anna, another student, into one of her pupillage interviews.

Now, my feelings could all be premised on a misunderstanding; but, isn't it the case, that once you become a tenant, you have as much right to be in the chambers as any of its former members? Also, what if Kakole did not agree to this last interview? Wasn't she able to?

Legal Secretary application: what to do next?

2008-11-12T17:08:00.002Z

I sent off an application for a legal secretary position at a high-street law firm back in August. The position was to commence in September. About three weeks after sending off my application I phoned up the firm to get an idea of what progress was being made on my application and when I could expect to hear from them. The partner that I spoke to seemed to be pretty interested in my application. Our conversation ended by him saying: 'I'll need to give this some more thought'. I've basically waited patiently since. I was surprised that all through September and October the position was still being advertised in my local newspaper. Even with the words 'to commence in September' throughout all of this period.

Now, half-way through November and the position isn't being advertised any more and I don't know what to do. The partner that I spoke to on the phone seemed pretty interested in me and its still something I desparately want to do. It occurs to me that, what with the credit crunch and all, they may be unable to pay another employee. That's a possibility, right? Well, for a while at least, I'd be prepared to work without being paid. I'm wondering whether I should perhaps phone up and make some inquiries. But, just how far should I go?

Your thoughts would be much appreciated :)

President-elect Obama

2008-11-05T16:37:00.003Z

Obama won yesterday's Presidential election with, what will probably be, 364 electoral college votes to McCain's 174.

I say 'probably' because a couple of states - North Carolina and Missouri - have not officially been called yet. Obama is likely to win North Carolina; and McCain is likely to win Missouri.

In my prediction (see previous blog entry) Obama won with 325 electoral college votes to McCain's 213. I was off by three states worth 39 electoral college votes. They were: Indiana (11), Virginia (13) and North Carolina (15). All of these were so-called 'battleground' states and showed a very small, but remarkable, lead by Obama in the days before the election. I thought McCain would have won them back in the final push of his campaign where he visited these states.

Election night for me began when the first batch of polls closed and ended when the last batch of polls closed. It was at 04:00 a.m. that the race was finally called here in the U.K. for Obama, immediately after the polls in California closed and the Democratic nominee was projected to win. The race, for McCain, ended much sooner than that though. Three important states with hefty electoral college votes were among those to close early: Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. Obama could win the presidency with one of these (at a stretch); McCain, however, needed at least two of these go red for him to be within a chance of winning. All three, as I predicted they would, went for Obama.

The highlight of the night was watching McCain's concession speech and Obama's victory speech. Both speeches are being compared very favourably with the best of those given in previous presidential elections. McCain seemed to have accepted defeat very well. Obama was more cautious - he didn't want to gloat and he wanted to be quick to push the success away from himself and into the hands of the American electorate.

It was a night of democracy and powerful oratory in action and it was just beautiful to watch.

My Prediction: Obama v McCain 325-213

2008-11-01T17:45:00.010Z

What follows is my prediction for Tuesday's Presidential election.

There are a total of 538 Electoral college votes to be awarded. A candidate needs at least 270 votes to be elected President. In my prediction, Obama wins with 325 electoral college votes to McCain's 213.

Here are the states that I think each candidate will win. The corresponding electoral college votes are in brackets afterwards.

Obama (325)

California (55), Colarado (9), Columbia (3), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Florida (27), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), New Jersey (15), New Mexico (5), New York (31), Ohio (20), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Rhode Island (4), Washington (11), Vermont (3), Wisconsin (10),

McCain (213)

Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Missouri (11), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

In recent weeks the election has been fought in the following 13 battleground states worth 158 electoral votes:

Colarado (9)
Florida (27)
Georgia (15)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (11)
Montana (3)
Nevada (5)
New Mexico (5)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Ohio (20)
Pennsylvania (21)
Virginia (13)

I think Obama will win the 6 states in bold which are cumulatively worth 87 electoral college votes. In winning the other 7 states, 71 electoral college votes will be in the McCain column. 87-71.

This, though, makes the election seem closer than it really is. Outside of these states, Obama has a much clearer lead over McCain. Also, calling some of the above states 'battleground states' is a bit misleading because some of them clearly aren't. In New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama is ahead by at least 5 points. He is up in Florida too, but not by much. The reason that I put Florida in Obama's column is because I think he has ran a really successful campaign there. On the ground, he's pushed lots of Democrats and Independents to the polls in his early voting drive. The Obama campaign has further topped that off with adding a historic amount of new voters there. McCain definitely has support down there; but I think Obama has more. Just don't ask me how much!

Apologies for not being able to present the above numbers in an electoral college map. If I can find a way to do that, I will try to get it up.

University Report Cards

2008-10-21T15:39:00.003+01:00

The national media is reporting today of a new scheme that will be piloted in 18 UK universities following the publication of a report suggesting that the traditional degree classification system is outdated because of its failure to recognise important skills.

To quote directly from today's Times on the purpose of the report cards:

The report cards will give information on students' performance throughout their time at university, such as a breakdown of grades by modules and details of areas in which they have excelled. They will be given alongside a graduate's traditional final degree grade, and aim to give employers, higher education institutions or other interested parties more contextual detail about a candidate's abilities.

Confusingly, The Times is saying that the report cards are intended to supplement the traditional degree classification system whereas the Guardian talks about them being an eventual replacement of the '200-year-old degree classification system'. The Guardian refers to them as 'achievement reports', though. Achievement reports will contain, amongst other things, a full breakdown of results for modules studied and any prizes won. The report cards are likely to be particularly useful to employers because they contain assessments of the student's presentational skills and ability to work effectively in a team.

Any student seeking a legal career after graduating will view this differently. Recruiters in the legal profession already, in my experience, manage to successfully identify an applicant's presentational skills and team-working skills. Especially on the solicitor side. Typically, as part of a training contract application to a city law firm (or really any commercial law firm) you will be required to write about examples of when you used these skills in application forms. After that, if invited to an assessment centre, the graduate recruitment team at the firm will be able to test your competency in these areas themselves.

Even recruiters in the legal profession might welcome this proposal, though. This is because it is veritable evidence that the applicant actually did the activities they say they did and used the skills they say they developed. At the moment, I don't believe the same checks exist by university tutors who, in their references to employers, are only really required to ensure the applicant has achieved the first and second year grades they stated in their application form.

U.S. Election - Al Smith Dinner

2008-10-17T16:25:00.004+01:00

This is hilarious. An absolute must watch. The Al Smith dinner is something fans of The West Wing might know a little about from early on in season 7 of the hit show. It is an event held in New York at which the Presidential nominees from both parties speak at. Arnie Vinnick, the Republican nominee in The West Wing, didn't want to go it because he didn't want to be in a room with members of the Church. Matt Santos, the Democratic nominee for President in The West Wing called it the most "political non-political event". That is an apt description of it. Here's the clip from YouTube of Obama's speech - it is hilarious. Who needs debates on policy when this Presidential race can be decided by determining who the best stand-up comedian between them is?!

U.S. Election - Final Presidential Debate

2008-10-16T19:19:00.003+01:00

The third and final Presidential debate took place last night and having watched all three (as well as the Vice-Presidential debate <--Nerd Alert) I can say, without a doubt, that it was the best one so far.

Both candidates were on the ball. Many of the problems that I highlighted of the previous debates were not repeated, only hinted at. In the last debates, Obama had attacked McCain's campaign comment that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". McCain had defended that he was referring to the American workforce and was not being delusional about the current financial crisis. Likewise, McCain attacked Obama on his campaign statement in which he expressed an apparent willingess to sit down with the President of Iran "without preconditions". Both of the candidates were stretching their interpretation of the other's remarks. But not in last night's debate.

Instead, over an hour and a half, the candidates were both asked questions on eight issues. The first question (as with previous debates) was the economy. McCain immediately found what would become for both candidates a point of reference: a plumber in the toss-up state of Ohio by the name of Joe Wurzelbacher (or just Joe). McCain tried to explain how his economic and tax plans would be best for Joe's small business and how under an Obama presidency, he would be taxed heavily. This was a bad example though. Obama countered (as in previous debates) that because Joe earned less than $250,000 per annum he would not have to pay more tax. McCain said that Obama was intent on "spreading wealth around Americans" which he called a form of "class warfare". But that's a clear distortion of what Obama is actually doing.

The third and fourth questions were about the candidates leadership in the current election campaign and their respective verdicts on their opponents running-mate. Both stated that they were unhappy with the way the campaign has turned negative in recent weeks. Obama did well in clearing up the misconceptions over his actual relationship with Steven Ayers and ACORN, a voter registration service, that has been in the news because of allegations of corruption.

Interestingly, when it came to discussing the respective running-mates of the candidates, McCain had more negative things to say about Biden than Obama did have about Palin (which was, in fact, nothing). McCain identified Palin as a role model who, in particular, understood children with special needs. Obama simply agreed with McCain on these points; however, in his support of Biden, he was able to offer more substantial evidence: his foreign policy experience and his record for fighting crime.

The sixth question was about healthcare and the same spiel was regurgitated by both candidates only this time they addressed Joe from Ohio in particular. What a lucky guy he must be! On top of all of his current worries he's probably being pursued by the press and being asked about his views on how the candidates performed in the debate.

The final topics debated were: Roe v. Wade and Education. The former question is important because the next President is likely to appoint at least one judge to the bench (probably two). So what criteria will they be using? McCain is in favour of overturning Roe v. Wade and stated that he will not require a litmus test to be passed by potential appointees. Obama stated his position on a woman's right to choose and the specific requirements on which he would ban partial birth abortion (i.e. the mother's life is not put under risk). For this part of the debate at least, your either for one candidate or against them. I support a woman's right to choose.

On education, neither candidate was able to pin down the reason why America is able to invest so much in its students yet it performs consistently less better than it should against other countries. Obama, however, was the only one to identify the element of parental responsibility in showing children the benefits of knowledge and learning.

It was clear from this debate that McCain hasn't changed the content of his policies so much as he has changed the way he expresses them. Obama, as commentators have pointed out, tried to play it as cool as possible. This strategy is obviously because it was difficult to tell what sort of tone McCain would adopt in the debate. That McCain was angry can be seen from a statement that he made early on in the debate: "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush you should have done so four years ago". Ouch. This didn't stop Obama concluding at the end of the debate that only he can effect the requisite change required in America and that American cannot afford to commit itself to four more years of the "same failed politics and the same failed policies" of the past eight years.

Man Booker Prize 2008 Winner - The White Tiger, Aravind Adiga

2008-10-15T09:39:00.005+01:00

Aravind Adiga has won this year's Man Booker Prize for his novel The White Tiger.

This was the first novel that I read after it was long-listed back in July. I thought it was a pretty decent book at the time but I didn't expect it to get shortlisted or be the winner in the long run.

What I did like about the book was that it was thoroughly original, modern and very readable because of its engaging characters. However, I didn't like the way the novel was structured. The main character - the White Tiger of the novel - is Balram Halwai. We learn early on in the novel that he kills his master (at the end of the first chapter in the book, I think). Over most of the next chapters, the author explores Balram's relationship with his master and this is really where the novel is at its best. Adiga used humour well and there were some interesting subplots. Then I quickly found myself at the end of the novel and I still didn't understand why Balram had to kill his Master to get what he wanted. I understand his entrepreneurial ambitions but not why they lead to him committing such a vicious act. The socio-political parts of the book were the best parts, I thought, and were what remained with me after closing the book.

In my last post I mentioned that dream winner would be Steve Toltz's A Fraction of the Whole. This was a much longer book that Adiga's and whilst some of the criticisms that I have made of Adiga could equally be applicable to Toltz, I found the novel resonated with me much more. In fact, when Michael Portillo this year began to announce the winner, he said: "The Winner of the Man Booker Prize 2008 is a debutante novelist..." - this meant either Toltz or Adiga from the shortlist and I leapt up with joy, but it was not to be.

The Power of Literary Writers

2008-10-13T13:13:00.004+01:00

This is something that I was in awe of recently: the Power of Literary Writers. Some people are a able to conceptualise problematic issues in special ways and deal with them accordingly. A select few of those are able to go one further and write about them in interesting and engaging ways. Yet fewer of those are able to write about them through the medium of a novel.

Three different examples that I have read about recently help emphasise my point. These are: the Man Booker Prize, Toni Morrison's endorsement of Barack Obama and a selection of 42 Writers who have each written pieces arguing against the 42 day detention proposal being debated in the Lords today.

The Man Booker Prize 2008

The shortlist for this year's prize was published at the beginning of September and the winner will be announced on Wednesday. I have nearly finished reading all the shortlisted books. My dream choice to be awarded the prize would be Steve Toltz's A Fraction of the Whole. I thought it was a tremendous epic novel. This 700 page masterpiece dealt with a variety of themes, including: betrayal, love, rebellion against accepted norms in society and a fantastic exploration of a father-son relationship.

This is the first novel that the author has published. I have read a couple of interviews by this author since being shortlisted and the thing which struck me was just how successful a philosopher he is on the aforementioned oft-appearing themes in his novel.

Toni Morrison's endorsement of Barack Obama

Toni Morrison was the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1993. She famously called former President Bill Clinton America's first black president. Morrison is supporting Barack Obama this year and has done so since early on in this year's election season.

Why is this particular endorsement special? Well, it came in the form of a letter that she wrote to Senator Obama; here is an excerpt taken from the New York Observer:

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country's citizens as "we," not "they"? Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

I agree with all of what Morrison writes and think that it is an excellent precis of why Obama is a special candidate. The level of understanding that Morrison reaches in her letter is something that I haven't really seen elsewhere.

42 Writers against 42 day detention proposal

Visit 42writers.com and you will be able to read several well-known writers take on the government's proposals for 42 days detention of suspected terrorists. Its not just their views, though. They are all against the proposal; but the point is that they have such valid and interesting reasons for opposing it. For some, like Hardeep Singh Kohli, its about the length itself. For others, like Linda Grant (a short-listed author for this year's Booker prize), its the additional words 'without trial'.

My favourite is the writing by Sadie Jones. In such a short piece, Jones is able to demonstrate the different interpretations of the phrases: terror, war on terror and war on terrorism and why this is problematic.

Fair Game

2008-10-07T17:13:00.004+01:00

We are currently observing a turning point in the American election season and I think it is the most crucial part of this election. Various polls are showing that Barack Obama has a comfortable lead over John McCain and the polling in the important toss-up states suggests that news is even worse for McCain. So what do you do if you're McCain? The answer is you attack and having just watched one of his rallies in the toss-up state of New Mexico it is obvious that he is doing just that.

Attacking is a good strategy to win elections. If you can get a good soundbite of something that your opponent believes in or thinks that sounds stupid or reprehensible and if you say it again and again, it could easily be something that the voters will think of immediately before casting their vote on November 4th. Governor Palin has been attacking Obama for befriending a domestic terrorist, William Ayers. When I first heard that she said this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt and read more about the case she was referring to. It quickly became obvious though that its a non-story. Obama's website - Fight the Smears - has been updated to fight this particular one too.

In his speech in New Mexico, McCain said that when he tried to question a particular view of Obama's he gets the cold shoulder from him. "For a guy that has written two memoirs", said McCain "he's hardly an open book". A good line and certainly one that some voters will remember, for want of more accurate and reliable information, before casting their vote. This is simply not the case though, in my opinion. McCain, it seems obvious to me, is trying to move away from speaking about the economy - the real issue that matters. This must be frustrating for the American voter. During their first debate, well over half an hour was spent on the bailout plan and a real attempt was made by the moderator to force the candidates to talk about the situation between themselves. Neither candidate sufficiently engaged with each other. This is disappointing because it would have been a fantastic opportunity to get a genuine one-over on the candidate.

The Obama camp has been on the attack too. However, their attack is valid, in my opinon. It comes in the form of a short documentary (13mins) called Keating Economics on their website. This documentary links a rather shady period of McCain's period in the Senate with his current (and future) attitude towards the economy. It shows that he doesn't have good judgment or people's best interests at heart when he is functioning as a leader. Having watched the documentary, I think its content is fair game. The same cannot be said for some of McCain's and Palin's most recent attacks on Obama.

This brings me to the reason that I am writing this. Tonight is the second Presidential debate. The bailout plan has now been passed by congress. Both candidates should be able to openly talk about the economy and get across to voters why their recovery plans are better than their opponents. Furthermore, both candidates should be able to commit to answering the question. This sounds silly; but, for example, if asked which parts of their plans for government are no longer feasible because of the need to be tight on the purse strings, they should be able to single particular areas out no matter how unpopular their ideas would be.

Tonight's debate is going to be won by the candidate that is most willing and able to engage with the key issue affecting voters: the economy. If McCain brings along his tacky one-liners, the American people should send him packing. If Obama isn't able to demonstrate his command over issues relating to the economy, then he should be judged weak too and voters, rightly, shouldn't vote for him because he's a Democrat. That wouldn't be fair game either.

Update

2008-10-03T17:47:00.002+01:00

Having decided to take an impromptu year out before commencing the BVC in 2009, I have been giving thought to how I could fill that year best.

I haven't taken a gap year previously and this is actually something that I have regretted since. However, for some reason the idea of traipsing leisurely across the world doesn't really appeal to me right now because I feel I would prefer to get some good experience on my C.V.

I like the idea of working in the legal sector and earning money at the same time. This is because I would probably have something useful to talk about on my C.V. and I would be earning actual money. The next question I've had to consider is what sort of legal position am I interested in and where am I interested in doing the work. The answer to these questions respectively are: firstly, either a legal secretary or a paralegal position would be preferred; and secondly, as close to home as possible.

So far I have managed to fire off an application for a legal secretary position that was being advertised by a local law firm. I have since called about the position and to see how my application is progressing but, unfortunately, I have received no indication either way. The recruiting solicitor at the firm seems interested in my application but hasn't really taken any further steps since telling me so. The position remains advertised and I don't know what to do. I don't want to keep nagging at the solicitor so as to frustrate him; however, at the same time I would like to know where I stand.

Everybody I talk to about this gives me the same response: "Oh, well its the credit crunch, isn't it? These places will be having a tough time taking anyone on right now".
I'm not so sure though. If the economy is to blame, which it may well be, I would like to know. Mostly because its something I can tell my grandchildren about in a few years time and feel important about: "Your generation has got it easy. In my day, by the time I had graduated and was looking for a job, I had the challenge of doing so during the Greatest Depression on record!"

This has led me to start thinking of a short non-legal career. The easy one would be to get a job at the local supermarket. Long hours; not bad money; but a lower self-esteem is required than I am prepared to offer, I think. I am, though, teetering on the brink of firing off an application to them too. At least I will be earning something.

On the distant Bar-related side of things: I still haven't joined an inn yet. That is the first thing that I need to do. I think I might be in London later this year and so will try and fit a visit to some of the inns that I am interested in in my travel plans.

Obamamania

2008-10-02T17:47:00.003+01:00

Reasons why I support Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States:

1. He is a Democrat. I am somewhat of a lefty. Therefore it is natural that I would be attracted to supporting the candidate that the Democrats nominated. I believe in a larger government than most people on the right of the political spectrum would favour. Although this does not mean that I am in favour of government prying into aspects of private life where they don't have a place.

2. Not only is he a Democrat, he opposes the war in Iraq and has plan to remove American troops from there. I think the war was illegal: the reasons that the Bush administration and a lot of other Republicans gave for going to war in Iraq were because that it posed an imminent threat, had WMDs and harboured terrorists. None of these reasons turned out to be true. I would have supported an invasion of Iraq if the reason was to dispose of a cruel military dictator. However, I would have expected a much better planned and better executed invasion than the one that we did get. I think the world will be better with Obama as Commander-in-Chief of the USA's armed forces. Having listened to how he conceptualises the existing threats against America, I think he is better placed to make the correct decisions on how they should be handled. McCain may have the military background but I don't think he has as sounder judgment as Obama on foreign policy issues. I think he would be too ready to involve American military power where it shouldn't be.

3. Having said that last point, this point may seem to conflict with it, but I hope I am able to explain why I don't think it does. Obama has stated that he is prepared to attack terrorists in Pakistan if they have actionable intelligence and the President of Pakistan isn't prepared to go after them himself. McCain, like Bush before him, is determined to keep Pakistan as an ally of America. I don't understand how a distinction could have been made between Mussharaf (the then President of Pakistan) and Saddam Hussein, by the Bush administration. They were both military dictators. If America is for freedom every where, why didn't they liberate Pakistan too? At least they shouldn't have classified it as an ally. Obama hasn't said that Pakistan will no longer be an ally of America; however, his attitude to the country is an improvement, I would say.

4. Obama is a smart guy. The first time that I read about Obama was shortly after the Democratic National Convention in 2004 (when John Kerry was nominated). The Independent had an article about him. I remember thinking that he was obviously a very clever and charismatic person - a born leader. I read a little about his background: his work in Chicago as a community organiser and his work in the Illinois state legislature. Most of the article was concerned with the speech he had made to the convention in which he talked of America not being disparate blue states and red states but one United States of America. I always thought of America being like in the former and so I was very interested in someone who was talking of an America that was just one entity. I think someone who is so fond of this idea of togetherness and working with friends and foes side-by-side to get things done is admirable. McCain is far more of a divisive character in my opinion.

5. I don't know exactly what Obamamania is. However if there is such a thing as an Obamamaniac, I am probably one of them. I mention these strange words because I think it helps highlight the fact that Obama is somewhat of a brand now. And that brand or that slogan is about the overcoming of a challenge and reaching heights that haven't been reached before. This is a guy who openly called the existence of slavery in America the 'greatest sin in the nation's history' - he is prepared to state what he thinks because, even though it pains him, he has a vision for making his country a better place. No easy feat.

6. I have read one of the books that Obama has written: The Audacity of Hope. In it, as well as describing the policy positions that he stands for, he talks about his life experiences that helped shape those positions. Obama is, in my opinion, a genuine politician who can connect with ordinary citizens of the country and understand their problems. How many houses does McCain have? Well actually I don't care how many houses McCain has. He can have 10 or 100 - but he must be able to state, in under 2 seconds, how many houses he has and not refer the question to his own advisors.

7. Obama chose Biden; McCain chose Palin. This, for me, shows how much more responsible Obama is. He could have chose Clinton and wrapped-up the election now, but he didn't want the distraction that choosing her would entail because it would impinge on his promise of change. Obama is prepared to look at the bigger picture, McCain is small-time in comparison. He is a self-proclaimed maverick which I actually think is dangerous. He pulls stunts: consider his most recent: suspending his election campaign to go back to Washington and deal with the financial crisis. Now, consider the current position: things aren't resolved, he is to blame for putting other members of congress on edge, and he's suddenly trying to benefit from his actions by saying he was right and Obama was wrong in the course of his election campaign. Well, for me, when he suspended his campaign, he suspended his campaign. He can't go back on what he said and use his actions to support his campaign. There was no need for him to suspend his campaign - he was clearly pulling a stunt.

Tony Blair on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

2008-09-20T14:31:00.003+01:00

Tony Blair recently appeared on what has to be my favourite thing on television at the moment: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I really can't get enough of this show: it is just so funny in its righteousness. I've watched the show religiously pretty much all through this year. Yep: I can remember the early primaries in the current election cycle and how they were 'documented' by the show. Basically, Stewart takes to town lots of different television commentators on political issues and demonstrates how ridiculous some of their ideas and views are. There is, obviously, a continuous thread of Bushisms which is always very funny.

I have seen Ricky Gervais appear a couple of times as guest on the show and both times it was such a treat - it really made me laugh my heart out. This week Tony Blair was to appear on the show and so again I thought it would be quite interesting. Maybe Stewart was really going to take him to town over his relationship with George Bush or maybe focus in particular on the war in Iraq. It turns out both of these issues were covered equally and the interview segment of the show was especially doubled to accommodate this. Having not heard Blair speak for such a long time, it was quite strange hearing his voice. He looked pretty fit - I think he's lost weight and got a bit of a tan. However, he was also pretty hesitant and not at all that engaging with Stewart like some of his other interviewees are. I guess that's because not many of his interviewees are former leaders of countries though. There was a great part in this interview where Blair says: 'No two democracies have ever fought each other'. Stewart points to Argentina and England, Blair manages to wiggle himself out of that one though.

I really recommend the show. Here is the Blair interview (its in two parts):

A decision made...

2008-09-09T17:28:00.001+01:00

So I guess I haven’t done well in keeping by blawg up-to-date recently. For that, I apologise. Basically I have had a lot on my plate. Big decisions to make; different legal experiences to complete; and, of course, lots of enjoyable summer reading to do.

Regular readers of my blog will recall that I was a late applicant for a place on the BVC. For a long time, I simply believed that I wanted to be a commercial solicitor and blindly went about trying to secure a training contract. This Summer I did a vacation scheme at an international commercial law firm. I also completed my first mini-pupillage. I finally decided to take a year out. My intention is to commence the BVC in September 2009. I am not completely sure what I will do in the meantime. I will endeavour to complete more mini-pupillages. I should probably find some gainful employment somewhere which could either be a useful addition to my C.V. or, more likely, helpful in paying the BVC fees.

This was one of the toughest decisions I have ever had to make. Looking back now, I feel there was a period whilst at university where I should have been more forward-thinking like many of my peers. When you consider how much law students at the same institution talk amongst themselves about their future career plans, it is quite shocking how I have been able to delay giving even a small amount of thought to what I want to do after university. I ask you to forget though, dearest blogreader, how late I came to the party and instead to rejoice in the fact that I turned up at all.

I should add a note of appreciation for some of the other bloggers whose blogs have been useful in helping me come to this decision. Through reading your blogs and understanding the difficult journey to becoming a barrister has been very, very helpful. Its not just the particular details of what it is you are doing and how you feel about it that has been helpful, it’s the fact that you chose to pursue a career in a profession that is notoriously difficult to enter into. As someone who blindly accepted a potential legal career as a commercial solicitor because of the obvious perks and supposedly glamorous lifestyle, I do value the determination and passion that someone who is looking for a career as a barrister needs. Beyond any other means, it has been through reading many of your blogs (especially those listed down the side of this blog) that I begun to understand this.

Actual experience of the different sides of the profession has been very helpful too. In short, I absolutely hated the two week vacation placement that I did at a commercial law firm. In contrast, I wholeheartedly enjoyed the time that I spent on a mini-pupillage. I loved every minute of the time I spent at chambers and in different courts I visited. At the end of the vacation scheme I was on, a fellow student asked me:

“So, Lackie, what was your favourite part of the scheme?”
I thought about some of the fantastic individuals I had met at the firm: the partners and associates who did their best to involve me in the deals they were working on and the trainee solicitors who went out of their way to ensure that I enjoyed the two weeks I spent at the firm.
After thinking for a while, I replied:
“Well, I thought visiting a Court on Monday to observe that commercial case and have a chat with a Judge in his chambers was the highlight. How about yourself?”

What can I say? I told the truth and really that was when I realised that I’d finally found something I felt good pursuing. A career as a barrister, that is.

Apologies....

2008-08-26T18:03:00.005+01:00

...for not posting on this blog for a while. I have been kept busy with my vacation placement at a commercial law firm which finishes at the end of this week. Readers of my blawg will be aware that this was my summer of reckoning - when I would finally decide whether to do the BVC or not. I do believe that I found my mini-pupillage infinitely better than the vacation scheme I am currently doing. My experience of the latter has not been that different to Android's experience at her new job.

I still haven't finished blawging about the final two days of the mini-pupillage I did earlier this Summer. I shall get round to that soon. In addition I will probably blawg about my experiences of working at an international commercial law firm; so you have all that to look forward to.

In terms of what I will be going next i.e. in September. I still don't know. I am still in touch with different BVC providers to see if they have any places that they can offer through clearing ('clearing', incidentally, is what it is actually called - its not something I just made up and just assumed to have always been there; I mention this because more prepared folk are unlikely to have heard of such a thing being available). Anyway, I am keeping my fingers crossed that something will come up.

What else? Well I have continued to maintain my interest in the American Presidential elections and in particular, the Democratic National Convention happening now in Denver. I absolutely love these Conventions - I think they are absolutely fantastic; really great to watch and Democracy in action. I enjoy the hair-raising speeches, the nomination process involving all the different States of the USA which are brought together. I have watched all of the first night speeches and thought it was great. Especially Michelle Obama; but also Ted Kennedy.

I must add that I am a little uncertain about Obama's choice of running-mate: Joe Biden. Admittedly, I am still learning a lot about him. My main problem is that I don't see how he can usefully help Obama win the Presidency in November. Recent polls back me up on this claim.

I have not been surprised at all that the race is becoming increasingly closer with Obama and McCain virtually neck-and-neck. McCain has benefited a lot through his negative T.V. adds against Obama. I think this just shows that he is running out of ideas. I think the closer we get to November, the less he is going to have to be negative about that he hasn't used already. Also, I am expecting that Obama's numbers are going to go through the roof when the Denver Convention is concluded and he emerges officially as the party's nominee. I don't believe that McCain will get a similar boost following his party's convention. And, if he picks Romney as his running-mate, I think he will have handed the race to Obama & Biden there and then. On the other hand, if he picks a very different kind of running-mate - the female kind - I think we could see something very different happening. I think that there are a lot of female voters that will turn to the Republicans and away from Obama and the Democrats. This will undoubtedly be costly to the Democrats in November. There are two groups of people without which any Democrat in the U.S. would not get elected to office without: Women voters and African-American voters.

I should add that I entirely understand why Obama didn't opt for a female running-mate. If he wins, his administration will already be ground-breaking: the first Black President. You can't staff a new administration or the Democratic ticket like an arc.

Mini-pupillage - Day Three

2008-08-08T11:11:00.003+01:00

Spent all of the day three in a county court observing a family law case. I was shadowing a different barrister today called Peter. Peter had been with Chambers for about 10 years now. As with most of Chambers' members, he had established broad practice areas, including: criminal, family, civil and a few other more specialist areas. Peter is quite possibly the most-liked member around Chambers and amongst other barristers. I found him to be a really interesting guy that was good around other people - especially Chambers' most recent members.

Peter was representing a mother in her early thirties who was seeking a non-molestation order against a physically and verbally abusive partner. Prior to the arrival of both the applicant and the respondent at court, Peter took time to explain to me what the case was about and he showed me the bundle that he had been given about the case. On the face of it, it was an open-and-shut case - the non-molestation order could easily be granted because there was plenty of reasons for it being in place.

Peter then met with the applicant in one of the court's conference rooms. Also present were the applicant's instructing solicitors. The main issue that was being discussed was the actual details that would be contained in the non-molestation order. This was quite difficult. The applicant did not want, if possible, the respondent to be any where near the family home. However, she was also keen for her partner to be able to work, earn money and contribute to the mortgage they were paying off. In order to do this, her partner had to be able to work in the garage which was on the same land as the family home. This didn't seem to be much of a problem at first. OK: the respondent needed access to the house to use the toilet; but apart from that, there was no reason that he should have to interact with the applicant in any way. Things didn't turn out that way though. The applicant turned out to be a fairly compassionate person and had quite strong feelings towards her partner which she recognised that she shouldn't really have, having suffered physical abuse from him. Peter had the difficult task of trying to anticipate any problems that may arise and dealing with those; but also thinking about the applicant herself and explaining to her what her position would be if she was to her partner into the house willingly and then suffer harm from him.

When we first went before the judge he was mostly concerned with the children's safety and well-being. In one previous incident, the youngest child had sustained a bruise to his eye from the fighting between his parents. So the judge wanted a CAFFCASS representative to look over the case and advise him of the child's safety before he gave the green light to the non-molestation order drafted by Peter.

After a series of meetings with a CAFFCASS officer and long time waiting for him to interview the respective parties, we went back into court again with a slightly different non-molestation order which included changes recommended by CAFFCASS (but which was fundamentally the same in practice). He liked it and that was that.

By the time this all finished it was 16:00. Peter took me for some food and drinks and we had a very enjoyable conversation about some of his up-coming cases and major on-going cases in the news: Darwin the canoeist, Max Mosley and Robert Murat. He asked for my thoughts and shared his own. A very enjoyable end to day three.

Graduation is a beginning, not an end

2008-08-04T09:43:00.003+01:00

I read a very interesting article in the Times today by Libby Purves: "The simple way to stop being uneducated".

Purves discusses various ways in which not having a University education isn't really an impediment to learning at all. The article is written after an interview that Keira Knightley gave to a magazine. Knightley states that she is "completely uneducated" because she did not go to university. Absent the point that nobody would notice whether Knightley attended university or not, Purves argues that she has been able to get a more meaningful education and through a better route.

Libby Purves writes: "The poor girl is currently wading through a biography of Albert Speer, a history of the Vietnam War, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Germaine Greer's hoard old Female Eunuch". With dyslexia, too. What a heroine. Meanwhile, innumerable men and women who have university degrees - and therefore no chips but a sense of 2:1 superiority - will be on the beach happily sinking themselves in moronic chick-lit and Jeremy Clarkson."

All very true, I thought. I go get the feeling that many students treat their university education as an end rather than as a beginning. But a university education should have a much greater role than just being another line on a curriculum vitae. The skills and interest levels in learning that students have acquired over 20+ years of education can surely be put to much better use. Moreover, if this doesn't happen soon after leaving university, surely the mind goes stale and you eventually lose all worth of your education.

It is difficult, I acknowledge, to find time to do whatever it is that you find interesting. There's always increasing pressure to find work and pay off debts whilst simultaneously acquiring lots of new responsibilities.

I have to say, though, that these things whilst being troublesome for me too, haven't thus far prevented me from doing the things I wanted to do. Primarily, this means that all those books that I kept thinking I would definitely read at some point in the future, I have now actually come back to. I shall omit reciting all the reading I have done this Summer (may be at some point on this blog I shall talk about the odd book that really caught my attention) but suffice to say: its been very pleasurable and I do believe that I am spending more time in books each day than I did during my time at university. At first, I found this quite disconcerting; but now, helped somewhat by this article, I feel pretty good!

Mini-pupillage - Day Two

2008-08-02T13:05:00.004+01:00

Visited a Crown Court today with a different barrister from Chambers: Nick. I was told to meet Nick at the Crown Court. Its been nearly five years since I last stepped foot in a Crown Court. On arrival, I was asked by the security staff whether I was a witness or something (can't remember what exactly; surely they didn't say 'defendant', did they?). "No", I replied emptying out my pockets before passing through a metal detector, "I'm shadowing a barrister who is expecting me here".

I ended up waiting for about twenty five minutes in the entrance area. A security guard had made it known to Nick that I had arrived after about five minutes. This was all getting very tiresome. There I was seated in the main entrance watching people come and go. Whilst checking out the court announcer each time she passed me by, I began playing guess-what-the-person-who-just-walked-through-the-metal-detectors-is-here-for. I found that with the younger unknown people who walked passed me, it was quite telling to see what their reaction was to me sitting there. If they smiled and wanted to high-five me, they were obviously a defendant. If there was a group of such people, the one that acted in either of the aforementioned ways was the defendant and the others were his family or friends. The people that ignored me, I believe I am correct in saying were witnesses. The people that came in groups in dazzling white shirts and flashing silver badges were constables. If they were over-forties and chatted politely with the security guards, they were witnesses. Then there was a sixteen year old in a suit wearing geeky glasses and carrying a notebook - the work experience student, of course!

Nick then suddenly turned up.

"Are you Lacklustre Lawyer?" Yes.
"Hi, I'm Nick."
"Nice to meet you." (shake hands)
"You too. Allow me to explain why I haven't been able to see you until now. I had this case thrust into my hands just this morning and I got called into court in short notice without having any opportunity to grab you".
"No problem", I replied, "I figured something like that must have happened".

Then we continued up the stairs to the advocate's suite.

"So what was the case about that you got given this morning?"
"....". I'm afraid I don't actually recall what he said at this point. I do remember it being quite interesting though.

So in the advocate's suite we talked about the cases that he would be in court for soon. They were mostly probation breaches in which he was prosecuting and only one in which he was for the defence. We had well over an hour before he was going to be back in court for these. During this time we talked to some of the other advocates there on topics including: the facts of the cases before them, changes to the criminal justice system, the usefulness of some defences in criminal law. I read some interesting case files of defendants my age doing things which are unpleasant: getting into fights, dealing drugs with the wrong people, committing criminal damage and so on. All very riveting to read, I might add.

Then we went into court. All the people that I had first encountered in the entrance to the court were there and were exactly who I thought they were. At this point I wondered whether any of them had been thinking what I was doing in the Court and, dare I say, they thought I was there as one of them. This me made smile uncontrollably.

That all took us to lunch time. I headed back to Chambers with Nick. At this point we began talking about pupillage, my career and the BVC. We stopped at a place where he bought me lunch - which was delicious. We talked some more about our extra-curricular interests and life at Chambers and as a barrister.

Then we headed back to Chambers. Nick had some interesting case-files for me to read. One was for a negligence claim and was conditional fee arrangement in which Nick had written guidance on the claimant's chances of success on two separate occasions. I should explain: the negligent act was the not keeping of a dog on his leash, the victim was an electrician doing work at the dog owner's house. The two guidance notes were written in between one favourable and one unfavourable medical report in which the medical practitioner had talked about causation - the dog's bite being the cause of the claimant's dizziness and prolonged headaches. Nick had asked me whether he should take the case or not. In other words: this is a CFA case - what chances have I got of winning before a judge and actually earning something. My initial answer was pedestrian somewhat. Nick said: "You're not answering a legal problem question in a university course" or words to that effect. I tightened up; tried to sound more interesting and complete; and succeeded, I think!

Aside from meeting some of Chambers' other members and doing some research in its library that was it for Day Two.

Mini-pupillage – Day One

2008-07-29T16:55:00.000+01:00

Arrived at Chambers for a 09:00 start – met with all the clerks and was shown around the place, meeting with lots of different members and people on the way. It’s a great building with a terrific vibe of work in progress, people on the move and justice to be served. I was told that for each of my five days, I would be with different barristers in different practice areas so as to get as broad an experience as possible. This sounded like just what someone in my position needed to decide whether the Bar is somewhere you could see yourself working in.

I was introduced to the barrister that I would be shadowing for the day. She – Shantarra – was the most recent addition to the member’s list of the chambers having completed her pupillage there last year. We set off for the County Court for a case that was scheduled for some time in the morning. The dispute was about the sale of defective goods. Shantarra was acting for a foreign manufacturer of the goods who had sold the goods to a company in the U.K. The U.K. Company had then sold the goods to what would be the end-buyer. All that is know for sure was the goods were defective – everything else, including where the defect occurred, was unknown. We talked about the case during our journey to the court; at court I had time to read through the case file in full. According to the U.K. Company, a previous court hearing had taken place in which they were ordered to recompense the end-buyer the full sum. Strangely, though, they were not forthcoming with any documents that would support their claim. It seemed as though they simply paid off the end-buyer without involving the European manufacturers and were now seeking that sum from the manufacturers. The manufacturers, however, had a clause in their sale agreement with the U.K. Company stipulating that they had 7 days in which to ensure that the goods received were of a good quality. This was not used.

What happened next was that we went before the judge who had already read the case-file and was satisfied that the claim of the U.K. Company could not stand. Shantarra put forward a very well-organised and forceful argument that was a pleasure to observe (I told her so afterwards, but she wasn’t very forthcoming in accepting the compliment – in fact, I think she ignored me completely.).

In our walk back to Chambers we talked about my career situation. I told her that was in between places really: keen to go to the Bar, but as yet with no place on the BVC because of a late application. Then we talked about the Chambers and Shantarra herself which was far more interesting. It seems to me that the route to gaining pupillage and tenancy, whilst very difficult, does allow for people to have some great additional life experiences. This was the case for Shantarra too. We talked about pupillage applications including who was involved in selection, what the application process involved etc. Its all quite typical really: there are a couple of rounds of interviews and there is an interview panel whom conduct the interviews. I asked whether Chambers currently had any Pupils and was told that there weren’t any. Before I could ask the obvious question I was informed that Chambers had not been impressed by any of the applicants in that year and so did not even take on any one for Pupillage. “Oh”, I said without further ado and a face which suggested, as best as I could, that I was not in the least bit perturbed.

The afternoon was very interesting too. I would be back in the County Court with a different member of Chambers to observe a road traffic accident case. I didn’t think this would be particularly interesting when I first heard about it but actually it turned out to be quite something. The case involved a collision which occurred at some point on a roundabout. Both parties were saying that their opposite collided with them; there was no consistency in which direction the parties said they were travelling (even though they both claimed to use the roads regularly for the same journey); worse still, there were no photographs of the damage done to both cars (which could, I believe, have helped understand better the circumstances leading up to the crash). The time in court was quite long. The judge insisted on hearing what happened from both sides (who were present in court) through their respective representatives. I particularly enjoyed the time each side spent cross-examining the other. By the end of the final speeches from both sides, I calculate that there must have been (what each side knew had happened on the day, what they told their respective counsels, what the judge understood at different points throughout the hearing and of course what actually happened). It was absolutely fascinating to watch. Obviously, one of these sides was lying. I couldn’t decide myself who I believed more. The judge did what I had hoped, as an objective observer, he would do – he accepted facts which were agreed by both sides, tried to understand the physical damage to the cars as best as possible and based his decision on that. Although the advocacy on both sides was forceful, I don’t believe it could have made that much of a difference to the end result.

That was it for the day. A great day, I thought, in which I had learned a lot. Four more days to go!

Murat wins big Libel payout

2008-07-17T19:10:00.003+01:00

Robert Murat, it will be recalled was the first official suspect named by the Portuguese police investigating the claim of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

I vividly remember the day when this news story broke. It was a good few weeks after the disappearance of Madeleine and whilst I was sitting my second year Law exams. In fact, Sky News broke this story one evening during the week. I was due to sit an exam the next day and watching this news story actually helped me keep awake that night to do some last minute revision.

Obviously, all these newspaper headlines were libellous and it is surely right that they have had to pay out. Apparently the sums that Murat has received are quite large. The total amount he received is in the region of £500,000. This from a string of newspapers including: the Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, London Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, News of the World, Sun and the Scotsman.

I have glanced at the headlines that these newspapers ran and I can't believe how all Murat received was £500,000. These claims must have had a terrible impact on him. His status as a criminal suspect still hasn't been lifted by the Portuguese police. Of course, I can't claim whether it should be removed or it shouldn't be removed. That's not a problem for me.

There is a problem for me though and that relates to the way that Sky News ran the story that night. Tensions were running high, you won't have forgotten the numerous photographers that were queueing up outside the Madeleine villa. All the leading reporters were there too from all the major news-outlets. That night, for Sky News though, the leading reporter that was standing in front of the camera was what I will term a junior reporter. This reporter knew Murat, as it happened, as she had attended the same school as him whilst he was in England in his earlier life. If I recall correctly, she had bumped into him at a supermarket in Portugal whilst the Madeleine investigation was on-going and Murat was not, as yet, arrested. I just couldn't believe my ears when police had only just begun investigating Murat and this reporter was painting a very bad picture of Murat. What happened to reporting all the facts objectively when they become known? Would it have killed Sky News to have waited until daylight to get more facts and then put their asset before the cameras. She was a Sky News reporter for God's sake. If she was going to break an exclusive, she would be fired. Amongst those listed that will pay Murat damages is Sky which is surely right.

Of course, I don't know whether Murat is truly innocent. However, the way Sky News reported the story was wrong, for me; and that is what stops me from believing anything other than he is entirely innocent.

Can you believe this?

2008-07-11T20:01:00.001+01:00

Very interesting news story that I have just been reading about, which I thought I would share with you.

It looks as though the word “gullible” is not going to appear in this year’s edition of Collin’s English Dictionary? Can you believe this?

What have I learnt from my time at University?

2008-07-11T19:59:00.000+01:00

With graduation happening shortly, I’ve been thinking about my time at university and how beneficial it has been for me.

At the outset, I should state this fact: I am the first one in my family to go to university. None of my grandparents, my grandparent’s grandparents, or even their grandparents even went beyond a secondary school education. Accordingly, I was also the first in my family to go to college; which is, of course, a lesser achievement, somewhat.

The above, in a way, makes redundant any chance of me concluding that my time at university has not been beneficial. As is to be expected, my family is very very very proud of me. I cannot count the number of people that have congratulated me after being told by members of my family that my university education has been successfully completed. Its all quite overwhelming actually.

Now, enough of that. This state of affairs was always going to be the case, no matter who was the first in my family to graduate from university. Be it one of my children or my children’s children’s children. What have I actually learnt?

Obviously, the results that I have achieved in the respective areas of the law I have studied speak for themselves.

Aside from this though, I have been thinking about what else I have gained from my time at university.

Firstly, as always is the case, there are the people that I have spent a lot of time with. I have had the privilege of making some great friends. I can’t say for sure whether they will last throughout my lifetime. Nonetheless, it has still been a privilege to study alongside these people; and this, itself, warms the heart.

I will not go as far as to say that all of my relationships have been successful. They haven’t – and this fact will haunt me in years to come, I’m sure. Principally this is a case of Love’s Labour Lost. What I thought would turn out to be a long relationship of friendship and then some; in fact turned out to be a calamity. My heart was torn from my body and stamped upon by the high-heels of someone whom I thought of very dearly. The way girls are inclined to do, I have since learnt.

Perhaps the greatest attribute I have developed at university is that of maturity. I can say with 100% certainty that I have matured a lot over the past three years. I can’t really describe in specific details how I know this or why this is the case; but I am very certain that it’s the case. I can’t also add what part of university has allowed me to develop in this way: it wasn’t part of the syllabus, that’s for damn sure. Perhaps its somewhat due to the level of independence that one has over their studies and way of living.

Aside from that, the other skills I have developed are all part-and-parcel of studying Law at University level. Undoubtedly, the soundest, the bestest and the hardest thing one can study at undergraduate level! I do think a lot more than I used to; I do analyse things more than I used to; and, I do understand things better than I used to.

I am sure that I will have that same feeling going through my body that I have had at a lot of many junctions in my life. That is: if I had my time again, I’d do it different and I’d do it better. However, I hope that this won’t be the case this time. I hope that with my new found mature level of thinking, I will be able to say that I did my best and my damned hardest. I am inclined to think that its better if my performance wasn’t the peak in my life – that there will be times in the future when I can do better and times after that when I can do even more better.

I hope that I realise that graduation is only the beginning and that bigger challenges await me in the future.

What is going on with the world…

2008-07-07T12:43:00.000+01:00

…when young people are being stabbed to death in London in unprecedented repetitive acts of aggression?

It saddens me, when every time now I turn on the news I have to listen to gruesome details of another stabbing for absolutely no reason. The same question keeps re-emerging: why is this happening? What is fuelling such tragedies? Hell if I know the answer. There’s not a lot that anyone can say with certain when answering this question. What I will say though is: its not because there aren’t enough evening social clubs for young people; its not always because there is a reason for it either; the problem is much bigger than that – it’s a larger societal problem.

On a not completely unrelated note, a recent headline in my regional newspaper saddened me even more. It was about a twenty year old female student, L.G. L.G. was a third-year Biochemist at University. She was intelligent, beautiful and someone who everyone enjoyed being around. L.G. suffered from Bulimia, depression and a tendency to self-harm. In a seemingly happy period of her life – when her family and friends were doing lots of fun activities with her – she hung herself in her apartment until she died. She left a note, to be found afterwards, addressed to no one in particular, which said: “If only…”. She either didn’t want anyone to know why she did what she did; or she didn’t know why she did what she did.

Perhaps its because I have been a University student too, that explains why I was struck by this news story. I have seen fellow students go through very tough times. Its not the rigours of their academic study that is the cause – that’s the only thing keeping them there – instead, it’s the inability to keep themselves happy. It’s a very strange phenomenon; especially because most students characterise their university-years as “the best years in their life”. Anyway, that’s that. R.I.P. L.G.

Epic Wimbledon 2008 Men’s Final

2008-07-07T12:42:00.000+01:00

What a game. I watched it from beginning to end. From the start, I thought the match would last five sets. I guessed correctly that Nadal would take the first set; however, I thought that Federer would take at least the next two sets. Instead, he took the third and fourth – both after a tie-break.

What I love about tennis is just how easily a game can just go on-and-on with players being where they started after three hours of play. I like the passion and energy that goes into every point. The game can go to the edge: you can win a game, a set, a match and a tournament all in one point or you can lose that point and have to play for another two hours and end up losing the game. This is Wimbledon, so there are the added elements of luck, atmosphere and rain! It can go for you or against you. At the beginning of the match, I was rooting for Nadal – whom I mistook to be the underdog. There was no underdog. Federer may have won the tournament the previous five times, but Nadal had momentum on his side after winning in Roland Garros and Eastbourne. I didn’t realise this, though, until Nadal was two sets up. Thereafter, I was 100% for Federer. The tension was increased when Federer was able to claim the second set after benefiting from a well-earned break because of the rain. Only just though! Federer could not break Nadal’s serve until he was made to in do-or-die fashion at the end of the third and fourth set when it was 6-6. Nadal’s strength was the key though: with a strong serve and a commitment not to drop in his service games, he managed to hammer home a win against the reigning champion.

Whilst watching this match it dawned on me that tennis matches are the equivalent of a football penalty shootout – albeit a longer and more drawn out version. As in football penalty shootouts: tensions are running high with the shooter (the server) not wanting to lose a point, the goalkeeper (his opponent) trying to go one up by saving the shot. The way it often works with Nadal in particular is that he can find a suitable corner to squeeze the ball into – perhaps with one of his passing shots which leaves his opponent looking on. The game, as a spectator, suddenly seems like so much more to me now than it has done in the past. It’s about who has the bigger heart; who is it that wants to win more? For Federer, his confidence typically provides his passion for winning; but with Nadal, and in a Wimbledon final, he too met his match. Right then, right at the end – when it mattered the most – Nadal wanted it more. That is all that there was to distinguish between these players.

Call me unpatriotic but: “Damn you, Andy Murray”

2008-07-01T20:12:00.001+01:00

When it comes to British sports persons and British teams competing in any sports competition that I am interested in, I usually don’t support them. I am British and I am a patriot – at least I satisfy my own definition of patriotism. Yet, there I was, supporting Croatia to beat England in the Euro 2008 qualifier. It hasn’t always been like this for me. If I recall correctly, the last major sporting event that I watched closely in which I did support England (a lot, I should add) was the Football World Cup in France 1998. I don’t know what it is that has changed but I just can’t support the British in sporting events any more.

Yesterday, I continued this trend. Watching an update of the tennis scores whilst on the Internet, I then decided to switch on the T.V. instead to watch (hopefully) Murray lose when he was two sets down and tied in the fourth set. I hung in there right until the end (mostly because I wanted to watch Criminal Justice afterwards). I absolutely hated every minute of it and was supporting Gasque all the way. Now, I like Wimbledon. I like watching the drama in Centre Court when there is a tough match being played out. I like how resilient players are able to come so close to losing the match before turning it around and winning. This is, of course, exactly what Murray did. In the particular game in which this occurred, I have to admit, he hit a rather fantastic shot from outside the lines of the court. Above all else, what I didn’t like, was the Wimbledon crowd that treated every winning shot by Murray like a 5-0 win over Germany in football. I didn’t like how Gasque was repetitively taunted and booed during the crucial stages of the match. Now some will counter that this atmosphere was to be expected where the match is being played on the player’s own turf – but this simply isn’t the case. Of the four main tennis grand slam events – I follow them all on T.V. except the U.S. Open. I haven’t seen a similar atmosphere being repeated in other events where a foreign player has to undergo similar experiences. I have to say though, I think I fully understand why this is happening. It’s a consequence of a British sportsperson not being successful in such a long time. When someone as promising as Andy Murray comes along, he is undoubtedly going to stir up strong emotions.

This morning I read Boris Johnson’s weekly article in the Daily Telegraph. He talks – in the context of football, not tennis – about how the British need to be more like the Germans. We need to work harder, develop a tougher character, show some decorum and leadership skills. Its no coincidence, in my opinion, that these characteristics are present in the numerous Russian women who have partaken in this year’s Wimbledon tournament. What about the Spanish? Champions of Europe in football and a possible Wimbledon winner in Rafael Nadal. Britain needs to raise standards. Until it does, I hope Nadal slaughters Murray in the semi-final.

Obama to visit the UK

2008-07-01T12:59:00.003+01:00

Very exciting news. As part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East, Barack Obama will be stopping off in the UK too. Yipppeee! The trip will be taking place in the next few weeks - before the Democratic National Convention, I think. I imagine it will be his last stop on the way back from Afghanistan (probably) and Iraq (probably) and Europe.

Maybe if I stand outside the entrance to Downing St long enough on the right day I will get a glimpse of my idol.

This is exciting!

End of June Update

2008-06-30T10:09:00.004+01:00

So I guess I haven't been blogging for a while now, have I?

Well, truth be told, I haven't had a lot to talk about. Obviously, nothing on the legal front - now that studies are officially over, my contact with the law is only by way of the odd legal news article in the press or the odd newswire update by Charon QC.

Shortly, though, that will change. This Summer I will be undertaking a mini-pupillage and a vacation scheme by way of trying to determine which career route I want to pursue.

As to what I will be doing in September. Well, I have applied for both the LPC and the BVC. My BVC application is still being processed by my first choice location (my second choice has already signalled that they will not be able to take me because they are over-subscribed). LPC-wise: I have gotten offers from both my first choice location and my second location. So that's all up in the air too.

I've worked out that I have got at least 60 days before I start whatever I am going to do in September. Deducting from that the days I will spend on my mini-pupillage and vacation scheme and some other days when I know I have got something planned, that leaves about 30-35 days. A whole month you could say. I really, really want to use that time as best as possible. I feel like I have a lot of energy to put into something - whether it be for enjoyment or profit - and moreover, I don't want to get to the end of the Summer and think that I should have or could have used the time better. I am spending a lot of time thinking what it is that I could do.

I had planned a trip (in my head) to the USA in the Summer to see some family and perhaps even visit Denver in time for the Democratic National Convention. Didn't quite work out though. Its happening at the same time as my vacation scheme which must take priority. Unfortunately, I believe its also this time in August that Law Minx is planning a Blawgger get together for August drinks.

Aside from that, I am only able to disclose how I am actually spending my days. Well I have managed to get to the gym more often than usual. I am averaging at least 4 trips a week, sometimes 5, never more than that. There's been a lot of football on which I am now officially bored of watching. I planned on making a trip to Wimbledon - as I have done in recent years at this stage of the tournament - but that doesn't look like its going to happen either as I have no one to go with (my friends are more efficient and effective at using their time and planning their holidays in advance). I have thought about contacting some old friends from college or friends from university to get together to do something. Haven't quite gotten round to it though. I suppose, in my heart, I just consider it to be quite a redundant exercise. Also, I don't want to talk about my degree or my degree results any more than I have to.

The best thing that I did in the week gone was to have gone shopping. I love going shopping. This time, I was thinking ahead to my summer placements and so was out to buy some office-wear etc. I ended up adding a couple of suits to my collection, 5 new shirts and more ties than I could ever need. Yep: I hadn't been shopping in this area of my wardrobe for a while! I tried on lots of different black leather shoes but found absolutely nothing remotely appreciable. I really don't think I am being that picky either - there's literally nothing out there that I like! Why o why can I not wear my sandals to work?

This is my Forty-first post by the way, which I find quite impressive. I actually meant to point out my fortieth post but must have forgot; or may be I thought I'd wait until a half-century. Oh well!

Thanks for reading :)

The Country I Love

2008-06-20T11:49:00.003+01:00

The Obama campaign has released its first General Election ad that will be screened across America.

TV ads can, and have, destroyed even the best candidates' chances of winning elections. In recent elections, both John Kerry (2004) and John McCain (2000), have had their chances of winning severely dented because of attack ads. Attack ads work - Bush used them as a candidate against the aforementioned politicians. In the case of Kerry, it was in an attempt to reduce his Commander-in-Chief credentials; in the case of John McCain, it was the notorious illegitimate child claim that prevented McCain from winning important primaries in the 2000 campaign.

Obama's ad comes as a surprise therefore. It doesn't mention McCain his opponent in November; it doesn't mention any partisan policy issues; instead its an attempt to help more Americans understand who Barack Obama really is. It speaks of where he's come from, what he's achieved and why the next step is to be in the White House for 8 years. Here it is:

Results...

2008-06-19T10:38:00.006+01:00

...are in and I have joined the huge huge number of Law graduates with a 2:1 degree.

In a previous post I detailed which subjects I thought I had performed well in and which I had performed not so well in. Ommitting my dissertation from the equation, I thought I did best in Trusts Law and worst in I.P. Law with Jurisprudence and Employment in between those subjects in that order. Well, I was right, here's the final order:

Dissertation (1st)
Trusts Law (2.i)
Employment Law (2.i)
I.P. Law (2.ii) / Jurisprudence (2.ii)

Starting with the best result, that's for my dissertation. I am very pleased with this result and glad that all the work that I put into it paid off. Undoubtedly I spent too much time on my dissertation, which meant too little time revising for my other subjects (especially during the Easter holiday period), but its good to see that I was awarded a good mark for it.

Trusts is just Trusts: boring, tedious and Property Law in another guise. But, yeah, pleased I got a 2:1 in that.

Employment Law - my only true love in life - when did you think I stopped loving you that you thought I shall give him the lowest possible 2:1 to deliver the final blow to a passionless lover?

I.P. Law - I'm sorry we never really got to know each other. I thought you were my type, I thought we had a future together. When I looked into your eyes and saw registered trademarks, when I held your tender patents for all the good they were going to do in the world, I didn't know you were going to damn me with a groundless threats claim for copyright infringement.

Jurisprudence - Yes, I'm the one with the head stuck up my arse because I got a 2:2 in Jurisprudence, aren't I? Not you damn feminists, no; you think you've gotten it all figured out with your ideas that the world is fair and all peoples should be equal. Well God knows I ain't supporting your cause no more: go iron some shirts.

So, in all, a few surprises: an unexpected First, some Firsts gone unrewarded and more 2:2s than I had hoped, but a 2:1 overall nonetheless. My overall degree classification was calculated through using this years' exams and last year's exams too. I had a pretty solid foundation for a 2:1 last year. I always figured that I would perform to the same standard at least and get that 2:1. Surprisingly and largely due to my dissertation mark, I surpassed last year's average, which is good to know too.

21 and a 2:1 !

2008-06-15T10:43:00.005+01:00

Soon I will find out my final, third year, set of exam results. They are out middle of next week. Of course, until I see what I have got, I have absolutely no idea how I have done. One does get feelings that they performed well in this exam and bad in that one. However, its all relative, isn't it? In past years' exams, I've performed better in exams that I thought were rather difficult. And, in exams that I thought I had aced, I hadn't performed as well in. The reason for this phenomenon - as I understand it - is that, for tougher exam questions, one is forced to think harder and answer with more analysis. Analysis gets rewarded; rambling at length - which occurs when you do know what you're talking about - doesn't get rewarded.

Today I am celebrating my 21st birthday with some family and friends. What better thing to take my mind off these upcoming exam results than a reason to party...hard :)

Interestingly, for a lot of my balloons which I imagine will be still around in the next few days, I will be able to insert a ":" symbol between the digits to celebrate achieving a 2:1. Bet no one thought of that, did they?!

The Apprentice: Why Helene will win!

2008-06-11T19:48:00.005+01:00

So this is the day. The final of this year's The Apprentice. Once again, there's a lacklustre field of candidates for Sir Alan to choose from; perhaps even the most lacklustre ever. Which begs the question: what are four of them doing in the final? Well, for one, it makes the decision that bit easier for Sir Alan. One team will be automatically fired for losing that means one less decision for Sir Alan to make.

Accordingly, I am going to make a prediction about who will win tonight. The teams, if I recall the clip shown at the end of last week's episode, puts Helene and Alex in one team and Claire and Lee in the other.

The consensus seems to be that Claire is the strongest candidate. I agree. My first prediction is that either Claire or Helene will win. Its not going to be one of the lads in my opinion. Lee's unemployable because he lied last week but also because he's a terrible person to be around. He speaks and writes (as we saw with regards to his C.V. last week) in a terrible fashion and this, for me, is what would make him a terrible person to hire. As for Alex, I have a feeling that unless he pulls of a spectacular performance tonight, he won't win. He's been on the losing team a lot of times and more often than not it has led to a confrontation in the boardroom with Sir Alan. I think he's fed up with him. I think he doesn't like him too.

That leaves Claire and Helene. Now for who I want to win: Helene. Helene is my favourite Apprentice because I think she has the best C.V. and I think she's the most capable of being a success and, I believe she wants the job too. I absolutely understand her when she said in her interview last week that she's not use to being around 15 other gobshites!

Because Lee is so incompetent, I think his team will lose. Unfortunately, therefore, I don't think that Sir Alan will even get the opportunity to hire Claire. Rules are rules. She will have lost not because she wasn't good enough; but because she worked with an incompetent prick.

That leaves Sir Alan with the opportunity to hire or fire Helene or to hire or fire Alex. Helene, for the reasons I have given, will be hired; Alex, for the reasons I have given, will be fired. It will be a tough choice and probably the wrong one; but this is how I believe it will play out.

UPDATE
Well, seems I got it all wrong and Android got it 100% right. Lee - whom I thought would perform terrible and have no chance whatsoever - still performed terrible but crucially not as terrible as some of the other candidates. Both my predictions were wrong: that either Claire or Helene would win and that it was more likely to be Claire because Lee's contribution was likely to lose the task for his team. I was right to an extent though: Alex/Helene would have won if they managed to keep their costs down. Both sides seemed to be carefree about the cost of their perfume. I don't recall Lee/Claire stressing over it. Also, how terrible was their 'Roulette' brand. Lee/Claire's team squeaked through because the other side lost, not because they won. It would have been very interesting to see what Sir Alan would have done with Alex/Helene. I stick to my guns though: he would have hired Helene.

Well done, of course, to Android who guessed correctly that Lee would win, after previously watching only one episode of The Apprentice in the current series. I'm ashamed to say that I watched every single episode (no really, I did) and appear to be no better because of it. Interestingly, not only did Android guess they winner correctly, but also for the right reasons. Android, probabaly in response to the pterodactyl imitation that Lee did last week, thought that he would win because he was a funny guy. The other candidates seem to have found this to be the case too - this is probably what kept him out of a single boardroom confrontation with Sir Alan.

Unfortunately, some would say, Nicholas De-Lacey Brown did not appear either to help the finalists in their last task or on Adrian Chiles' 'The Apprentice: you're fired/hired'. It was because of a, some would say, terrible accident that the first-to-be-fired Apprentice recently had. The Sun says that he was involved in a freak (some would say) accident that crushed his leg. Its hoped that he gets better soon (some would say). I imagine, though, that once he's all nicely recovered, he'll be bringing a claim in tort against the lorry driver/the owner of the wall. I hope he wins that claim (some would say). I hope his career doesn't suffer a set back because of the accident (some would say).

Crap Cannon: it does exactly what is says on the tin!

2008-06-10T19:39:00.003+01:00

A couple of interesting post-election news stories involving the Democrats that I've been reading about. One quite serious; the other highly amusing.

On a serious note: Vice-President selection. A potentially tough choice for both Obama and McCain. More so for McCain, I believe.

On the Democrats' side, there's the obvious choice of Hillary Clinton. The main strength in selecting Clinton is that Obama will have gone some way to reconnecting with the 18 million Americans that voted for Clinton in the recent Primaries. The weakness - which I (unfortunately) believe counteracts that strength - is that selecting Clinton is highly indicative that Obama isn't so resolute on bringing change to American politics.

The first news story that I've been reading about suggests that Obama is keen to select a running-mate based upon their military credentials. Obviously, McCain has the advantages for appealing to a lot of Americans in this regard because of his own heroic military history. Jim Webb, it appears, is top of Obama's list. He's my favourite because I think he will help Obama a lot in the General.

The second news story that I've been reading about is the planned method of crowd control during the Democrats' National Convention in Denver. The weapon to be used is called the "crap cannon" or the "brown note" - "crap cannon" is the better description, I think. It does exactly what it says on the tin!

"it is believed to be an infrasound frequency that debilitates a person by making them defecate involuntarily"

So, if I've gotten this right, the plan is: disperse of a rowdy bunch of people by making them shit themselves on the spot. Yeah, that should do the trick. A question though: who's going to be doing the cleaning up afterwards?

So my 2:1's in the bag, is it?

2008-06-08T17:47:00.004+01:00

Even before the August headlines: "A-Levels are getting to easy" and "90% of pupils are achieving at least 3 'A' grades", today's Sunday Times has a piece by a University Lecturer questioning whether the 2:2 degree is an endangered species.

The writer suggests that with the increased pressure on examiners to award either a first or a 2:1, there isn't even need to have either a 2:2 or a Third as part of the classification system. Having looked at degree classifications for the past couple of years at my university for my course, I can, to an extent, see where he is coming from. There is quite a large body of students achieving a 2:2, which makes me think that the class isn't as redundant as the writer makes out. The largest block consistently is the 2:1 block; a much smaller proportion of Firsts are awarded. With only a handful of fails, I'm guessing that's due to mitigating circumstances as much as anything else.

More annoyingly, the writer suggests that the way forward is to bring in...you guessed it...the starred First and the starred 2:1. Now, what I strongly concede is that there is, in my opinion, a world of difference between the lowest 2:1 and a very high 2:1 that could easily have been a First. In my opinion, if that is given recognition, we are on the right track. Is it? Well, as far as legal careers go, it is. Most legal recruiters require you to disclose a breakdown of your module results. Why is this so important? Its because - and this isn't picked up on by the writer of the article - different universities have a different systems for classifying what degree classification students receive. There is, I believe, far more consistency in what exam scripts qualify as a First or a 2:1 than the number of a First class results you need to have to secure a First overall between universities.

What made me cringe even more when reading this article was the writer's account of a growing number of students wanting their 68 turned into a 70 or their 58 into a 62; also, the growing number of students claiming "mitigating circumstances" (aka "benefit-seekers"). All things which I can't imagine myself doing unless under very particular circumstances.

So, in all, this piece left me feeling very unsatisfactory. I hated how A-Levels were being belittled when I was sitting them and I'd hate for the feelings expressed by this University Lecturer to lead to similar unpleasantry; for me and a lot of others I'm sure.

Exams are finished!

2008-06-03T14:17:00.002+01:00

So my third and final year exams are finally finished and I couldn't be more pleased. I'm glad that I can take a definitive break away from work - which is something that I have found really hard to do throughout all of the past three years of my course. I have this sense of relief that I haven't felt in a long time. Perhaps it was post-A Levels when I was wondering whether my time in education will continue. Well it did and on the whole its been a very enjoyable experience.

As to how my exams went - well, not all that great, actually. My best exam was probably Trusts Law - which was a contender from the start for this position. The reason that I think I did well in Trust was because throughout the exam I felt like I was very familiar with the areas that I was answering - a consequence of being well-trained in answering similar questions in the recent past. So that was all good.

Next best - and very surprisingly - is Jurisprudence. This was the subject that I thought I would have to go through the most pain to revise for but that actually turned out to be something else (see later). The questions weren't as bad as I expected. One question - which was the first exam question I answered - was very broad. For that one, I felt like I was being more descriptive rather than analytical - which, for Jurisprudence especially, is bad.

Of my remaining two subjects - I.P. Law and Employment Law - the biggest surprise was Employment Law. For Employment Law I hadn't revised a particular part of the syllabus: employment status, i.e. deciding whether X is an employee or not etc. I hadn't looked at the case-law relating to agency workers etc; nor was I able to recall the case-law on what factors were to be considered in deciding whether X was employed under a contract of service or a contract for services. In contract law terms, the part of the syllabus that I omitted to learn was the law relating to offer and acceptance. In tort law terms, the parralel is with negligence and whether X owes a duty to Y. Basically, I didn't revise this area because I didn't find it interesting enough. What this area and the other example areas I have stated have in common is that they are the: "how are things put together" part of the law. Me, I'm a "things are falling apart around me" type of guy. Accordingly, I concentrated my revision on Unfair Dismissal, Wrongful Dismissal, Redundancy, TUPE etc. Unfortunately, every question seemed to test something about employment status, of which I knew nothing about. So that was one big gaping hole in my exam. The other one, for Employment law, was one particular problem question which tested two of the aforementioned areas (which I had revised) but in a very obscure (there was a lot of cross-over in terms of what claims could be brought) and lengthy (there were six parties to consider!) way. To make matters worse, whilst answering this question, my nice black pen finished on me. Lacklustre being my middle name, the only other pen I had on me is better characterised as a thick marker pen with an unfriendly nib. So, from an examiner's point of view, the last few pages of my exam script are indicative of a disturbed and thoughtless undergraduate law student. Sorry Mr./Mrs. Examiner.

Finally, I turn to I.P. Law. One immediate problem with this exam that springs to mind is the same as I had for Employment Law: two of the principal areas that I had revised very well were being tested through an obscure problem question. This wasn't lengthy but, if I have understood this area correctly, it was intended to catch out wary students because it was cleverly disguised as a question from one area but was in reality testing another. That description doesn't really do it justice, so perhaps I could use an example. In Tort law terms: this problem question would contain details including: a snail, a bottle of ginger ale and a cafe; but rather than being about consumer protection or negligence, the relevant tort was defamation. I hope that's not more confusing! The only other problem I had with I.P. Law was not recalling enough case-law. The names just completely slipped my mind, so I was mostly just detailing the law whilst providing little authority.

So, anyway, that's that. I had hoped that I would have a more favourable end to my undergraduate years but it appears that wasn't to be. So far I have managed to convince myself somewhat that things aren't as bad as I think they are. I say somewhat because there are strange points during the day when I recall something that I did wrong or should have added. I am realising that there's nothing more I can do now but that doesn't help me get to sleep on a night and I have being staying up late thinking about all these relatively small mistakes; which all makes for a tired Lacklustre Lawyer.

I have previously promised myself a nice enjoyable summer and hopefully I can deliver up on that!

Who is that Rockstar?

2008-05-20T18:04:00.005+01:00

A crowd of 75000 people have gathered in Portland, Oregon.

The Washington Post describes the above scene as follows:

'The scene suggests this is not an exaggeration. The sea of heads stretches for half a mile along the grassy embankment, while others watch from kayaks and power boats bobbing on the Willamette River. More hug the rails of the steel bridge that stretches across the water and crowds are even watching from jetties on the opposite shore.'

Who could it possibly be? What could the occasion possibly be? So many people, so much anticipation - a concert perhaps?

Here's another pic:

Upon closer examination, the centre of attention appears to be one particular individual - on the stage at the front.

He is black, he is a politician and he is the front-runner for the Democrats' nomination for President of the United States. An unlikely scenario. Believe.

Funny hats

2008-05-18T15:52:00.007+01:00

Lacklustre Lawyer, in a bid to do anything but revision, has found a new way of amusing himself. Its called taking the piss out of women with silly hats. It all began when Lacklustre Lawyer couldn't stop laughing after hearing one particular description of Camilla Parker Bowles in, I believe it was, this hat:

I believe it was this particular hat that Amanda Patelle of the Daily Mail remarked that it looked like 'a pigeon had crash landed on her head'

Further research suggests that there may be a predisposition to wearing terrible 'hats' in the family. This is of her daughter:

'Like she got her head stuck in an old tree', perhaps? Is it just me, or did young Parker Bowles actually expect that hat to go with her outfit?

Of recent times though, the hat that has made me giggle the most is this one:

Can you even call these hats any more?

Democrats Nomination: the race is over

2008-05-17T18:46:00.006+01:00

After primary upon primary, the race for the Democratic nomination finally seems to be drawing to an end. Like the race for the Premiership title between Chelsea and Manchester Utd, it too has gone down to the wire. Obama, rightly, is being called the presumptive nominee - it is his to lose now.

Clinton's recent victory in West Virginia was supposed to give her the defence that the 'tide is turning'; that she is the only Democrat standing that can beat McCain in November. Thankfully, its a ploy that isn't working.

Obama has recently been endorsed by John Edwards - a former contender for the Democratic nomination himself who dropped out of the race when he lost his home state of South Carolina to Barack Obama. Its difficult to tell just how much 'help' this particular endorsement will give Obama. On paper, which is really all that matters, Edwards is just another super-delegate vote that Obama will have that Clinton won't.

Speaking of super-delegates, winning a huge majority of them over, was Clinton's last throw of the dice. As of last week, Obama has long overtaken the number of pledged super-delegates that Clinton has secured. A couple of months ago he was about 100 super-delegates behind Clinton; but ahead of Clinton in the number of ordinary delegates by 100. Since then, Obama has managed to build upon his lead in both types of delegates.

It is unfortunate that Clinton has lost the way she did. She is right when she says that if the Democrats played by the same rules as the delegates - she would already be the nominee. But that's a big 'if'. Winning requires 'electioneering': you do what you can, you exploit what you can't. Things change - and if they aren't going as expected - you have to come up with a new plan. This is where Clinton fell. Riding high in the polls throughout 2007, she planned to have the nomination rapped up by Super-Tuesday. Her problem, in short, is that she mis-judged Obama.

Incidentally, I think I might just find myself in Denver where the Democratic Convention will take place in August. I will be in the US for some of August and I am crossing my fingers that I will be able to be there when Obama officially wins the nomination. I have a cousin who has already secured a place as a volunteer for that period and I am hoping that its not too late for me to follow suit.

Anyway, looking ahead to the general election in November, I have been dreading the Democrats' chances because of all this in-fighting as a result of a prolonged election. According to the polls, however, my feelings are unfounded. RealClear Politics has some very encouraging figures for Obama. My feelings were that in some of the big states that Clinton won, Obama wouldn't have as much support as he should have. The polls suggest however, that contrary to what most pundits are saying, most voters will not be siding for McCain because their preferred Democrat isn't on the ballot. Florida is an exception; but Obama is way ahead of McCain in important states including California and Pennsylvania (which I am very surprised about).

I do love electoral maps. Here's may favourite:

Feeling like Sex

2008-05-15T13:39:00.004+01:00

Procrastination has taken a new turn with me. It used to be things like surfing the Internet, reading an interesting news article, going on facebook etc - not now though. Obviously, with imminent exams, I have to be a little more creative. When I'm not studying or revising, I need to be conserving my brain energy, usually until the evening, which seems to be my peak time for getting work done.

This week and last, I have been spending most mornings doing different things. All very, very unusual. After I have finished reading the Times each morning, I have been doing the crossword, the three Sudoku puzzles and the other word puzzles. All tolled, that's a good 2-3 hours of procrastination. I'm hoping that whilst doing these tasks, I am still engaging my brain - keeping it warmed up - because, it is, after all, a muscle, like any other.

In revising for Jurisprudence, I have been thinking a lot about sex. Too much about it, in fact. I think I am seeing the world now in terms of sex - Freud could not do better. The reason for this, of course, is that the jurists that I am reading about can't stop talking about it; so I can't stop thinking about it. I am sure that its affecting my hormones too - it can't be good - I want to go back to my old self.

Anyway, the reason that I am posting now is that I've got my first exam in a few hours and, in trying to prepare for it, I decided to play Snake. After about my 6th go, I managed to achieve the respectable score of 176 on level: WORM. Can anyone, hand on heart, say they can beat that? I'd love to hear if you could. Until later, best get on with preparing for my exam...

Update on Revision

2008-05-03T17:20:00.004+01:00

Why does revision seem so tough and impossible now? This is my third set of university exams and whilst there have been some definite improvements in my preparation style etc, I just can't understand why I can't motivate myself more. I mean: these are my last university exams and then, fingers-crossed, I am going to have an amazing summer doing lots of relaxing things.

Revision is tiring of me. There have been times, when sat in the last lectures of my subjects, that I have felt energised and encouraged by the opportunity to do well in the up-coming exams, but all those feelings just seem to go down the gutter shortly thereafter.

I must acknowledge though, that having started revision early, I have already covered a lot. I am comfortable with both Trusts law and Employment law; for my other subjects though - Jurisprudence and I.P. Law - I am not nearly as comfortable.

I have not taken the time to enjoy Jurisprudence this term. The topics that we have studied are absolutely dreadful; they are: Feminist perspectives on law; Foucauldian analysis of Law; Globalisation & the Law and a few others.

For all these areas in Jurisprudence, I have found my lecturers to be completely boring. These subjects have only a few interesting things to say and these can be easily summarised in a few short sentences. The lecturers at my university seem to have decided that lectures were going to be used to repeat and repeat those few senteneces. Its just so uninteresting. On top of that bore, I have had to work through the most disproportionate reading list imaginable. A lot of the reading is centred around trying to understand what, for example, Feminists think of the Law on rape; or, what somebody thinks Foucault would think about the law on privacy. It is not possible to miss a single element of the reading - not a single bit. A cursory glance at past examination questions demonstrates that although there is a choice of question, all the questions are really narrow in focus and so are very demanding in the knowledge that you are required to use. It is rumoured that each year the lecturer spends more time lecturing on a specific case-study that will be of much use in the exam. I don't know whether any of my peers have managed to detect any guidance in the aforementioned repetitive streaks of the lecturers, but I certainly haven't, which is worrying.

I have tried to interest myself in the reading and in parts that has been possible to the extent that I have finished reading a piece and thought it comprehensible. Most of the time, though, I can't even begin to understand what is being said and why. My lecture notes for the Foucauldian analysis on law and Globalisation & Law are slightly more readable than the same for Feminist perspectives on law. My lecturers were so bad that it took until well into this term to be able to put their thoughts to paper.

In terms of doing the reading. Some of it is more engaging than other areas. I have absolutely no interest in anything to do with Family law. Its an area of law that I would absolutely detest studying. But Feminists have picked-up on a lot of Family law areas to demonstrate gender-bias in the law. Rape, on the other hand, as a crime, is something I am far more interested in. Some of the reading in this area by some Feminists is very enjoyable. Feminists fall into different categories: Radical Feminists, Liberal Feminists, Difference Feminists and Post-modern Feminists are some of the ones I have read about. My favourite, are of course, Radical Feminists. I will share with you one particular quote by Catharine MacKinnon, a Radical Feminist, which made me sit up and take notice:

"man fucks woman: subject verb object"

Finally, and fittingly, I should end with mentioning I.P. law. For revision, the challenge that I have with I.P. law is that I have a tremendous amount of rote learning to do. There is very little in the way of controversy or difficult areas of the law that I need to spend time upon; instead, I need to familiarise myself with many many many statutory provisions and case names and details, that I seem to have forgotten all about. Its because, I find, that much of the I.P. law syllabus is relatively uncontroversial that I have spent so little time on it, in comparison to subjects like Employment law.

So, I am feeling the heat of revision, but it is hoped that I will manage to prepare myself sufficiently for the up-coming exams and then find something more interesting to share with you. Until then, spare a thought for Gordon Brown and recognise that no matter how hard you work to achieve something, sometimes its just not good enough.

The Dissertation is Done!

2008-04-23T17:38:00.005+01:00

The Dissertation has been completed and submitted. Yes! I feel quite content with the end result. I feel there were a lot of excellent parts in it; some good ones; but also some areas where I could have done better. Now that I think just how much effort I put into it - in terms of doing lots of reading and making notes - it all seems so very small. In fact, I can't really explain why it took me so long to produce. Its a really strange feeling that I haven't managed to shrug off yet - it hasn't quite sunk in that my dissertation is completed and that I can now move on to prepare for upcoming exams.

Most of my friends seem to feel the opposite way. They are really proud with their end result and quickly chose to share their excitement with Mr Fosters and Mr Carling. Not me though; I even seem to have lost my appetite somewhat.

I overheard a conversation that two female class-mates had in the library after printing off their dissertation for the final time:

"Hey Victoria, how you doing? You printing your dissertation off? It feels so good to have finally finished it doesn't it?"
"Yes, absolutely" replied Victoria, "I feel like a virgin again".
Apparently dissertations can do that to you too.

Yes We Can!

2008-04-22T17:04:00.005+01:00

So citizens of Pennsylvania are going to the polls today in the next of what has been a very very long line of primaries. The talking-heads are saying that Clinton needs to win big and is going to win big. Anything short of strong double-digit win over Obama and you may as well say she has lost. I have been trying to think why this is true - why is 51% of the vote not good enough for Clinton? Well, the answer seems to be that Clinton has made this a question of electability in November. If Clinton can't win big in the state that she grew up in and has campaigned so extensively in, there's not much to be said for her chances in November against McCain.

The thing that I hate about this particular primary is just how negative Clinton has become over the past few weeks and especially over the past few days. She is the one playing dirty, not Obama. Thing is: I completely understand why Clinton is doing this. To use a Rocky Balboa comparison (something she is doing herself a lot recently) she is on the ropes; all bloodied from taking a beating in most of the previous primaries; and this is her last round. In her own words, she is 'In it, to Win it'. This all makes for the worst kind of opponent for Obama - the opponent that is willing to stoop as low as possible. Obama is trying to show that he has the right judgement to lead; that he will bring change in politics; and that he will help Americans fulfil their hopes and dreams. He is not prepared to get his hands dirty for one reason and one reason only. Its not because he does not have the guts (he does); its because he would feel bad doing it - its not the way he conducts his politics and that is the way millions of Americans want it to be.

Clinton has been pounding Obama recently following his comments about small-town America that apparently deeply offended citizens of Pennsylvania in particular. What a coincidence. He made the comments in California and half-way across the country Clinton is using them as fodder for the news channels by manipulating them to serve her Pennsylvania campaign. Typical. Clinton called Obama an 'elitist' which most would take as a criticism or a bad thing, but I don't. Obama is a smart person with good judgement and after eight years of a President with the exact opposite of these traits, its time for change, don't you think?

There is no doubt that Clinton has been successful in attacking Obama personally. But she has done it by making wrongful accusations. It does not matter if they are subsequently corrected or clarified by her because people just understand the story as it is when it first comes out - they don't tend to follow it in the news and see what Obama's defence is.

For me though, Obama comes out of all this as being the more inspirational character. I have found the following YouTube video very motivating and I think its really good in incorporating what Obama stands for: change, hope and the fulfillment of dreams for everybody.

Celebrating Success

2008-04-17T18:53:00.003+01:00

I was on a train today. Don't worry, I had a table in front of me and so was able to continue working on my dissertation on my laptop. Sat opposite me was a woman (Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile); aged somewhere between mid-late twenties, I would say. What did manage to divert my attention away from working on my dissertation was a series of conversations that she had on her mobile. Thankfully, none of them began: "Oh, hello darling, I've just gotten on the train, I'll be home soon". I really don't understand why people have to make such phone calls all the time. I mean: if its a journey that you make quite frequently (usually to-and-from the place of work) what is the point? Such conversations are only necessary when things aren't going to plan: "Hello Darling, I'm afraid I didn't get off work till late. You're going to have to pick up the kids; feed them; clean them; read to them". These conversations I completely understand.

Anyway, Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile had been at a job interview and was offered the job! Her first conversation was to, what I presume was her back-up option. "Oh Hello, this is Miss Puffy-cheeks speaking. I'm just calling to let you know that I will not be attending the interview I have scheduled with you....because I've just had an interview now and been offered the job". Now, I would have thought Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile would have chosen a slightly different choice of words with her back-up prospective employer. Such as: "My name is Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile, I recently applied to your firm for __________ position. I am just calling to let you know that I am no longer interested in pursuing this position and would like my application to be withdrawn".

By the way, this was a conversation that I think most of the carriage was listening too. Everybody was sharing in the excitement: looking up from reading their newspapers/books etc - especially when it first became clear that Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile was so ecstatic because she had been successful at a job interview. There were, however, only two people who were close to her: me and another guy (who was, I would say, in his mid-forties but was working his way through what seemed like a Mathematics examination paper). So, I thought to myself (and I think the 45-year-old mathematician must have thought this too) should I too congratulate Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile when she hangs up the phone? May be I could even determine which sector she worked in - annoyingly, this was difficult to tell.

There was no time for that, however. Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile ended that conversation and then began the next one.

Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile's next phone call was to her Grandmother, bless. Grandma Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile (if it is to be assumed that her good looks were inherited. I can never tell but it didn't look like she had a lot/any make-up on (not even, surprisingly, lipstick; though her pretty puffy-cheeks was plenty snoggable)). Turns out Grandma Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile was recently in hospital for an operation of some sort. Nuff said. Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile inquired about her health post-operation and then gave the big news.

So, the point of detailing this brief encounter between myself (a Lacklustre Lawyer) and Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile was because I got wondering about my own successes and how I went about disclosing them to my family and friends. In particular, I was thinking that if I was in the same position as Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile, would I also have these very public conversations on the journey back home? Truth be told: I don't think I would. I'd be more secretive. Especially, if my success ran the same course that passing my driving test did. For that one, after I passed, I didn't tell anyone I had passed. No one. I had, however, told everyone about each of the times I failed (quite numerous). My thinking was: one day they will ask me "Have you passed your test yet, Lacklustre Driver?" And I could say: "Oh yes; of course I have. Errr, it was a while back now. Let me think.....no I can't remember its been too long now".

Listening to Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile on the train, I can't help but think that I wish I was more public and open about my successes (as strangely I am with my failures). Its just with standards so high - in part set by myself - I just don't feel I take in just how much I have accomplished sometimes. Instead, I am always wanting more and more and more. I turn my attention to the next challenge and then drive myself insane going after that. Thing is and Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile brought this to my attention, its always good to enjoy successes when you can, so you don't have to when you can't.

Broadly thinking: perhaps my ambition to pursue a career at the Bar is a direct result of not wanting to just be another solicitor. I don't doubt that all solicitors are not the same; my point is: perhaps I am interested in the game (pursuing a pupillage/tenancy) rather than the cause itself (representing and doing good for clients). There is an established adage that expresses that feeling better but, for the life of me, I can't think of it.

Anyway, Miss Puffy-cheeks with a nice smile, where ever you are: Congratulations on the job offer and thanks for the lesson.

The Race against Time

2008-04-10T18:21:00.003+01:00

As is to be expected in the final week of my Easter holidays, I am steadily labouring away at revision of various topics and subjects and working to complete my dissertation on time.

The dissertation is worth quite a substantial part of this year's marks but I'm really trying to ensure that I am adequately prepared for my exams too. It is difficult; but this will all be made easier when the dissertation deadline passes, I've recovered from celebrating what will be a short-lived achievement and I'll be able to give exam preparation the attention it deserves.

Having decided to apply for the BVC, I am having to fill in all sorts of forms at considerable speed. This, whilst simultaneously having to perform all sorts of calculations of risk, benefits and money that come with such an important decision. To give you a taster:

- Now that any opportunity of securing a scholarship has passed, do I feel comfortable funding the BVC myself?
- How sure am I that I will enjoy the BVC?
- Which BVC provider and location is my first choice? What are its ratings and reputation like? (Can't seem to find this information anywhere)
- How sure am I that I will do well on the BVC?
- What are my chances of securing pupillage?
- How many pupillage application cycles before I say 'enough is enough'?
- Just how old will I be before I start working? Do I feel comfortable with that?
- What if, after doing well on the Vacation schemes in the Summer, I find myself comforted by the job security that becoming a solicitor involves and accept a training contract offer instead? As I will have two years before the training contract commences will I be able to: (i) complete the BVC (ii) have a shot at securing pupillage (iii) realise that its not going to happen and quickly do the QLTT before commencing a training contract?

I'm planning on submitting my BVC application as soon as possible really - this week I intended. In addition to answering these questions, I will also, as I mentioned in a previous post, have to consider my final degree classification and my mini-pupillage experience. So really I'm not having to make the final decision as soon as I think but its hard not thinking these things anyway!

The picture that didn't change the course of history

2008-04-07T19:28:00.004+01:00

After a UK court trial lasting over 6 months - it has been officially, yes officially - decided that Diana died as a result of an 'unlawful killing'. The person to blame isn't a member of the Royal family, isn't a paparazzi or a member of MI6 but Henri Paul the driver of Diana's and Dodi's car on that fatal night in 1997.

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I am someone who has had questions about how Diana was killed. A lot of these questions have been answered through this extensive trial. But then a lot of questions will still persist from people who still won't be satisfied. It is a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs that so much truth has come to the surface after such a long period. Paul Burrell, Diana's self-proclaimed 'Rock' - someone who I think became almost a national hero after publishing his book - now it seems is a very untrustworthy person.

I'm sure Al-Fayed will continue to ask for a 'better' and 'more thorough' inquiry than ever before. But I think it was right that no member of the Royal family was asked to give evidence in court. There really was no substantive basis for it.

I think this inquiry will have a positive effect in bringing closure to this case. I am constantly amazed at how much newspapers, principally the Daily Express has consistently managed to produce so many Diana conspiracy headlines. All this in the pitiful anticipation that one day they will be able to proclaim that their campaign was justified. Well its not and now they should acknowledge this by suspending their campaign.

There are far more pressing needs for an inquiry elsewhere in public policy. The legality of the Iraq War tops the list. Unlike with the Diana inquiry, a failure to begin an inquiry in the near future, will be costly. The government has promised an inquiry when this would no longer impede the continued activity of British Service peronnel in Iraq. Their failure to say why this is an impediment - when it hasn't been one in the past where inquiries on the Iraq war have taken place - just, for me, goes to demonstrate that they have something to cover up. Their asses, in all likelihood.

My Career Dilemma

2008-04-05T18:11:00.004+01:00

As I am coming towards the end of my Easter holidays - only one week left now - I am thinking about the things that I haven't crossed off my to-do list yet. Revision and the dissertation seem to be going steady; not too slow, not too fast either. With my dissertation deadline only a few weeks away now, I imagine that I will be concentrating my efforts on it, just to make sure that it is of the highest standard possible.

So now, I am turning my attention to considering what I will be doing in September and beyond. In my to-do list, I raised the question: LPC? BVC? LLM?

As I am considering what to do in September, I can safely cross LLM off my list. LLM applications for, I think, all universities needed to have been submitted right at the beginning of this year. This is not to say that I won't be doing an LLM in the future - just not in the near future. Ideally, this would have been the best option for two reasons. I am interested in studying for an LLM and it perhaps would have been advantageous to do it hot-on-the-heels of my undergraduate course. Secondly, and more importantly, it would have provided an extra year in which to plan ahead and consider which career route I wanted to take.

Well I am still very much interested in a career at the Bar and from what I can tell, I can still submit an application for entry onto the BVC in September through the pooling option. The deadline for applying through the pooling system is mid-July. Before that though, I need to have joined an Inn. I have been looking at the course content of the BVC and it seems far more appreciable than the LPC.

Speaking of the LPC, I have gotten offers from some providers to commence the LPC in September. I still have time - enough time, I think - to decide whether its really what I want to do before the offers get withdrawn.

So in all, a rather unsatisfactory position. I've said right now that I want to consider, as best as possible, whether pursuing a career at the Bar is for me but I don't think that is going to be possible over these holidays. I thought there were two important considerations that I still needed to consider. Firstly, and most importantly, my final degree classification. Secondly, my mini-pupillage experience to be completed over the Summer. That is not the case though, as the dates of my mini-pupillage are after the final pooling deadline for admission onto the BVC.

Accordingly, at least for the purposes of a 2008 application, the most important thing that I have to go on - on whether the Bar is really for me - is my degree classification. Now, my thoughts on this are a bit more finalised. From what I can tell, academic grades are an important part of selection for pupillages etc. A high 2.I or a 1st overall might therefore swing me in favour of applying for the BVC. A mid 2.I or a low 2.I might prevent me from doing so.

All of the above reasoning is done through thinking in the short-term and perhaps this is wrong. What I mean is, right now, I am not thinking about my chances of securing pupillage which is what I imagine most people applying for the BVC are doing. My real current concern is that I won't enjoy the LPC and if I was to do it I'd continuously be looking back and thinking: should I have done the BVC instead? I have looked at the course content for both and I have to say the BVC interests me so much more. I'd really like the opportunity to find out just how good I am at advocacy, negotiation and writing etc.

Whist the deadline for admission onto the BVC might still be a while away, I guess its preferable to submit the application as soon as possible because it is the 'pooling' period through which I will now be applying. I actually can't understand the reason why places have not been filled up already - did that many applicants in the first round decide not to enrol on the BVC?

Anyway, I would be very interested in hearing any thoughts and ideas anyone may have regarding my position. Especially if someone has spotted a mistake in what I am saying!

Tort Law anthem

2008-04-04T12:00:00.004+01:00

Revision has progressed steadily thus far this week. I am finding it quite difficult to concentrate on revision when my dissertation deadline is so soon. My attention has also been diverted by a YouTube clip on Tort Law that was recently brought to my attention. Its absolutely hilarious and so I thought I would share it with my blawg-readers.
The actual clip starts at about 1min 20secs if you want to skip right to it as there are a lot of acknowledgments at the beginning. Enjoy.

Feedback

2008-04-02T13:53:00.004+01:00

Well I have received some feedback for the vacation scheme interview and assessments I recently did at a city law firm. I was unsuccessful in getting onto the summer scheme.

Most of the points that I raised in a previous blog-entry, regarding my performance, were reflected in the feedback that I received. It was two things that really let me down. Firstly, the pre-prepared presentation that I delivered that drastically didn't adhere to the time constraints; and, secondly, the group exercise in which I didn't contribute enough. On the positive side: the verbal reasoning test that I sat was fine as were most of my answers during the interview. The polite graduate recruitment officer who provided me with the feedback informed me that I wasn't the only lacklustre performer in the group exercise, which was nice to know. On reflection though, I should have participated more within the group and tried to change things as they were going wrong. Even if this meant interrupting other members and trying to bring more structure to our discussion, it still, I feel, would have been a worthwhile contribution.

Oh well; you can't win them all.

My Week.

2008-03-30T18:22:00.001+01:00

What a great week it was! We British were conquered by the French and felt good about it! A very unusual situation, non?! Whilst Beckham and the boys were getting beat at the Stade de France, Monsieur and Madame Sarkozy enjoyed a kiss and a cuddle at Windsor castle (and a few other public places).

I have to say though: I watched highlights of the England match and I thought France were lucky and that England, on the whole, performed rather well. As is customary after the England team lose a match, the national press go after the manager (for no other reason than he’s the manager) or the manager (because he used the wrong players). Well I can’t find fault in Capello to be honest. I think he’s doing his best to learn about English football and England’s players. Any lack of effective preparation that may have been demonstrated during the match, for me was only because there was not enough time for the team to train together as a whole. Some parts of the press chose now (out of all times) to bring up the language barrier that prevents Capello from effectively communicating with his team. A load of tosh if you ask me.

In an earlier entry on this blawg, I listed some important tasks that I wanted to complete before the end of the holidays. Revision hasn’t gotten off to a fantastic start which is quite disconcerting as I am now (officially) half way through my Easter break.

With respect to my dissertation, on the other hand, there is good news and there is bad. The good news is that I am feeling quite confident about the arguments that I am making and am pleased with how my dissertation could shape up. The bad news is there is very little of that feeling on paper – which is what matters. I received some comments from my tutor from an earlier draft that I had written of quite a substantial section of my dissertation and, on the whole, they were very positive. Some parts of it were ‘excellent’ (hurray!) other parts of it were….well…..lacklustre.

In other bad news: I am actually pretty ill at the moment. I haven’t been able to get an appointment with my doctor until late next week (by which time I’ll be able to tell you what it feels like to ‘hang’ with your GP because I’ll have recovered by then). A lack of medicine therefore may prevent me from adequately being able to perform my work. Although, more likely, I will ‘rough it out’ which will make it more painful and tiring.

Oh…by the way…I can confirm that I have been successful in gaining my first mini-pupillage (hurray!). This will take place during the summer. With this under my belt, I am considering applying further-a-field. Whilst the chambers that I am considering are geographically less convenient, I am adopting the: ‘what the hell, I’ll bunk on the streets’ mindset – something which Legal Lass says is very important for all pre-BVC students.

Earlier this week, in an entry on this blog, I argued that the American news outlets should go after Clinton for ‘misspeaking’ about the brief period that she spent in war-torn Bosnia as First-lady. My prayers have been answered. The following clip on YouTube has been played endlessly on the news networks in America:

During the course of this week, there have been growing calls for Clinton to step aside and let Obama go on to win the Democratic nomination. She hasn’t and probably won’t. But to top it all off: Obama is adopting the ‘bring it on’ approach and has actually called for her not to step aside. Good on you Obama – kick some Clinton ass!

Elsewhere, my university has confirmed when my graduation ceremony is due to take place. Before university, graduation seemed like such an important landmark in time. It seemed like a time that would mark the end of my official education years. And, it seemed like a big deal – an opportunity to party. To be perfectly honest: I feel quite deceived and not in the mood to party. I feel that just as I am getting to grips with something (the law) it doesn’t seem worthwhile anymore. My family has really been looking forward to my graduation. All of them want to attend – that means 5 people in total. However, I have had to inform some of them that this may not be possible because of university regulations that limit the number of people who can attend. Obviously, parents are to be given priority over siblings who have less valid reasons for wanting to attend!

The Apprentice: Solicitors 2, Barristers 0

2008-03-27T19:09:00.006Z

As someone who has wondered what it would be like for a lawyer to appear on the BBC's 'Apprentice' and has pondered on how long they would last in the boardroom with Sir Alan Sugar (SAS), last night's start to the latest series was very interesting indeed for me.

What made it even better for me, was the fact that he was a trainee barrister! Hurrah for another source of information from which I will be able to decide whether I want to pursue a career as a barrister!

At the begninning of the show after SAS set the task, I immediately thought: the mens team was going to lose. I thought the women would be better prepared to deal with fish and that they would be better sales assistants. And so it dawned: it was becoming increasingly likely that young barrister Nicholas would have to be involved in a confrontation with SAS in the boardroom. Yes! An opportunity to see him use his strong arguing and negotiating skills and, dare I say, perhaps the odd reference to a court convention on dealing with cases.

Well, we got something very different and unforseen, didn't we?

On the positive side:

- after young Nicholas was fired, he made that reference to the fact that if he was defending himslef in court, he would have applied to the court to have the case struck out on the basis that there was no case to answer Yeeesss!

- in a rather hap-hazard fashion, he tried to rely on precedent, didn't he?!
'Sir Alan [Your Lordship], are you aware of the case: Shilpa Shetty v. Big Brother & Jade Goody [2007]? As your Lordship will be able to observe, the claimant in that case was successful in claiming racial harassment against the reality TV show 'Big Brother' and another contestant in it. This can be likened to the present case in which the claimant who is considerably more clever than the yourself and of course his fellow contestants (your Lordship will appreciate my almost perfect academic record - forget anomalous 'B' in GCSE French, the teacher sucked) is similarly being discriminated againist, comprendez?

On the negative side:

- he had the people skills of a stuffed animal

- you can tell that this was a person who has spent a huge part of his life trying to be someone that he isn't

- he uses his, otherwise highly commendable, academic achievements to disguise the fact that he knows and can do considerably less than he says he knows and can do

You know, I'm not entirely convinced that this guy is a trainee barrister. I think he is a con-artist. Quite literally! His website suggests that he is a very talented artist. I think he faked his C.V. to get on the Apprentice and was hoping for a crash-and-burn exit so that he could attract more people to his art exhibitions when they would subsequently try searching for him on the internet.

Anyway, that makes it Solicitors 1 Barristers 0, so far. A Nicholas own-goal if you will.

The best negotiating that I saw last night was when half of the men's team visited a solicitor firm and tried to sell fish there. I thought the solicitor was very good at being clear of the price that we was willing to purchase the fish at. And I loved how he just grabbed hold of his oppoent's hand and started fiercely pumping it whilst telling him the terms of their agreement: '£50, do you hear me? £50 for the whole lot! Not £120. Not £100. Just £50! Do we have a deal? GOOD!'

So there we have it: Solicitors 2 Barristers 0.

What does it mean to 'misspeak'?

2008-03-26T17:51:00.005Z

In the next news cycle of the Dems in disarray across the pond, Clinton is being criticised for her comments in reference to a trip to Bosnia she made whilst first lady.

Presumably to promote her commander-in-chief credentials she wanted everyone to know about how brave she was in visiting a war environment. She claimed that her plane was under fire as soon as it landed and after a series of heroic moves she was able to rescue herself without mishap.

In her defence - and still banging on about her commander-in-chief credentials - she then wanted everyone to know that she was the first first-lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to visit the front line of a war. Now, personally, I don't see what there is to boast about.

Anyway, the BBC has a very funny news article on what it means to 'misspeak' - Clinton is now saying she was misspeaking with respect to the remarks she made about her time in Bosnia. The article is seeking to determine whether she is trying to cover-up an important news story that says something significant about how responsible and honest she is; or whether she is admitting to a genuine mistake.

I think the obvious point to make is that she was trying to deceive the electorate with her initial account. I really don't think that there is any doubt about that.

The problem is though: if now whe is trying to cover up what she said then that makes matters significantly worse. Doesn't it? Shouldn't it? I point this out because I don't believe that enough has been said on this point by political commentators (especially in the USA) and I find this quite surprising.

Recently they (political commentators) have been going after Obama and demanding to know more about his relationship with the pastor Jeremiah Wright. It seems to me though that more was made out of that story than should have been. The crucial question, that political commentators want answering, is whether Obama knew Pastor Wright to speak such things about America and society whilst he was part of his Chicago congregation. I don't think that is the important question though and I am surprised that, redundant as they may be, more arguments in favour of free-speech have not been made. This is an election year - what poltical commentators and through them the American electorate should really want answering is 'What would President Obama do to help solve the strong racial divisions or class divisions that are still persistent in modern day America?' and 'Will it really take a black president to allow equal opportunities to America' black community in times when they are in need of it (such as in the aftermath of hurricane katrina) and times when they are not?'

I've read a couple of times (and watched a couple of times too) Obama's 'speech on race' last week. And, I have to say that I thought that the way in which he tackled the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the way in which he delivered such an emotionally-charged speech so calmly was absolutely formidable. And, importantly, presidential. Even the best politicians, during debates and arguments, simply go for the easy laugh (to get that all-important soundbite in, in time for the six o'clock news); the easy answer (because they don't want to get bogged-down in specifics for fear that they won't be understood); and the answer that absolves them of all responsibility.

I think Obama should be praised for rising to this debate on race despite its obnoxious foundations in controversy. There have been, amongst others, black and Latino political candidates - albeit for lesser executive positions - that have backed down from speaking about issues such as race by hiding behind the defence that its unimportant and that they don't want the electorate to just see them as black candidate or a brown candidate. For me, these are all important issues that belong at the heart of the election.

The point that I am trying to make is that Clinton too has generally maintained a high-standard of debating and arguing in this election, like Obama. But this just goes further to suggesting that she was trying to cover-up the fact that she lied about her experiences in Bosnia. At several points in this campaign, Clinton has accused Obama of being less than candour about his policies and his voting record. Whilst some of these attacks are arguably warranted, there is a lot now to be said about Clinton's own poor standards.

Everything seems to be done so informally in America. It really makes us British look so posh and grand! The way that American newsreaders literally just say what is on their mind to whom ever they are interviewing; the way politician's speeches are littered with slang and chants rather than specific and tidy policy ideas. This is why I found this BBC news article so funny. I mean: look at the way the writer goes so formalistic and produces arguments and evidence from precedents, dictionaries and experts! I was watching Fox news the other day and the news readers was talking to a reporter. Behind the reporter, a press conference was going on but the field of view was obstructed by a man on his phone. The news reader points this out to the reporter and adds: 'People, can you believe this guy on the phone; reporter can't you break his legs to get him out of the way?!' I wonder what would happen to Jeremy Thompson if he was to say something like that whilst live.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it: Clinton has done wrong and more she be said about it by the press and not only because it amuses me; but because its right too.

Mini-pupillage application

2008-03-25T15:51:00.003Z

Yesterday I returned (potentially) triumphant from an interview & assessment at a city law firm. Today I submitted my first mini-pupillage application.

I need to go into detail about just how confused I am about my career direction. Having for a long time thought that I would enjoy being a commercial solicitor, I am now thinking otherwise. It seems to me that most of the things that I enjoy about the law are things that I would have more opportunities to experience as a barrister. Previously, I believe, i have been over-stretching my imagination of the nature of a solicitor's work in an attempt to accomodate the things that I want as part of my career.

A lot of my current C.V. is geared towards the solicitor route but hopefully the ammendments that I have made to draw attention to my public-speaking activities and participation in the university mooting competition etc will be of some help. In addition, I spent a while thinking about the wording of my covering letter so that I was not completely ignorant of the aforementioned deficiency but also had valid reasons for wanting to complete a mini-pupillage. I sincerely hope it does the trick.

I still don't know for sure though that I want to be a barrister. If I am successful in obtaining a mini-pupillage hopefully that will be of assistance to me. I think the opportunity to shadow a barrister for a week and really understand how they go about their work will be a useful experience for me. At the moment, all I know is what I have read and although much of it appeals to me it still seems incomplete.

Now, I think I will research other opportunities at other chambers so as to increase my likelihood of success in obtaining a mini-pupillage too.

I have applied to a chambers which is geographically convenient and whose specialist areas interest me. I have specified the dates in which I hope to complete a mini-pupillage but I have no idea when (or if!) I will hear back.

Vacation Scheme Interview & Assessment

2008-03-22T14:46:00.001Z

Today I was in London for an interview & assessment for a vacation scheme with a major city law firm.

By the way, 'today' is Monday; not Saturday as my blog actually suggests. I am having some problems with the date & time settings on my blog.

As is typically involved with such things there were various parts to the selection procedure - I had an interview; gave a pre-prepared presentation; sat a verbal reasoning test and took part in a group exercise with 7 other candidates.

Having undertaken similar forms of assessment in the past, I felt that I was better prepared to perform well on the day. Its amazing though how once you get into an interview or assessment situation that you forget about all the things that had calmed you down previously. Rather than being calmed and relaxed, I felt rushed.

The presentation that I delivered was not done so well unfortunately. I fear that I came across as being unclear and confused at times. The points that I was making did answer the questions I was set quite well at least that is the impression I got from the interviewer. There were a couple of times when I had to provide additional examples and explain things further because they were unclear. I felt though that I was able to think well on my feet. So, no problem there.

The problem with my presentation was in its organisation and the fact that it exceeded the allocated time. I didn't immediately begin by getting to the question and answering it. Instead, I set the scene for too long and this was easy to detect because I didn't say any of the key words in the questions until about 60% of the way through the presentation. All this was a direct result of having only finished preparing the presentation in the morning though.

Nothing much to say about the verbal reasoning test. I had sat similar tests in the past and had done pretty well on them. Hopefully the same was the case this time.

I very much enjoyed the the company of the other candidates. They were all talented individuals: interesting, experienced and a pleasure to speak to. They were also high-achievers in the courses they were studying on. There was less of the: 'Oh, yeah, I am behind with my dissertation too - its such a drag, isn't it?' and more of the 'I'm not too pleased with my 65% in Company Law; its out of place with respect to my results; Contract Law, for instance, I got 77% and won the academic prize for the highest-scorer in my year'.

The group exercise was solely based on a commercial issue with no legal analysis required. We performed really bad as a group though. We didn't approach our task in an organised manner and our conclusions were questionable. Fundamentally though, we didn't work well as a group which was what was being tested. We didn't try to listen to each other and compromise; instead, we enjoyed opportunities to pick holes in each other's ideas.

Still, in all it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Speaking to current trainees at the firm afterwards helped confirms some of the things that I do and don't like about the nature of their work. The trainees seemed to enjoy the fact that they were able to drag themselves through their law degrees (mostly at top-10 universities) and found comfort in the fact that they didn't have to employ their legal knowledge as part of their work. Instead, because of the client-centred approach (which they seem to make far too much of a deal about) they can hide what they don't know about the law (a direct result of never having to maintain it after studying law through trips to the law library) with the defence that they don't want to use too much legal jargon so that the client doesn't understand them.

I'd really relish the opportunity to have to research difficult areas of the law and understand them before I could discharge the obligations due to whomever. If I have gotten things wrong as part of my work - I'd like to know that I was the one who made the slip-up so that I could take responsibility and learn for the future. I get the feeling that in working on large commercial transactions as part of a huge team (and often around the globe) there is very little that you can say you contributed by yourself. As a result, solicitors, I feel, don't get that feeling of satisfaction of having achieved something substantive.

Accordingly, the day was useful in giving me food-for-thought as regards my future career. I do not feel that I would be comfortable working at the firm that I was assessed at and like I say, I think that for many reasons.

Afterwards on my journey back home, I was thinking about how to approach my Trusts law revision. Its actually something I have been thinking about for a while now. The problem that I am having is that I literally do not know where to start! Its not that I don't understand particular parts; I am just trying to find a nice area to begin my revision. I have looked at past exam papers - especially last year's - and I feel that I could tackle them with equal success. Of course, revision is about raising my knowledge and thoughtfulness; but that still doesn't answer my question! After much though, I have decided though that I am going to start half-way through the syllabus as that is an area that I feel least comfortable with - the 'Beneficiary principle' and non-charitable purpose trusts it is then!

'Holidays'

2008-03-17T19:56:00.000Z

Well my 'holidays' have well and truly gotten under way. I write 'holidays' although, as it to expected at the stage at which I am at, this is probably the opposite to what it actually is: 'A period in which I need to to work my ass off revising for my final exams'. I shall continue to use 'holidays' as a shorthand though.

I am somewhat on top of my work: well on with writing my dissertation but not so far on as to have begun any revision yet. Aside from my law studies, I have been reading and watching news quite avidly. Its amazing how interesting, uninteresting stories become, when the mind wanders.

The Dems in disarray across the pond has been rather fascinating. Listening to all those various black preachers talk about issues they think a lot about (but know little about) and how this has disrupted the presidential campaign. Good could have come out of it - and it has to an extent - Barack Obama is able to talk about the important issue of race because now he has a problem to solve. Whether he did it well or not is yet to be determined. Overall, I thought his speech was fantastic; especially, its delvierance - on such an emotionally-charged issue it would have been easy to launch into rhetoric whilst paying lip-service to political correctness. I'm glad that he didn't do that. I'm glad that he made mistakes - even the best do. I'm not too glad about his answers to subsequent questions put to him however. I listened to a radio show he talked on and his answers lacked the precision and thoughtfulness that he had diplayed up until then.

The media coverage of all this - the primaries in the US - has been quite varied. Obviously, American news channels are the place to go: CNN international and Fox news. I was watching Sky News the day after what is now knows as 'Super Tuesday II' - when Ohio and Texas voted. Jeremy Thompson was live in Washington. What happens next? He goes live to an Amercian reporter in the LONDON studio. Hahaha...Sky News does make me laugh like that. I mean, whilst I appreciate 24hr news services with their ability to deliver 'breaking news', did Sky News really need to follow Blair (in the air and on the roads) when he made that journey from London to his Sedgefield constituency to announce that he was stepping down as PM? I don't think so. Its not even as if its second best to getting an interview with him on this 'historic' day - its much less than that.

Here is a complete list of things that I need to do in my 'holidays':

- prepare for an assessment for a summer vacation scheme at a city law firm
- send off a mini-pupillage application (yes, I am undecided on my career choice)
- complete my dissertation prior to my next scheduled meeting
- revise, as much as possible, for the 4 final exams of my undergrad degree
- practice answering exam questions under exam conditions
- think critically about what I should do next: LPC, BVC, LLM??

There's probably more but I can't think right now because I feel sick...

Happy Easter to all my blogreaders!

The worthy cause not the worthy self.

2008-03-14T17:57:00.000Z

I need not express again, blogreader, my love for Employment Law. For the present at least, it has no boundaries.

Recently I have been looking at the Working Time Regulations 1998. There has not been much written about their use in the UK. Well, not to my knowledge anyway; which is quite surprising I think when you consider the importance of the provisions contained within them. Most importantly, there is the limit on the maximum number of hours in the working week, which is set at 48 hours. In addition, the regulations provide for various entitlements to breaks on a daily, weekly and annual basis.

The regulations, I have found, can be criticised on many levels. There are some poorly defined and unspecific exceptions which are often used as a defence by employers. Elsewhere, employers have attempted to circumnavigate some important requirements through changing the procedure by which they pay their workers.

All very interesting and I could go on and on.

There is an important point that I wish to make though. I have been drawn to thinking about practising law in this area and how an area like the 1999 regulations provide a fertile area for lawyers to thrive and do interesting work. However, the more I think about it, the more I don't like admitting to that. In short, what I mean is: I should value the regulations more for the positive effect they have on workers' work-family lives and on providing them a safe environment in which to work. Not, on the other hand, for producing uncertainty and scope for lawyers to get more work.

This point may come across with a rather fine edge; however, I should warn you that it is as a result of reading some harsh accounts of employment conditions in modern Britain.

As I understand it - and I may be wrong on this - but many large law firms require their new trainees to exempt themselves from the application of the regulations. In particular, this 48-hour maximum weekly working limit. For me at least, the usefulness of the regulations means more because of the idea of working for so long - not getting enough rest and suffering from a work-induced illness as result.

No, blogreader, whilst I may have (ironically) worked in excess of the 48hr-limit this week when studying the regulations*, I am not interested in becoming a casualty of its mis-application! And, if I am ever required to sign my rights aways, I will pause and think...

*I've checked but I don't think I can find a loophole in the regulations to bring a claim for breach against anybody. Shame.

The tax cut that never was, the election that never was….

2008-03-12T19:48:00.000Z

...and now...the meeting that never was…

I never thought the day would come dearest blogreader, when my actions or inactions as part of my degree, could draw valid parallels with the same for politicians.

Throughout this week, Alistair Darling had been taunted by the press and members of the opposition party over the content of the budget which he delivered today. He must have absolutely been dreading today! What do you suppose his first thought was when he awoke this morning? Let me, blogreader, offer a possible answer. I believe that I can be of much assistance in this regard because, for once (dare I say), I know EXACTLY what he feels like.

When I awoke this morning – to the sound of my alarm clock – I stirred around a bit just to get by bearings and collect my thoughts. Then, I thought ‘Ah, Wednesday that means after I get through you, I have two more days of this god-forsaken week to get through, before my holidays officially commence.’ When I actually came to think what my first movement should be, it hit me. Its really quite a unique feeling because, at the time of day and in that place (where suddenly your pillows don’t feel so snug), its really not the kind of situation in which you expect to feel so vulnerable.

An important distinction can be drawn though (and would have been drawn would I have been writing this blog under different circumstances in which I was on top of things) and that is Darling's fear of making a typical House of Commons grand gesture – in a budget speech this usually manifests itself as a tax cut of sorts – because of the negative press surrounding his predecessor’s 2p or not 2p tax cut. I, on the other hand, would have relished the opportunity to pull a ‘rabbit out of the hat’ in the meeting with my tutor. Perhaps in the form of some nice addition to the piece of work I am working on that is so innovative and appealing. It was not meant to be though.

Another common feature between myself and my Darling is what I will refer to as the ‘expectations’ game. One sets ones own expectations. Darling’s leadership of the HM Treasury has never quite gotten off the ground. Importantly, no one trusts him. Trust is crucial to success at his position and although one must strive to earn trust; one must certainly not actively counter trust! It is this latter course of action which Darling has taken ever since he took over the Treasury and it is the reason why his position has not been considered tenable since.

For whatever reason he has not been able to earn trust, his chances have surely not been benefited by implicitly having ‘DISHONEST’ written on his forehead. That is right blogreader; I am obviously referring to the discontinuity of colour in Darling’s hair and his eyebrows.

I do not mind telling you blogreader, that the colour of my hair and my eyebrows is uniform. Despite this, I regret to inform you that I was quite irresponsible towards my tutor today when I emailed him in the morning to say that I would not be making it to our scheduled meeting.

I too have lost the trust of electorate whom, at previous meetings, had done much to encourage my ambitions for my project. No matter how profusely I apologised in my email, I am not sure that I will have ample opportunity to regain said trust and in all probability, my work is likely to suffer as result.

And so blogreader, you have and addition to your 'never was' chant courtesy of Lacklustre Lawyer.

Have you ever 'hung' with your tutors?!

2008-03-11T15:36:00.000Z

Have you? If so; I very much need to hear from you and very soon!

Hanging with my tutors - a tutor, in fact - is exactly what I will be doing tomorrow morning. This meeting was scheduled...hmmm...well...about 6 weeks ago actually and its happening tomorrow. The aim of the meeting is to update my tutor on progress with a piece of coursework I am doing and in addition, to show a substantial amount of it, so that they can comment on it. Well, that's not exactly going to happen because I have done next-to-nothing; and so, this is why I ask: have you ever hung with your tutor?

I have a terrible feeling that I'm just going to turn up and be silent, very very silent. I think I will be asked if I am feeling OK too - does anyone have a good answer to that either? For instance, can someone name me a disease that I could pretend to have that has prevented me from working on this project for the past 6 weeks whilst simultaneously during that period, it has constantly been playing on my mind? I do hope I am not asking for much blogreader, if I add that your account must sound 100% convincing to even the most circumspect of people.

If this whole meeting was a cursory examination into my performance, blogreader, then even I am creative enough to slay that dragon.

There are principally two forces acting against me between now and tomorrow. Firstly, I am working on a higher priority piece of work that is also extremely time-sensitive; secondly, and most importantly, anything that I do manage to put together to show my tutor in the morning will be humiliating at best and shameful at worst. Yep; things are that bad. I cannot delay this meeting until later in the week either because that is simply not feasible for our busy end-of-term schedules!

In the meantime, whilst you are tucking yourself in bed tonight, I would like you to spare a thought for me who, in all likelihood, will be wide-awake and slaving away. Alternatively, if any of you believe in the all'mighty, could you perhaps give him a bell and draw his attention to me. That would be great too.

Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Why I won't be attending the Mooting Final

2008-03-10T08:33:00.000Z

So the mooting final of my intra-university competition will be held today and I will not be attending. I have attended all mooting finals in the past whilst at university but I shall not be attending this one. The reason that I mention these facts is that one could be mistaken in thinking that the reason that I am not attending the final is that I am jealous/have not got over the fact that I am not in it. Well they would be right to an extent. I have not gotten over it; but that is not the reason that I will not be attending.

The reason that I am not attending is that I am drowning in work - all of it very important and all of it to be actioned within a tight and very upcoming deadline - and somethings (things that I enjoy in my spare time, like mooting) have to be removed from my very busy schedule.

Before I go on, I would like it to be noted that after I found out that I had not reached the final and that my even more lacklustre opponent had, I did send him a congratulatory email and wished him well for the final. Of course, I might not necessarily agree with the result but that decision was for the judge to make and make it he did. See: the fact that the result was not in my favour did not prevent me from maintaining minimal amounts of human decency and compassion.

As is customary at this stage of mooting competitions, the doors are flung open to everyone and anyone that wished to attend - students, lecturers, professors and tutors etc. The biggest prize of all though is the opportunity to present arguments before an actual real-life judge! Its such a huge opportunity and it hurts to have come so close, yet so far away from experiencing it.

Currently I am working on writing two essays which need to be completed before the end of term deadline which is this week. I shall never know whether I would have been able to prepare for the moot alongside this and I do not care to think which of all these important things I have going on would not have been done well (or performed well).

Its actually become more of a problem now that I am nearing the end of my degree. I start the week - like now - so energised and ready to lots of work. It does not change the end result at the end of the week however when I find that no single project has been completed and instead there are lots and lots of unfinished pieces of work that still need my attention. I guess its those skills called time management and organisation which I suck at.

I am very much looking forward to my upcoming holidays. Only four days away.

Employment Law

2008-03-06T18:14:00.000Z

So have already talked a little about my dissatisfaction with one of the subjects that I am studying (Jurisprudence); in this post, I thought I would share with you my enjoyment of Employment Law which I am also studying.

I love Employment Law.

I can't exactly pinpoint what it is that I enjoy so much about it but I can say with much conviction that I do absolutely love it. Perhaps I am enjoying the fact that its a relatively straightforward area of law to study. Compare for example, Employment Law with Trusts Law and the doom and gloom within the latter, perhaps I enjoy Employment law more because it is applied-Contract law and Contract law has been my all time favourite area of study.

I take comfort in my approach to studying Employment law. As a student of Law at undergraduate level, there is that persistent feeling that you don't know enough law - you haven't read enough; you don't understand the intricacies of case-law enough; you don't fully understand the applicable doctrines in an area. Whilst these factors have dogged every other Law module I have studied and am studying, the same cannot be said for Employment law. When I study Employment law, I feel I know where to look, what to read and in how much detail. I don't believe I'm being blindly naive in my appreciation of concepts in Employment law. Like most of my other subjects, I come across area where the law is in an unsatisfactory state. But the difference is, I seem to appreciate more fully the nature of the problems and I actually enjoy spending time thinking about prospects for reform.

So there you have it - its not all doom and gloom - Lacklustre Lawyer isn't so Lacklustre in Employment Law. Well at least he doesn't think he is. Currently I am studying the Working Time Regulations 1998. There hasn't been written on these regulations in most student textbooks. I've consequently enjoyed the opportunity to study the regulations first-hand and to plug each individual regulation into Westlaw and read all the cases in which it has been applied. Its interesting because, for once, I feel as though I have grabbed an area of the law by the balls and squeezed with much satisfaction and less pain.

This post wouldn't be complete without reference to my excellent lecturers who really have done quite a fantastic job in providing me a base from which to explore different areas in an interesting, productive and fun way. No Law student needs to be told at the inadequacy and drawbacks of some lecturers who are terrible at engaging students interest in the law. I'm really quite honoured with my lecturers in this area though. Its no coincidence that they are leading practitioners of Employment law. Often, the fact that they are practitioners could be a significant drawback because of their partial inability to teach the area from an academic standing. My lecturers aren't like this at all. In addition, they come with the benefit of offering the most up-to-date cases in Employment law, which is so important in areas like Unfair Dismissal and the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Will be digging into my Employment law materials on a regular basis and enjoying every minute of it.

Jurisprudence

2008-03-04T08:31:00.000Z

Jurisprudence is a rather interesting subject to teach as part of a law degree. I fear that universities either teach it right and teach it well; or, teach it wrong and teach it disastrously. The disconcerting thing about my course is that there are elements of both!

The most interesting aspects of the course are when you read the works of the leading jurists: Hart, Dworkin, Raz etc. Once you get to grip with the basics, I for one found, that its actually quite enjoyable to read their complexly written works and try to distill what they are trying to say. There's no doubt about it though: there have been several occasions when I've spent ages reading a particular part of one of the aforementioned jurist's works and I'm just amazed as to why they don't opt for simplicity - especially when they were making some interesting and valid points - and, I believe, had they done so, they would have dramatically increased their readership.

So that was the interesting part of the course that was taught reasonably well. My essay marks in that area averaged around 65% which measured up quite well against the other marks in my year. There were only a handful of Firsts awarded and two-fist-fulls of 65%>70% marks.

Now for the uninteresting part.

Principally, this involves having to study jurisprudential issues in very specific areas: Moral Dilemmas in Medical Law; Foucauldian theory; and, feminist perspectives on jurisprudence.

Now, some of the issues in each of these subjects are interesting - especially in moral dilemmas in medical law, where it was nice to have recourse back to original judgments in cases in which these issues have arisen alongside the jurisprudential writings on them. The other two areas I have mentioned have not been so interesting. I quickly tuned-out of the feminist perspectives on the law because it was just so dry. I am definitely one that enjoys reading and studying black-letter law more, but I like to think that my analytical skills can be used elsewhere too. Like, for instance, on the works of Dworkin and Hart, which I did enjoy. But, for Feminist perspectives on Jurisprudence, nothing was happening for me.

Foucauldian theory is an interesting option to offer in itself and I am quite surprised at its inclusion. Michel Foucault of course was a French philosopher that died relatively recently. His works on the inter-relationship of power, knowledge and truth, was not limited to understanding a legal system or the law itself. No, it was much broader - it focussed on a whole range of things in life. We don't even hone in on the application of Foucault's work and what will be of interest to us as lawyers. And, it seems to me that all his views can be summarised in some nice and short statements that I simply have to regurgitate in an exam. I'm really less keen on going on to read his primary texts in full and am more likely, and not because of fault on my part - I gave him his chance, to rely on easy secondary texts where its all nicely laid out for me.

It seems therefore that unless my perspective changes, I have set a ceiling rising only to a mid upper-second class level. This, for a subject that I enjoy a lot and have performed well in up until know.

Thank you Foucault and thank you Feminists!

Mooting - semi-final - results

2008-02-29T19:01:00.000Z

Just found out today that I didn't get through to the final of my law society mooting competition at university. This was the first time that I had entered a mooting competition and I am in my third year of studying law at university.

What makes matters worse is the realisation that I had the law on my side and I should have done more with it. I should have been clearer in my submissions through being far better prepared than I was; and, I should have realised that although I had strong submissions, they were not there to 'hide' my weaker submissions. I should have thought about them more and I should have been prepared to answer obvious questions on them.

That said, I fiercely contend the presiding judge's decision to say that my opposite on the other side won the moot. It was clear that his preparation was incomplete; he sought to highlight really minor and really controversial distinctions in criminal law that are so silly as to be perverse. He didn't realise that he had such an upwards task that the only viable argument before the House of Lords would be to argue for the use of the 1966 statement on Judicial Precedent which allows the House of Lords to depart from its earlier judgments and argue public policy, public policy and public policy. Instead, not a single statement on public policy was made.

How on earth could I have lost the moot?

Well seriously, I don't believe I did. The most fundamental tenets of my argument were well presented I thought. However, I was caught off-guard when his Lordship requested that I strike two submissions off the five that I intended to give. Not only did I pick the wrong two - that wasn't my fault of course, they were all as important as each other - when I got to the end of the three submissions that I had decided to give, I then requested leave to give the two I had stricken off too. That really pissed his Lordship off. Lesson learnt though.

I shall not be doing any mooting for a while but rest assured my route to the semi-final of this competition has been most enjoyable and I have learnt a lot.