|
Messing up dates on a procedure assignment: awesome. Apparently my paper has time transitive properties, because my defence issued before the writ of summons. The best part is that these papers are up for public consumption and comment and they are criticised in tute. My shame cannot even be private.
|
#
¿
May 8, 2010 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Another HD semester, placing me in the top 10 students in my year.  Edit: Had an amusing picture to follow but my link is not working. Neurosis fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jul 12, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Law firms I've interviewed few actually were interested in my non-law school stuff. They DID prefer, quite clearly, people who had a lot of law related co-curriculars (competitions e.g. client interviews, mooting being the main route for commercial law firms since they didn't really care about volunteer work, or so I've been told), but still asked me about my fight sport activiites, my activities with the Petroleum Club at my university, and the like. Though the last may be a little misleading since my state is possibly the biggest natural resources location on the entire planet.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
From people's experiences, if you make a careless error in your cover letter for clerkship will that ever make a decisive difference? I ask because I'm batch sending off shitloads of them for summer clerkships and I've already noticed a couple of errors that crept into my cover letters. E.g. I put "Allens" instead of "Allen" in Allen & Overy (there is a firm here that IS Allens, and google misled me by filling in "Allens and Overy", yes, I know I'm dumb for not checking it more thoroughly).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
quepasa18 posted:I can't believe anyone actually asks this question, and would even consider sending out resumes with spelling errors. Yes, it will make a difference. There are tons of people applying for jobs, which means employers are looking for reasons to narrow down the applicants. Spelling errors look like you don't care and don't pay attention to detail. When you are sending out 25+ applications, in a two week period, with assignments due at the same time, and you have to enter separate grades and type separate cover letters, errors sometimes creep in. Hth as to how people would ever consider sending them out. I was more interested as to whether extremely simple errors would result in an immediate rejection when your application is otherwise of a high quality, which seems to be the case. Yeah, I thought it would matter; though my errors tend to be more along the lines of a grade entered incorrectly in a non-law subject (out of the 42 I have to enter at every firm) rather than grammatical or spelling errors. And no, nothing is of the level of incompetence as sending out an application with strikeouts, retarded grammar, or addressing the wrong firm. I was just curious as to whether people thought it wouldn't kill an otherwise decent application, or whether it would knock a good app down to the 'disregard' pile, the latter being true. Oh well, three errors out of twenty-five applications. There's always next winter. 
Neurosis fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Aug 13, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 16:56
|
|
|
Oh, gently caress it. My grades are awesome, my CV is middling. I will get two clerkships in summer at good or mid-tier firms, and then re-apply to Allen and Overy (the only firm I've cared about) and get it. I'm just that good. Years from now, I will die alone with a pile of money and a single copy of my hosed up cover letter, tears of blood streaking it, upset at the idea I could've made more money.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
Probably right. Just having my post-app meltdown in this thread. I have reviewed all my other letters and answers to the silly questions they ask (How does a big firm retain its competitive edge post-GFC? as an example). This is the only application with a major error; of the others one had an 80 entered instead of a 78 in a non-law subject, the third had the place where I heard about them entered as a careers fair where they did not have a stall, but only provided an information pamphlet. But it's good to be told I'm dumb for things I know I'm dumb for because it's too embarrassing to mention these oversights to law friends.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
His death can't be too far away. Every time I stop thinking about it for a few months, thinking "Oh, there must be an imminent release, it's just been too long" and look at the thread and nope, nothing's changed. Also, the interview process for vac clerkships has turned me into a fullblown, 5 time a week, alcoholic. It's so soul crushing. The worst interview process: a firm gives out 170 ten minute interviews (for 40 places). They then have 6 hours of testing. They then have a cocktail function where you are given business cards to hand out to people you talk to. The next day, HR gets everyone into a room and shows a photo of each person on the screen, and if people like them they throw their cards at the screen. I'm sure you US guys have far more egregious examples but I found this utterly ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 13:27
|
|
|
They still give money at my university, and it's presented at an awards ceremony which is typically reasonably interesting in that you get to hear a couple of judges talk. Although, irritatingly, the amount of money you get for each unit varies depending on the sponsorships. Corporate insolvency gets 4x the prize of most units and the tax units not far off that. Which always felt like a rip when I topped two core units and got 1/4 the prize of someone who topped one elective unit which never has more than 30 people, but whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:--An e-mail from a law school professor I received today. I don't think this is unfair. Grades are a means of ranking, not of measuring absolute performance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
Priority offers day for law firms in Perth, Australia. It's 7:30AM and I'm sitting here rocking back and forth in anxiety. It would be disappointing to be a top 10 student and not get an offer from a top tier law firm, but pessimism indicates this is the likely outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Penguins Like Pies posted:Are you drinking in celebrationr or drinking in sorrow? Fifteen minutes with no call into the offers period and it looks like sorrow. Whata great way for the world to poo poo on all my hard work.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
Thanks. Looks like I'll be slumming it for a year at a second rate firm. It's really frustrating. I'm not socially retarded and I have good grades but I am cripplingly bad at interviews.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
Long shot here and this is a super specific question I'm not sure anyone can answer, but does anyone know of any articles which break down William Swadling's articles on resulting trusts into something digestible? I've looked around but haven't happened on anything too helpful. We've been given an exam question which is 'Do resulting trusts respond to the trustee's unjust enrichment?' I've tried reading Swadling's articles 3 or 4 times now and I'm still not getting them. Even though I don't like the doctrinal mapping exercise that Peter Birks undertakes his arguments are at least well presented and easy to follow. Swadling is a loving nightmare; he talks in discrete points and doesn't connect them explicitly so while no one thing he says is hard to understand I am having a massive headache reconciling everything he says into a logical argument. At this stage I am considering changing to the question on whether a right to specific performance to transfer property is a property right itself because I find Swadling so impermeable. After more than five years including being accepted into the honours course I think this is the first time law school has actually made me feel stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
entris posted:What the gently caress is this poo poo, are you even in the right thread? "Doctrinal mapping exercise"? What the gently caress? Also, is this really an exam question for an exam you are taking now, or is this an exam question from an old exam that you are practicing with? (Here is a hint: the correct answer is the latter.) Yeah, it's an Australian law school. I didn't think there'd be anyone with any helpful knowledge since the unjust enrichment debate is mainly an Australian/UK thing from what I've seen and there's not a lot of publications from American academics but I thought I'd have one last shot in the law thread before I threw up my hands and changed questions, given the investment I've already put into this one. It's a doctrinal mapping exercise because Birks believes all property rights arise in response to four events - consent, wrongs, unjust enrichment and 'other'. This ends up with him attempting to apply unjust enrichment doctrines to causes of action which here-to-fore have been treated as their own equitable doctrines. Swadling prefers that resulting trusts arise on presumptions, but the way he sets it out is incredibly confusing. And we got the exam questions beforehand because this unit has a ridiculous amount of readings and it would be nearly impossible to give a good answer without them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
In Australia you are strongly discouraged from going into academia without a few years experience in practice. Some people do but it's certainly not the norm.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2012 13:39
|
|
|
LordPants posted:I have considered playing under the name of the great Australian Judge "Justice Blow", or "Blow, J" for short. If by 'great' you mean 'Tasmanian', go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
So, our client's head has just washed up on an island off of the coast, after slaving out a 10 000 word advice on his case. loving criminal law.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:Did they already pay a retainer though? Unfortunately not. At least I got the satisfaction of knowing some inside police information before the identity was released. There seems to be a dearth of criminal lawyers in this thread. After doing a year in it, I can completely appreciate why and am glad to be getting out this year. One more plea in mitigation for a rapist... "Oh yeah, he raped 4 women, but, you know, he's young." 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Litany posted:Is it common for lawyers to discuss results with a jury (after deliberations and a verdict) to understand the thought process? Just finished serving and that happened to me. Depends on your location. In Australia juries discussing their deliberations is expressly forbidden (although I don't think that prohibition is enforced too strenuously). Although as someone who was part of a jury after finishing law - and working for a criminal barrister for several months no less - but prior to admission... I did not find the whole thing to be a salutary process. Neurosis fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
insanityv2 posted:that civ pro final was not gentle Hahahah what the gently caress. I've had to do this a couple of times, but usually it's when there's been an absurdly significant and hotly contentious demarcation, rather than "Here's a case from 1855 in the UK, go hog wild". Kalman posted:Don't worry, no one will ever read any of it. You say this, but on my second day of clerking at a major firm a partner quoted something I'd written to the head legal counsel of BHP in one of the most important mining cities in the world, and I quietly poo poo my pants.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
Calenth posted:I take it the job picture is as bad in other commonwealth countries as it is in the US? It varies. In Australia last year the big 6 firms and other larger firms had a bumper intake of grads. This year it's half that. The two biggest firms by revenue have instituted pay freezes, that I know of. There have been lay-offs at the bigger firms and some of my friends are sweating, although I don't think they can be too worried as grads. I work at a small commercial firm and we're getting a lot of trickle-down work as places downgrade their legal services, so we're okay. It's not dire times yet, but it's not good. Of course, our salaries also loving suck compared to what they pay in the US at biglaw level, at least until you hit partnership level, but that's nothing new.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:If they're graded, your summer classes can help bolster your GPA. Or they could look horrible because the grading scale is different and no one is going to be impressed with the 81 you pulled which was actually the top mark in the class. That is how it would be in Australia anyway because here your % average is much more important than your GPA.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I don't know what you mean by "% average." Study abroad classes for my school were graded per our domestic scale. So the typical A = 4.0, A- = 3.7, etc., etc. that my school used for a typical class. I would imagine most U.S. schools would do the same. None of this "81" business. Well, I suppose it wouldn't matter, then. I recall US people I spoke to getting outrageous percentage grades from their studies and thinking how lovely it must sound when I told them I had a 76.5% average in law (which put me comfortably in the top 10% of my school - top average is usually around 81% and the mean is 65), so I was commenting on how unimpressive a % grade from overseas might look compared to grades handed out in the US, whatever the grade scale. If you don't use number grades at all I suppose it's immaterial.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
RFX posted:Sounds like you got lucky with a good professor! If only there were more out there. Don't diverge much from precedent, there is too much scope for loving up as a first year associate. I despise contract drafting and am lazy with it though so your mileage may vary. I also do not envy you this because every American contract I have looked at is loving horrible to read and it's like plain English is some kind of alien idea, although that could just be true about the one or two jurisdictions I've seen stuff from.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
Long shot here, but does anyone here have any experience trying to get an academic paper published in regulation related journals, law journals generally, or very particularly Regulation and Governance?? I recently finished one my lecturer for my LLM told me was of a quality that could be accepted. I've fixed the references to be journal friendly but am not sure how much more I'll have to do for it. My lecturer is of course the authority to go to but I had some questions on how much nepotism is involved and how I could rely on such.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Thanks for that, guys. I've fixed the references and formatting and am now fixing the style and language. The posts in this thread fill me with trepidation that it will be a frustrating and tedious process.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:Welcome to law school! It's part of an LLM so I'm on the other end of that. Frankly I have enjoyed writing about the law much more than the few years I've spent practicing the law and going into academia has crossed my mind more than once.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:I thought academia didn't want professors sullied from actually practicing law? I'm an Australian lawyer so I dodge that quandary. Edit: Oh good I'm not the only Commonwealth lawyer here, sometimes it feels lonely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Where did you end up, btw? Did you land that dream big law job of yours? Nope. Smaller firm, hated it with a passion, running from that with my tail between my legs, looking for a government job. A lot of why I hated it had to do with my boss, though, so I'll put in a couple more years yet before I throw up my hands and give it up as a bad idea. It was bad enough to the extent I was thinking about suicide on a day to day basis, soooooo. Neurosis fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
i've found the greatest job ever. i am part of the top level technical team for the australian taxation office. tax may sound boring, however, nearly all the issues i deal with only have tax as a backdrop; the real issues i'm grappling with are things like 'what is real property?' and 'what are rights?' i get to spend weeks at a time researching arcane legal issues, have to make strategic decisions with wide implications which have to be thoroughly analysed from a policy perspective, and on top of that get to basically set my own hours as long as i'm working at least 35 hours a week (including working form home, which i can do pretty much at my whim). on top of that i'm dealing with decisions worth billions on a daily basis, padding my cv for whatever the gently caress i want to do. the only downside is i'm only on about 100k including superannuation, whereas in private I could conceivably be making 20k more or so for twice the work and half the work quality. basic message: government work can be insanely, insanely good. also i only have to meet with the other side if the office needs a technical legal person to be menacing. tearing to pieces a guy on 1.5m a year because unlike him i've had a month to get to know a case back to front and know every potential argument is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Because you're one of like, the 4 other Ausgoons itt i'm glad you're story has gone from "gently caress my life" to "I love my work"  The only caveat being I mostly come in here when I'm drunk. But I had that problem before I went to work for THE MAN, I'm slowly being broken out of it. edit: probably shouldn't add anything i wrote at work. Neurosis fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Didn't notice anyone discussing Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and search told me it hasn't been brought up; anyone have any professional familiarity with him? I'm an antipodean lawyer so don't feel the need to find it out for professional reasons and have no trust for the discourse in C-SPAM or D&D and little more for the media's reporting on this issue, so to this thread I turn.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Australia got a new High Court Justice last year. I hear he is pretty cool. James Edelman. Some people didn't like his appointment because it was perceived he was appointed due to his friendship with a Minister we have. I don't think it's quite like that, he is probably the most academically distinguished High Court judge we've had in a long time - and at a very young age! He's an absolute beast on all things equity and property; I was lectured by him and his knowledge was incredible. Though he seemed to take the same approach to lecturing an LLB at a good but not top 10 globally law school as he would have to lecturing when he was at Oxford for the BCL course; it was a little confusing. Years later in practice I started to actually need to know all the arcane property and equity and it all came together what he was talking about. We got a female Chief Justice, too; I don't think her appointment was playing gender politics, which is nice, she's just a solid pick. EwokEntourage posted:Didn't the Australian high court refuse to install a wheelchair ramp just to spite another jurist? Yeah, though it's not quite as egregious as it sounds. We had the constitution altered to set an age limit on federal judges after a 1977 referendum (states either already had the limitation or followed suit soon thereafter), but old Edward Aloysis McTiernan was grandfathered (heh) in so was on there until he was goddamned ancient. And he was getting a bit eccentric. Chief Justice Barwick, who refused to install the ramp, was kind of a prick, too. He managed to singlehandedly emasculate the first general anti-tax avoidance provision we had, which was a grudge from (I think) us bankrupting him in the Depression after he lost all his money due to guaranteeing an obligation of his brother's. Oh, and thanks all for the commentary re Gorsuch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Huh. Gorsuch wrote about euthanasia under John Finnis. I've just been elbow deep in Finnis for two months for an article; might have to check out Gorsuch's stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Does that mean you had your arm up his rear end? I'm not being funny I have never heard this. Or is it similar to "up to my elbows" like you're in deep water? Using the same metaphor as 'up to my elbows', also, I lost my car keys somewhere in there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 04:40
|
|