Exams are finished!

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!

Update on Revision

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 worthy cause not the worthy self.

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.

Employment Law

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.