santaslayer
Active Member
I'm not advocating (overtly anyway) for lawyers (lawyers as in the general term for the profession) to lie or to mislead the court but the point is that someone will need to prove quite reasonably that the lawyer was well aware of his actions and intentions at the time right? I find that quite difficult to do, unless of course someone recorded something.bearpooh said:
Arvin Sloane
We are not amused.
Yes, ‘tis the cover.011 said:
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
That's not from google, you would have found that from the Bar Website- "Find a Barrister" etc. In any case, why do you have to be a thorn in the ass, I mean, we've established that I'd prefer the case to be not discussed with particulars until its finalisation, yes that means not mentioning the Barrister.bearpooh said:Nah..
It is obviously:
John Jeffery Graves SC
Thirteenth Floor Chambers
13 / 174-180 Phillip St
Practice Areas:
Appellate
Insurance
Amazing how much data a dedicated googler can find.
I wont post his fax, phone number or email here , in the interests of saving
him from demented BOSers
No, like I've said 20 times, I haven't done any law units yet. All my reading of the subject has been broad and general.bearpooh said:
Yes, Arvin's right, it's the cover.011 said:
I'll post up today and yesterday's ongoings tonight when I've had dinner
while we're waiting on my friend, allow me to give you a run-down of my work. for 'tis the time to flick through those summerclerkship glossy brochures. if my current workplace had a glossy brochure, and i was invited to submit an outline of my day, this is how i'll say it like it is:
being a clerk in a small immigration law firm aint really that stressful.
See? No mention of 13-hour days, million-dollar deals, endless email and Blackberries.A Day at BSS (**not** BDW)
8:52 am: get to the office on time, only to find that Suede (who opens up) didn't get here at her usual time; Marie and I idly chatter outside the office about, inter alia, housing prices, holidays and Newcastle.
9ish - 10ish: get in, find a memo from Marie (from yesterday) asking me to photocopy some support documentation (ie photos). comment-to-self: the bride ODed white powder on her face in the wedding - yuck. it took a very long time to stamp all documents with 'Certified Copy - BS Solicitors', and write Marie's name (so she may sign it as certified).
check my in-tray: had three office bills to pay - Telstra, LexisNexis and our outsourced secretarial service (Desk Mates). Pay all but Telstra: needed to find out the Brett's credit card's signature panel number. Saved to complete later. Place paid invoices in Brett's in-tray for authorisation/signature.
11ish: reminded by Suede to complete a table of ongoing Federal Court matters pronto. Attempt to find several files-missing-in-action. Look through the direction hearing orders to find: status, amended application due date, whether amended application has been submitted, date of final hearing.
Monica goes out to do some miscellaneous stuff. Before she leaves, she gives me a quick lesson on how to download dictated files from Brett's digital dictaphone. It works through a USB dock and it doesn't take long for me to get the hang of it. Email three dictated files to our secretarial service. Monica reminded me that our email service has an attachment limit of 3MB, which is shit small.
12ish: brisk walk from York St to Marketcity food court in Chinatown (yes, it's quite a trip). Sick of having lunch in the CBD, wanted to go down to Chinatown. Had a "roast duck wonton noodle soup". yes, that's quite a mouthful, but i like roast duck. the wonton dumplings were nice too ^.^ remind self to go there again sometime, but for the fact that it's fattty and bad for heart.. brisk walk back (ouch, stitch).
1:30: get back to office. bum a bit. attempt to complete Suede's Federal Court matters list.
2ish: Brett tells me to find "a form from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal website". That's quite an equivocal request, but I think I knew what he was talking about. Bring up the AAT website (along with Legalised.com, Boredofstudies.org, SMH.com.au, Lawyersweekly.com.au). Print off list of forms and the main Application form. Place both papers in his in-tray.
3ish: Monica goes off for late lunch. I sit in front desk. not many calls today on the commander system. I collate some filing. attempt to find files missing-in-action and bill the correct clients for company search disbursement (think ASIC searches, but at $38 a pop).
Finish Suede's court list, but for one file (which I could not locate).
4ish: start my 'proper' job, which is filing.
Inter alia this filing, I rang Mr P. Bradenhurst of Savills (building management), to ask him why he had not returned my call. Bitch to him about leakage in ladies' toilet (apparently - i didn't go check), stain in hallway carpet, leaking sealing in windows etc. Mr Bradenhurst seemed surprised - he assured me that Mr T Dike (his colleague) returned my call. Advised me not to worry, he'll get on to it... right. that's what they all say. type up filenote for this call and chuck in filing.
almost 5ish: almost home baby! Brett had a job for me to do, which was to amend an Advice letter (i think?). Made some amendments up til the 3rd page. Brett was held up by a call and couldn't keep giving me amendments to add to the original doc, so I left at 5, the moment he finished his call. I don't think he was too pleased - i reckon he would've wanted me to OT and finish the stuff. oh wells.
sometime later: I realised Monica had asked me to do the afternoon cheque deposit on my way to Town Hall. oops
being a clerk in a small immigration law firm aint really that stressful.
Last edited:
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
You're not even a first-year grad.Frigid said:well, i would like to see what sort of work you will do as a first-year graduate
bearpooh, can you stop it with the negativity, you're jiving out my groove, man...
Did you say that on purpose?frigid said:
I've almost finished today's report thing.
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,645
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
Good practical experience thoughbearpooh said:
santaslayer
Active Member
Hmmm...
Friggy's work seems to be more practical whilst pwarman's seems to be more observational...
Anyway, what a stupid observation...
were there any hot females working alongside? (this is for friggy and pwarman of course)
Friggy's work seems to be more practical whilst pwarman's seems to be more observational...
Anyway, what a stupid observation...
were there any hot females working alongside? (this is for friggy and pwarman of course)
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,645
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
You'd be suprised! For cute I'd say the commerce faculty is better though.noneother said:
But I go for pretty, not cute. So law is generally alrite.
hYperTrOphY
Member
What about hot?MoonlightSonata said:
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
1. Yes, I totally agree. I knew it would be, though, especially considering I haven't started law.santaslayer said:
2. Not really, this whole thread is a stupid observation
3. No, I didn't see any. There were a lot of cuter, youngish guys, and older pretty women, but nothing hot.
Sorry about not posting up the thing already, I will do it shortly
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
Day 2, Tuesday 5th
The case resumed at 9:40, as there were some earlier cases that would finish early.
I got there reasonably early, and watched the end of a small matter before the Judge. In this court complex, and I'm told it’s mostly the same everywhere, the Judge occupies the same courtroom until he’s transferred or leaves the system.
It seemed the Judge was sitting on a case relating to succession, or inheritance of will monies. It seemed to be complicated by the fact that the girl asking for her inheritance was injured. I don’t understand how or why, so don’t ask. The cases were made to the judge by young solicitors. I don’t know what this indicates other than the case didn’t require experienced advocates, let alone barristers.
Anyway, the said case was adjourned and came to no conclusion other than the judge would get back to it on a later date.
Immediately after, our case started. The day before related to setting out of the arguments and straightening up of the affidavits of the witnesses, Tuesday related to the cross-examination and examination of the witnesses.
The witnesses were arranged in order of their chronological contact with the case. I’ll say that John had no witnesses called, so all the witnesses were called by the defence counsel.
The first witness was the guy that initially approved the plaintiff’s application for insurance, his official role being “underwriter”. This guy was really low in the food chain; he was really only appearing for the defendant because he probably didn’t want to lose his reference from work (he’d moved on in employment). Anyway, he received the form and approved it. He was given an incorrect weight, height, and nature of work. He was also not given the fact that the plaintiff had sleep apnoea. John cross-examined him for 2 hours. I really felt sorry for the guy; he didn’t really have a good command of English, and found the questions hard. Not to mention the fact that he literally read a form and gave it the tick- it would be reasonable to say “it was no longer his problem”.
It was established that: If the plaintiff had put down his correct weight, nature of work, he wouldn’t have been accepted a policy. Unfortunately for the defence, these were not the grounds of the avoidance of the contract; rather they avoided it on basis of sleep apnoea alone. The guy was pretty much shown to be useless as a defence witness. I suppose a bad part of the Bar is that everyone deserves and shall have representation; no matter how hopeless their case is.
At this point in the trial, I noticed how much English skills were involved. It wasn’t just a command of English that was necessary, it was an almost mathematical ability- if you’ve done the philosophical study of “Logic” at uni, it’s similar to this. Thankfully, that kind of stuff comes naturally to me, but didn’t to the witness.
Not only did the witness have trouble answering John’s questions, but he frequently avoided the point of the question. Having really no patience for anything, John constantly was saying “please answer the question”, although at times it was clear that John was bending the words, or taking the answers overly-literally. Furthermore, the structure of John’s questioning meant that one question followed the previous’ answer. Right from the get-go, the witness had seemed to have stumbled in the clarity of his story and his affidavit submission. This kinda snowballed into a point where the witness admitted he really had nothing at all to do with the case of avoidance.
At one point in the cross-examination, the judge had to decide whether a certain line of questioning could be used. At the point of the objection being made by the defendant, the witness was sent outside while the judge made a ruling in favour of John asking some questions. It seemed technical, but the opposing barrister eventually agreed with John and then the witness was let back in.
The second witness to be called was a lady slightly higher up in the hierarchy of the company. She was the “executive underwriter”, kind of the above guy’s boss. She gave the final stamp after the policy application had been made. She was, however, contacted when the plaintiff made a claim, hence her apparent relevance to the case. It was shown that, like the above witness, she was part of the underwriting decision, and was hence irrelevant in the claims context. She was much better at answering questions, and I think her general managerial role helped her with longer and tricky questioning. She was still in the employment of the insurance company, though, and she was obviously loyal to them. This is interesting- John asked her why she included a “final statement” note in her affidavit, essentially standing up for the company. She said that the practices and procedures of the company were let down by a lying client. This didn’t, however, have anything to do with the case, and to the objections of the opposing Barrister, it was shown to discredit her.
The third witness was some sort of manager of the underwriting section of the company. He was a very impressive person, and I think he knew it. Subsequently, as John had thought, he needed to be kind of broken on the stand. That sounds really lame and American, but it’s true. His arrogance projected as confidence, and confidence in witnesses that are against you is a bad thing, apparently. John went through the same spiel that this guy had no relevance on the case. The underwriters should have caught the plaintiff out on his lie, and John conceded that. The case was relating to claims matters, and although this matter linked to whether the application for insurance would have been made if the information had been disclosed, the actual happenings of the underwriting had no bearing on the case. It was simply a matter of showing past policies that were issued under similar circumstances, which was easily done. The witnesses still needed to be shown irrelevant as they had been presented by the defence.
As it now comes to mind, I’ll mention that the district courts have breaks. They operate from 10-12, 12-1:30ish, 2:30ish-4; with an hour break being at 1:30ish, and about 10-15 min breaks the other times, depending on the judge. The barristers were really nice and always took me to lunch. I actually spoke to the defending barrister before the case one morning, and he was a very nice person. They all seemed very willing to lend a hand.
The last witness was a guy relatively high up. He didn’t actually work for the company in question, but was hired on sub-contract bases along with a few of his people. He was clearly trying to persuade the judge that, had the information been disclosed, any policy whatsoever wouldn’t have been taken out by the client. John basically tried to discredit him, and use the fact that the employee rarely used specific guidelines against him. This witness cross-examination was very brief, only about 15 minutes.
At the end of the day, all the witnesses had been talked to. It was the longest day I’d had in court, and all the barristers, solicitors, me, and the witnesses looked pooped.
John and the rest of his legal team had a conference with the plaintiff and his wife. The plaintiff made a comment that “we did well”, and John replied that “It may look well from the comfy chairs with your popcorn and coke, but it’s up to that man [the judge] to decide”. Interesting comment, imo.
The case resumed at 9:40, as there were some earlier cases that would finish early.
I got there reasonably early, and watched the end of a small matter before the Judge. In this court complex, and I'm told it’s mostly the same everywhere, the Judge occupies the same courtroom until he’s transferred or leaves the system.
It seemed the Judge was sitting on a case relating to succession, or inheritance of will monies. It seemed to be complicated by the fact that the girl asking for her inheritance was injured. I don’t understand how or why, so don’t ask. The cases were made to the judge by young solicitors. I don’t know what this indicates other than the case didn’t require experienced advocates, let alone barristers.
Anyway, the said case was adjourned and came to no conclusion other than the judge would get back to it on a later date.
Immediately after, our case started. The day before related to setting out of the arguments and straightening up of the affidavits of the witnesses, Tuesday related to the cross-examination and examination of the witnesses.
The witnesses were arranged in order of their chronological contact with the case. I’ll say that John had no witnesses called, so all the witnesses were called by the defence counsel.
The first witness was the guy that initially approved the plaintiff’s application for insurance, his official role being “underwriter”. This guy was really low in the food chain; he was really only appearing for the defendant because he probably didn’t want to lose his reference from work (he’d moved on in employment). Anyway, he received the form and approved it. He was given an incorrect weight, height, and nature of work. He was also not given the fact that the plaintiff had sleep apnoea. John cross-examined him for 2 hours. I really felt sorry for the guy; he didn’t really have a good command of English, and found the questions hard. Not to mention the fact that he literally read a form and gave it the tick- it would be reasonable to say “it was no longer his problem”.
It was established that: If the plaintiff had put down his correct weight, nature of work, he wouldn’t have been accepted a policy. Unfortunately for the defence, these were not the grounds of the avoidance of the contract; rather they avoided it on basis of sleep apnoea alone. The guy was pretty much shown to be useless as a defence witness. I suppose a bad part of the Bar is that everyone deserves and shall have representation; no matter how hopeless their case is.
At this point in the trial, I noticed how much English skills were involved. It wasn’t just a command of English that was necessary, it was an almost mathematical ability- if you’ve done the philosophical study of “Logic” at uni, it’s similar to this. Thankfully, that kind of stuff comes naturally to me, but didn’t to the witness.
Not only did the witness have trouble answering John’s questions, but he frequently avoided the point of the question. Having really no patience for anything, John constantly was saying “please answer the question”, although at times it was clear that John was bending the words, or taking the answers overly-literally. Furthermore, the structure of John’s questioning meant that one question followed the previous’ answer. Right from the get-go, the witness had seemed to have stumbled in the clarity of his story and his affidavit submission. This kinda snowballed into a point where the witness admitted he really had nothing at all to do with the case of avoidance.
At one point in the cross-examination, the judge had to decide whether a certain line of questioning could be used. At the point of the objection being made by the defendant, the witness was sent outside while the judge made a ruling in favour of John asking some questions. It seemed technical, but the opposing barrister eventually agreed with John and then the witness was let back in.
The second witness to be called was a lady slightly higher up in the hierarchy of the company. She was the “executive underwriter”, kind of the above guy’s boss. She gave the final stamp after the policy application had been made. She was, however, contacted when the plaintiff made a claim, hence her apparent relevance to the case. It was shown that, like the above witness, she was part of the underwriting decision, and was hence irrelevant in the claims context. She was much better at answering questions, and I think her general managerial role helped her with longer and tricky questioning. She was still in the employment of the insurance company, though, and she was obviously loyal to them. This is interesting- John asked her why she included a “final statement” note in her affidavit, essentially standing up for the company. She said that the practices and procedures of the company were let down by a lying client. This didn’t, however, have anything to do with the case, and to the objections of the opposing Barrister, it was shown to discredit her.
The third witness was some sort of manager of the underwriting section of the company. He was a very impressive person, and I think he knew it. Subsequently, as John had thought, he needed to be kind of broken on the stand. That sounds really lame and American, but it’s true. His arrogance projected as confidence, and confidence in witnesses that are against you is a bad thing, apparently. John went through the same spiel that this guy had no relevance on the case. The underwriters should have caught the plaintiff out on his lie, and John conceded that. The case was relating to claims matters, and although this matter linked to whether the application for insurance would have been made if the information had been disclosed, the actual happenings of the underwriting had no bearing on the case. It was simply a matter of showing past policies that were issued under similar circumstances, which was easily done. The witnesses still needed to be shown irrelevant as they had been presented by the defence.
As it now comes to mind, I’ll mention that the district courts have breaks. They operate from 10-12, 12-1:30ish, 2:30ish-4; with an hour break being at 1:30ish, and about 10-15 min breaks the other times, depending on the judge. The barristers were really nice and always took me to lunch. I actually spoke to the defending barrister before the case one morning, and he was a very nice person. They all seemed very willing to lend a hand.
The last witness was a guy relatively high up. He didn’t actually work for the company in question, but was hired on sub-contract bases along with a few of his people. He was clearly trying to persuade the judge that, had the information been disclosed, any policy whatsoever wouldn’t have been taken out by the client. John basically tried to discredit him, and use the fact that the employee rarely used specific guidelines against him. This witness cross-examination was very brief, only about 15 minutes.
At the end of the day, all the witnesses had been talked to. It was the longest day I’d had in court, and all the barristers, solicitors, me, and the witnesses looked pooped.
John and the rest of his legal team had a conference with the plaintiff and his wife. The plaintiff made a comment that “we did well”, and John replied that “It may look well from the comfy chairs with your popcorn and coke, but it’s up to that man [the judge] to decide”. Interesting comment, imo.
hYperTrOphY
Member
Good read, thanks again.
santaslayer
Active Member
Frigid and pwarman...
u lifted my hopes....
...and then shattered them again...
maybe I'll do Nursing now.
anyway...i shall read pwarman's latest entry right now.
u lifted my hopes....
...and then shattered them again...
maybe I'll do Nursing now.
anyway...i shall read pwarman's latest entry right now.