I am coming to the conclusion that everything is arguable, including the law. Don’t get me wrong, I know that the art of being a lawyer is the art of coming up with and applying crafty and persuasive arguments. Before coming to law school though, I would have never thought that those arguments would be about the law. I expected the arguments to be about its interpretation (what does this law mean?) or application (does this law apply?).

To take an extreme example, say someone has been accused of murder. Arguing about the law means that you’re arguing over whether or not there is a law against murder. Arguing that about the application of the law means you’re arguing that what the accused did is not murder. Big difference because by arguing the latter, you are implicitly acknowledging the existence of the law against murder.

Of course nobody would seriously argue that there’s no law against murder. One only has to look at section 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada to confirm the law’s existence and see it spelled out in black and white. This is not as easy in other cases, particularly when it comes to the common law.

The case I ran into a few days ago concerned compensation for nervous shock induced by negligence (Mustapha v. Culligan, the “fly in a waterbottle” case). The courts struggled with whether or not there was even any law in Ontario that would entitle Mr. Mustapha to recover for his psychiatric illness. To add to the confusion, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada came to completely different conclusions on this very question. The arguments did not center on whether the laws regarding to nervous shock applied to this case, the arguments centered on whether or not those law existed. Once again, big difference.

One of my professors says that everything is arguable. If this is true, how are individuals supposed to structure their affairs so as to not run afoul of the law that may or may not exist? If everything is indeed arguable, it’s great for lawyers (cha-ching!) and judges who have a very wide role in setting social policy. I’m not so sure that it’s so great for everyone else. On the other hand, it’s this uncertainty that gives the law flexibility to evolve through judicial decisions. So the choice is between uncertainty and rigidity. Pick your poison, I guess…

Thursday afternoon was the first time I stood up in front of a court. This exercise that was a part of my Legal Research, Writing and Advocacy course, although worth relatively little in terms of marks.

I learned a number of things. I actually got nervous (which has not happened to me in public speaking in over six years). In my first 10-20 seconds, I was incredibly jittery and this did not come off well. I also learned that I need to have better control of my facial expressions. It’s bad to look pissed off when a judge asks you a question (even if you are, in fact, pissed off).

The exercise was generally a lot of fun and is something I would certainly do again. There’s a competition (not for marks) coming up in a about a month which I’m looking forward to participating in. This one’s not for marks, so there’s a bit less pressure.

A career in litigation? We shall see…

I had to repost this, it is just oh so cool. (WARNING: Toxic amounts of  geekiness lie ahead). Find the original and all the comments here, courtesy of LawIsCool. I will say right now that this was not my work and I had nothing to do with it, except having a lot of fun reading it.

Also, I am done two of my six exams. So far, so good (I think…I hope).

I am currently sitting in the law library, surrounded by volumes and volumes of very official-looking books (having words like “law reports” and “legal digests” in their titles) going as far back as the 15th century. I am now realizing the key to success in law school (and probably law practice): learning how to deal with loads and loads of information being bombarded from all sides.

In preparation for exams (which start next week!), I have created a summary of what I learned in every course. These summaries range from 30 to 50 pages per course and there are six courses. I don’t think I have ever dealt with this much information that was not cannot be dumped into a spreadsheet or database. And yet I have to have all this information in mind when I write the exam.

I’ve been told that law school (especially first year) would be hard. I believe I was misinformed. Law school is not hard. The material is relatively simple to anyone who can make a reasonable argument and then see its counterargument. What makes law school “hard” is that volume of material can be overwhelming. The trick is to stay on top of it and organize it in a way that makes sense.

That and to make your own summaries.

It looks like I haven’t written anything for a while, so I’m just popping in to say that I’m still alive. I’ve participated in a handful of competitions and visited a Bay St. law firm for some training for the Business Clinic.

In general, school is getting quite crazy now because exams are in less than three weeks. During this time, I probably won’t be here all that much.

Good luck with exams to all the students out there!

I’m in the middle of doing an assignment, so this will be a short post.

Did you know that a mushroom is a vegetable? So decided a court in Re Ontario Mushroom Co. Ltd. and Learie after a court ruled that mushroom plant workers are not entitled to minimum wage because they worked on cultivation of vegetables.

Did you know that a horse is a type of cattle? It is according to the Criminal Code of Canada: ““cattle” means neat cattle or an animal of the bovine species by whatever technical or familiar name it is known, and includes any horse, mule, ass, pig, sheep or goat” (R.S., 1985, c. C-46 s. 2);

That’s all I remember for now, I may post more as I come across them. If you know a crazy statute or a nonsensical interpretation, post it in the comments.

My colleague Eric Grigg, a fellow UWO Law student, has recently written about what he feels are courses that will “mitigate…unfamiliarity of the first term in first year”. He recommends courses in British History, Canadian Government, basic Business, and some basic philosophy (particularly logic). Read his blog post for more information.

I more or less agree with Eric’s suggestions, with one caveat: don’t rely too much on what you learn in undergrad. I have a minor in political science and my knowledge of the workings of Canadian government took me through to the end of first week of law school. My business knowledge (business was my specialization in undergrad) has so far taken me nowhere. This is not because I wasn’t paying attention in class but because law school is different from anything you have ever done in undergrad.

Does it help to have a basic understanding of how our political and business systems work before coming to law school? Most likely. Is it a requirement? I would say no. A person coming from the physical sciences can do just as well as someone who majored in legal studies in undergrad. In fact, a science major will likely come in with no preconceived notions about law, a blank slate if you will, which may well work in her favour.

My opinions are biased however. Outside of English history and philosophy, I studied what Eric is recommending in quite a bit of detail. I’d like to hear an opinion from someone who didn’t. If you are such a person, leave me and/or Eric a comment.

Ownership of a newborn domestic animal goes to the owner of its
mother…unless that animal is a swan.

“legal fictions” (assumptions and models used by courts) started
because people were bribing court officials to make up facts.

Sheriff is a derivation of the words “shire-reeve”. Reeve is itself a
derivation of the word “graffe”, a German word meaning Count. So a
sherrif is really a count, a Respresentave of the King in a given
county.

Tires are an integral part of a car. A car is worthless without them.
An engine however, is an easily removable part of a car, so it’s perfectly
fine to sell a car without it’s engine.

A contract occurs when and where acceptance is communicated. So if you
accept an offer over the phone, make sure you ask where the other
person is or else your contract may end up being governed by Ghanian
law. And don’t get me started on email.

It is apparently possible to strangle someone while you’re blacked out.
Supreme Court of Canada said, in a polite way, that this is bull…

Judges have an indirect say in setting their salary.

Your spouse is always your biggest creditor. You have written
agreements with the rest of your creditors, so why not your spouse.
Moral: never get married without a pre-nup.

Throwing lit firecrackers into crowded markets gets you in deep doo-doo.

If you’re protesting, make sure you don’t do anything illegal while
you’re at it. If your protesting costs the target company a contract
and it could be that it was due to your illegal actions, you’re on the
hook for a huge amount of money. That’s how one protester paid
several hundred thousand dollars for walking on the grass.

Today I had the pleasure of sitting through an introductory Legal Ethics and Professionalism lecture (I would have enjoyed the lecture much more if I hadn’t been sick, but that’s besides the point). The professor talked at great length about civility in communication, especially if the communication is in writing. It is far too easy in this connected world to send something off in the heat of the moment or without considering about what the message will look like to the receiving party. Of course the professor was talking about emails, instant messages, twitter, blogs, and other online media. But when I got home, I found a far more extreme example.

“Deidre Dare” (I put her name in quotes because I’m not sure if that’s her real name) is a former associate of Allen & Overy (a UK law firm). Part of what peaked my interest in this story is that Deidre Dare worked in the firm’s Moscow office. She put up a website with some material that her firm deemed objectionable. The material? A fictitious account of an expat living in Moscow and engaging in all kinds of questionable activity including drinking, drugs, sex, and (according to abovethelaw.com), something involving donkeys and dwarves, but I wasn’t curious enough to get to that part of her “book”. The part I did notice was a blanket knock against my city of birth:
“I drink too much. I do too many drugs. I fuck around. I waste days and time. I spend too much time
at parties. I spend too much time alone. I spend too much money. I talk too much. I smoke too much.
I don’t write. I indulge myself……”
There’s a shorter way of saying all that, I realised:
“I live in Moscow”.
To nobody’s surprise, Deidre Dare eventually got fired from her firm. She’s suing for wrongful dismissal and such, but that’s not the point. The question is should a lawyer who works for a respectable firm be allowed to publish such material? In other words, does it violate some kind of ethical code of conduct?

My personal test to this is fairly rudimentary and perhaps incomplete, but here it is: if it were known to a “reasonable” client what his/her lawyer was in doing in his/her free time, would the client still hire this lawyer? If not, the actions of this lawyer are probably unethical.

As for Deidre Dare? She’s writing a column called “sExpat” for a Moscow-based English language paper, and is considering high-class prostitution in order to increase her cash-flow. I would like to think she’s joking, but you never know.

For the curious, you can find Deidre Dare’s website here (May be NSFW).

First of all, a congratulations is in order to the law classes of 2012: we survived the first two weeks of law school. It wasn’t easy. It involved a boatload of new terminology, a new way of thinking, an immersion into the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, a little bit of Latin, and a dose of downright wacky concepts (”qualified pre-possessory interest”, anyone?).

But we survived. And we shall survive again. I just looked at the calendar, and we are 15% of the way through the semester (scary thought, huh?).

P.S. I am still looking for contributors for this blog. Drop me an email if you are interested.