Tertiary and Continuing The Law Thread

[dymot]

The funniest bit of information we encountered from our degree thus far was when the lecturer for dispute resolution said that about 10-15% of the degree is practically useful with the rest being theory. His biggest concern was the way that the Law Institue Body sets the requirements for an Educational Course to qualify for legal practice they have no choice to follow this in order to have their degree recognised. The same goes for all other universities. Therefore he contended that the course was basically useless in many aspects after completing it and in no way reflected the expectations and operation of a legal practitioner in the workforce. The assertion was made by him if you wanted to extend your studies and undertake the honours or PHD year then you tend to be resigned to a life of academia and hence why the uptake was nominal where I'm at. He also reckoned it was easier for mature agers like police officers, reps for government departments like Health and Safety and Tax workers to sidestep into the law based on their past experience much more simply. Also his other suggestion was in widespread practice as a solicitor often matters were well resolved using common sense approaches that appeased both parties that had no bearing tol any of the theory taught. Thus his suggestion was that high marks do not always equal long term professional success as LLBs do not reflect practice enough. Even the Dispute Resolution Unit we did had to have a very heavy theory based exam that really had little benefit following those steps in the practical assessment tasks of interviewing and negotiating/mediating. This was a kin to trying to implement theoretical management concepts into practice in their literal form. I will be interested to see the results of his PHD into this come 5-6 years time.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Did he also recommend you not use paragraphs?

 

[dymot]

Did he also recommend you not use paragraphs?

LOL on phone so cbf with that.

 

[Smell The Glove]

I can't even remember most of the units I did, let alone their content. All my real learning has been through practice.

If people could practice law just by doing one of the PLCs without an undergraduate degree, I doubt they'd be markedly less capable. The degree strikes me more as a filtering process for those who are disinterested/not capable rather than a source of knowledge.

I agree with the first statement, disagree with the second. My marks in contract law and property law were abysmal at uni, but now work in an area which requires a decent understanding of both. Particularly as I work with both other lawyers and non lawyers, the expectation is that I will have a greater understanding of the black letter law than non-lawyers. I have found that only once I worked in a job in which I am presented with actual fact situations do I go back and revisit those principles that I flippantly discarded while at uni. For example, I wouldn't have had a clue what mesne profits were when I finished my law degree despite having briefly encountered them, but now that I am faced with the concept regularly, I have had to brush up on what they are and mean.

But it was because of my law degree that I knew where to look. A large component of practising is being able to retrace one's steps. That's why I disagree with the second statement.

 

[Impunity!]

Your law degree doesn't teach you law, it teaches you where to find the law, and it shows employers (like me) that you can stick at something stultifyingly boring for a sufficient stretch of time that you might be worthwhile taking on, and moulding into my graven image.

 

[the harry]

Hey on template forms what does "heading as in originating process" mean? It'll probably be something simple enough but I'm not sure what to put there atm.

Thanks.

 

[Impunity!]

it is a court heading, like you would put on an originating process?

 

[QS]

Your law degree doesn't teach you law, it teaches you where to find the law, and it shows employers (like me) that you can stick at something stultifyingly boring for a sufficient stretch of time that you might be worthwhile taking on, and moulding into my graven image.

SOR, I must be odd, I don't find any of it boring at all.. perhaps because I'm a little older than when I planned to study it initially. Or, pehaps it's due to some real life experience with it that brings the often described 'mind-numbing case readings' to life a little. I did quite enjoy Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball...

Who cares about Lance Franklin when we have marquee guys like Kirby J and McKechnie J to admire.

 

[Impunity!]

SOR, I must be odd, I don't find any of it boring at all.. perhaps because I'm a little older than when I planned to study it initially. Or, pehaps it's due to some real life experience with it that brings the often described 'mind-numbing case readings' to life a little. I did quite enjoy Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball...

Who cares about Lance Franklin when we have marquee guys like Kirby J and McKechnie J to admire.

****ing mature agers...

 

[dymot]

******* mature agers...

Really ****ing annoying these campaigners. Especially when they whinge about you after they get pwned when they have done all their homework and your still pissed after the uni night trhe night before.

 

[checkraiseulite]

SOR, I must be odd, I don't find any of it boring at all.. perhaps because I'm a little older than when I planned to study it initially. Or, pehaps it's due to some real life experience with it that brings the often described 'mind-numbing case readings' to life a little. I did quite enjoy Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball...

carbolic smoke ball is not a mind-numbing case...

 

[BomberFletch31]

I did quite enjoy Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball...

If you want mind numbing, wait till you do Constitutional Law.

 

[Black Diamond]

The interesting cases are limited to contracts, equity, some property and criminal.

 

[checkraiseulite]

The interesting cases are limited to contracts, equity, some property and criminal.

really? i think there are interesting cases in pretty much every area... but they're just vastly outnumbered by boring shit.

 

[Black Diamond]

really? i think there are interesting cases in pretty much every area... but they're just vastly outnumbered by boring shit.

Most of the cases are boring. I just found those four subjects had a higher proportion of interesting ones.

 

[dymot]

Most of the cases are boring. I just found those four subjects had a higher proportion of interesting ones.

Sports law was the friggen most interesting unit I've done.

 

[the harry]

Torts and crim law if you want interesting.

I've forgotten the name of the case but here's a run down of one of my favourtie Torts cases: guy sitting on a tram, there is a sign in the tram that says not to put any thing or any body part out of the window. So the guy sticks his head out and it gets knocked off by a telephone/electrical pole (or some sort). His family then sues the tram company on the basis that it was reasonable to expect that someone might put their head out and the proximity the track was laid to the pole meant it was reasonably forseeable.

They won the case and iirc part of the reasoning was the fact there was a sign forbidding it suggested that it could have been forseen.

Also, just for anyone thinking of doing College of Law after their degree, think long and hard about it. It may seem better because it's faster than Leos, but it's a mountain of effort if you do it propertly.

 

[QS]

Really ******* annoying these sillys. Especially when they whinge about you after they get pwned when they have done all their homework and your still pissed after the uni night trhe night before.

Depends how old they are. Drank enough piss to sink this country of ours ;-)

 

[QS]

Most of the cases are boring. I just found those four subjects had a higher proportion of interesting ones.

Disagree. I've enjoyed most cases I've read.. Quite enjoyed Berry v Hames Sharley in planning law. Overall I did not enjoy planning law, but I did rather well in it. I feel, in part, due to enjoyment of reading and analysing of cases.

Some of the language in the 19th century cases does take a bit of adjustment though.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Torts and crim law if you want interesting.

I've forgotten the name of the case but here's a run down of one of my favourtie Torts cases: guy sitting on a tram, there is a sign in the tram that says not to put any thing or any body part out of the window. So the guy sticks his head out and it gets knocked off by a telephone/electrical pole (or some sort). His family then sues the tram company on the basis that it was reasonable to expect that someone might put their head out and the proximity the track was laid to the pole meant it was reasonably forseeable.

They won the case and iirc part of the reasoning was the fact there was a sign forbidding it suggested that it could have been forseen.

This is why i sucked at all law subjects (Ive only done a few as part of my commerce degree). I read this case and think - the guys an idiot who disobeyed a sign.....he got what he deserved - so i ignore the outcome of the case using my internal "that's bullshit" meter....and then fail to apply that precedence to other cases - therefore getting questions wrong. I just cant detach my moral sense of right and wrong.

Legal precedence from the 1800's is a crock of shit.

 

[Smell The Glove]

The interesting cases are limited to contracts, equity, some property and criminal.

Yeah, sometimes I stay up at night reviewing Trident v McNiece and the BP Refinery case.

Because that shit's edge of your seat reading yo.

 

[Impunity!]

I do M&A, I haven't had to read a case for years. And I really only have to deal with the Corps Act and the ASX Listing Rules, come at me bros

 

[jo172]

I do M&A, I haven't had to read a case for years. And I really only have to deal with the Corps Act and the ASX Listing Rules, come at me bros

The answer is always Listing Rule 3.1 regardless of the question

 

[the harry]

I just cant detach my moral sense of right and wrong.

Law might not be your thing then.... ya'know, having a sense of right and wrong lol. Torts was just a gold mine for me though becuase I'm inclined to laugh at stuff I shouldn't.

The legal stuff you do with your Comm degree will be boring though, that's just factual. It's the most boring topics (assuming it's business law or something similar) and, particularly in the early units, just never seems that important. If you do further studies of law you tend to appreciate it more, or at least that's my experience.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Law might not be your thing then.... ya'know, having a sense of right and wrong lol. Torts was just a gold mine for me though becuase I'm inclined to laugh at stuff I shouldn't.

The legal stuff you do with your Comm degree will be boring though, that's just factual. It's the most boring topics (assuming it's business law or something similar) and, particularly in the early units, just never seems that important. If you do further studies of law you tend to appreciate it more, or at least that's my experience.

Yeh i worked with lawyers for 1.5 years once i graduated (doing work with dispute resolution accounting - pretty much quantifying damages), and i had to get out of the game because i hated the moral side. I couldnt go to work knowing i had to "defend" a company after they had done something I didnt agree with on a moral level.

That being said - i loved and killed tax law, but could never work in the industry.