Legal writing

I'd once flirted with legal writing, but now i'm writing about substantive law on a daily basis for the Mulberry Finch blog. Take a look - I'm writing mainly about immigration, employment, commercial and probate law.

Writing about the law is an excellent way to not only build on your knowledge about the legal world, but also to hone your skills in writing, in constructing an argument, and perhaps most importantly, in simplifying intricate and perplexing judgements, laws and regulations. I strongly reccommend starting a legal blog or finding legal writing work to anyone interested in law and/or studying for the LPC or BPTC, looking for a TC or pupillage or looking to get into legal journalism. 

For those looking to become practitioners, hands-on experience is priceless work (and penniless too looking at recent articles!). But there is a satisfaction in writing that is scarcely found elsewhere. Perhaps it's not for everyone. But even by attempting to produce written work you'll probably learn something; be it a new fact that you unearth through your research, or an idea or opinion that comes naturally from the process of putting pen to paper.

No mean tweet..

Law and education journalist Alex Aldridge caused a minor uproar amongst twitter's elite legal community when he published this article in The Guardian on Friday. The furor was sparked chiefly by what many perceived to be an attack by Aldridge on twitter regular, former TC hunter, current prospective trainee and all-round nice guy Ashley Connick - in particular: "Connick has found himself increasingly short of interesting things to tweet about now his hunt for a graduate job is over".

Founder of Twitter

I joined twitter just days before I read this article; when I first started reading it I was intrigued, even excited by the idea that I could further my profile and, what's infinitley more important, widen my job-hunting strategy via this relatively new and wondrous medium.

Blawging magnate Charon qc yesterday said of Connick: "[he] almost certainly got his training contract in a ‘magic circle firm’ by hard work and having the right qualifications – rather than his ability to tweet". While I don't doubt this for a minute, I feel it is inevitable that setting up shop in an arena where firms and other employers have a presence can get you/your blog noticed, for better or for worse.

That employers are looking to recruit via Twitter is a concept alien to me, and while firms might not be actively recruiting this way, making yourself known to them can't hurt. To my mind, what any prospective employer ought to look for is honesty, passion [of some kind], humour, and intelligence in tweets [as far as one can demonstrate intelligence in a 140 character snippet], and it is perhaps a sign of the times that suspicion is aroused when someone is also courteous and amiable on a social networking site; what's his game? what's he trying to get out of this? I am not speaking for Mr Connick here, indeed I haven't consulted him [nor anyone else] on this issue, but from my perspective, there is a discrepancy between being aware of your audience and modifying your online 'persona' to indulge or register with others.

I doubt this was mere posturing on Mr Aldridge's part; he seems smarter than this, and is in my opinion an excellent and incisive writer. But, on this occasion I disagree with him, as from what I have gleaned from my week as a twitter newbie, Mr Connick is a thoroughly interesting chap with plently to offer those who are wise enough to engage with him. If, as is being suggested by Aldridge, Connick's tweets were more insightful and interesting prior to the sun setting on his job-hunting days, then it is regrettable that I did not know him then.

If Connick tweeted then in the same manner he does now, it can only have been to his advantage. And while there is scarcely a substitute for hard-graft and sacrifice, at a time when the active, nosey kind of job-hunting is essential, we're all looking for new avenues to exhaust. This might be one of them.

Interviews: another perspective

The following piece is by Lawyered_87, poached from the cathedral that is Roll on Friday with permission. I thought it was rather spiffing, hence the poach.
                                                                                              

By Lawyered_87 on Roll on Friday on 7 August:

I was one of those candidates that was lucky enough to get invited to a lot of interviews at good City firms but never seemed to be able to break through that "glass ceiling". This had happened since I started applying 3 years ago. So I have a lot of experience with interviews and I've come to one conclusion: you cannot wing anything, ever.

I managed to get a t/c recently and I totally changed my approach for that interview and I feel this new approach helped me get it.

I treated the interview as if it was an exam. So a few days (or even a week, it's up to you) all I would do is get into a routine of getting up early and going to sleep early, and throughout the day I'd "revise". This would consist of:

- reading everything I can about the firm (its website, lawcareers.net, lex100, student chambers and partners etc.)
- keeping up to date on current affairs (BBC News, Lawyer 2B, Legalweek etc.)
- watching BBC News 24 whenever having breakfast and lunch
- practising verbal reasoning tests (if you had to)
- And the most important one - looking at every possible question that can be asked at an interview and coming up with at least some answer to them or one example.

That last part is really important. I know it's virtually impossible to know what could get asked at interviews; they'll throw you a left-fielded question you may not have anticipated. You deal with those wildcards the best you can. But there are some questions that are very common; there are great resources on-line that give for example 100 interview questions that could be asked - so I went through each one and asked myself what I'd say if I was asked them. It's a tiresome, tedious and boring process - but when you realise the potential dividends of getting a t/c through this preparation, it's worth it!

I'd also practice actually answering some questions out loud - privately in my room of course! The very act of speaking about yourself and bigging yourself up is so unnatural, that the more you do it the more natural it'll be. You can also practice structuring your thoughts/answers in your head and speaking a little slower, as nerves on the guy can make you speak too quickly and wildly.

For each potential interview question, I'd try and come up with 3 good points I'd always reel off. So, for example, "Why do you want to be a solicitor?" - for this I'd have 3 points I'd rely on; it makes you sound confident and certain. Competency questions, I'd always have one example but a second one just in case I needed it. So, for example, "tell me about a time you used teamwork?" - I'd have a good example for this, and then go through STAR structure (Situation, Task, Action, Result).

You'll see that preparation is key. When I began to have so many dud interviews, I started to realise that I wasn't preparing for them enough - and it's silly to not prepare for them. Because at the end of the day the mere opportunity to get an interview is a lot more than a lot of applicants get at all! An interview is an opportunity for you to shine and if you don't put every effort into it you've just robbed yourself of a great opportunity that others would kill for.

The added bonus of good preparation is that it makes you more comfortable, which relaxes your nerves on the day.

So be focused. Stay sharp. Prepare. It'll pay off in the end, believe me.