We represent the Law Society
Okay let's take this as an appetizer to the main internship entry.
Last Friday, I was brought to the Supreme Court. One of the litigators at the firm was representing Law Society in a case before the Court of Three Judges.
For those who don't know the difference between a Court of Three Judges and a Court of Four Judges (something which doesn't exist) but vaguely suspect that it represents some kind of important tribunal, you are absolutely right.
See when a lawyer does something naughty, he will be subjected to disciplinary action. Punishment can range from a reprimand ("you bad bad boy/girl!"), a fine (a slap on the Rolex-ed wrist), suspension ("phew it's not that bad") to being struck off the rolls ("now this is bad!"). The more serious sanctions (suspension and striking off the rolls) can only be imposed by the Court of Three Judges.
Okay back to the case.
So my poor lawyer got the least enviable job of representing the law society against his own brethren. As if that wasn't bad enough, my lawyer was late for court that day. It was supposed to start at 10a.m., we arrived at 10.40a.m. And our submissions were not tabbed, which was unprofessional and most probably gave the judges a bad impression. And why weren't they tabbed? Because we were still printing and binding them that very morning. Why weren't they done earlier? Err.. search me.
So anyway, as my dear readers would have suspected by now, we didn't do very well for the oral submission. But considering the circumstances, that was perhaps inevitable. Out of respect for my lawyer, I shan't go into the details here (about how he got whacked and everything and how the other side couldn't wait to do him in and so on).
That's not the main point. The main point is I got to see CJ Chan and Andrew Phang in action! Oh wait, you say. Weren't there supposed to be three judges? Where's the other one. Err.. I think the other one was Justice Chao but I'm not too sure (shame on me yes). But you must understand, my friend, in appellate courts like this (though this is not technically an appellate matter), there will be a panel of judges. But not all will speak and make an impression.
Take the US Supreme Court judges for instance. Justice Scalia's known as the funniest and Justice Ginsburg the least so. Some judges rarely speak up during bench trial, some keep interrupting. And today, Justice Chao didn't speak up that much. I think he spoke a grand total of 2 sentences.
Nevermind about that, the CJ and Andrew Phang J were very entertaining on their own. I don't know where I got the impression but I always imagined Andrew Phang J to be a very gentle person, as a academic would usually be. But boy, he was shrewd! Appearing opposite us in court were the four errant lawyers. One of them, M, was represented by AV, a very prominent litigator. He once came to our school to give a talk and we had to wait about two hours for him. A very important man he is!
But the truth is: AV was really good at his trade. It was the kind of standard that you would see in movies or TV dramas and not at all boring or monotonous as it is in real life. But the CJ and Andrew Phang J saw right through it. The CJ was, of course, nicer and prompted AV to move on to other things when the latter kept harping on what a good hockey chairman his client was. Andrew Phang J, on the other hand, jumped right it and told him to, and I quote the wise judge, "stop muddying the waters". Man it felt good when the judge said it. It reminded me of something one of the law professors once mentioned in jest (or it could be one of the guest speakers, can't remember whom) that all litigators are liars and cheaters.
But regardless, AV was very entertaining. Many in the gallery probably went because of him. They all left when he was done. The other two lawyers and the lady who represented herself were less entertaining, even though yet to the point of being boring. I found the last defendant (the lady) most interesting because even though she was saying how remorseful she was, her attitude was telling a completely different story. She was like "okay, whatever" through the whole submission. I'm not saying that she actually said those words but that was basically her attitude. And as expected, the judges were not very impressed with her.
Even though our side did miserably, it was a real eye-opener for me. To see the CJ and Andrew Phang J in action was well worth the trip. And plus, I got to wear my Massimo Dutti and lug the Catalog Case (you know the bag that pilots and air stewardess lug around?). I probably looked the part. When we met a lawyer from the other side at the junction, I think he took me for an associate. And when passers-by look at me, I knew they had the look of envy and awe in their eyes. Okay, shall stop imagining these things haha.
So has this trial inspired me to become a litigator and chuck the corporate work? You know how funny it is that lawyers like to ask me what area of practice I want to go into later on and when I said corporate, they would usually give a nod of approval (real or imaginary) and seemed to be saying "just like what I thought". Why can't I do litigation? Okay this is a majorly silly debate. And the truth is: unless you are a litigator in a big firm, you are probably not earning a lot. The litigators in my firm are not doing that well. Corporate work, on the other hand, pays rather handsomely. And it is definitely less demanding than litigation. And according to CP, the wonderful mentor, I have a knack for corporate work. Doesn't matter if he was just being nice. I shall take it to be true!
Alright that's it folks. I'll blog about the other parts of the internship later. Maybe days later. Maybe weeks later. Maybe not at all. Tendency is towards option 3 at the moment. Heehee.
Last Friday, I was brought to the Supreme Court. One of the litigators at the firm was representing Law Society in a case before the Court of Three Judges.
For those who don't know the difference between a Court of Three Judges and a Court of Four Judges (something which doesn't exist) but vaguely suspect that it represents some kind of important tribunal, you are absolutely right.
See when a lawyer does something naughty, he will be subjected to disciplinary action. Punishment can range from a reprimand ("you bad bad boy/girl!"), a fine (a slap on the Rolex-ed wrist), suspension ("phew it's not that bad") to being struck off the rolls ("now this is bad!"). The more serious sanctions (suspension and striking off the rolls) can only be imposed by the Court of Three Judges.
Okay back to the case.
So my poor lawyer got the least enviable job of representing the law society against his own brethren. As if that wasn't bad enough, my lawyer was late for court that day. It was supposed to start at 10a.m., we arrived at 10.40a.m. And our submissions were not tabbed, which was unprofessional and most probably gave the judges a bad impression. And why weren't they tabbed? Because we were still printing and binding them that very morning. Why weren't they done earlier? Err.. search me.
So anyway, as my dear readers would have suspected by now, we didn't do very well for the oral submission. But considering the circumstances, that was perhaps inevitable. Out of respect for my lawyer, I shan't go into the details here (about how he got whacked and everything and how the other side couldn't wait to do him in and so on).
That's not the main point. The main point is I got to see CJ Chan and Andrew Phang in action! Oh wait, you say. Weren't there supposed to be three judges? Where's the other one. Err.. I think the other one was Justice Chao but I'm not too sure (shame on me yes). But you must understand, my friend, in appellate courts like this (though this is not technically an appellate matter), there will be a panel of judges. But not all will speak and make an impression.
Take the US Supreme Court judges for instance. Justice Scalia's known as the funniest and Justice Ginsburg the least so. Some judges rarely speak up during bench trial, some keep interrupting. And today, Justice Chao didn't speak up that much. I think he spoke a grand total of 2 sentences.
Nevermind about that, the CJ and Andrew Phang J were very entertaining on their own. I don't know where I got the impression but I always imagined Andrew Phang J to be a very gentle person, as a academic would usually be. But boy, he was shrewd! Appearing opposite us in court were the four errant lawyers. One of them, M, was represented by AV, a very prominent litigator. He once came to our school to give a talk and we had to wait about two hours for him. A very important man he is!
But the truth is: AV was really good at his trade. It was the kind of standard that you would see in movies or TV dramas and not at all boring or monotonous as it is in real life. But the CJ and Andrew Phang J saw right through it. The CJ was, of course, nicer and prompted AV to move on to other things when the latter kept harping on what a good hockey chairman his client was. Andrew Phang J, on the other hand, jumped right it and told him to, and I quote the wise judge, "stop muddying the waters". Man it felt good when the judge said it. It reminded me of something one of the law professors once mentioned in jest (or it could be one of the guest speakers, can't remember whom) that all litigators are liars and cheaters.
But regardless, AV was very entertaining. Many in the gallery probably went because of him. They all left when he was done. The other two lawyers and the lady who represented herself were less entertaining, even though yet to the point of being boring. I found the last defendant (the lady) most interesting because even though she was saying how remorseful she was, her attitude was telling a completely different story. She was like "okay, whatever" through the whole submission. I'm not saying that she actually said those words but that was basically her attitude. And as expected, the judges were not very impressed with her.
Even though our side did miserably, it was a real eye-opener for me. To see the CJ and Andrew Phang J in action was well worth the trip. And plus, I got to wear my Massimo Dutti and lug the Catalog Case (you know the bag that pilots and air stewardess lug around?). I probably looked the part. When we met a lawyer from the other side at the junction, I think he took me for an associate. And when passers-by look at me, I knew they had the look of envy and awe in their eyes. Okay, shall stop imagining these things haha.
So has this trial inspired me to become a litigator and chuck the corporate work? You know how funny it is that lawyers like to ask me what area of practice I want to go into later on and when I said corporate, they would usually give a nod of approval (real or imaginary) and seemed to be saying "just like what I thought". Why can't I do litigation? Okay this is a majorly silly debate. And the truth is: unless you are a litigator in a big firm, you are probably not earning a lot. The litigators in my firm are not doing that well. Corporate work, on the other hand, pays rather handsomely. And it is definitely less demanding than litigation. And according to CP, the wonderful mentor, I have a knack for corporate work. Doesn't matter if he was just being nice. I shall take it to be true!
Alright that's it folks. I'll blog about the other parts of the internship later. Maybe days later. Maybe weeks later. Maybe not at all. Tendency is towards option 3 at the moment. Heehee.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home