Andrew Michaelson
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
I’m nervous, my palms are sweaty, I’m practising my lines and I’ve had way too much to drink in the vain hope of getting some confidence.
 
How does my hair look? What if she thinks I’m a moron, I look like such a stooge in this shirt ugh. Ok, alright, just try to join the conversation, it’ll be fine say something funny ohgodohgod.
 
“Hi there, my name’s Andrew, so you’re from Freehills...”
 
I learned last week, while attending the LSS Meet the Profession Evening, that trying to score a clerkship is a lot like trying to start a relationship with someone.
 
The evening was geared as a chance for students interested in applying for clerkships to meet representatives from the biggest firms, have a chat, grab some drinks, hear some stories and see if they were the firm for them.
 
The thing was, while this was aiming to be a ‘professional networking’ evening, it ended up becoming something much more akin to speed dating if anything. Big smiles and small talk were in abundance, as we all tried to make an impression on our dates.
 
Just like any first date, the evening could only have a few outcomes.
 
You Make A Connection. They like you, not quite convinced yet, but they’re intrigued and want to see you again. They’ll make you jump through a few hurdles first, but if you’ve got everything where it counts you’ll be in with a shot of a meaningful relationship.
“Well it was nice meeting you, I look forward to reading your application.”
 
Friendzone. Again they like you, but not as much as you like them. The firm thinks you’re nice, and would totally make another firm really happy, but they’ve got their eyes on someone else, and just don’t see you that way. Try as hard as you like, it’s unlikely that they’ll take it to the next level.
“Best of luck, I’m sure you’ll get one somewhere.”
 
The Flirt-All-Night-Only-to-Find-Out-They’re-Unavailable. So you’ve been chatting with the firm rep, it’s going really well, they’ve made it sound like you’ve got a real shot at getting a position, only for them to drop one little detail at the end which makes it all worthless.
“Sounds like you’d be a great addition to the team, oh but sorry, we don’t offer clerkships to international students.”
 
Rejection. You’ve played all your moves, you’ve given the compliments, asked all the questions, but they’re not buying what you’re selling.
“Have you thought about Leo Cussens?”
 
Vegas Wedding. You and the firm rep get smashed, go a bit crazy, say some things you probably shouldn’t have, sign a few things you definitely shouldn’t have, and then wake up the next morning in a hung over stupor regretting the commitment you’ve made.
Probably the most unlikely outcome.
 
You’re ‘That Guy’. You’re drunk, you spilt your drink, tripped over the sign and hit on the boss. Yeah, you’re that guy.
“Haha yeah, he’s definitely that guy.”
 
Andrew Michaelson is looking for a learned friend. He likes long walks on the bench, candle lit depositions, after work piña coladas, and getting ‘court’ in the rain.
 
Andrew Michaelson

Thomas Ho
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
The Invention of the Human, by Yale Professor Harold Bloom, is an indispensable guide to Shakespeare, in the same league as the classics by A.C. Bradley and Dr Johnson.
 
The book begins with a defence of Shakespeare’s universalism, setting forth the central thesis that Shakespeare more or less invented the mode of thinking we partake in today. Bloom then analyses Shakespeare’s works play by play.
 
One does not need to agree with Bloom’s thesis to appreciate the erudition and passion that Bloom has invested his work with: “The common element in Falstaff’s ludic mastery and in Hamlet’s dramaturgy is the employment of great wit as a counter-Machiavel, as a defense against a corrupted world.”
 
Characters move freely between plays as though they were themselves as human as you and me. Certainly Bloom owes much of this thinking to A.C. Bradley, as he perhaps acknowledges when he echoes one of Bradley’s hypothetical encounters where Hamlet, with his wit, drives Iago to suicide.
 
Such an approach – to talk about Hamlet as though he was in the room with us – is admittedly not the most fashionable today. But fashion cannot always be correct, as Bloom would surely agree.
 
Though more fully articulated in his older work The Western Canon, Bloom also takes arms in The Invention of the Human against what he has coined ‘the school of resentment’ in the academic world. Bloom simply cannot resist criticising. He frowns upon “certain more or less recent Parisian speculators”, openly naming Foucault. Sometimes these occasional diversions illuminate Bloom’s own arguments and his focus on literary aesthetic, yet at other times, they can be slightly distracting.
 
But that is all nitpicking. It is nothing short of pleasure to watch Shakespearean characters come back to life under Bloom’s loving interpretation, and in doing so, he confirms that Shakespeare is a bottomless well. This book is nothing short of a labour of love, and is a necessary and urgent read for anyone with an interest in Shakespeare.
 
8/10
 
Thomas Ho

Equity Uncle
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
Dear Equity Uncle,
 
People tell me that tights are not pants. I say I can wear what I want in public and shouldn’t have to face judgement for it. That includes moots and presentations. Tell me please: are tights pants for the purposes of ‘business attire’?
 
Anon
 
Dear Anon,
 
The Court of Chancery did not prepare Equity for this.
 
In light of earlier gender controversies in this paper, Equity should be careful to avoid blazing gender trails. Yet, being so concerned with unconscionability, the ‘tights’ question is of great importance to Equity.
 
The strict legal doctrines of the common law, so protective of fundamental freedoms, do allow you to wear tights – you can wear what you like in public, and nobody can do anything about it.
 
But in this as in all things, Equity assuages the injustices of the common law. Equity will consider your tights pants for the purposes of ‘business attire’, provided that it is not unconscionable to do so. Unfortunately, it is unconscionable to do so because tights are not pants.
 
And as for the jegging ... Equity will allow neither a statute nor a garment to be a cloak for fraud: Equity abhors the jegging.
 
Equity has traditionally worn a robe so as to make it impossible to tell what Equity is wearing. If it were up to Equity, everyone would wear robes.
 
Equity Uncle
 
Equity Uncle

Melissa Peach
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
Without fail, each year at the law school offers countless opportunities for budding lawyers to mingle and hobnob with Australia’s finest law firms.
 
Mock interviews, barbecues (actually, what the hell happened to those?) and firm information sessions lure law students in like moths to the vibrant flame of commercial law.
 
If you happen to be caught up in the whirlwind of suits and ass kissing that surrounds these events, you will inevitably encounter these five personalities.
 
1. The Gunner Extraordinaire – You know the type. They’re super involved in student societies or volunteering (maybe even both), and have already met and impressed the HR reps. They probably have an average others would kill for and a wealth of experience behind them. They planned on going to law school to figure out how to save Cambodian orphans, but now they spend their evenings planning their move to a six-figure salary with a top tier commercial law firm. The orphans can wait. After all, unlike the Gunner Extraordinaire’s career, they’re not going anywhere.
 
2. The Private School Prince(ss) – They blind you with the shine of their expensive suits when they enter the room. They power pose and speak confidently with a tinge of douchiness. They don’t really care about trying too hard, because they’ve already got family connections behind them. They grew up playing croquet and drinking wine with the partners, and are besties with the associates. While others try to get questions in about opportunities in X firm, they’ll be having drinks with the partners after the event ends.
 
3. The International Student – You can spot these suckers by the panicked looks on their faces when they get told time and time again that X firm doesn’t take on international students. Most likely to be seen hovering around the firms with an international reach and desperately trying to convince the HR reps that really, they do want to live and work in Australia forever. You may also see them trying to pick up an Aussie guy or gal. Hey, anything to be in a de facto relationship. Money may not buy happiness, but permanent residency sure will.
 
4. The Cock Block – The only thing stopping you from punching them is the presence of the firm reps. They’ll cut in while someone else is speaking with the firm rep and completely ignore whatever anyone else around had to say. In a group, they’ll be slightly condescending. Not enough to be outwardly rude, but just enough to make you uncomfortable. Their key moves are the condescending shoulder pat, fake smile, and subtle eye roll. They seem to have found the perfect medium between douchebaggery and professionalism, so they’ll probably make a pretty good lawyer.
 
5. The Self-Destructor – Needless to say, self-awareness is not their best quality. They tend to forget that they’re at professional events and make a number of cringe-worthy missteps that will likely be the talk of law firm Christmas parties. Between drinking too much, spewing profanities, bragging about their alcohol tolerance, and s***-talking the firms after the event has ended (most likely within earshot of firm reps), the Self-Destructor is his own worst enemy.
 
Melissa Peach

Doug Porteous
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
Last Thursday, the Senate agreed to the third reading of Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012, and Facebook went crazy.
 
The bill is quite simple: It repeals the pre-existing definition of an ‘offshore entry person’, and inserts the broader label ‘unauthorised maritime person’, which is defined as a person who enters the migration zone, either at an excised offshore place (Christmas Island, Cocos Island, &c.), or ‘at any other place’.
 
Contrary to practically every bit of reporting about it, the mainland remains included in the definition of the migration zone.
 
In effect, this is a very limited amendment: it merely allows the government to deny protection visas to those who succeed in getting past border control, just as they can be denied to the vast majority who don’t.
 
In that sense, it simply streamlines our oceanic immigration policy. The international legal ramifications aren’t new either: we owe protection obligations to all people within our territory and jurisdiction (as defined at international law), and this bill just makes it ever so slightly easier to not meet those obligations.
 
Once again, the government tried to defend the bill as some morally imperative attempt to save lives lost at sea, as if the poor souls cramming themselves into these boats haven’t already considered that it could be dangerous.
 
Criticism of that reasoning is perhaps a better use of time.
 
Doug Porteous

Jessica Sykes
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
If it weren’t for the need to appear constantly intelligent at law school I would know far more than I actually do.
 
My friend, who shall remain unnamed, recently confided he thought the saying was ‘for all intensive purposes’, and thankfully is no longer a douchebag given he confided in someone who corrected him, derided him and is now putting it in a newspaper. This, in turn, gave rise to a friend admitting he didn’t know what lascivious meant. Gavels down, we all have our weaknesses.
 
Strangely, this has devolved to us analysing each other’s sentences to the point that there are just verbs, nouns and adjectives foetally hugging vulnerably in the corner. Whilst this sounds rough, it is actually for the betterment of our minds, or at least sentence structure.
 
It’s taught the valuable lesson that even if you’re worried about looking stupid, it’s worthwhile asking the question. At worst, you’ll wind up some kind of linguistic supergroup, armed with worryingly low self-esteem.
 
God help anyone trying to make friends with us – bring your thesaurus.
 
We’ll need it.
 
Jessica Sykes

Reegan Grayson-Morison
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
Judge Sachio Kitagawa is the tenth Visiting Research Scholar to visit Melbourne Law School, part of the Supreme Court of Japan’s Overseas Training and Research Program.
 
Leaving Japan and her position on the Fukuoka District Court, Kitagawa has been with the Asian Law Centre (ALC) since June 2012, and is slated to return to Japan in June 2013.
 
During her time in Melbourne, Kitagawa has researched dispute resolution, as well as compulsory voting in Australia.
 
Her Honour has had the opportunity to meet with members of the Australian judiciary, academics and bureaucrats from various government departments.
 
Kitagawa has also audited a number of subjects in the JD and Law Masters programs based on her research topic. Reflecting on her discussions with members of the judiciary, Kitagawa noted there were several aspects of work life in Australia that surprised her.
 
Her Honour commented on the high-level of technological integration in the courts, including video streaming and the Federal Court’s e-filing and lodgement systems.
 
The scheduling flexibility of judges and court staff, in terms of work hours and leave, also intrigued her Honour.
 
In her upcoming ALC seminar, ‘A Comparative View of the Judiciary: the Training of Judges in the Japanese Legal System’, scheduled for 6 pm on Monday, 27 May 2013 in Room 920, Kitagawa will speak about the Japanese legal system, her role as a judge, and the training program at the Legal Training and Research Institute of Japan. The presentation will be comparative in nature and based on her Honour’s experiences working for a company and studying abroad.
 
Light refreshments will also be served at the seminar. Registrations are essential and can be made online at http://tinyurl.com/a4nr56k.
 
Reegan Grayson-Morison

Dean R. P. Edwards
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
Scores of students and faculty took part in last Tuesday’s ‘Sex Talk’ symposium, held by the JD subject ‘Current Issues in Gender, Sexuality and the Law’.
 
Professor Di Otto, who taught the subject, said the symposium “was an absolutely wonderful event” in a message to the class.
 
On Wednesday, the LSS hosted an event on Level 1 to mark ‘International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia’.
 
Dean R. P. Edwards

Nicholas Baum
Volume 3, Issue 11, (Originally Published on Monday 20 May 2013)
 
In its latest, and many predict its last, budget, the Labor federal government has reduced university funding while failing to address the FEE-HELP gap that faces many law students.
 
Discounts for students paying fees up front, which advantaged wealthier students, have been removed; start up scholarships will be replaced with income contingent loans; and universities will be subject to an ‘efficiency dividend’, taking away $902 million in expected funding over four years.
 
Funding was included, however, to support students wishing to study overseas in Asia, with $58 million being spent on overseas study help and associated programs over four years.
 
Nevertheless, the budget has not addressed the gap between funding available for students to complete courses and the cost of those courses.
 
The value of the government’s total educational loans to students is expected to grow by nearly $4 billion to $26.3 billion this year, in part because of an increase in students obtaining FEE-HELP loans.
 
FEE-HELP is a government program assisting students studying on full-fee places to defer their payments, just as HECS-HELP does for students studying on Commonwealth supported places.
 
Unlike HECS-HELP, which is uncapped, FEE-HELP debt is capped at $93,204 for 2013, up from $86,422 in 2011. The FEE-HELP limit is a lifetime limit with increases tied to inflation.
 
Currently, a place in the Melbourne JD costs a full-fee student $105,924, up from $99,466 in 2011. This leaves a gap of $12,720 that students must finance separately, assuming students do not have an existing FEE-HELP debt.
 
Some 50 per cent of JD students are full-fee students, meaning this is a problem that affects a large cohort.
 
The university provides a FEE-HELP bursary to two to three students annually of up to $10,000, an amount that does not even cover the existing gap.
 
The gap has continued to grow over the last three years, with rising fees far outpacing the indexation of the FEE-HELP program.
 
Exacerbating the problem, students wishing to be admitted to practice must also cover admission course fees of $8,070 – 8,750 within the FEE-HELP limit, if they are not able to obtain funding from an employer.
 
LSS President Pat Easton has been vocal on this issue, raising it in an interview on the ‘Survive Law’ website in March this year, and writing to federal politicians in conjunction with Emilia Maubach, a Monash JD student.
 
The LSS has established a working group to address the issue, and provided detailed information about the problem online. This move followed a petition calling for an increase collected by the LSS in 2011, signed by more than 500 students, and an article quoting Easton and former president Antony Freeman in the Australian Financial Review in February 2012.
 
Nicholas Baum