|
If anyone is curious, I can write up a (short) post about the process of coming a lawyer, at least in my state in Australia. It's pretty different from the US in some regards.
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Okay, here's the AusPost. Keep in mind I'm in Victoria, so there may be some minor differences between states, but I think it's fairly nationally consistent. Apologies for wordiness, and I can clarify anything people have more questions about. Fwiw, I'm about three weeks off completing my PLT. Tl;dr is university -> PLT/SLT -> admission. If you want to be a lawyer in Australia, your first step is to go to university. You can do law either undergrad (LLB) or postgrad (JD). The majority of people studying law as an undergrad do a double degree, where you study two degrees concurrently. Bachelor of Arts (I think it's called liberal arts in the US) and Bachelor of Laws is a really common combination, but other combinations exist. At my law school, the ratio was something like 30 students studying a single law degree, 120 studying double degrees. To apply to study law undergrad you don't need to take LSAT, your year 12 grades just have to be good enough that a university will make you an offer, same as any other course. If you want to study a JD, then you have to take the LSAT. Standard length for a full time LLB is four years, double degree is five, and a JD is three, although keep in mind that since it's postgrad, you've probably already spent three years at university. If you've made it this far and still want to practice law, your next step is to either complete your Practical Legal Training (PLT), after which you'll be awarded a Diploma of Legal Practice, or get hired as a graduate lawyer and complete supervised legal training (SLT). PLT takes around four months full-time or eight part-time, whereas SLT takes a minimum of 12 months. PLT is basically an additional course, whereas SLT is more like on-the-job training. While individual firms/lawyers might have a hiring preference for PLT vs SLT, in my experience there isn't an industry-wide perception of one being better than the other, especially after a few years of practice. The statistic I heard is that around 80% of people complete PLT while 20% do SLT. This is because a law firm might be able to take on 10 graduates per year, but a PLT provider can take as many students as they have the capacity for. My provider, the College of Law, says they've had 60,000 students over 40 years. After you've completed law school and PLT or SLT, your next step is to apply to the relevant legal admissions board. This is a pretty involved process, where you have to provide transcripts, proof of graduation, and make disclosures relating to your fitness to be admitted. The disclosures you have to make relate to legal issues you might have had (including parking fines and speeding tickets), and academic issues you might have had (including allegations of academic misconduct). Controversially, you also are asked to disclose mental health issues you have or might have had. As you can imagine, this is a pretty fraught issue, and the advice on if you should disclose and to what extent ranges from "disclose everything and do it in detail" to "gently caress them, don't say a thing". If you're found to be a "fit and proper person", that's pretty much it. You get your admission date, head along and get admitted at the Supreme Court (simplified Australian court hierarchy is Magistrates' Court -> County Court -> Supreme Court -> High Court), have your name added to the Australian Legal Profession Register, and you're a lawyer. Don't call yourself a lawyer before admission, it's technically an offence with fines and jail time. Also, if the disciplinary tribunal finds out you've done it, you're likely to be struck off. For those wondering about the Bar, well, solicitors don't take it here. That's reserved for Barristers, and is a whole other thing. edit: LSAT info Whitlam fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Aug 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
If we're on semi-serious talk for a minute (absolutely not trying to hijack your discussion, Mr Nice), does anyone have any tips or advice on how you figured out what you wanted to do? Was it literally just "get hired by anyone who will take me", or were there any particular questions you reflected on? I think I'm in the midst of a quarter-life crisis, where I have no idea what I want to do with my life and feel completely unqualified for basically everything, and no idea how to figure that stuff out. I don't know if I want to practice law, but I feel like if I don't, I'll basically be wasting my degree, an attitude I know comes at least partly from parental pressure. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to working in law, but I wouldn't say it's my motivating passion, which worries me in terms of my ability to stick with it without wanting to kill myself. If it changes the advice at all, I have no debt, (which I know puts me in an insanely more privileged and secure position than a lot of people).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Wanna elope?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lanesainty/stat...ingawful.com%2F Cross post from the Auspol thread but a dipshit former politician just had his defamation defence colourfully dismissed. He's been told he has to file a new one by Sept 28.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:I think I might be the youngest here at 24 24 twins! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Got an interview for a grad lawyer position. I know I should be excited and happy but I feel like going to law school was a huge mistake. I mean, more than usual. Worst case scenario I stick it out for a year and gtfo, if I even get it which I might not, right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Come do desert law with me Funny you should say that, I did have the thought the other day of running away and starting a new life in Alice Springs. I'm honestly just surprised I got an interview at all - I did my application a few days before close, as I was racing out the door to something else, attached an incorrect version of my transcript with a fail (incorrectly) recorded, and have no extra-curriculars or anything like that. Having had a day to think about it I'm just going to wait and see if I actually get an offer before I worry about it. I think I was just in shock as much as anything else. My consolation is that my co-worker who I intensely dislike got an offer from them and I'd have been pissed if he got one and I didn't, just on principle. Plus, now I can say I have a 100% success rate of interviewing for graduate positions. Law school!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
Preparing for my graduate lawyer interview tomorrow. Do I lead with my love of gefilte fish, or the superiority of Sondheim over Gilbert and Sullivan?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Bond with your interviewer over the struggle to find a good bagel place As bagels aren't really a thing here on hell island, this is easier to bond over than you'd think.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Heck maybe don't even commit any adultery at all, if you can manage it. Woah there cowboy, let's not get too crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Had my interview. They're interviewing 10, calling back four for another round on Monday, and then making offers to two. Didn't get to discuss bagels or the performing arts, but apparently nobody else had said my answer for "what are your strengths?" I said my ability to grind away at a task.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You should have said your ability to lose your gag reflex when partners spell your name correctly. "Turn you weak gag reflex into your greatest strength."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Good luck? But that’s a pretty terrible answer. Meh. She liked it and I think that and the corresponding weakness part are pretty terrible questions, so we'll see if I get a call back. If I don't, I guess I'll just have to find a new way to develop and subsequently ignore mental health and addiction issues. Out of curiosity, what do you think is a better answer?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Serious question that I know would never happen for a heap of reasons, BUT: what if the other SC Justices just straight up refused to work with him? What would happen if they just boycotted/went on strike and said "we refuse to hear or judge cases while he's sitting here with us"? Would there be any recourse to that, or anything Congress could do? Can they even be fired for any reason? In Australia we have age limits (70), which has pros and cons, and they can be removed for "proved misbehaviour" and "incapacity".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Whelp. I don't have a beautiful winter cabin but I do have room on my floor for a couple of mattresses, if anyone wants. Rip America.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:You're not fooling me into falling asleep on the floor in Australia. There's some ant or something that exclusively delivers its poison through the crotch. Some of the ants are edible. Victoria, originally from Western Australia. My mum's partner is from Dubuque, Iowa.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If there's one upside to all this, it's that my own hopes of being nominated to SCOTUS have been rekindled. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
An anaesthetist was sentenced for deliberately infecting 55 people with Hep C, and is now challenging his conviction (negligently causing injury) on the grounds that treatments have come a long way since he was sentenced in 2011, so this reduces the severity and impact of his offending. What's the most creative defence or grounds for appeal you've ever heard?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:we should really get a blanket exemption from jury service. no competent lawyer is going to keep us on Not sure if it's the whole country or just my state but we have that here. Sucks, because I wanted to do it. There's a chance I've lined up another non-law job for myself and if I got it, I could further delay ever having to actually be a practicing lawyer. When I think about it in the abstract I'm like "maybe it wouldn't be that bad" and then when I remember from a practical perspective what it's like, I remember how good I've got it working for government and why would I want that to change? Apart from the theoretical possibility of partner money one day but ehh.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Generally speaking active lawyers are everywhere, but there are some places just being a lawyer doesn't exclude you if you're not practicing. There you go, I'm in Victoria. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
So I've got a friend staying from California. For fun, he brought over a sample ballot. He was weirded out by our how-to-votes, I was weirded out by the write-in slot. Do write-in candidates ever win? I'm guessing the answer is "very rarely" at most, in which case my follow-up is "why include the option, and if they decline the position, does it just go to the second highest candidate?"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:One of Alaska's current Senators won as a right-in candidate in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Alaska,_2010 Oh yeah, that makes sense. I can see how that also might happen more for those really weird minor things that probably only like five people actually care about, like school building inspection commissioner or whatever the gently caress. Cheers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Gleri posted:How can you have a government without a budget? In the Canadian system basically all government spending requires a vote from Parliament (or the provincial legislature). Loss of supply means you cannot govern. Same here. One of Australia's biggest political scandals (the dismissal of PM Gough Whitlam by the Queen's representative here) was caused by failure of the Senate to guarantee supply.* *somewhat simplified explanation but that was the official trigger and mechanism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Didn't one of Australia's prime ministers get eaten by a shark Lost at sea so probably eventually, or he was picked up by a scary communist Chinese submarine, which some people still believe happened. Then we named a pool after him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
gently caress dude, I'm so sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
I heard El Chapo's trial had started and they were in the process of juror selection, and they were taking measures to ensure the jurors' identities were kept secret. Honestly lol at the idea of presumption of innocence when you're going into it with the presumption that the jurors are inherently unsafe just for being empanelled.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Lol the legal profession and educators in particular are absolutely loving failing the current / next generation of lawyers Finished last year; can confirm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Officially managed to pick up another government job, meaning I don't have to practice law. Come join us, it loving owns.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
Relevant Australian conduct rules and ethical code, for those who are curious. Here's another interesting hypothetical. When you're making your disclosures to be admitted, they now want you, in addition to disclosing criminal and academic history, to disclose mental health information. So if you've ever been diagnosed with anxiety or depression, for example, they want you to disclose. Unlike the other matters, my understanding is they can't actually punish you for not disclosing, they just really really like you to. Would you disclose?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
joat mon posted:We yanks have commentaries and discussion sections that come along with the bare rules. Do those exist for 9.2? I couldn't find any. My ethics lecturer vanished half way through the semester for "health reasons". We later found out she was struck off for unethical behaviour. The woman who replaced her later lodged a formal bullying complaint against our Dean. C'est la vie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Fomenko's calendar or gtfo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
If you vote, it says the next round of votes will have lawyers from longer TV shows (as in, shows that go for an hour) on it. Dianne Lockhart ftw.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
My call is Saul Goodman to win.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:All you lurker bitches need to dox yourselves and start posting funny poo poo or else you’ll never make equity partner What do you get when you drop a piano down a mineshaft? A flat miner.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Tell me more about medical school and MBA options. I'm sure if I go to the designated threads they'll suggest I'd better become a lawyer. They would be wrong. Again, look at the stats about substance abuse and mental health issues. When people say it's a poo poo job and a poo poo industry, they aren't just saying it to hurt your fee fees. I count as part of the new class too, having graduated last year (not in the US) because I didn't know what to do after high school, and hey, I'm good at English and interested in politics, so law makes sense right? The reason it was a slightly (and only slightly) less horrible idea for me to do it is because 1. I graduated with no debt (thanks mum and dad, and regulated university fees), and 2. I was able to leverage my experience into a non-law job, where I'm now not practicing. I'm now considering doing a Masters in an unrelated field. If you're considering doing it because you're interested in practicing, go find out what it's actually like to practice first from someone you know, since you obviously don't trust the decades of experience ITT. If "money" is even on the list of reasons you're considering it, you're making a mistake and your list is wrong. Please keep posting if you go though, Toona needs a successor saga.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Is the term actually "criminal lawyer" because that can mean something else. Tell us about it. It isn't funny, but basically Victoria's legal system is about to implode because it turns out a handful of criminal defence lawyers were acting as police informants, for those who've missed the story.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Wow that's really really bad. Prison sentences for every lawyer and for the cops and prosecution for aggravated dereliction of duty in using privileged information to obtain convictions but of course lol that'll never happen. I don't know if it's still true but last I heard the original lawyer at the centre of it fled the country with her kids, refusing witness protection because she said she didn't think they'd be able to keep her safe. Which kind of lol, kind of she's almost definitely right.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 12:33
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Tell us about it. It isn't funny, but basically Victoria's legal system is about to implode because it turns out a handful of criminal defence lawyers were acting as police informants, for those who've missed the story. Quoting myself but turns out it is also possibly happening in South Australia. Lol. Lmao.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Is there a difference between the US and Australia in the default conception of the attorney-client relationship among the general public and among attorneys? Is it just another regulation, a technical, nit-picky encumbrance? Among the attorneys I know (granted, mostly crim law) it's a foundational, inviolable given. Well it now sounds like the original lawyer who kicked the whole thing off was found with a trafficable quantity of drugs in her sharehouse while she was still a law student. She was never prosecuted for this, and I saw a quote from someone who presumably knows her who said he thought at the time it was weird that charges weren't bought. It's not impossible the other cases started in a similar way, I suppose. Self-interest is a powerful beast. I think the crimes involved also play a factor. It sounds like the original lawyer was working a lot in organised crime. My understanding is that before the '90s, organised crime (in Victoria) was kept more or less behind closed doors. Then in the '90s, there were a few very high profile shootings and violent incidents, in which non-affiliated people got injured. The public (and probably police) sentiment was essentially "do whatever the hell you like to each other, just leave us out of it". The police were under a lot of pressure to contain things, and I think there was a prevailing general mentality of "gently caress the mobs, all's fair if they're shooting people on the streets, let's end this poo poo". I definitely think that lawyers would care more about client privilege than the average non-legal person, especially if you asked them about it in the context of Carl Williams or Tony Mokbel or whoever. Also, it might just be confirmation bias, but I know a few police officers, and I can't think of a single one who would say "no, don't tell me this privileged information, your client's privacy and the underlying principle is far more important than my interests". I mean it's also possible the lawyer found out about genuinely bad poo poo happening and decided "gently caress it, greater good, to hell with this client, they need to be put away". I was born in '94 though, so AT or anyone else feel free to comment if I'm talking out of my rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2019 07:52
|
|