Could be the day I might need a good lawyer

A couple of weeks ago, I took part in a legal moot. I learned on Tuesday that I'd passed it (as required to graduate). Today, I received my evaluation. I've included it below. I reckon the assessments are all fair, and perhaps on the generous side. I would probably have scored better had I stuck to my prepared speech. But, as I was senior counsel for the respondents, I spoke last. Which gave me nearly 40 minutes listening to the arguments of the other three counsel, during which I realised that I had a far better defence, indeed, an unbeatable one, if I took a different tack. 

As a result, I essentially rewrote my speech during the reclaimer’s senior counsel's speech. Which meant that my speech, in the end, was mostly extempore mixture of my initial speech, which focused on applying the Caparo rules, with the aim of distinguishing Gibson (and pleading no negligence), and my new argument, which essentially denied any duty of care altogether (on the grounds that there was no identifiable group to whom an offer of protection had been made) . So I was a probably more than a little garbled, and also a little rushed, as I was, to a large degree, thinking on my feet.

ASSESSMENT CRITERION	/5
Structure/content of legal argument/formulation into appropriate submissions   Good legal content.  Structure could have been improved slightly.  Particularly good arguments re: the present facts.	4
Use of authorities Gibson well distinguished, cases cited well.	4
Presentation and teamwork   Presentation and teamwork generally proficient.  Try to slow down slightly, esp. with most important arguments.	3
Response to judge's interventions   Excellent, well explained responses to interventions	5
General advocacy skills   Generally convincing argument throughout, could have been improved slightly, as above.	4
Total	20/25

In the end, I actually rather enjoyed the experience. The standing up and presenting the case was the most fun part; the slog beforehand in the library, hunting down citations and cases, wasn't nearly as exciting, although it was challenging. But if I hadn't done that to prepare, I'd not have had my inspiration while listening to the other speeches. I may even do it all again - voluntarily.

Elsewhere on the course, today I had my last Property and Obligations lecture. Next week, I have two Roman Law lectures, one Family Law, and a couple of tutorials. And that's the teaching over for the year. All I have to do before the end of the academic year are three assignments - Family, and Unjustified Enrichment problems, and a Legal Methods exercise on the Cadder judgement. Oh, and just after Easter, there are three exams: Roman Law, Delict, and Public Law & Government. But once all that's over, I'll be halfway though the LLB - and heading towards my final year.

But between then and now, there's the long summer vac. And I still lack any kind of work, never mind a legal placement. Bother!

I'm very tired, and my head is almost full.

It's a legal matter. baby

I'm involved in in a Moot. It's part of the degree, and I have to make decent fist of it in order to pass the Private Law class. But it's ungraded - just a pass, or fail. When I mentioned it before, it seemed to be a reasonable way off. That way off is now looking horribly short. Just two full days, in fact. Thursday morning, to be precise. Not that I, and my junior, haven't done a good deal of research on the matter. But it's such a step into the unknown. It's not an essay; nor is it a presentation; it's an oral argument. It has to be flexible, and dynamic, and respond to the points made by the reclaimers, and deal with questions from the judge. So, this morning, as required, I submitted our list of authorities:

Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All E.R. 328 

Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office [1970] AC 1004

Gibson v Orr 1999 SC 420

Gilfillan v Barbour 2003 SLT 1127

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

They don't seem to be at too great a variance from the Reclaimer's (appellant to Englishers) authorities:

Gibson v Orr 1999 SC 420

Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004

Police (Scotland) Act 1967

Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC (HL) 3

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

There weren't any surprises in there, fortunately, so they haven't found anything obscure, but devastating, that we'd missed. Although I am intrigued as to what they've found of use in the Police (S) Act that that that they can't get from Gibson. Seems like a waste of of a slot to me, as we're only allowed a scant five authorities each. And Muir looks to be a slightly odd choice, as it's mainly about negligence, foreseeability, and owner's liability, which doesn't quite seem in point here.

So, all we have to do now is try to make a decent case from the facts & authorities, work out, and respond to, what the Reclaimer's case is likely to be, and present it well, standing on our hind legs, while being harried by a cantankerous judge. The whole hearing is scheduled to take about one hour. The only bright spot is that only counsel and the judge will be present - no audience is allowed.

I think I'll be getting properly suited & booted (but no gowns, or wigs) to argue the case. Looking the part might help, and assist in achieving the correct level of expected formality, especially in addressing his Lordship; as might being the oldest in the court by about 20 years! And my junior is a 4th year Czech Law student, on an Erasmus exchange, while the Reclaimers are but 18 year old first years. We ought to win, really...

A brave new year

Since I last made any entry here, Christmas has come and gone, 2010 has ground to a close, and a brand new 2011 has arrived. Re: Christmas, well, I spent the day itself alone, wrapped in a duvet, occasionally throwing up. Festive dinner was a solitary bowl of instant Korean kimchi noodles, at 11pm. And, other than baiting the Professor (of English & Drama) who was house guest over the season, and avoiding the small pieces of plastic his son scattered everywhere, very little of any note occurred.

A couple of weeks back, second semester started. Which means I am now over 25% of the way through my LLB. And I still know almost nothing about the law. Which was amply illustrated earlier this week, when the first semester results came out. Three exams at the end of last term. First Criminal Law and Evidence. I knew I had done a poor paper, and so the D3 (a third) result wasn't a great shock. Although it was still a little disappointing, as it will stand as my only result in criminal law, not having any honours papers to improve in. Contract, a subject I am rather more happy contemplating, went rather better, as I correctly noted at the time. A B3, which in common parlance is a reasonable 2i. But that's not a final mark yet (unlike criminal), as it has to be combined with the A5 from last term's Property, and the as-yet unsat Delict exam, and an Unjustified Enrichment essay that will both be done later this semester. These four together comprising "Property and Obligations" (ie private law). Lastly, there was the multiple choice examinette on Legal Systems. Which I thought I had done rather well in. And so I had: 28/30. Although, until I pointed out an error in the marking, it was only 27/30. Rather pleasingly, pointing this error out (and getting it corrected) lifted three fellow students into the pass bracket (60%, or 18/30). Not that this exam matters very much; it's a simple pass/fail, and a pass is required to be granted any credit for "Sources and Institutions of Scots Law", which is a portmanteau course of public law, the legal system, and legal methods.

So, it looks like I can actually do this law thing. Although some bits I do better than others. This semester, I continue with more private law (the aforementioned delict, and unjustified enrichment), and even more public law, with added Roman law, and Family law. Mostly fun, although family law is shaping up to be a rather dull traipse though modern legislation. Still, on the bright side, there's no criminal - where the stories were always good, but the law itself was baffling.