#why law

[every-trafalgarlaw]

do you think he choose these hand gestures or this is just how his fruit works

[theuniversityoflaw]

ULaw undergrad student on work experience...

Nothing better than finding the job you love #LiveProspectus pic.twitter.com/O1VPwhvJTJ

— Michael F (@mikeyfal)

June 25, 2015

[airbookworm-archive]

//pasted the section of law into word, for a little easier reading, anD IT TAKES UP NEARLY FOUR WHOLE PAGES IN 12pt TIMES NEW ROMAN FONT, SINGLE SPACED. FOUR FREAKING PAGES, FOR JUST ONE TITLE IN A CHAPTER OF LAW

[ladycontroversy]

what I'd like to do today: watch some Doctor Who, drink a lot of good coffee, play a video game, read a book, do some maths, study economics, relax, repeat

what I have to do today: STUDY LAW because I have a fucking exam next week

[the-gavel-blog]

Why Law? (Part Two)

So after that little bit of a cliff hanger here's part two.

So simply studying law (regardless of adversity/commitment) isn't enough to convince HR of 'Why law?'.

It seems to me that to prove the question beyond reasonable doubt (see what I did there?!)  there ought to be a moment of revelation.  That time where the game changed and from that point onward you were legally committed.  (That's what I've gleaned from advice given to me anyway)

There's a wide chasm between studying law and practising law.  Studying law, liked I had done, ticked only one of these two boxes and offered no real understanding of the career I would be going into.  The realisation I had surround this question is that how can anyone who only has book based experience of law, really understand why they have chosen law - this is where work experience comes in.

From experiences I've had doing pro bono work and from work experience, I began to understand how practical law is.  Maybe naïvety on my part?  I really enjoyed the work experience I did with a local family law firm but I never touched a book or legal database once in that time, nor did it seem that anyone else at the firm really did either.  The experience they had built up in their respective roles meant most of the work could be completed without scouring indexes.  Everything was based on standardised forms and when the work got particularly technical it was handed over to barristers (although there will be an increasing role for solicitors to fulfil the roles of barristers - but that's another discussion!).  So comparing what I had learnt in books and what I did in practice seemed rather loosely connected.  So if studying doesn't satisfy the question and work experience is far removed from study, why law?

What work experience offered me was to see how the work that was undertaken affected the clients in a multitude of ways.  Naturally in a family law firm, the files were emotionally charged and the effects of the cases could see families pulled apart for one reason or another.  What I realised was that law has particularly high value. 

Being represented and defended was the difference between that client getting a fair trial and getting the best the can out of a bad situation.  For example, who wouldn't fight to keep their child?  Even though family clients are often state funded, the value and worth of the work being undertaken (no matter how much of it was form filling!) was massive!  And that was my revelation. 

Law to me is the huge social worth the subject has.  But this lead to another problem...

How is social value any use to a commercial/corporate law firm (the sorts I've been applying for)?

It's harsh, but commercial/corporate firms will not so much be representing the people off the street but companies wanting to make a cold hard profit, where does social value sit in with that to achieve a well rounded answer.  One that not only answers the question but is relevant to the firm you're applying to. Part three coming soon! 

[the-gavel-blog]

Why Law? (Part One)

Thought I'd take my first proper blog as an opportunity to start from the beginning, but also to highlight a particular gripe I've had with applications and to discuss how I went about answering the "Why Law?" question.

Part One

One question which I often find difficult to answer on any application forms is:

Why Law? 

or

Why do you want to pursue a career in law/become a solicitor?

It seems a simple enough question at first glance, but trying to answer it more complex, especially if you offer it up to any career advisor to have a look at.

For me, knowing I want to be a lawyer is a question of preference.  I've studied a number of different subjects across the years, from GCSEs to A-levels to University and even now I still have a number of pursuits, yet quite simply, the subject I have preferred the most is law (and economics in second thanks to my degree).

Unfortunately, simply writing "I like law more than any other subject" does do much to fill the 250 word limit and probably does little to impress/convince HR of your commitment to the subject.  So what evidence is there to support this? Not only that but having studied economics in university, how do I convince HR that I'm fully committed to law?

For me,

I never had any experience of studying law until I completed the ILEX Level 2 Certificate in Paralegal studies during the second year of sixth form.  Then during my degree I realised, although I enjoyed economics, it wasn't where I wanted to be or what I wanted to do. I tried to transfer to law but the course was full, so I was stuck (initially at least!).

From January 2009, I started studying the ILEX Level 3 Diploma in Law and Practice.  I gave up about 7 hours of my week in total to travel to Newport and back to study the qualification alongside my degree for the next two years.  I attained the qualification in April 2011.

Finally in September 2011, I started the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL).  

Yet that isn't enough to satisfy the illusive "Why law?" question.  Turns out that more than answering the question, I'm just retelling my life history.  A relentless commitment for over four years alongside the additional self-induced pressure isn't enough.

To satisfy demanding law firms all bases need to be covered, demonstrating commitment isn't enough.  A clear choice to commit to law is required: a well reasoned, well experienced, well versed, well thought out reason is required.  Simply studying it isn't enough.

Part two coming soon....

[stupidlittleskinnyman-blog]

holy jesus so everyone's getting their ATARs that will be me in two years it's not like I need 95 to get into the course I want no fuck I am actually going to need to study