So this week has been mainly focused on revision and work. Nothing much to report! However, there are two things I feel the need to blog about. First, my growing unhappiness at my current job. Second, the story in this weeks news about the Vicky Pryce jury.
"Find something you love to do and you will never have to work a day in your life"
I feel uneasy and unsettled. The last 5 years of my life have been all consumed with getting THAT legal job, just a foot in the door, "just someone give me a chance!"
As you may know, last summer I was lucky enough to land a summer placement doing commercial work with a large in-house corporation which led on to a part time job on a temporary contract until December. Imagine my delight! This, in turn, allowed me to get another part time job working reception at a small high street firm. I thought all my Christmases had come at once. The dream I have never dared to pin any certainty on seemed to be happening and I begun to wonder if a TC could be possible.
Fast forward 3 months.
I don't feel fulfilled. I don't feel hopeful. I don't feel happy. And it's the job. Without being too dramatic, I am genuinely questioning every career choice I have made in my short time since school and wondering if law is even for me. Ever since starting at my current work I have hardly been welcome. One particular partner is pretty horrendous to me and barks criticisms every time I work. I attended the Christmas office party in skinny jeans and a pretty top, having been told by my fellow admin staff the dress code was smart-casual, only to be met by the whole office in black tie. I have had numerous notes sellotaped to my desk regarding the way I work (trivial things like hand writing size), but with no names so that I can't follow it up. I am finding it difficult. In response to this I have shrunk into my shell and tried to have as little interaction with certain people as possible. Counterproductive? I have since heard that the partner who has a particular dislike for me has told a number of secretaries that I am "too quiet" with "not much to say". I cannot win and I dread work every week.
It is possible that I am maybe not right for law? Academically I am well suited. But we all know that it takes more than that. A partner at a firm I did 3 months work experience with in my third year told me he thought I had great potential so why have I gone so wrong here? Just bad luck?
"Death by Ridicule"
Yes, that is apparently the fate of the jury in the Vicky Pryce trial who, during 2 days of deliberations, submitted no less than 10 questions to the judge in what was described as a simple trial. This story has really caught my attention and is under bitter scrutiny by many legal writers. Some see this as evidence of a jury system functioning how it should: asking for clarity in order to come to a legally safe verdict. Others see this as devastatingly worrying evidence of a system allowing people, who may not reach a basic threshold of intellectual ability, to be involved in such a complex and life-changing process.
I am a staunch advocate of our adversarial system and the jury that comes hand in hand. Who can possibly be better to make such decisions than 12 different people from different walks of life, unbiased to the legal system? How else could we better avoid corruption in such decisions or undue influences from people on the "inside"? (my conspiracy theory side running away a little bit!).
However, we cannot hide from the points this case raises. I could possibly be swayed into thinking that an aptitude test might be appropriate. If we can be convinced that a jury possess basic literacy/numeracy and analysis skills, would that not solve the problem? But then what about a human rights... would subjecting members of the public to such tests be a little invasive and embarrassing- as well as time consuming and expensive. Equally, we cannot sit back and do nothing. It is not sufficient for the fate of those on the stand to be in some kind of "jury lottery" in which when you lose, you lose big. What does that mean for consistency and certainty of the application of our criminal law.
Some have suggested an opt in system- you opt in to jury service and take aptitude tests in order to be entered onto a waiting list. Personally, I think this will alienate a large slice of society. A compulsory jury service plucks people from all backgrounds, many of whom might be unlikely to sign up to such a process. Might a voluntary jury be filled with middle class intellectuals? Lawyers, accountants, doctors... with the less intellectuals or most wealthy sections of society being excluded.
Alternatively, the most complex legal cases could be reserved for decision by a panel of judges. This of course removes the problem of the need for intellectual testing but then what about the idea enshrined in our system of a lay jury deciding on a person's guilt. Could this just open up a can of worms for the appeal courts?
Clearly the issue is a difficult one to solve, but it would seem that some kind of reform is on the horizon. I watch with baited breath.
