Content warning: this article references experiences of sexism.

Prior to entering law school, I was told all sorts of cautionary tales. In particular, I was made well aware of the prevalence of sexism in the legal industry. As a woman who had already been in the workforce, I was aware of the various ways in which misogyny manifested and how people exercised it. I was also aware that being an outspoken woman of colour would attract additional hostility. 

I remember walking through those glass doors for the very first time, imposter syndrome gripping me tightly – a phenomenon that was not unusual for me. I expected it would last for my first semester and then slowly subside, but this time was different. 

Being a woman of colour, especially one who did not attend a select-entry or private school, in a prestigious institution proved to be far from palatable. As an outspoken individual, the feelings of isolation and consistent reminders that I didn’t belong became entrenched. The truth is, my very existence, particularly in an institution, is political. I am unable to exist without being a direct threat to the status quo, even though it is not of my own volition. 

In my first semester, a friend and I competed in Witness Examination. For the majority of our rounds, we had the same student judge. This same judge consistently referred to me as ‘Shriti’ even after being corrected multiple times. For reference, my name is phonetic (Srish-ti). There were a plethora of times I corrected this particular judge. Heck, I even inputted my pronunciations into zoom. Although I could not pinpoint whether it was due to my race or my gender that this conduct was repeated, it was a subconscious display of the judge’s discomfort with my intersectional existence. 

Although it would have been easier to smile and ignore, I repeatedly called them out and as a result I felt a sense of animosity from the judge. Since then, I was provided feedback at the end of our rounds that appeared highly arbitrary as it did not clearly demonstrate how I could have performed better. The only time my partner and I won a round was when we had a separate set of judges. 

I anticipate that people may think that is a situation of chance. However, let me draw your attention to the following. 

I remember the last round in which my partner and I participated, I was the acting legal counsel and performing cross-examination, judged by the same individual. During the cross-examination, I completely derailed the prosecution’s witness to the point that the witness demonstrated inconsistency with their witness statement. It was unequivocal to all parties that we had won. But no. We didn’t. 
I do not dispute that some rounds my partner and I competed in had rightful outcomes because naturally, there are always wins and losses. But to me, this particular moment seemed to confirm all my doubts about my existence being unpalatable. As I said, I can’t point to it purely being an experience of sexism or racism, but it was one to do with the threat of my existence. Of course, it is always nice to win, but I was enraged about something more insidious. As the astonished faces of the opposition demonstrated, everyone knew the outcome wasn’t fair. Either way, it was just a competition, and the judge was a student, so I let it go. In fact, later in the year and in a different environment, this student ended up redeeming themselves to me after getting to know me better. They also ended up calling me by my actual name. 

But, here’s the thing. 

Misogyny isn’t typically blatant, but because of its subtle nature, it can be even more sinister. It is often displayed through the subconscious reaction one has to women, even more so when they are outspoken women of colour. This is because misogyny works as a type of prejudice that functions in contempt of those who unapologetically operate outside of the patriarchal constraints that they are expected to. However, when you add other forms of prejudice a person with an intersectional existence is likely to experience, it is likely to cause significant psychological damage. 

In fact, one can like a woman as an individual, be well intentioned and still engage in misogyny. Because you can still belittle, humiliate and disrespect someone because anything disruptive to ‘acceptable’ power relations is threatening. Even without malice. 

I wish to say that my experience in my first semester was a one-off, but unfortunately not. I had this behaviour repeated by a tutor of mine. 

Similarly, I was called ‘Shriti’ for an entire semester, regardless of my correcting the tutor ample times and inputting my pronunciations on zoom. Everyone in class noticed it. Many remarked to me privately about it. But, my tutor did not change this behaviour nor hesitate to learn the difficult pronunciations of my male counterparts.  

Every week, I did the readings, prepared as best as I could and regularly contributed to class. Often, when I raised my hand to contribute, my tutor would respond to me with an ‘okay’. But when a man contributed and sometimes even made a similar point, was rewarded with an ‘excellent’ and further discussion. I remember one of my final classes, ironically on gender, I said something along the lines of “the onus falls on men to prevent sexual harassment in the legal industry by facilitating conversations with other men and strongly encouraging them to change their behaviour”. Once again, I was given an ‘okay’. 

There is no doubt that as future lawyers we will have to advocate for clients with vast lived experience that may differ from our own. By being transparent about our experiences, hopefully we can foster an understanding that involuntary factors are often at play for an intersectional existence – pushing them further to the margins. At the end of the day, to be empathetic will evolve us as advocates and we can start that journey here and now. This is why I’m sharing this. Because it’s important that we be able to hold others and each other accountable and most of all, learn.
 
Srishti Bali is a first-year law student.

A spectre is haunting the MLS – the spectre of clerkships. A delirious aura of exhaustion surely hangs over every law student who has spent weeks writing cover letter after cover letter to law firms they’re not even interested in. If they’re lucky, they get to sit a psychometric test deliberately designed to stress them. If they’re even luckier, they get to sit through an interview trying to explain why they’re interested in a job they’re not interested in. Then, at the end of it all, they are probably going to get an email about the “large number of strong applications this year”, with no idea of how to get a job in law other than through a clerkship.

With clerkship offers rapidly approaching, maybe we should reflect on what this process is doing to us, and how it became this way.

The state of affairs is familiar to all of us: there are vanishingly few positions in clerkship programs compared to the number of applicants, and most people end up finding jobs outside of clerkships and graduate programs with the big commercial law firms. Even though we know this to be the case, a massive amount of resources are spent advertising seasonal clerkships, and providing advice on how to ace your interview, spruce your C.V., or compose a killer cover letter. 

Clerkships often dominate  discussions about career opportunities after law school. Even though only a few people will get into a clerkship, it is treated as the default path, if not the only way, into a ‘successful’ legal career. A large number of law students wind up with the tacit impression that their whole worth as a legal professional depends on getting into a clerkship at a commercial law firm, with perverse ethical outcomes.

We all do our fair share of puffery when advertising ourselves in job applications, but the hyper-competitiveness that is cultivated by the clerkship process in particular seems to encourage seriously unethical behaviour, and hostility among us all.

As an extreme example, De Minimis has been made aware of allegations that a member of the MULSS executive committee misrepresented their employment credentials in order to secure personal benefits. De Minimis understands that the individual has been employed as a casual at a prominent law firm in the past, but continues to mislead others, both face-to-face and via platforms such as Linkedin, into believing their employment is ongoing.

A senior representative for the firm at which the individual claims to be employed confirmed to De Minimis that although the person had not been formally fired, their contract was unambiguously casual, and they had received no work from the firm since February. De Minimis understands that the lack of work for eight months means that the person is no longer considered an employee as a matter of law.

This raises questions about whether they deceived electors during their 2021 election campaign and whether it would be most appropriate for them to step down from the MULSS Executive Committee. Also in question is when exactly other figures on the Committee became aware of the deception.

It isn’t our place at De Minimis to name and shame this person, or to engage in a private crusade against members of the MULSS, but we are genuinely concerned about this as a manifestation of the toxic, hypercompetitive behaviour that the clerkship process in particular seems to encourage. 

While singling someone out for lying about their work status might seem petty, this is the kind of unethical behaviour that could prevent someone from being admitted as a lawyer, and beyond that, it’s the kind of behaviour that makes people cynical about participating in life at MLS, and makes life miserable for those who try. 

This concern leads us to raise a question: why is the careers information provided by the MULSS seems so heavily skewed towards the clerkship process, when it is ultimately relevant to so few of us?

While events are run to provide information about legal careers in the public sector, or criminal law or public interest law, it nowhere near matches the amount of information or resources devoted to raising awareness about clerkships at commercial law firms, which get their own handbook – which is two and a half times the length of the more generalist careers handbook. Why?

Is it perhaps because of the massive amounts of revenue generated by selling space in the handbook to commercial law firms? Is there a conflict of interest experienced by those who organise and publish the careers information?

Again, we would like to emphasise that De Minimis is not trying to launch a crusade against members of the MULSS. We all sit in a structure that incentivises hyper-competitive behaviour, and we are not suggesting that members of the MULSS have acted with nefarious intentions. Nevertheless, the pattern is clear, and its malign effects are evident.

We need the MULSS to recognise that they put too much emphasis on clerkships as the default pathway into a career, and devote more resources to raising awareness of the normal ways of getting a job after graduation. Clerkships can be a great way to gain experience and exposure, but they are not what most people will experience, and the MULSS has a duty to put its resources into information that is more relevant to the student body at large, who won’t get into one.


Note: This article is the result of an investigation by De Minimis. Anyone seeking to learn more about the methods involved in that investigation, and the veracity of the information, may contact the Editor-in-Chief at: [email protected].

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article cited an incorrect reference. Sorry about that.

Volume 20, Issue 10

Our culture today seems very willing to throw the label movie star towards any  up-and-coming actor after only a few good films in a row, with an increasing number seemingly ascending to the divine status of membership of the ‘A-list’. A few good movies in a row are undoubtedly an achievement, but what is almost unfathomable is four decades of classic after classic. With a career entering its fifth decade, there’s a strong case that for the entirety of his career Tom Cruise has been at the very top of the A-list. This led me to the question: what about Cruise has enabled him to achieve such success over four decades and counting? 

​Are there more important questions to be asking in today’s world, even ones people might be more interested to read about? Probably, but let’s have an explore of Cruise anyway to try and find the answers.


​​The Beginning: 1981-2001
Risky Business, Top Gun, The Color of Money, Rain Man, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Jerry Maguire, Magnolia, and Eyes Wide Shut.

If Cruise were to have retired even as early as 2001, he still would have been left with one of the greatest film careers of all time. His filmography in this period is truly absurd, and what is even more astounding is that these classic films came one after another. With the change of the film industry in recent years, and the rise of streaming and actors flocking to TV, I really wonder if any actor in the future would be able to ‘achieve’ a run of hit films to this extent. 

Moviemaking is really a team sport, with winning (making a good film) requiring the entire team, both players and coaches, to be of high quality. While Cruise has worked with a litany of great actors, what sticks out is the coaches that have directed his films. These directors included a list of names that are etched into the history of cinema, such as Coppola, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Stone, Scorsese, Pollock, De Palma, Robert Towne, PTA, and Kubrick. Advocates for Belichick in the Brady-Belichick debate would suggest this identifies Cruise’s success is caused by the quality of the coaching staff he has worked with. However, like with Brady, when you have had so much success, and you are in so many good films, eventually some responsibility must rest with the common denominator, Cruise. 

​The Tom Cruise Character
In looking at these films in the list above, several similarities appear. The characters Cruise plays are all narcissistic, self-assured, arrogant douchebags. These characteristics never reach an extent where they cross the line to being truly unwatchable, and as William Goldman suggests movie stars tend to avoid such roles. However, I would argue that many of these roles could very easily cross that line, and it is only because of Cruise’s infatuating charisma and irreverence that the audience is prevented from ever disliking his characters. Rain Man and Charlie Babbitt is a great example: Charlie is undeniably horrific and while we as the audience might be able to identify that, Cruise is so enjoyable we never want to look away. In Michael Caine’s view, Charlie's actions are so overwhelmingly hateable that Charlie should be unwatchable - Cruise’s ability to lead the audience to like Charlie could therefore be classed as a best of all-time acting performance (and one arguably better than that of co-star Dustin Hoffman, who won the Best Actor Oscar for the film). 

​Cruise’s off-screen life and general intensity makes it by no means difficult for one to imagine why he is so easily able to play these douchebags, often returning to these parts. Specifically, these similar characters often have an extremely similar arc, something critic Roger Ebert conceptualised in what he calls a ‘Tom Cruise Picture.’ They open with a hyper-masculine and greatly confident flog that has raw skill in a particular craft, the meeting of a mentor to help him develop these skills to defeat an enemy, and ending with the defeat of said enemy, resulting in the character transforming into a better man. In effect, a straightforward three act structure we all learnt in primary school, nothing too elaborate or unique, merely a tried and tested formula that effectively guarantees an entertaining narrative. While it is true that many classic Cruise films are simplistic, when the outlined elite directors are coupled with the specific skills of Cruise to play his archetypal character, the result is almost always a great movie that is endlessly rewatchable.

Acting Skills 
Like a true A Lister, his inability to age only furthers his legend and divinity, with Cruise looking like the youngest fifty-nine-year-old in human history. Movie stars have familiar traits and aspects to their acting they repeatedly deploy across movies. For Cruise, his intensity, facetiousness, strangely enthralling yelling, and distinctive running style are all seen time and time again. To me, Cruise is at his best when he’s either loud and dominating or when measured and taciturn. 

Both can perfectly be seen in that courtroom scene in A Few Good Men. Nicholson deservedly received praise for the scene, even receiving a supporting actor Oscar nomination effectively for it alone, but to me the better actor in the scene is Cruise. Tom’s ability to suck the attention of the viewer entirely onto himself, through his engrossing magnetism and acting skill, builds the scene to a point where it almost didn’t matter what Nicholson brought to the table. So, to me, Cruise’s work in the scene is far more difficult and impressive than what Nicholson provides. 

​The Legend of Tom Cruise: 2001-2021
First of all, apologies, I was not expecting this to be this long, and ya boy most definitely does not have the time to edit this down, so congrats if you’re still reading. Shifting now to the next two decades of Cruise’s career: Mission impossible 2-7, The Last Samurai, Collateral, Jack Reacher 1-2, Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion, Top Gun 2. Two decades of classic after classic gave Cruise a level of power rarely seen in Hollywood, and to me he uses it to establish and promulgate ‘The Legend of Tom Cruise.’ He transitions into becoming almost exclusively an action star, playing himself in every movie with little variation or nuance (also known as becoming a student of the Jason Bateman School of acting). Some argue the catalyst for this substantial shift in Cruise’s career was his lack of an Oscar win for Magnolia, with Cruise consequently shunning traditional dramatic acting. To continue the sports analogy, Cruise’s power build up is like Michael Jordan transitioning into becoming an NBA Franchise owner, except Cruise took it a step further by establishing himself as a player-coach-owner. 

When you have such power, you obviously must let everyone know how great you are. TOM CRUISE DOES HIS OWN STUNTS. HE HUNG ON THE SIDE OF A PLANE FOR MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, DID YOU HEAR? HE BROKE HIS ANKLE DOING A STUNT! HE WANTS TO GO TO SPACE FOR A MOVIE! HE FLEW PLANES FOR TOP GUN! ALSO DID YOU HEAR HOW X PERSON TOLD HIM X STUNT WAS TOO DANGEROUS BUT HE DID IT ANYWAY? WOW! TOM CRUISE, WHAT A LEGEND. This legend creating is not only applied to acting, with many articles discussing how Tommy boy is the one calling all the shots on his films, by being a hands-on and intimately involved producer. Are we really going to believe the “leaked” audio of him ‘politely’ talking to his cast and crew, while also talking about how seemingly all of Hollywood calls him all the time just magically appeared? It could be argued that it was instead the careful cultivation of a brand - Cruise remains a beloved cultural figure, drawing eyes to screens simply for the purpose of seeing him, his schtick, and his production efforts. 

Well, we’re now scarily deep into this, so it’s probably time to wrap it up. Travelling through Tom Cruise’s four-decade career has hopefully illuminated to both you and to me why he's been able to achieve this incredible career. To close, this clip of Cruise opening the 2002 Oscars is a perfect example of his skills as an actor, his magnetism, and his deeply engaging ability to tell a story. Tom Cruise: a true movie star. ​

Dear Ousted and Offline,

This question is predicated on lawyers and law students not only having the time to socialise but wanting to. This is incorrect. Therefore, there are no secret social channels for lawyers beyond the company Slack group and Microsoft Teams chat. If you are thirsting for some kind of outlet, the cesspool that is Twitter is ready and waiting for your extremely unimaginative and uncontroversial auspol opinions.

Want to talk to your friends and family? Make the bold move and pick up the phone. 


Somewhat sincerely,
Your Learned Friend

​

This reading assumes that you’ve been locked down for an extended period of time in 2021, or isolated from the university/friends/family overseas. For best results check your MOON sign.


Sagittarius – Require many adventures and personal freedoms, currently in an extended breakdown.

Scorpio – Break down on a semi regular basis, will almost certainly crash again before the year ends.

Pisces – Has not faced reality in a long time, will crack as soon as they engage with the present.

Aries – Their need for excitement has been seriously stifled, chances of lasting the year are low.

Cancer – Will reach out to others for support, but may be overwhelmed by other’s needs.

Gemini – Requires a lot of stimulation, possibly running out of activities, may already be spiralling. 

Libra – If single or living away from loved ones, catastrophe. If loved intimately, should pull through.

Leo – Will probably never have a full-blown breakdown, they release their dramatic woes regularly.

Aquarius – Unless overwhelmed by the troubled world, will likely remain cool and detached. 

Taurus – Forced themselves into a strict routine and will likely see the year through to the bitter end.

Capricorn – Calm in the streets, weep in the sheets, they’re always distressed and will never show it.

Virgo – While the future is uncertain, the present is routine. Virgos will hold steady. ​

Second-year Billy Baker has completely squandered his mid-sem break in bed watching Netflix. Facebook memes had taken him to Sex Education, and before he knew it, he had used up his break binging all 24 episodes of the show.  

The young man was starting to wonder if he was just destined for this sort of thing. 

He had planned out a list of lectures to catch up on, just like he always did. He had said he would at least skim over the key readings this time, just like he always did. The semester now felt past saving, just like it always did. 

So there was an eerie silence in Billy’s Corps tute when his tutor asked him about the Federal Court’s judgement in ASIC v Healey. 

“Ah, yes, uhh, ASIC and Healey….” Billy said dumbly, trying to buy some time. 

But some things can’t be bought. Nothing came to mind, of course. He had not even heard of the case. 

“Well?” his tutor asked, firmly and plainly. A little coldly, even. The voice of a disappointed father. A tone Billy’s own father had often been called on to use. 

Billy snapped his mouth shut and eased back, saying nothing. He had accepted his fate.

His tutor had started to blah blah blah about how important it was to do the readings, but the young man had stopped paying attention. 

So what if he would never have the good grades needed to cop one of those top-tier clerkships. He could always pad his resume next year by joining the LSS – preferably in one of those roles no one else in the elections would run for, like President. 


Joe is a first year JD student​

Dear Nosy in the Neighbourhood,

This is going to be short and not so sweet: whether your friend is or is not breaking lockdown rules is not your business, plain and simple.

If you feel more comfortable asking an online rag about your friend’s activity than your friend, you’re probably not that close. Putting aside the million compliant explanations – the person could be the partner’s roommate, she moved house, her relationship status has changed, she’s providing caregiving – even if she is bending the rules, it’s not your place to do anything.

While it is appropriate to report some breaches, such as massive house parties or someone breaching quarantine while infectious, this is not one of those cases. Melbourne has spent in excess of 220 days in lockdown. Is this an anti-lockdown piece? No. Am I saying it’s ok to break the rules? Also no. However, given the situation, shouldn’t we be understanding, kind and forgiving to those around us rather than pointing the finger? And this goes for neighbours and strangers, let alone someone you consider a ‘friend’. 

Lockdown boredom gets the best of all of us but try baking bread or rewatching Tiger King before playing “Real-life Stasi Simulator”.

​
Somewhat sincerely,

Your Learned Friend​

Dear reader,

Through the course of my JD so far, De Minimis has been plagued by submissions which incite racism, sexism, and perhaps worst of all, the big-brained centrist “think”-piece that was “The Woke Oblivion.”

It is a testimony to the privilege of some at this law school that they see nothing wrong with speaking first on topics they know little about. This became obvious to me with “You Cannot Be Pro Choice and Pro Vaccine Mandate,” which couldn’t have had stronger “cis male speaking out of turn” energy if its author used the piece to announce their running for elected office with the Liberal Party.

The issue here is the prevalence of works which do little to promote constructive thought. We see too many articles which betray privilege; treating major issues as mere semantic curiosities, rather than considering the experiences of real people.

Before we proceed, yes, I have one of those privileged standpoints. If you’ve ever managed to peer through the blinding glare of my pale skin, you’d know that. I’m another cis white man with something to say. But the purpose of this article isn’t to play saviour or speak for anyone else. It’s to reflect on the state of this publication. We need more of the student body to bring forward their experiences and perspectives. We need more thought-provoking pieces, more witty zingers and satire, more high-quality discussions and debate in this publication. Don’t get me wrong. There’s plenty of articles published by this masthead that I’ve loved reading, and that they have published works polemic enough to inspire this chronically lazy student to write something is to the editorial team’s credit. Still, I don’t think the dogged “neutrality” claimed by them in publishing certain submissions, to the point of having to endure external probes into racial discrimination, is actually very neutral at all.

​​So what are we, the incensed law school public, to do about this state of affairs? It seems to me that we represent the overwhelming majority. Should the LSAT test what it’s supposed to, we are supposed to be rationally minded, intelligent people, and rationally minded, intelligent people tend to be upset when their law school, or an aspect thereof, represents values misaligned with their own. Furthermore, rationally minded, intelligent people tend not to propagate values such as vaccine scepticism, racism, or “anti-political correctness” (which, as far as I can tell, really means being anti making others feel comfortable, and anti allowing those who have not enjoyed as easy a life as you to join your elite spaces).

A 23-year-old JD student has reportedly sat through a two-hour Corporations Law lecture in just one hour.

The Melbourne Law School student, Tammy Thomas, launched into lecture capture like a bat out of hell this past Monday. 

“You might think I have broken the laws of space and time, but no. I am just clever enough to have discovered this lifehack,” Tammy told De Minimis when our reporter sat her down for a chat. 

“You see, us JD students are busy enough as it is. Sometimes I wonder if I’m the first person in my family to truly understand what that means. Anyway, that’s besides the point – these online lectures are totally boring. If you amp them up to x2 play speed, you will save half your time. It’s simple maths, really.” 

However, Tammy’s housemate is not so convinced.

“I don’t know what the #$%^ she thinks he’s doing,” Hayley told us this morning. 

“Playing lectures at that speed is just ridiculous. There’s no way she can hear a thing that’s being said. Half the time, it just sounds like some sort of robotic cult chant is blaring from his room. And even if she could make sense of the words themselves, Tammy is way too slow to keep up. I know that for a fact.” 

Tammy did not seem bothered when we asked her about this later in the day.

“Sure, I might not understand every last thing that’s being said. But who cares - the important part is that I’m watching all the lectures. No matter how they look, when my grades come back in December, nobody will be able to say Tammy Thomas didn’t try her best.” 

More to come. 

​
Icarus is a first year JD student