What's the appeal of Law? (1 Viewer)

[BigDk]

You're responding to this as though I stated it as the sole reason for doing a law degree. Settle down.

If I ever get sued, I save a shitload of legal costs. That's all I'm getting at. Did you want further clarification?

wow you spend an extra 2 years of your life studying law and $20000 in fees on the off chance that you are going to be sued in the future so u can represent yourself hahaha

obviosly you havent been taught how to argue your case very well... oh yeah they dont actually teach u that, its common fkn sence

 

[rajputsingh]

wow you spend an extra 2 years of your life studying law and $20000 in fees on the off chance that you are going to be sued in the future so u can represent yourself hahaha

obviosly you havent been taught how to argue your case very well... oh yeah they dont actually teach u that, its common fkn sence

mate no offence but ur about 2 start year 9 i think as ur hsc is in 2013-y r u commenting in the university forum?

 

[withoutaface]

woah, why is that?

Because you'd have a fool for a client.

 

[hfis]

woah, why is that?

It's because if you represent yourself you have no objectivity. You're more likely to make decisions based on emotion rather than logic. It's a rule I'm well aware of but will probably end up disregarding (as most lawyers I've seen do in practice).

Edit: also, what waf just said above this post.

wow you spend an extra 2 years of your life studying law and $20000 in fees on the off chance that you are going to be sued in the future so u can represent yourself hahaha

obviosly you havent been taught how to argue your case very well... oh yeah they dont actually teach u that, its common fkn sence

This does not follow on from the post you quoted at all (particularly the part I mentioned about the 'sole reason' for doing the degree) and serves to demonstrate your lack of comprehension skills. Everyone in this thread is now stupider for having read it.

 

[tommykins]

Because you'd have a fool for a client.

ahh i see

 

[DaGizza]

It's because if you represent yourself you have no objectivity. You're more likely to make decisions based on emotion rather than logic. It's a rule I'm well aware of but will probably end up disregarding (as most lawyers I've seen do in practice).

Edit: also, what waf just said above this post.


This does not follow on from the post you quoted at all (particularly the part I mentioned about the 'sole reason' for doing the degree) and serves to demonstrate your lack of comprehension skills. Everyone in this thread is now stupider for having read it.

I agree with what you said but that would even be true if you represent friends and family though to a lesser extent. But I think personal gain (or avoiding personal injury) is a really strong motivator for the lawyer to argue his/her case well, just like if someone paid them a million dollars for one small case. Hmm...

 

[emmae7896]

For those of you not studying law, perhaps you should look at why you are bothering to comment on behalf of those studying law.

It should strike you as irrational and illogical that you are speculating based on little, if any, fact and evidence and little, if any, experience. It's just as unreasonable as us speculating as to the daily tasks of the Prime Minister or highly paid CEO and assuming that they are all greedy, lazy, rude, dumb, selfish etc. Similarly, if we were to speculate on the usefulness of an environmental science degree. I'm sure you could wax lyrical on the impact it has on daily life and i'm sure those not studying it could come up with equally convincing reasons why it is a pointless waste of money.

The most important thing I've learnt while studying law is that in reality, it doesn't matter what we think, it matters how we apply the FACTS to the LAW. The law isn't always reasonable or fair. We need to get over the whole striving for fairness thing. Justice as it pertains to the rule of law yes, but personal justice will never be achieved in an adversarial system. Winner and Loser based on who argued the best. It's life.

Something to end on to indicate how the law can be absurd and unjust...
In 2009 in NSW and possibly other states, the defence of provocation due to homosexual advance is still available as a partial defence to unlawful homicide. I.e. No Murder conviction for stabbing a homosexual man for making a pass at you. Just manslaughter. Ridiculous and wrong. Doesn't work for homosexual women though... women don't defend their masculinity. How archaic.


I want to get involved in Law Reform. Clearly there's a grave need.

A lot of you clearly have NO IDEA of the realities of a career in law. It's more than just standing up in court in wigs and robes and defending a murder case. Do some research before making such strong comments based on uneducated opinions in an anonymous format.

NB- lawyers aren't all assholes who want to help some asshole get richer and off an assault charge or something like that. Lawyers help uphold the rule of law. A good lawyer realises that the role of a lawyer is to represent a person so that the individual is given a FAIR TRIAL. Plus, if you don't want to defend someone you know committed a heinous crime, then you don't have to.

 

[hfis]

I'd go further than that and say that you technically can't. Aside from that, good post (especially considering your HSC year is apparently 2008)

 

[Graney]

What an insane, vague rant.

I have no problem with people wanting to do law, for any reason.

lol, I'd never claim an environmental science degree has any usefulness to my day to day life.

Maybe nursing is the only degree I can think of where you might learn something you'd actually use outside of employment.

 

[hfis]

What exactly is insane or vague about requesting that people who do not actually study law to not answer the question 'why did you choose to study law'?

 

[neo o]

Something to end on to indicate how the law can be absurd and unjust...
In 2009 in NSW and possibly other states, the defence of provocation due to homosexual advance is still available as a partial defence to unlawful homicide. I.e. No Murder conviction for stabbing a homosexual man for making a pass at you. Just manslaughter. Ridiculous and wrong. Doesn't work for homosexual women though... women don't defend their masculinity. How archaic.

That case was decided on its facts, and "the homosexual advance defense" is not applicable in nearly every similar situation. In the specific case that you're thinking about, the defendant had been sexually assaulted by a string of men for years and a court found there to be provocation when a man made a sexual advance on him (which I believe in this case was grabbing his crotch and then asking him for sex).

 

[Roguedeth]

the chicks

 

[melsc]

the chicks

We law chicks are pretty hot and the ratio of chicks to guys is well in your favour

 

[Graney]

What exactly is insane or vague about requesting that people who do not actually study law to not answer the question 'why did you choose to study law'?

You must admit it was pretty rambling.

Made an illogical stab at myself.

Puts up the straw man that others were accusing lawyers of being "greedy, lazy, rude, dumb, selfish". Saying people do it for the money, isn't the same as saying they're greedy.

She talks like the choice to study law is under siege from all and sundry. Except for a few idiots, I don't think anyone was ripping on people for wanting to study law.

It's not a hectic serious thread, it's just a bit of a laugh in the end. I'm sure the OP can sort the chaff from the grain.

Hell, just cause people don't study law, doesn't mean they haven't met people who do, and heard their reasons why they studied it.

 

[tommykins]

yeah i dont know why everyones taking it so personal and serious lol

 

[RogueAcademic]

Plus, if you don't want to defend someone you know committed a heinous crime, then you don't have to.

The way I see it, the lawyer is not really defending a criminal, it's more about serving the law and having faith in the justice system for a just outcome (sounds cheesy but that's what it's all about). It's not a choice sometimes, as explained on the VicBar website:

How can a barrister act for a person when they know they are guilty of a criminal offence(s)?

The Bar's rules of conduct require that a barrister must accept a brief from a solicitor to appear before a court in a field in which the barrister practises or professes to practice if the brief is within the barrister's capacity, skill and experience, they are available and the fee is acceptable. See rules 92-107 of The Rules of Conduct.

The role of the barrister is not to judge the client but to serve as an advocate in the client's interests. The barrister must advise the client of the strengths and weaknesses of the case and in the appropriate case, advise the client that it may be in the client's interests to reach a compromise.

If the client does not accept that advice and wants to proceed, the barrister must fight the case to the best of the barrister's ability and in accordance with his or her paramount duty to the Court.

Once the hearing is underway and the client wishes to proceed, the barrister has the running of the case, not the client. If the client has in conference with the barrister confessed to the crime of which he or she is accused or admitted a particular fact, but still wishes to fight the case, the barrister, if the client so instructs, must put the Crown to proof of the matters alleged but cannot call evidence, put questions or make submissions that would be at variance with the matters the subject of the confession or admission. The barrister must never mislead the Court. See rule 161 of the Rules of Conduct.

​

 

[emmae7896]

I'd go further than that and say that you technically can't. Aside from that, good post (especially considering your HSC year is apparently 2008)

I did the HSC in 2004 and studied B Medical Radiation Science. Now I'm studying law at UTS. I joined here to help tutor my cousins. Fair assumption though!

 

[emmae7896]

That case was decided on its facts, and "the homosexual advance defense" is not applicable in nearly every similar situation. In the specific case that you're thinking about, the defendant had been sexually assaulted by a string of men for years and a court found there to be provocation when a man made a sexual advance on him (which I believe in this case was grabbing his crotch and then asking him for sex).

I completely understand what you are saying and I just chose a random and strange example, but key words "not applicable" stand out to me. The fact that it exists and can then be applied if relevant is the problem.

 

[MichaelJackson2]

I completely understand what you are saying and I just chose a random and strange example, but key words "not applicable" stand out to me. The fact that it exists and can then be applied if relevant is the problem.

what case was that? cases that spring to mind are: Moffa, Stingel, and Green. Was it Green? As I recall, provacation is quite a technical defence and the objective element involves a pretty technical and counter-intuitive two-tier test (if I recall correctly), and is usually pretty hard to satisfy. therefore, it is not that outrageous, as the defence of provocation has a special and highly technical meaning quite distinct from 'provocation' in the general sense the word is understood (which is what today tonight once attempted to portray the defence as).

curious if there was anyone here who knew the difference between provocation and the 'temporary insanity' defence they have over in the states? they appear to be similar, at least during the episode where denny crane described the defendant having a sudden impulse where she lost herself for a moment and when she regained consciousness she found that she had smacked her husband in the head with the shovel she was holding.

 

[neo o]

what case was that? cases that spring to mind are: Moffa, Stingel, and Green. Was it Green? As I recall, provacation is quite a technical defence and the objective element involves a pretty technical and counter-intuitive two-tier test (if I recall correctly), and is usually pretty hard to satisfy. therefore, it is not that outrageous, as the defence of provocation has a special and highly technical meaning quite distinct from 'provocation' in the general sense the word is understood (which is what today tonight once attempted to portray the defence as).

curious if there was anyone here who knew the difference between provocation and the 'temporary insanity' defence they have over in the states? they appear to be similar, at least during the episode where denny crane described the defendant having a sudden impulse where she lost herself for a moment and when she regained consciousness she found that she had smacked her husband in the head with the shovel she was holding.

I vaguely remember a case from criminal law about a footballer who assaulted a woman outside a pub in Canberra and was found to be so intoxicated that he was in an automative state and wasn't in control of his actions. It vitiated his mens rea, and he won the case. I'm fairly sure the legislature abolished it.