Search results

An exclamation mark does not imply that you are a moron. What? I think you are mistaking practicing certificate for solicitors and bar exams for barristers. You don't need to pass the bar exams to become part of a law firm.

Something I wrote some time ago: Law Degrees - Does it make a difference? It does make a difference where you get your law degree, all else being equal. To deny this would be wishful thinking. Some institutions have a better rep and will give you a better chance on the academic level of...

Um, what? The typical path is that you goto a firm first and then after building up contacts and experience there, then you goto the bar You need connections at the bar - no one will send you briefs if they don't know who you are!

lol totally unbiased and very informed I see. What you just said so authoritatively (having been to all the open days you must of course know) is highly debatable.

They must be talking about ordinary negligence. This involves a a victim (well, a victim's "next best friend", since the victim is dead) against a negligent person, claiming damages. It's a civil action between private individuals for compensation, not a criminal action where the state is...

You can have murder by reckless indifference. In NSW it will be murder if the accused foresaw that death (or grevious bodily harm) was a probable consequence of his or her actions yet took the risk and performed those actions: R v Crabbe. It is a subjective test. This is to be distinguished...

60 pal :P except my account ran out ages ago

Appealing to majority is the same thing as appealing to belief. They are just different names for the same thing.

Actually they were fallacies. It does not just depend on whether someone is an expert. Appeals to majority will be strong if: - The "authority" in question really is an authority. - The authority is speaking on his/her area of expertise. - That area admits of authoritative judgments. In...

No. As survivor said, it depends on what course you want to do.

lol @ this thread. But yes anyway, on the topic of 4WDs being safe - I read somewhere that they more likely to roll?

haha. Yes, you are of course an entirely different person than that "Trina" character :rolleyes: I also love your air-tight logic that a person who proves you wrong must have no sex life. Apart from the fact that you are actually incorrect (surprise surprise), you just made yourself look...

If I were you, I'd stop making God angry with your nonsense. "God" gave you a brain, he intended for you to use it!

Actually I said "moldy", as in unattended; decomposing. Of course, any connotations to do with "fungus" might also be appropriate.

*Ahem!* ..... But yes. I'm going to take those types of courses for my electives. Hopefully they won't hit me with too much Gummow reading.

Oh I don't know about that If I were to speculate, I'd say that constitutional and commercial barristers deal with extremely complicated subject matter much more than criminal lawyers. Though the criminal barristers probably have the edge when it comes to the purely trial side of things...

The benefits of engaging in debate are obvious. Only an intellectually moldy automaton would find meaningful discussion a bad thing.

Generally the NRSL cut-offs are lower. Assuming that you did get a GPA of 4.86, and given that your UAI was 80.25, then your NRSL rank would be 84.12 - cutting it quite close to the normal cut-off. HDs are generally hard to come by, but considering that the NRSL cut-off may be a bit lower...

You can be sure it's less than commercial practice