The Law Makes Strange Bedfellows

13/3/2018

Vol 13 Issue 3

By Adrienne Ringin
I write this with one, nearly two Legal Ethics classes under my belt. Just being enrolled in such a class makes me an ethical philosopher by default, right? If this illustrious law school experience has taught me anything, it is that making spurious assumptions about my fellow students’ motivations is mandatory. If this is in a public forum - even better. With my accreditation laid bare, we shall proceed.

I understand that individuals come to this law school with varying motivations. In fact, we were asked about them on our orientation day back in 2016. Some raised their hands and stated their motivation was money. Others said that they were studying law others because they liked to win.But a fair few raised their hands, fresh faced and idealistic, and said they aspired to use their law degree help those in need. These were the class humanitarians.

The commencement of law school provided opportunities for the humanitarians to really showcase their morals. We were peppered with requests from organisations such as Refugee Legal, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Justice Connect to give one precious day of our time to help. And we did. Volunteer places in these organisations were filled by University of Melbourne students. The humanitarians felt fulfilled.

Then second year rolled around; the humanitarian façade fell and the ethical dilemma which is the feature of this article became apparent. With clerkships came the abandonment of principles and standards. Those volunteering at places like Refugee Legal and the ASRC simultaneously applied for clerkships with Clayton Utz, DLA Piper, Sparke Helmore or Minter Ellison. The controversy? Those firms regularly represent the government in migration cases and more likely than not, win them.

Clerkships are the highly competitive, sought-after gimmick that lures students with the promise of a graduate position. This is made even more lucrative by the recent statement of a particular politician who stated (I’m paraphrasing here) that law degrees have essentially become the new arts degree. I acknowledge that I am making numerous assumptions about applicants and volunteers, but frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. I find it highly hypocritical to waltz through law school claiming you care about people but then apply for and complete a clerkship with a corporation who celebrates victory over a small cultural community in sub-Saharan Africa in an oil mining case. What on earth are these ‘humanitarians’ doing applying for such positions?

I have no doubt that there are numerous ways one might defend themselves against my claim. Such as: we can all be different types of lawyers; people can justify their actions to themselves any which way; and probably the best one – if I work for a couple of years in a corporate position then I can spend many more years helping those who really need it!

Save your justifications because I can assure you they fall on deaf ears. You do you, and if you can sleep at night then well done, you’ve figured out a way to quiet that voice that says things aren’t adding up. But for those approaching clerkships for this fabulous year of 2018: if you have a moral compass, take a good look at who you are applying to. Ask yourself if you would ever want to work in an environment which champions profit at the expense of the demise of a culture. After all,when we are thrown into the big wide world of real adulting, we are going to have to figure out where our moral imperatives lie - so why not start practising now?

See more:

More from this issue:

A break

13/3/2018 04:10:18 pm

give me a

Two

13/3/2018 09:07:41 pm

make that

Jimi

13/3/2018 10:06:37 pm

Drienne, you know I'm a self-confessed class humanist. I understand that it may seem 'morally complex' to go into these areas but I don't think it's as straightforward as you make out.
Since we started in 2016, I have made a habit of sitting down with teachers, lawyers or others who work in fields I would love to work in (human rights, international law, refugees, native title, etc.) All of them have told me that if you want to make it far in HR/int. law it REALLY helps to have a few years doing 'black letter law' at a reputable' firm. More than half said its vital. You may have counter examples but from what high-performing and moral professionals have told me, if I want to do what I undertook this $100k+ degree to do, doing a clerkship is a bloody great move.
Further, I've seen this in practice at CLC's. The habits built by lawyers at corporate firms make them noticeably more effective than lawyers who do not have that experience. E.g. the ability to keep and maintain files in detail (done to avoid getting sued in the corporate environment) allows lawyers to run significantly more cases than their colleagues who have not.

I'll give clerkships a go. I'll probably hate them. Maybe I won't and can stick out a few years somewhere. But if it makes me the best lawyer I can be, then I'll feel a lot better about the law I practice for the rest of my life knowing that the experience of clerkships made me a better lawyer.

Though if my opinion really does 'fall on deaf ears' I imagine I've wasted my time here.

Obiter Decidididideni

14/3/2018 11:33:06 am

Great point Jimi. It's like the old adage 'any publicity is good publicity'. If you get the training and skills from a 'big evil' law firm and then use it for the greater good in the future, why should that be seen as a negative?

14/3/2018 12:06:17 am

You know it’s quite possible to be an advocate for refugees and Asylum seekers while at the same time working for organisations that represent the government in immigration cases.

This is because some people who attempt to come to Australia are not in fact refugees, have attempted to enter Australia by illegal means, and are therefore illegal immigrants. It also follows that if they are not refugees, they are not entitled to the protections of the refugee convention.

Working for an organisation that represents the government trying to have such people deported does not therefore conflict with a commitment to genuine refugee rights. It is only if you are part of the lunatic fringe and want completely open borders to the other 7 billion people in the world regardless of their circumstances that you would face some internal moral conflict.

As Australia has an annual cap on refugee numbers, every person who arrives fraudulently claiming to be a refugee is taking a place that should be available to a genuine refugee. Helping to root out this sort of abuse in fact helps refugees by making more places available to them.

15/3/2018 01:23:35 pm

A couple of points:

- There's no such thing as a "genuine refugee". You are one or you aren't, there's no need for the qualification. Further in this regard, someone who is not a refugee will not take the place of someone who is for the purpose of Australia's refugee quota, so deporting "illegal immigrants" doesn't help refugees in any way. On the other hand, assisting the Government to restrict Australia's recognition of refugee status, or the rights awarded to refugees, does materially affect refugees.

- Anyone with access to google knows that Australia has a terrible record when it comes to refugees. To suggest that the lawyers who represent the government in cases like Al-Kateb, or those that prop up Nauru/PNG, are actually trying to make more places available to refugees is a joke.

- There's a healthy middle-ground between helping the Government deport individuals seeking asylum in Australia and "completely open borders".

If, by chance, you were only suggesting that helping the Government deport backpackers who overstay their visa doesn't raise an ethical dilemma, then yeah, probably doesn't.

16/3/2018 08:53:45 pm

Thank you for your lesson on semantic nitpicking.

A person who is wrongly determined to be a refugee will take a quota place that should go to a genuine refugee. If the government is lax in its vetting, this is what will occur.

Anyone with access to the internet and who is reading more broadly than Green Left Weekly and tweets from the ASRC will know that Australia has one of the best records when it comes to treatment of refugees. What we are attacked for is our failure to subscribe to the idiocy of a Merkelesque open border free for all, where all and sundry who jump on a plane or a boat and make it to Australia, no matter how many hundreds of thousands or millions or the strength of their claim, are resettled here.

Tim S

14/3/2018 08:05:12 pm

While I like this article, I think Jimi makes some great points above as well re the fact that there's just limited amounts of places and many involved in the pursuits you call "humanitarian" law and many of those who do make it in those fields have "done their time" in a black-letter firm beforehand.

I'm personally lucky to currently work at a trade union (despite what you might have heard from 3AW/The Herald Sun/your conservative Dad) where I give advice to vulnerable workers to help them resolve disputes with issues of underpayments, bullying etc., Being paid to be somewhere where you can be yourself and do work where you in no way feel ethically or morally compromised and you get a personal satisfaction out of truly helping someone who's been disadvantaged is a beautiful thing. But not something readily available to all of us, I'm afraid.

NPJ

14/3/2018 08:41:12 pm

I also agree with Jimi. I have been told time and time again by the biggest dogs in the game that to be a good [environmental/workplace/immigration] lawyer, you should be a good lawyer, which really means get the training and put in the work. I have no illusions it's shit work in terrible conditions, but it's that work ethic and training that makes you a damn good lawyer. Geoff Robertson did this, as did Burnside and even Kirby.

I myself am thinking of going into big energy, learning their ways and then going to save the planet.

That is to say that this isn't the only way, one thing above commenters ignore is that the market was different then, getting into a top firm was easier, they paid better and didn't treat you as bad. One factor to consider is that these people are hard working and driven, so no matter where you go post grad, just work hard at it.

I didn't get a lick of clerkships, but I still work an engaging job I will quit the second my charity work becomes fiscally viable. Until then I'll content myself with a 9 to 5 and putting all my free time into community issues I care about.

But great article, generating discussion, best one of the year so far.

Andrew

17/3/2018 01:21:33 am

I hope these responses don’t fall on deaf ears as there are many well reasoned and important replies above. Jimi’s Being first and foremost among them.

The point of difference I’d like to add is that if we want to make as big a difference as we can then it doesn’t always mean we will be contributing in the way we most want. I’m most passionate about Indigenous issues but turns out I’m pretty terrible at public law. I could go into it and plod a long as a mediocre member of the VALS and feel good about myself I guess but my wish to help as much as I’m physically able means I’d rather play to my strengths and trade those in for benefits. What I seem to be good at is things like commercial negotiations and complex problem solving. I also like to be a driver of change where I can make my voice heard. That makes me see myself being most useful by going into a commercial firm, working my butt off in the areas of Law i’m more skilled at and then finding other ways to contribute such as with financial contributions and to the frontline organizations. My arrogance also makes me believe I can be useful by raising my voice (and that of my Indigenous brothers and sisters) and create change within these large organizations. In fact I feel so strongly about this it may interfere with my other plans as I fear many places may label me as a troublemaker due to my wish to be the change I want to see in the legal industry no matter what that might do to my career.

Then, down the track, once I’ve honed that business savvy (hopefully not having bounced around too many places and actually made social change) I’d love to get involved in the boards of those frontline organizations and help that way.

Our law degree is but a tool and there are many different ways to improve and develop upon that tool as well as different ways to use it to lend aid where we feel we can help.

Lou

17/3/2018 03:29:50 pm

Just wanted to point out that being a government migration lawyer is much, much more complicated than simply trying to keep every refugee/migrant out. You are not simply acting according to what the Minister wants. As a government lawyer you are subject to be model litigant rules and must ensure you are advising the government to act according to the law.

Also - the panel firms for the migration work also do absolutely incredible pro bono work. It is only mid size and big firms that actually have the resources to do this kind of work. If they weren't around, there would be lots of people not getting any legal advice or getting really poor legal advice. I've worked in small firms and they do not have the resources to do these kinds of things. Furthermore, small firms are no less focussed in on profits than mid or big size firms. Whatever firm you go for, they need to make money.

Really?

18/3/2018 01:22:40 pm

I share no favour with this article and claim no moral high ground over students who clerk, but Jimi's assertion that lawyers who have experience at corporate firms bring stronger skills to the CLC sector than those who don't is highly questionable, borderline offensive.

This article and the comments it has attracted are equally inane, and reflect the frustrating divide among MLS students: the holier than thou and the just plain unholy.

On the former side we have the false activism of claiming anyone who opts into the clerkship process is an unforgivable sell-out; an argument akin individual activism (e.g. if you don't buy expensive fair trade chocolate then you obviously don't care about anything). This low hanging moral action is short-sighted and immature.

On the other side, we have apologists who have every right to clerk till the sun goes down but who feel they need to apologise for it with spurious claims that their choices fall into some bigger moral plan. These students really should stop to acknowledge that MLS' (incl. the LSS' and GLSA') commercial focus is off the fucking charts! Lawyers (namely those who represent big corp, govt and wealthy clients) play a pivotal role in contributing to human rights abuses, inhumanity, and decreased access to justice. This article is flawed but it has highlighted (in the comments it has attracted) the dearth of progressives at MLS. There are people who commit themselves to a better world and would never dream of joining the enemy, "changing things from within" or thinking a career of doing bad can be remedied by some ad hoc pro bono or CSR on the side. So you paid $100k+ to be here and the job market is tough - you're still a member of one of the most privileged segments of society and its a bit rich to claim you can't be a good lawyer unless you sell your soul for a month or a year or the rest of your working life.

Go ahead and join the big firms, but don't pretend its part of some bigger world-saving plan and you're doing it for anyone but yourself.

Comments are closed.

The Law Makes Strange Bedfellows

Archives