Anu lss allens peppercorn 2010 issue 2 by Peppercorn

Acknowledgments Editor: Robert Andersen Contributors: Nicholas Dahlstrom, Alice Crawford, Annan Boag, Katelyn Ewart, Alison French Premier Sponsors: Allens Arthur Robinson Blake Dawson Clayton Utz Freehills Mallesons Stephen Jaques Minter Ellison

Major Sponsors Baker & McKenzie Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers ANU Legal Workshop General Sponsors Sparke Helmore

If you have any queries concerning the information in this publication please contact the ANU Law Students’ Society President, Robert Andersen at lss@anu.edu.au Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Editors of the ANU Law Students’ Society. Best efforts are made to ensure all information in this publication is correct as at 5 November 2010 but is subject to change without notice. The information is merely advisory and should not be relied upon as being professional advice. This publication is distributed free of charge on the understanding that the authors, editors and any persons related to this publication are not responsible for the results of their actions or omissions on the basis of any information provided in this publication.

Peppercorn 3 2010 2

The ANU Law Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Society would like to thank our generous sponsors for making this publication possible:

PREMIER SPONSORS

MAJOR SPONSORS

GENERAL SPONSORS

Peppercorn 3 2010 3

Presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Report for 2010

2011 Kick-Start Events

LLB Renewal Update

Results Time!

Elected Judiciary: Abbott brainfart or a good idea?

The 10 Commandments of Summer Clerkship Interviews

Whether Bell Curve or No, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Time to Reconsider Scaling at ANU

ALSA October Council Report

Holiday Opportunities

Peppercorn 3 2010 4

7+( 9(5< %(67 /$: <(56 STARTED OUT AS CLERKS TOO

)NTERESTED TO ÚND OUT WHO WE ARE ! WHAT WE DO AND HEAR WHAT IT IS LIKE TO WORK IN A LEADING COMMERCIAL LAW ÚRM

WWW MALLESONS COM CAREERS Peppercorn 3 2010 5

President’s Report for 2010 2010 has been an incredible year for the ANU Law Students’ Society. This is a brief breakdown of our work this year, in numbers: • 950 members; • 24 events, including the 50th Birthday Celebration at the High Court, the 450-seat ‘Mad Men’ Law Ball, and an amazing Social Justice Dinner with Julian Burnside QC; • 8 publications, including 3 guides (Careers, Clerkship and First Year) and 3 Peppercorn Magazines; • 18 E-Briefs; • In excess of 25 meetings with College of Law staff, 16 College of Law Committee meetings, 5 letters and position papers, 2 information sessions; • 25 Clayton Utz Pre-Exam Tutorials; • 43 new answers on the Malleson’s Stephen Jaques Past Answers Database; • 3 fantastic initiatives supported, including the 100 Books Project in conjunction with Gillian Beaumont Legal and the fantastic ANU Law Revue;

At the financial end of things, the LSS has achieved some fantastic outcomes, thanks in no small part to the hard work of Jimmy Bai and the rest of the Committee: • 10 fabulous sponsors including one new addition (Sparke Helmore); • Increased support from the ANU College of Law; • Continued generous support from ANUSA; • Significant savings in a number of key areas including printing; • Culminating in a 2010 budget surplus of $15,000.00.

At the start of the year, the Executive set out to expand the LSS and make our operations more efficient. After a tight budget year in 2009, we were determined to put the ANU LSS back on a path of growth. Our goal was to hold more events, and provide a greater number of services, that delivered greater benefits to law students, all for less money. We also set out to market and advertise our events, services and publications better. Greg Lubczenko deserves enormous credit for his work this year as the LSS’s poster genius. Anthony Lieu also deserves mention for his work on the website, which puts a professional face on our activities and serves as an all-important role during exam time disseminating past exam answers to hard-working law students. The careers portfolio, under the expert direction of Minter Ellison clerkship veteran Kim Nguyen, has likewise had a stellar year. We had over 200 people pack out the Law Theatre early in Semester 2 for the Clerkship Information Evening, double the number we saw in 2009. In 2011, we’ll be moving the event to a bigger, better venue, and !

Peppercorn 3 2010 6

hope to exceed this year’s attendance again. Kim also oversaw the publication and distribution of 400 Careers Guides and 350 Clerkship Guides. I am particularly proud of our work in advocacy and education this year. Alice Crawford was given the difficult job of joining the LSS team as Education VP a number of weeks into Semester 1. She caught up incredibly quickly, and began work immediately on a range of initiatives, most important of which was the LSS’ engagement with the LLB renewal process. Alice also oversaw a quadrupling of the LSS Education budget, working with Adrian Power (who deserves enormous credit for his work this year) to deliver 43 new exam answers and 25 pre-exam tutorials. Whilst not part of the LSS (and this is by no means an attempt to claim credit for their work) I must also recognise the work of the Law School Reform committee this year. Annan, Mel Poole and Lucy Shannon have done a stellar job and their 100-odd page report will be released next year. Of course, the LSS isn’t all about efficiency and education and advocacy. We run more social events than any other organisation on campus and 2010 saw the LSS run a vast number of fantastic events, culminating in the ‘Mad Men’ Law Ball at Hotel Realm. Whilst we were sad we wouldn’t be making a return to Parliament House this year due to the 50% increase in cost over the previous year, the event sold out in a record 1.5 hours, with queues out the College of Law foyer and around the corner. We understand that people loved the event, and I’m certain next year’s committee will build on our success this year. There are many, many, many other people that deserve to be thanked for their hard work this year, and not enough space to detail all of them, but I’ll give it a shot anyway: The Committee - My one big regret is not being as good at delegating as I ought to have been. It’s a common theme amongst LSS Presidents. Thanks for being on call when I did manage to pick up the phone and ring you, or just for volunteering without me asking. Jayne, Jason and Michael in the Services Office for putting up with my constant requests for favours, new tables, refridgerators and freezers, and for throwing out the 12 month old stale beer over the summer. You folks work too hard, and I’m a big reason for that. The College of Law staff, including the Dean, Michael Coper, for always being at the other end of the phone, or happy to talk when issues arose. Credit also must go to a couple of administration staff here at the College, including Lauren Kish, Sue Hancock, Vera Joveska, and my favourite, the Dean’s assistant Karen Heuer. We hassle them every week of the year, for all manner of reasons, and they willingly give their time and resources to assist us. Of course, none of this would have been possible at all without our generous, patient and wonderful sponsors. They come back year after year to support the Society, and we’re incredibly grateful. We look forward to continuing our relationships with you all in 2011. I hope you’ve found the ANU LSS useful this year. We’ve strived to serve you as best we could. All the best for the upcoming examination period, stay safe this summer, and have a relaxing break. All the best, Robert Andersen President !

Peppercorn 3 2010 7

2011 Kick-Start Events The Law Students' Society is proud to present the first five events to add to your pre-purchased 2011 diary. LSS 2011 Launch Monday 14th and Wednesday 16th (Market Day) February in Union Court. Welcome to the jungle. Sign up for LSS membership to receive a membership pack, subscription to the LSS EBriefs and discounts on our events throughout the year. Arrive early to purchase your Pre-Toga ticket and avoid disappointment. LSS Pre-Toga Party Wednesday 16th February at the Law School, 6pm. The debut of the annual Events calender, the Pre-Toga is a celebration in the looser sense. Togas are compulsory, clothing underneath is optional. $15 buys you a tasty BBQ and your choice of beer/ LSS-recipe punch. The alcohol will be flowing, the crowd lively and the music pumping. Proceed to Burgemann Toga for a lengthy O-Week nightwalking parties at 9:30pm to guide the way. Competitions Launch BBQ Thursday 3rd March on the Law School lawn, 1pm. The LSS run a variety of competitions, split into junior and senior divisions, to satisfy your thirst for advocacy and client skill practice. The LSS are proud to present the Competitions program for 2011. Come along, eat a cheeky sausage, and pick up a copy of the Competitions Guide. Free event. Clues and a BBQ: First Year Only Date: TBA The LSS offers a supportive welcome to all our 2011 first year law students with a tailored two-part event. Part one is a student-run tutorial to guide you through structuring your first Torts problem. Open to all first years, LLB and JD alike. We understand this is a stressful prospect, so we aim to soothe your worries with part two- a BBQ on the Law School lawn. A $5 wristband provides you with a snazzy BBQ, delightful tunes and a chance to mingle with your cohort. Don't miss out. LSS Law Cruise Date: Friday 8th April, TBC. The annual Law Cruise on Lake Burley Griffin is a highlight of our social calender. The lights are bright, the alcohol fully included in your ticket price, and the company sensational. We even offer a prize for best dressed. Tickets $45-60. Open to all years, great source of stories. !

Peppercorn 3 2010 8

Peppercorn 3 2010 9

LLB Renewal Update You have almost certainly heard there’s an ‘LLB Renewal’ taking place at the moment – but I suspect few of you have been made aware of what it actually entails. Basically, the college is taking a look at the LLB – its courses, its structure and its efficacy. The review has been broken down into four key areas: skills, assessment, flexibility and quality assurance.

1. Skills The Renewal is looking at what skills are taught in the LLB. These include advocacy and communication, problem solving, research, critical thinking, teamwork, technological literacy, basic literacy skills, negotiation, creativity and listening. Listening (lectures), technological literacy (facebook), basic literacy and problem solving (every single exam…) are all well represented within the makeup of the LLB. The renewal has done a skills audit and is hoping to improve the presence of a few of the other skills in the above list. Within advocacy and communication, oral skills are going to be emphasised. This may be more oral tasks, or perhaps just more of an oral component to tutorials. Although oral communication is a great deal easier for some than others, it’s a pretty essential facet of a law degree and we welcome any increase to its prominence within the LLB. Teamwork is another skill to be emphasised. Yes, we agree, working with other people sucks. It’s essential for the workplace though, no matter what antisocial job you try and find. Group tasks are challenging, and when other people in your team let you down, it feels really unfair. Life’s not fair. First world problems… Creativity. Other than creative excuses for extensions on assignments or for being late to tutorials, we can’t really think of where creativity is used in the LLB. We look forward to seeing what they come up with for incorporating this skill. Critical thinking. Essays kind of do this, as do some other forms of assessment. It’s a really fundamental part of being a lawyer though, and as one LSS committee member put it, “critical thinking makes you a kung fu master of law school.” Bring it on.

2. Assessment We’ve been rid of compulsory 100% exams. Yes, if you’re lazy and ignore optional tasks you can wind up with one, but that’s your own fault. Beyond this, however, there is a lot more to assessment at the ANU College of Law. The extent to which assessment methods within different courses and different years of your law degree reflect the skills listed above is being examined in the LLB Renewal. In particular, they’re trying to make sure all skills are reflected in each of the 3 stages of the LLB (1st year, 2-3rd year, 4-5th year). We welcome changes to assessment methods – such as more assessments with less weighting, more diversity in assessment types and in particular, we’re really after more optional redeemable tasks. On top of that, greater transparency in the marking process (eg the introduction of banded grading) and greater levels of feedback would be wonderful.

3. Flexibility Flexibility and interaction with other areas of study is another component of the review. The term multidisciplinarily seems to be the fashionable word in the ANU Curriculum vocab at the moment. The Vice-Chancellor loves it, Undergraduate Education Committee seems to love it and now the College of Law loves it. It’s a pretty interesting concept – and entails law students being able to study non-law courses within their degree relevant to law (eg. studying IR within your law degree along with International Law). A good example of this is Law & Society in South East Asia (which can be taken in Asian Studies or in Law) or Commercial Law (which can be taken by students of the College of Business and Economics or the College of Law). We’re hesitant about letting non-law students take law courses (eg Philosophy students taking Legal Theory, or history students doing Australian Legal History), but that is probably just because we’re snobby. They will undoubtedly be able to contribute a great deal to our experience of learning, and bring really different and interesting ideas to class. As long as the assessments are different (eg, we don’t force non-law students to suddenly use IRAC), it is a good idea. !

Peppercorn 3 2010 10

Another aspect of flexibility is flexible learning, which provides a greater number of people with access to a law degree. Having lectures recorded, late night tutorial times and online resources allows those with full time employment, children or other commitments to still be able to study law. This is essential because education is a universal right and universal goal. We welcome any improvements to flexibility within reason (obviously, we’re not advocating online tutorials quite yet!).

4. Quality Assurance The last aspect of the review is quality assurance – feedback. The faculty actually care a great deal about those pesky evaluations at the end of semester. You probably noticed a change to the way they were done this year (as an email rather than a piece of paper in the last lecture) and their increase in length (takes more time, but hey, at least now you can choose when you fill them in). However, quality assurance is more than just student feedback. Next year the college will be getting an independent external examination done of teaching and learning, and courses in the LLB. This should provide the college with some more areas to improve. Now what? It’s still going on at the moment, however changes are going to be implemented from Semester 1, 2011. Look out for improvements in your law degree, and we hope they’re beneficial to all students at the ANU College of Law. Your law degree is changing. Get excited.

Peppercorn 3 2010 11

Results Time! How are my results calculated? From the Sub-Dean, Miriam Gani: Following exams, we enter an intensive marking period in order to ensure that everything is finalised within the time frame required to get final results to students by 29 November. Marking is usually divided between the teachers in the course. Once all marking has been completed in a course, cross marking and second marking occurs to ensure consistency. Once all marks are entered in the spreadsheets, the Convenors will consider special consideration requests. All the examiners in a particular course then meet to consider and discuss the final results and to ensure that all necessary second marking has occurred. Spreadsheets then go down to the Law School Office for entering into the University system. A really important stage in the process is what is called the "Examiners' Meeting" where all examiners in LLB and JD courses meet as part of the formal finalisation process. After the release of results, students are encouraged to pick up their papers from the Services Office and, if they wish, to discuss them with Convenors/markers Is there a bell curve? There is an incredible amount of confusion in the student body over the "bell curve". In light of all the discussion happening around law school over this misnomer, please take a minute or two to read the following paragraphs and find out how your grades are actually distributed. The ANU College of Law does not use a bell curve. The College uses bands for the distribution of grades. The final assessment results for students in each course (except Honours Thesis and Law Internship) normally conforms to the following guidelines: HD (80% +): 2-5% of candidates Distinction (70-79%): 10-20% of candidates Credit (60-69%): 30-50% of candidates There are three main reasons for using this method: 1. Creates long-term stability in marking (most year groups are of similar competence so the breakdown of marks should stay roughly the same) 2. Creates consistency in marks when staff changes (avoids a new teacher coming in and failing/HDing everyone) 3. Often students are compared to each other, simple benchmarking enables meaningful comparisons of students to be made However, this is not always the case. If a year is particularly good/bad, this will be reflected in the grades awarded to the cohort. Special factors may justify a deviation, and they include situations like:

a. Small cohorts (if you have 10 people in a course, you can hardly apply the formula) b. What part of the degree the course falls in (eg contrast Torts with Litigation) c. Assessment methods Under this system, no one has to fail. It is not really a question of "filling the bands" but rather applying the criteria for the award of final grades (on pages 53-54 of the Handbook) to the work that a student has produced in a course. As such, examiners will work out whether there is a good case for moving outside of the "bands" (as the policy itself contemplates).

Peppercorn 3 2010 12

The really important thing to remember about this system is that the "moderation" process under the distribution of grades guidelines leads to more people achieving a high distinction than was previously the case. We understand that not all students will be in favour of this method of marking. If you feel it is unfair, feel free to write to us with your complaints - we are your representatives. Similarly, be sure to recognise that complaints about 'bell curves' are a misrepresentation of the marking process at the ANU College of Law. Unlike 'bell curves' no one has to get bad marks, it's simply about creating transparency and consistency in mark distribution. We encourage you all to check out the LLB/JD handbook at http://www.law.anu.edu.au/ - in particular page 55 goes over the grade distribution system in more detail. What mark will I get? HD. For sure.

Sparke Helmore at a glance

Stand out at Sparke Helmore

Practice areas

Sparke Helmore is an integrated, national law firm chosen by corporate and government leaders for good reason â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the insight, energy and collaboration we bring to legal services delivery.

Banking & Finance

With a truly national footprint, we have offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide, Newcastle, Perth and the Upper Hunter.

Corporate & Commercial

While retaining our insurance sector dominance, Sparke Helmore is now a highly diversified business with a growing corporate and commercial presence and a well established government practice chosen by public sector leaders.

Insolvency & Restructuring

Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution Compensation Construction, Projects & Infrastructure

Environment & Planning Energy & Resources Government & Administrative Law

Insurance & Risk Intellectual Property Property Workplace Relations & Safety

For more information, visit our website: www.sparke.com.au

Peppercorn 3 2010 13

$",:13-#A1@#B#

,#(30-.#2,&%%&#2)3*2%

6,2,1*3-#2"%&'####C&,.0,1%####",7:%&###### ###(%-*3&#,((32*,1%####+,&1-%& !""#$"%&'()*+#,-.#/&,.0,1%#,++"*2,1*3-(#()30".#4%#5,.%#3-"*-%#6*,#7778265,*"82358,0 !

77782",:13-01@8235

Peppercorn 3 2010 14

9:.-%:#;#<%"430&-%#;#=&*(4,-%#;#>%&1)#;#$,-4%&&,#;#?,&7*-

Elected Judiciary: Abbott brainfart or a good idea? Adam Brereton Earlier this month two synapses fired simultaneously in Tony Abbott’s mind. His mouth snapped open and out of that oracular orifice dribbled an ultimatum: either the judiciary starts dishing out sufficiently harsh criminal sentences or the Australian public will be forced to elect judges who will. No sooner had the thought-bubble popped than the legal-industrial complex started scoffing on all cylinders - Changing the system of judicial appointment would require a referendum, which would never pass. Electing judges is so crass and American, and besides, judicial independence is paramount. Since when was parliament ever representative anyway? Somebody hand me my cocaine, it’s lunchtime - and so on. Fewer column inches were devoted to arguments in support of judicial election, chiefly because the great corps of election proponents had decided to not exist at that particular moment. Even federal shadow Attorney-General George Brandis applied some serious backpedal to convince everyone that Tony hadn’t made a serious proposal, but was just a bit obtuse. Considering the lack of voices in the pro-election choir, and to represent that great quality of the legal profession, namely that everyone should be represented during the day in court to which they are entitled, 1 here is -

AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF AN ELECTED AUSTRALIAN JUDICIARY For years Australian legal progressives have been trotting out the agenda of their bespectacled leader Julian Burnside on the need for a Bill of Rights, but claim the lack of progress is due to obstruction and confabulation by conservative commentators writing in News Ltd.’s grubbier newspapers (ie. the ones that sell well). If a Bill of Rights were to be adopted, the nation’s Boltians and Albrechtsenistas predict a resulting politicisation of the court tantamount to the assimilation of earth by the Borg. Obvious, considering judges are unelected, out of touch legal activists, seeking only to expand their own litigatory domain at democracy’s expense. So why not elect judges to remove the major stumbling block to our utopian human rights future? More puzzlingly, why isn’t the left already pushing for the increasing democratisation of the court and waging its own traditional campaign of judicial character assassination, silver-spoon-private-school-frocks-wigs-tories and the whole shebang? It’s not as if they couldn’t win judicial elections; the modern Labor party is a far cry from when the first Labour Government in 1904, lacking lawyers of their own, had to second Protectionist H.B. Higgins to fill the post of Attorney-General. I bet they could rustle up at least two or three candidates right now by getting on the blower to Slater and Gordon. 1

Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 - Blast! The unelected judges strike again! Is nothing sacred?

Peppercorn 3 2010 15

At any rate, even if they don’t like the idea, Australian progressives are well versed in selling out their core values for the sake of tawdry political gains (Is that Garrett CJ in the offing?) or just through laziness (Republic anyone?). They should finally be pushed to make the same wearisome compromise on the Bill of Rights debate. What do you loathe more, Burnside and co.? Elected Judges, flimsy protections for human rights or yourselves? Choose now or forever hold your tongues. Progressives could learn something from the editorial pages of The Australian because the right have been going through these kinds of schizophrenic motions for years. They can simultaneously hate fairness and mercy in the legal system because it gives Dennis Ferguson a fair trial while taking advantage of that same system to endlessly impugn single mothers, Aboriginals and Muslims without punishment. In the same fashion, out of touch judicial activists are targets for never-ending mountains of scorn, but the common law they are responsible for constructing is ideal when it comes to solving modern human rights problems. Pass the Carbolic Smoke Ball! Puff puff puff! Progressives and Bill of Rights advocates should lay down the Benjamins or leave the game. An elected judiciary would allow them the victory they’ve been craving, with the additional possibility of stacking the courts with their own cronies and, failing that, they’ve already sold out enough to be on a par with the whingers on the other side of the spectrum, so should just suck it up and do it anyway. Not convinced? how about -

ANOTHER ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF ELECTING JUDGES But wait, you say. Some American states elect their judiciary and that’s ended up being a right mess for them. Any gains we could get from having a bill of rights would be balanced out by the chaos that would descend upon our sleepy nation. Don’t you know that judges elected on law and order platforms give harsher sentences to immigrants and out-of-state defendants who can’t vote for them? They go soft on the patrons who financed their campaign. Their lack of legal expertise thwarts the torts and conflicts the contracts. So what? Having consistency as the main criterion for a legal system is just a statement of preference, not an a priori truth. Where you see procedural fairness I see red tape! Natural justice is only desirable when it produces the results you want and let’s not kid ourselves about judicial arbitrariness. Why else do higher courts exist but to clean up the fuck-ups of rogue magistrates? Plus kickbacks are an inherent part of the justice system so let’s not demonise campaign donors; Come on man, grease the wheels a little, just plead guilty and I’ll knock off part of your sentence. Nobody loses. Because the fantastic outcomes of Australian courts are themselves are the best refutation of an appointed court’s ability to produce good outcomes, we can only assume the strictures of the court exist solely to maintain public !

Peppercorn 3 2010 16

Peppercorn 3 2010 17

confidence in the system, which, by the way, wouldn’t be a problem if we elected our judges, because the public is uniformly confident in the integrity of its elected officials as a rule. If public confidence in the system is what we’re looking to maintain, why are we going about it in such a roundabout fashion? Why not just give the people the lolly to which they are enfranchised to claim as citizens of the world’s oldest unbroken democracy? The advantages of applying a true democratic standard to the judiciary are obvious. Being a white heterosexual male, now is the time in the essay where I reference classical Athens, where instead of having arbitrating judges, citizens were impanelled in their hundreds to judge legal cases on much the same issues as are relevant today.2 One demonstrative example: In 406 the Athenians won a decisive naval battle against Sparta at Arginusae during the course of the Peloponnesian War, but because of a tempest and high seas, were unable to collect survivors. The generals in command of the fleet were tried, and six of eight were put to death. An enviable outcome, considering the Australian legal system has euthanised a paltry 0 generals in its entire history. By electing judges they are forced out into the public domain and forced to compete in the contest of ideas. This means that some of the Overingtonites mentioned earlier might have a fight on their hands, whereas now judges are loathe to express an opinion to anyone except tired law students, decades after the fact. Although, in all honesty, perhaps the soporific qualities of judicial pontification are best confined to the courtroom for reasons of public safety. One way or the other, our judiciary will be kept honest by exposure to the true vagaries of public life, from which they have been sheltered until now. The public will finally meet its judges in earnest. This must be the greatest gift of a system based on election, because no greater leveller exists than Australia’s tried and true method for wringing out high achievers. Just think, at some future stage every single pervert in the NRL will eventually be Joel Monaghan’ed out of the competition by the tabloid press and public outrage, an empirically good result. The same vetting process, brutal as it is, would provide one half of the new system of judicial quality control, with the constant, dehumanising requirements of modern political campaigns forming the other. So we should be careful about automatically assuming the idiosyncrasies of elected judges to be drawbacks. Rather, we should be thankful for the opportunity to achieve our goal more efficiently: keeping everyone reasonably happy with the outcomes of cases they have no stake or interest in unless Ray Hadley incites them to scandal. Finally, dear reader, I see you are still thirsting for -

ONE LAST ARGUMENT FOR ELECTED JUDGES If we submit our nation to a regime of electing the judiciary, theoretically we could have Adam Hills as chief justice of the High Court. Consider this proposition for a moment. Not only is he a charming and relatively inoffensive

Except gene patenting. LOL.

Peppercorn 3 2010 18

popular comedian, but he is yet to make a bad call on Spicks and Specks, giving both teams time sufficient to demonstrate their cases and acting without favour when delivering points rulings. He is the picture of goodwill, common sense and integrity, and has no hidden fault or achilles heel by definition, owing to his false foot. With a full High Court bench consisting of Dick Smith, Hugo Weaving, Maggie Beer, Bernard Fanning, Jessica Mauboy and Steve Waugh we would have a diverse courtroom with a reasonable batting average. Litigation could be made more pleasant by the addition of a selection of quince pastes, blue cheeses and dried fruits, which is a proposal delicious enough to sway anyone, let alone Tony Abbott, and is thankfully a tasty enough way to conclude.

Peppercorn 3 2010 19

The 10 Commandments of Summer Clerkship Interviews Nicholas Dahlstrom 1. Know thy Firm This is important! If you are applying for a commercial firm, which most of you reading this guide are, don’t tell the interviewers you are interested in humanitarian law or criminal law. They are interested in people who want to practice, or at least think they want to practice, commercial law. If you are not interested in commercial law, then you probably shouldn’t be applying to a commercial law firm. Even if you haven’t worked in a law firm before, you can display an interest in commercial law by saying you enjoyed/ excelled at subjects like Corporations, Contracts, Takeovers and Securities, IP, Labour Law, Property, Income Tax, Commercial Law etc. If you are applying for firms in Canberra, note that all of them do a lot of government work. This means that you shouldn’t go into an interview with those firms and say that you are interested in mergers and acquisitions or banking and finance. For those firms, you need to demonstrate some interest in doing government work; subjects which relate best are probably contracts, commonwealth constitutional law and administrative law. Essentially, before the interview you should read this guide, go online and research what areas of law the firm practices, who its major clients are and any recent news about the firm. 2. Know why you want to work for the firm Every interviewer will ask why you want to work at their firm. This is definitely something you should consider carefully before the interview. Interviewers will have heard generic answer after generic answer about wanting to work at a “top-tier firm” with “interesting work and diverse clients”. While I can’t offer the perfect answer, you need to be more specific about that particular firm, what the firm offers you and what you can offer the firm. 3. Have some good questions At the end of your interview you will be asked if you have any questions for your interviewers. This is not the opportunity to express your feminist view that law firms are male dominated or ask pretentious questions in an attempt to look smart. You should ask a question which shows an engagement with the firm or with the legal profession in general. I often took the opportunity to ask either why the interviewer chose to work at that firm or what attributes partners look for in young lawyers. 4. Provide concise and relevant answers Each firm has different styles of interviewing. Some run through a regimented questions list, while others attempt a more informal ‘get to know you’ interview. Regardless of the interview style you always need to keep the purpose of the interview in mind. You are ‘selling’ yourself as a prospective employee of their firm. Therefore provide answers and examples to questions which highlight your skills, experience and abilities. Your answers should not ramble but rather be concise and relevant to the question. It is also important to address your answers to all the interviewers, attempting eye contact with them as best you can. From my experience, and having asked several Partners this question, law firms in general are looking for people who: • • • •

Work well in a team; Are creative (in the problem solving sense); Understand that law is a ‘people’ business and that clients needs are paramount; Display dedication, passion and commitment to their work;

Peppercorn 3 2010 20

•

Have a willingness to listen and learn.

Consider these above points when answering your questions. You should practice the sample questions in this guide before your interview. Finally, if you have done poorly in a course or a few courses, you may get grilled on this. How you handle this line of questioning is important. DO NOT dismiss the course as boring or irrelevant. At a law firm you will often be asked to complete mundane, process-driven tasks, if your response to boring things is to give up, firms may not be interested in you. 5. Think carefully about your anecdotes Often the interviewer’s questions will allow you to transgress into anecdotes about your life and your experiences. Be careful not to reveal too much or tell a story which is inappropriate for the situation. You are being interviewed for a professional position so stories about drinking, band camp, fashion or parties are probably not appropriate. Your stories should reflect your personality but also why you would ‘fit’ the firm. Stories about travel, community work or part time jobs are often best. 6. Don’t be late!! It’s obvious but so many people break this rule. If you are late it will reflect poorly upon you and frustrate your busy interviewers. You will also be flustered which will likely affect your interview performance. Give yourself plenty of time to find the building, get a parking space and check in at reception. 7. Handshake and name repetition This is basic interview advice. When you are introduced, your handshake should be firm, but not too firm, and you should maintain eye contact. Guys should especially not offer a ‘wet-fish’ handshake to female interviewers. This is disrespectful and ignorant. Remembering your interviewers’ names is also crucial. People enjoy hearing their own names and it is good business practice. 8. What to wear You are applying for a professional workplace so your attire should reflect this. I would suggest that most law firms are still relatively conservative so suits for guys and skirts/ shirts and possibly suits for girls. For the guys I would avoid the Denny Crane look of wearing outrageous colours. Let your personality do the talking rather than your clothes. For the girls I would avoid the stiletto heels, short skirts or shirts with cleavage. 9. Avoid being presumptuous The interview, especially the first interview, is not the time to ask overly specific questions. Asking how much you get paid, how the graduate program works and staff benefits may seem a little presumptuous. 10. Be yourself While much of the advice I have given you above requires some cognitive thought before the interview, the key advice is still to be yourself and not someone you think the firm wants. The interviewers will see through overly rehearsed answers and are far more impressed by genuine and friendly people.

Peppercorn 3 2010 21

Start your career with a leading corporate law firm GILBERT + TOBIN IS A KEY PLAYER IN THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL MARKET. WE PROVIDE INNOVATIVE, RELEVANT AND COMMERCIAL LEGAL SOLUTIONS TO MAJOR CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENT CLIENTS ACROSS AUSTRALIA AND INTERNATIONALLY, PARTICULARLY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION.

Expertise Our reputation for expert advice extends across a broad range of service areas, including: &RUSRUDWH 7UDQVDFWLRQV &RUSRUDWH $GYLVRU\ 0HUJHUV DQG $FTXLVLWLRQV %DQNLQJ DQG )LQDQFH &DSLWDO 0DUNHWV 7D[ &RPPXQLFDWLRQV DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ &RPSHWLWLRQ DQG 5HJXODWLRQ ,QWHOOHFWXDO 3URSHUW\ 0HGLD /LWLJDWLRQ DQG 'LVSXWH 5HVROXWLRQ 5HDO (VWDWH DQG 3URMHFWV Gilbert + Tobin employs more than 400 lawyers and professionals and has the highest SURSRUWLRQ RI IHPDOH SDUWQHUV RI DQ\ PDMRU

$XVWUDOLDQ ODZ ILUP ,W LV DOVR DFNQRZOHGJHG as a pioneer in providing pro bono services. We recently established a presence in Melbourne and are growing both domestically and internationally, particularly in the Asia 3DFLILF UHJLRQ :H DUH DIILOLDWHG ZLWK WKH PDMRU Chinese corporate law firm King & Wood.

Our work Gilbert + Tobin advises leading domestic and international companies on complex matters and transactions that define and direct the market. A selection of key matters that we have advised on include:

The Australian Recording Industry against the operators of the Kazaa file sharing system. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 3(7$ LQ D FDVH LQYROYLQJ IUHHGRP RI VSHHFK LVVXHV XQGHU WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW to the US Constitution. Google on regulation affecting content provided over YouTube services in Australia.

Westpac Banking Corporation on its $ ELOOLRQ DFTXLVLWLRQ RI 6W *HRUJH %DQN The Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest private equity firms, in a A$2.9 billion series of transactions to acquire Coates Group Limited.

Join a firm with an innovative approach a focus on commercial outcomes an entreprennurial spirit a determination to succeed

What we’re looking for Our lawyers are bright, ambitious, commercially aware and self-motivated. Our culture, people and values all draw dynamic personalities to the firm, yet there is no ‘Gilbert + Tobin type’ of lawyer. Although our backgrounds, talents ambitions and strengths are diverse, we all have a common goal – the desire to challenge the status quo and do things differently. If you would like more information, or would like to chat to a recent summer clerk or graduate, contact: Melissa Leslie, HR Consultant, on 9263 4000 or via email at humanresources@gtlaw.com.au !

Peppercorn 3 2010

To learn more about summer clerkships at Gilbert + Tobin, see

www.gtlaw.com.au/me

Great Careers But not for the average law student

GREAT CLIENTS, GREAT WORK GREAT SUPPORT - EXPAND YOUR HORIZONS AND JUMP START YOUR CAREER It’s all about choice. After all the hard work you’ve put in and results you’ve achieved, it’s your turn to choose. Take your time. Weigh up all the factors and choose a great career.

For further information please contact: Margot Kindley, People Development Manager T 61 2 6234 4078 E margot.kindley@blakedawson.com Level 11, 12 Moore Street, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

WWW.BLAKEDAWSON.COM

Peppercorn 3 2010 23

Whether Bell Curve or No, it’s Time to Reconsider Scaling at ANU Annan Boag Recently there has been some debate, including an article in this edition of Peppercorn, about whether or not the ANU College of Law uses a ‘bell curve’ system of grading. Well, it depends on what you mean by ‘bell curve’, and Miriam and Alice have explained very cogently why we should say ‘banded grading’. But this misses the real point – are grade quotas, scaling, and a system that means that a HD awarded to me may result in one not being awarded to you (lawyer note: subject to exceptions), a good or a bad thing. In November 2010, the Law School Reform Committee handed a draft report to the College of Law arguing for reform of the way that law is taught at the ANU. This report was completed following extensive consultation within the LLB and JD community, consisting of a survey completed by 350 students, the College of Law’s first ever all day deliberative staff-student forum, approximately 30 written submissions to the report, and 88 posts on the Law School Reform facebook group. The purpose of that process was to promote discussion and dialogue between and amongst students and faculty, about legal education. One of the many points of discussion was the College of Law’s grading policy. Some students said that they didn’t understand the policy. Some said that it was not applied transparently. Others went further and argued that scaling was intrinsically harmful, and created unnecessary competitiveness within class cohorts. The question of whether the College’s banded grading policy can accurately be described as a ‘bell curve’ didn’t come up. For the purpose of this article I went through the written submissions received for the report. The ‘bell curve’ was referred to on more than 30 occasions, including by people who had clearly read and understood the 2 pages of the LLB/JB handbook that sketch out the policy. The term ‘banded grading’ was not used once. I don’t think that it is fair to assume that every single one of those people misunderstand or are misrepresenting the College’s policy. It doesn’t matter what word we use. What is at issue is whether allocating quotas for different grade points is desirable. Whatever we call this policy, it requires (subject to exceptions Alice and Miriam have highlighted) that 25% of each grade level receive a high distinction. It’s said that more students receive a HD under this policy than did previously! Congratulations to the two or three students a year that this benefits. On the flipside, it requires (also subject to exceptions) that 25-58% of students receive a score of 59 or lower – between 50 and 116 students in a class of 200. Moving the emphasis of assessment away from ranking students would, as argued in the report, have two key benefits: reduce competitiveness within year groups; and encourage markers to justify grades with reference to objective criteria, and provide more substantive feedback. One survey respondent summed up their concerns about the banded grading: In a previous degree my university had criteria-based marking, which was much better than the ANU's bell curve. Marking to strict criteria forced the markers to justify their marks: something noticeably absent from ANU. If the ANU is concerned that criterion-based marking would undermine the reputation of an ANU law degree, remember that the bell curve works both ways: if the class is stupid or lazy then average students will get undeservedly high marks. This last point was (perhaps unintentionally) reinforced by a comment made by another survey respondent, who said that the single best thing about the ANU College of Law is: The bell curve, when it works to your benefit. My view is that assessment policies (and indeed all policies at the College of Law) should be developed with education as their primary objective. Ranking to provide access to scholarships, honours, and employment opportunities may be necessary – but learning is the main game. !

Peppercorn 3 2010 24

Across Australia, the trend seems to be away from ‘bell curves’, ‘grade bands’ and ‘scaling’. Only approximately one in four Australian law schools scale grades at all. We should ask ourselves, is scaling necessary or desirable? Indeed, discussion should go further than that. Do we need numerical grades at all? When I first heard Molly O’Brien and Jonathon Powles argue for pass/fail grading at ANU, I was sceptical. But it turns out that many of the top law schools in the world have removed numerical grading altogether. Law schools including Harvard, Yale and Columbia have adopted pass/fail systems to mark their students. At those top law schools, students aren’t awarded numerical grades – they are given a pass or a fail, or for a borderline or truly exceptional performance, a ‘low pass’ or ‘high pass’ respectively. In an email announcing the introduction of this policy at Harvard, Elena Kagan said that the new grading system would ‘promote pedagogical excellence and innovation and strengthen the intellectual community’ at the law school. This is also done at many Australian medical schools – possibly one of the reasons for the very different cultures found at those institutions. Of course, before such a policy could be adopted, the views of stakeholders such as employers would need to be considered. But these ideas are not radical. Policies of this nature are in place, and working, in many law schools around the world. There’s also the outstanding issue that a HD, C, or D at ANU is five numerical points lower than the same grade at UNSW, Sydney, Macquarie and other NSW universities. Although the College alerts major graduate employers to this, believe it or not it’s something that gets through to every HR employee that screens CVs (hint: if you’re on track to receive first class honours, say that in your job application). There are a number of questions that we should be asking ourselves and our teachers. Why is it necessary to scale grades? Has the banded grading policy actually addressed grade inflation at the ANU since it was introduced? Where are the statistics? What are the costs of this policy: in time spent implementing it; the effect that it has on assessment feedback and the student-teacher relationship; and its broader impacts on law school culture? Greater understanding of this system is important, and the College and LSS are taking steps to address this. But greater transparency isn’t enough if the policy itself is flawed. A debate about the way that grades are awarded at ANU is long overdue. The Law School Reform draft report ‘Breaking the Frozen Sea: The case for reforming legal education at the ANU College of Law’ is available to download at www.lawschoolreform.com. If you have any comments regarding the draft report prior to its launch in March next year, please send an email to lsreform@gmail.com.

Peppercorn 3 2010 25

EXPL RE OUR WORLD N

At Baker & McKenzie we are different in the way we think, work and behave. Like no other law firm and few other businesses. Our difference is in our global platform — none is bigger. It is in the scope of our practice — none is broader. It is in our client list — a who’s who of global business. Join an entrepreneurial firm where new ideas and innovation are expected. A place where you will exchange rich local insights and knowledge with the best legal minds from all over the world —people who know the law and who understand business. Our global reach will open you to an extraordinary career in the global economy. And our world-class learning programs will help you develop as far and as fast as your talents and drive will take you.

Ready to explore our world? www.careers.bakermckenzie.com

Amanda James in Melbourne: +61 3 9617 4325 Kate Evans in Sydney: +61 2 8922 5517

ALSA October Council Report In the first week of October this semester, it was my pleasure as incoming Education VP of the ANU Law Students Society, alongside incoming President Alice Crawford, to represent the ANU at the Australian Law Students Association Council meeting at the University of Queensland, Brisbane. Many students will be aware of ALSA Conference, a debaucherous week-long event where hundreds of law students from around the country come together to compete in moots and other competitions. ALSA Council is the slightly plain little sister of Conference, a small body comprising: • • •

the ALSA Executive; the ALSA Committee; and Two representatives (usually the president and a vice president) from each of the 33 law student societies in Australia.

Though it may lack some of the pizzazz of Conference, ALSA Council does the heavy-lifting of representing law students on a national level. Meeting triannually (oh snap), Council both manages the affairs of ALSA and discusses national issues in legal education and law student life. More than this, Council serves as a mechanism for improving individual LSSes. Workshops and lectures run by delegates help share the successes of different societies for the benefit of others. In October, Monash shared its expertise in administering large mooting comps, while Macquarie shared the success of its Peer-Assisted Learning program, where student-led tutorial sessions have seen a huge increase in student engagement and discernible improvements in academic performance. ANU had a strong showing. Our very own Chanelle Carr-Janif is this year’s ALSA Vice-President (Administration), in which capacity she organised a seamlessly-run, ruthlessly-efficient Council schedule. Wielding her iPad like a deadly weapon, she made this October’s Council the most IT-savvy yet. Alice got her policy wonk on, and worked hard to impress upon our counterparts the importance of the reforms currently underway in the Higher Education sector under the aegis of new tertiary regulator TEQSA. Along with the 2011 Executive, I look forward to continue working within ALSA both to improve the services the ANU LSS offers, and to leverage our advocacy work through collaboration with our peers across the country. Dave Rowe Education VP 2011

Holiday Opportunities Careers@Singapore In collaboration with some leading employers from both private and public sectors, Contact Singapore will host a series of careers events in Singapore in Jan 2011: Careers@Singapore 2011. This event will be held in Singapore on January 8, 2011. The employers have listed more than 50 positions on the event website. For more information on working, investing and living in Singapore, please visit www.contactsingapore.sg or email us at Australia@contactsingapore.sg ACT Human Rights Commission – Human Rights Forum ‘What will human rights look like in the Territory in 2020?’ The ACT Human Rights Commission will be holding a forum on human rights on 10 December 2010. The event starts at 12:30pm and is set to conclude at 2:00pm. Lunch will be provided. Speakers include the ACT Human Rights Commissioner Dr Helen Watchirs, Carrie Graf, Coach of the Australian Opals and Canberra Capitals, Roslyn Dundas, Director, ACTCOSS and Professor Andrew Byrnes, Faculty of Law, UNSW. This event requires an RSVP. Please contact human.rights@act.gov.au or call 6205 2222 Indigenous Student Post-Graduate Scholarships Applications are now open for the following overseas scholarships for Indigenous postgraduate students: ● Charlie Perkins Scholarships for postgraduate studies at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge (see attached flyer) ●

Roberta Sykes Harvard Club of Australia Scholarship for postgraduate study at Harvard University (see attached flyer)

●

Roberta Sykes Scholarships for postgraduate study at any overseas university

●

Roberta Sykes Scholarships for up to one year of overseas study, available to Indigenous Australians undertaking postgraduate studies in Australia

●

Roberta Sykes Scholarships available to Indigenous Australians to undertake short executive courses at overseas universities.

Expressions of interest should be directed, by email, to scholarships@auroraproject.com.au Skadden Attorneys UK/Australia Reception at HK Office Please join Skadden attorneys, trainee solicitors and future joiners for refreshments and an informal conversation about career development and the legal profession. It will be held on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m at the Skadden Hong Kong Office - 42/F, Edinburgh Tower, The Landmark, 15 Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong. Space is limited. Please respond by December 14 to karen.ng@skadden.com and include a resume in your response.

The ANU Law Students’ Society would like to thank our generous sponsors for making this publication possible:

PREMIER SPONSORS

MAJOR SPONSORS

GENERAL SPONSORS

A N U L a w S t u d e n t s ’ S o c i e t y!

Clerkship Guide 2010 3