'Those Who Wish to Practise Law Should Not Study Law at University'?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 бер 2014
- On 27 February 2013 the Faculty of Law hosted an important and lively debate between Lord Sumption and Professor Graham Virgo on the motion 'Those who wish to Practise Law should not Study Law at University'.
Sir Patrick Elias, Lord Justice of Appeal, who chaired the debate, kept order in a packed auditorium.
For more information, see www.law.cam.ac.uk/press/news/2...
Law school is not enough to be a competent well versed lawyer anymore. Just as with anything in life, life experience trumps raw knowledge. The combination of the two can be unstoppable if utilized in the right way. Great lecture by this faculty member. Thank you.
Lawyers in Connecticut What a redundant point.
My uncle Dr Bashir Mallal LL.D of Singapore didn't attend university as he was too poor. He worked in a legal office and went on to publish the Malay Law Journal which covered courts in Malaya, Singapore and Brunei. He was awarded an honouray doctorate of laws by NSU for services to the legal community and was considered highly knowledgeable in legal matters.
Wow
Thanks for posting this great debate. And many thanks to the two speakers. Special thanks must go to Lord Sumption for arguing his position at the Cambridge Law Faculty. It is fair to say everyone present (all the law students) has a bias in agreeing with Professor Graham Virgo's arguments. So even changing a few minds is an achievement.
A great debate, thanks to Prof Virgo and Lord Sumption and of course to those who uploaded it; it very much illuminated my evening. As an aspiring barrister who first studied theology and languages before entering into law degree, I can confirm that my first degree helped enhance my horizon in understanding how law works. Unlike many students, in my first and second year, I largely read the case law and I acquired as much the general culture to analyse the facts from case law as I had read my non-law related discipline. Therefore I say, if you want to be an excellent lawyer, you want to have a non-legal foundation, be it a professional life or other degree subjects, before studying law.
PS: Prof Virgo’s Equity and Trusts textbook was such an excellent source of understanding complex topics in Equity. On behalf of my cohort, thanks very much.
A good debate, but I think four important points were missed.
1. Academic law and what might be called 'vocational law' are fundamentally different endeavours, involving very different skills. Lawyers often like to flatter themselves by analogising their qualifications with the medical profession. Actually a better analogy would be with accountancy.
Nobody expects an accountant to hold a degree in accountancy, and though some do, most don't. I think it likely that the very top chartered accountants have hardly studied accountancy at all in any academic sense. They do not require such knowledge. They are not academic researchers in accounting, they are business people. They are not interested in the philosophic 'whys' of accountancy. Conversely, technical accountancy knowledge is a minimal skill level, and only a necessary first step for a chartered accountant. Generally-speaking, you don't hear the top accountancy firms boast that they know all about accountancy. That's taken as a given. Their clients pay them handsomely for their sound judgement and commercial acumen.
Law is not the same of course, and the analogy is not perfect. However I do think a broadly similar observation applies to lawyers, especially commercial ones, but really in any legal discipline. You don't generally hear lawyers boast about their legal knowledge per se. Practising law isn't quite like that. They are being paid for something more than just being able to recite what they know (though this is still important).
2. I said in 1 above that my analogy with accountancy isn't perfect, and that's due to the nature of the subject-matter in law. While I agree to an extent with Lord Sumption's observation that what a typical professional lawyer needs to know about the law isn't very extensive, it doesn't follow that having an extensive knowledge of the law at the expense of other subjects is detrimental.
And as I think Professor Virgo mentioned, there is no reason why law degrees and higher education cannot be reformed to take account of some of the valid concerns that Lord Sumption raises. There is an old saying: 'A law degree sharpens the mind, and narrows it'. I think there is some truth in this. It's a degree that results in a more logical brain, but at the same time, I also feel ignorant of a lot of important subjects in classics, science and the humanities that a more general education that would have given me. On the other hand, we only have so much time and can only learn so many subjects. And if you want to be a lawyer, why not study law?
3. An academic law degree is not meant to be a preparation for practice. It can help, but just like any other academic degree, it is a preparation for membership of an academic community. Law faculties are not trade schools: at least, not the elite ones like Cambridge Thus the proposition posed in the debate could be seen as misplaced. Nobody told me that my law degree was a preparation for practice, at least nobody that I would have taken seriously. I knew that in order to practice, I would need to take professional exams, which is to be expected when joining a profession. A law degree is just that: a degree. It is not a qualification to go out and start giving advice.
4. My final point is that I think too much emphasis is being placed on university education. I think the debate reflects this bias in two respects: first, in an assumption implicit in the debate, that prospective lawyers need a university education at all; and second, in the view put by Lord Sumption that a university education (or a 'universal' education, as he might put it) is of value in its own right. I would question these. As Lord Sumption rightly stated, the law can be learnt on the job, (and that used to be how most lawyers trained, including the most eminent ones), but Lord Sumption fails to mention that an advanced level of formal education is not necessitous for someone to train and practice successfully as a lawyer.
As an aside, I am also curious as to what Lord Sumption's argument is here for 'education'. He doesn't really explain. What is the philosophical basis for this perspective that education is a good thing in its own right? Utilitarianism? Or what? Does a universal education, i.e. university attendance on a broad-based degree, make you happier? Will knowing more about ancient Greek philosophers or understanding the intricacies of quantum physics or the Pareto curve make me a more contented person? I would like to suggest that this is a misplaced perspective when applied generally. Some people will be happier as they become more educated because what they will learn will make them more generous in spirit and more liberal-minded, and the study habits they develop will perhaps make them more intelligent. However, for others, the route to happiness could be to learn a skill that makes the person useful and productive and gives them prestige in the community. Such a person might be completely ignorant when it comes to philosophy or medieval political thought or Anglo-Saxon history or ancient languages or higher mathematics - but if they are content and productive, what is the problem?
For these reasons, my answer to the proposition put in the debate: 'Those Who Wish to Practise Law Should Not Study Law at University', would be that those who wish to practise law should study whatever they want at university, or preferably, not attend university at all. On the face of it, that makes it look like I am siding mostly with Lord Sumption. I am a little, but far from entirely. I think he made some very good points, but many of his other points about the law and some of his arguments 'against' a law degree are a little too sweeping or simplified for my liking. Just to pick out one example: Sumption claims that law is easy and the really complicated thing is understanding facts and applying the law to these. There is something in this, of course, and most lawyers would recognise what he is saying, but the law isn't easy. It is conceptually difficult and takes time to learn and master. As Professor Virgo said, law is a learned subject that deserves to be pursued in its own right.
I think regarding educational preparation for lawyers, there is a middle course here: study law for its own sake, or study electronics or home economics, or golf course management, or mathematics, or chemistry, or media studies or psychology....or whatever you want to study. Or go travelling, or learn a trade. Just do what you want. Any of those endeavours, and more, can make you a 'good lawyer' eventually, from one perspective or other.
How does one become a lawyer without attending University? I didn't realise it was possible.
Thanks for the comment. It does depend which jurisdiction you wish to qualify in and which branch of the legal profession you wish to enter. My comments here are regarding England & Wales.
For solicitors, it has always been the case, and remains so, that a degree of any kind is not needed and is not mandatory for admission, though the vast majority of candidates today do hold a degree. As I understand things, it used to be that the majority of trainee solicitors (then known as articled clerks) had no university degree at all and entered the profession by training on the job while taking classes part-time in preparation for professional exams - very similar to the way a lot of chartered accountants still train today, which is yet another reason why accountancy provides us with an apt analogy to the legal profession, certainly the solicitor branch.
Barristers also used to train in the same way, by working while studying. This is because they were strictly advocates and separate from the more distinguished 'Doctors of Law' (now a defunct branch of the profession), who had completed formal degrees. That was all a very long time ago and it would now probably be considered an antiquated practice in most legal specialisms at the Bar to allow barristers to train in chambers and by visiting Inns and testing their skills in court. Probably a case could be made today that entrants to the Bar (or at least direct entrants) should always hold an academic degree. But I think this idea that generally you need to go to university to join a profession is quite strange. Except for the medical and veterinary professions, and maybe today's barristers, I can't readily think of a profession for which a university background should be considered necessary.
"necessitous"? I think you mean necessary? (I know what necessitous means.)
LearnLoads Necessitous is correctly used here. You're clearly not familiar with all the usages of the word, which is rather embarrassing given that you purport to be 'correcting' me.
Having said that, I have changed it to 'necessary', as I agree that reads better. Not that it matters.
I vote for Lord Sumption but in a qualified sense if I understand his position correctly. I still believe that law school is needed. I agree that as an undergraduate you should not study law in preparation for law school. That is what the questioner at 46:00 is asking at.
Here in the U.S. the ABA (America Bar Association)has stated that those who want to go on to law school should not major in pre- law or any other narrow specialization fields. Lord Sumption is correct that a lawyer needs a good broad based liberal arts education. One that requires the student to pursue studies in civilizational history, philosophy, with strong emphasis in ethics/logic/metaphysics and linguistic theory, philosophy, language studies, either classical or modern, literature, natural sciences, etc, etc.
A lawyer must be able to think abstractly and theoretically about the law. Only by thinking broadly can the lawyer think correctly in a concrete fashion and apply the law. Its sad that there are students who cant see this. However Lord Sumpton is absolutely correct that its because they have a very inaccurate view of the purpose of the university. They see it as vocational training rather than education.
Cannot agree with you more Emmanuel.
I have to admit, Law School is lacking enough central focus on philosophy, equity and common law. All it usually teaches is legislation with dribbles of common law. Equity (the true and supreme core) is virtually left out - which is odd considering equity is the foundation of all law and legal philosophical principles.
Great arguments!!! As a scientist, it's hard to comprehend why 2+2 does not always equal 4 in legal profession. In law, many times, 2+2 could be anything other than 4, as long as one can twist the facts, or non facts for that matter. This is just one argument which, in my eyes, would make law an unfulfilling profession. It's not a scientific thinking process, it's a simply and undisputed fact that 2+2 is always 4, not when it's convenient to be.
This is a really interesting take, and comes from an insightful position. If we see law as presenting itself as science, or at least 'science-lite', a reasonable perspective given the popularity of the term 'legal science', it's an abysmal failure. You are absolutely correct that law seems often seems to be rather relative and inconsistent. However, if we see law as a humanities subject, perhaps in the same vein as politics or the philosophy of ethics, then explaining its inconsistency is quite straightforward. It goes like this: legal reasoning will depend ultimately on value-judgements; 'correct' value-judgements change with society, and indeed with each person; and accordingly law is going to be as inconsistent as our own moral beliefs. Unless one wishes morality to be as regular as science (which is another question altogether), then it is to be expected that law will be imperfect, unpredictable, and 'irrational.'
I could read you two discussing this like a book. You both made excellent points and explained it clearly.
@@alecthompson1023 Really good answer, opens up the topic wonderfully!
In a free transparent and democratic society, the law in general should be taught to all our children at school. The very fact that our system of justice is administered by a private occult society begs further scrutiny. It can be argued that the degradation of our society is primarily down to the apathy and corruption of our judiciary. We see it now with the arbitrary criminalization of the common man and the most important crimes go unhindered.
Question: at what point to the public have the jurisdiction to violate the rights of the private individual?
For a law professor graham put forward some pretty weak arguments. Played right into Lord Sumption's hands.
+Electra Heart well, Sumption is the best lol
True. You can't compare the practice of Law with the practice of Medicine. Although I would agree with Prof Virgo that Law is a learned profession, with law it is still entirely possible for someone who has no formal training to be reasonably competent in managing a case - even if it is only their own. Pro se litigants abound, as do McKenzie friends who represent others. Furthermore, the law relies heavily upon lay practitioners to act as judges, e.g., magistrates. So the profession concedes entirely to the notion that 'anyone without formal training could, theoretically, practice law if they have an idea of how the legal system works and can grasp what a fact is and what makes evidence admissible. Take a jury too, they too must examine the facts of a case - without any prior training - to convict or acquit. There are no medical lay practitioners though (unless you count witch doctors). Those who aren't trained are just viewed as quasi medics or non medics. Medicine relies upon the knowledge and application of science. Without a good grounding in Chemistry and Human Biology you would never be able to become a doctor. Without surgical training of many years you could not be a surgeon either. There are no lay surgeons and no lay doctors on prestigous Medical Boards. Medicine is about life and death - literally, Law is about how society's rules fit to an individual's set of circumstances.
@@PotterSpurn1 that is why weird court decisions are more common in Common Law systems rather than Civil Law systems
Lord Simpton*
Lord Sumption is, to my mind, obviously right.
Was all very interesting during the first speaker and his role speaks, and quite rightly so in a roundabout way saying One must understand the world or at least something, in order to deliberate on it.
But speaker 2 i shall address as a typical student that went pro student as it were. With no experience of life outside the book and the non-desire to desire to want. The constant reasoning as to the reason we need rules and the "law" in its black and white form as if he were reading from the book of purest law would lay fair tail from the reality that Law is something every child has been learning continuously up until adulthood and beyond. He is a clear example of all that is wrong in our courts as it clearly moves away from Law. To explain what i must start from the beginning.
The Law is a way of life as we implement it. and is occasionally wrong as society changes and requires a different Law.
When i say society i clearly don't mean the Law society as it’s known but rather the wider population that is not part of the known Law society but should actually be if it weren't so lacking. But the second speaker gives appraisal to he who knows above he who does not. It’s as it were that it must be a confined club, that the study of equity was equality in the face of it. Hence legal academics does not form part of the legal profession as the Law has always been and the Legal Professions role is to seek it. He speaks of great judges and respect for the profession as if it were to worship the profession. And he says that no man can properly practice or apply the Law. this remark is quietly so very disturbing indeed. True scholarship as he quaintly puts it is for the want of a better word brainwashed and bewitched. And he goes on the make the remark of the century saying it requires deep study and imagination as near the twain shall meet. Does he not know that straight A students work for C & D students!. whom am i as an ignorant man to interfere with his creative thinking. Clearly a life of studying Law proves the ignorance of it!. To understand your subject one must first understand the foundation of Law!. His study leaves him in mere speculation with no foundation and an imposition on change itself. If i may spell it out, The Law every man lives by every day. Even the man that does wrong knows that he has done so. In fact the Law couldn't be more simple except for the fact the legal academics continue to interfere in it. No academic invented thy shall not kill!. nor any Law in fact, All the Laws come from God no-matter the religion you practice, so everyone practices it. Kings interfered with it. Every trial has an injured party or two. And each man in a trial is entitled to a Jury trial because God says you shall not be judged by one man. He says if you must go before a man-made court let you sit 12 people of lessor standing in the community to sit and judge you and God will sit with them to make the right decision. And the very definition of the word Jury says you are entitled to it on injury = in jury. The reason is all the other Laws man-made are based on fraud and deception. for example the land was fought for, and blood was spilt and no matter how far you go back someone else owned it. so it was acquired by the sword. the sword was forged with steel meaning the sword steels land and forged paper’s claiming it as its own. All the Laws are already there, and man-made Laws try to limit your rights to the Law being enacted and most always where it benefits the State for some reason, which is pretty much the better part of it in fact. Learning history or maths gives a man insight to the reality of man itself as a subject as being Lawful as opposed to being subject. One most definitely needs to study the Nuremberg Trials or read about the abolishing of slavery. Indeed id argue slavery was reinvented and the slaves today go by the name servant! But it’s like the story of animal farm all-over, and the slave now trying to over throw by ruling the master with some quick wit!. The servants even pretend to pay tax so to look like a master, but in fact the master is actually paying it all and the servants tax and wage and pension and expenses and bonus and car space is only the masters tax anyway with a bit of tomfoolery taught up by that wonderful servant called a political wonder-boy or woman that supposedly gets economy’s back to work! God forbid we would need C & D students for that that dropped out of school got a job and/or started up a business to pay for everything!. The only reason it takes an economy so long to recover is because of the A students complex approach to issues like requiring people to pay 50% tax on their income when in fact they don't actually pay nor need to! in a bid to persuade the actual master to pay more so the A student can get more without directly asking for it. leaving the private sector actually paying 175% believe it or not, i believe you believe it not unless you were the first speaker so who knows what you believe. As King James put it when he printed his own version of the Bible that being the word of God that which is copyrighted by the intellect no doubt, It’s the King James Bible you worship. Al though it’s the mere version that's the Copying Gods right rather than the Godly right itself. Al though we do like to wear cuffs and collars, and your necks tied with a running knot when heading through the en-trance to attend court!. Bible warns against it and insists you do not mix fabrics i wonder why. It amazes me not, that the intellect thinks the Law was made by man for the good of man and in all civil matters as the in-jury is called, the servant wishes to go against all relevance of Law and its complete existence or reason spouting bizarre reasoning that 12 man can decide on murder rape and treason but not equipped with enough rational to decide if Joe blogs should pay for damaging the car!. Well what can i say, the usual argument is it costs more having a jury!, this i don't believe as I’ve never heard of the jury getting "legally" paid anyway, and surely only requiring a administrator is less expensive than a judge! The other mishap that occasionally happens in order not to disfavour a collouge at times is the lack of understanding of how the court orders are delivered and the role played in the execution of such orders. Let me spell it out. It is at no time the task of a judge when dealing with administrating procedures to make any orders. In fact all he can do is execute an order given usually by way of motion to the court and his task is to decide for the best procedure for the court in its pursuit of justice to arrive at trial in the correct footing, unless to execute ether motion would destruct the fabric of common sense to both sides he decide. otherwise he will favour a motion and order it be done. And in all courts of record both parties should be on the record as to not be on the record, one is not in attendance. This is the very fabric of the justice system, and to falter on this can only lead way to hearsay after hearsay in the courts and is sharply becoming the norm with Bankers at the forefront of exception after exception!. At Law if you are invited on the record to state that what you are claiming to your motion you must have first-hand knowledge of the facts and if the banker is not present no motion can be given in favor and to do so is done so knowingly its not in accordance with due process of Law and you are committing crimes against the state not the man. And when any servant is accused of any crime it is on no part of the government to protect the accused in any shape or form. Any servant that acts in such a way that he be accused has acted out of office whether he be a police officer or council worker or an officer of the court itself, the accused shall be dragged through the courts as an individual alone, and not the agency or office that which he was assigned too. There is no office of abuse. And on no account can any company, a company being a thing, that resides on a piece of paper, be it a bank or an agency corporation, company, state or union. can object to any man’s rights unless it hurts another man. Any corporation that objects in court to a jury trial is impossible as no company has a right to voice apart from the privilege on the license. Any objections made on their behalf is also impossible and those who make such objections cannot make false claims, so do so in their own name and should be sued individually so that justice is even handed on both sides. and both sides attend court in the right license or title. And to clarify the perception out there about people’s rights. The constitution is not your rights, It’s a limit on Governments rights only. you have all the rights in the world given to you from God be it any religion you believe in. this fundamental fact of life is where every man will agree. sobering taught. You don't study Law, You live by it. peterreaney@me.com
***** i dont understand!
Yes, Yes. That might be right for english law... here in any other country we have a very bad time with our teachers qualifying our tests/exams on this "non-strict" discipline
The thing is in the olden days when those Lords and Reputable Judges went to school, law were indirectly incorporated into all their specific subjects they have studied. Every olden days studies had law embedded in them. The Law of motion, the law of gravity, community and social rules were all parts of those subjects. The Standard 6 Qualification holder (in the 1950s or early years) is equivalent to the Master degree of this contemporary world of today. I am proud of my Mum and Dad. They were respected teachers and Chemists.
Great points. It made me think of William Jame's article on the social value of the college-bred. Well worth a read
I would be interested to hear, of those learning or studying law, who are reading this, ..... what are your principles? What is most important, what is true or what is profitable,.......doing what you know to be right, or doing that will help your client 'win'?
I would appreciate hearing from those that are 'reading' or 'practising' law as to their approach or intent
Prof Graham taught me Criminal Law many moons back as a lecturer and supervisor-Downing College.
I'm glad Professor Virgo saw Legally Blonde - the film with Reese Witherspoon. That bit about Aristotle was taken directly from the film.
You can already practice in law, at/in court without university. However, to practice at law, in court is a different story....
Either way, you are subject to the court and the suitor's standards and expectations.
It really depends on what laws you intend to practice.
There is your lawyer answer.
I knew the Professor was misrepresenting Lord Sumption
not the only subject but the teachers will keep it real with ya if u ask
Indeed, "It all depends" be-cause-effect, self-defining Actuality of QM-TIMESPACE In-form-ation substantiation, which is lawfully, a relative-timing here-now-forever, Singularity-point existence.
All the rest is Commentary.
At ~18:00 he references a joke and everyone in the room laughs too early and are silent at the punch line.
The joke implied that chemistry is more rigorous than banking whereas the audience laughed as though the joke implied that banking was more rigorous than being a lawyer. The entire auditorium got the joke completely wrong.... Does anyone else notice this?
+Matthew Alexander Well spotted. As great a legal mind as Lord Sumption QC is, I think he should have looked at a few standup DVDs to perfect his technique. Jim Davidson and Peter Kay spring to mind...
+Matthew Alexander One could also interpret the joke as referring to Chemistry --> law (and not having to refer to banking which sat in the middle of the two). The second comment about it being a problem only to move in the opposite direction could be taken to be a general statement and not referring to his transition from banker to lawyer as you interpreted it.
+Kx7pl 5 The audience clearly understood the joke as intending that Neuberger thought Chemistry was more rigorous than Law. That is a debatable assertion.
True, I just meant by that that I found it to be questionable, ie dubious
Matthew Alexander it cud have been understood either given the tripartite relationship used amongst chem. bank and law...so they weren't wrong as u have limited ur appreciation to just that one portion
Interesting debate. (Except for the constant coughing) this debate is very insightful for those who want to study law in university. And my takeaway is that: the study of law in university, the study of other humanities, and life experiences are all equally important in developing legal reasoning and enriching our minds with more sound arguments to develop laws that uplift the people regardless of social and economical standing.
Does anyone know the name of Lord Sumption's article that Professor Virgo mentions at 27:43 and if it can be found online?
same, I've been trying to find it
May be, you are right. A lecturer's helping you will be timely, if he explains that we should consider law in different contexts. Not only in the buildings of the universities. To practise law, as i see it, means to view it in the various aspects of our life.
Virgo is a more forceful speaker. Australian Aboriginals have their own laws developed over perhaps 60,000 years.
It is only after 200 years of occupation and genocide that the Native Title Act was passed after a long struggle and discrimination.
His medics argument is so terrible, let alone in the country that has the NHS.
The sound makes me sad. Why couldn't they have used a clip on??
Good insight into law. Why not be a barrister then go into chimney sweeping, cough, cough?
DO WHAT THE CORRUPT LAWYERS DO,WHEEL AND DEAL DOWN THE LOCAL PUB
ha ha, are there honest lawyers (liars?) or solicitors (prostitutes?)
Cynical i may sound, experienced i am, sadly!
There is another point. Most law students study the basics such as eg contract and tort law in their first years at university. By the time they get to do their solicitors or bar finals courses it’s way out of date anyway. Law is constantly changing. In my experience the most successful practitioners came into law after a non-law first degree. Then, when you do the finals, the one year immersion in law is still relatively fresh. As Lord Sumption says, it’s mainly about facts. What do 18 year olds know about the facts of contractual agreements anyway? Apart maybe from a mobile phone, a pint in the pub or Viz at the newsagent.
Professor Virgo brilliantly dismantled Lord Sumption's arguments.
Practice*
Passion for the community betterness an holistic legal minded
Authority
Or Thor Writ He
At first I found it hard to understand why Virgo got whoops of appreciation from the audience before he had said a word. I found his arguments weak and specious. Drawing out specific points to make them general, not addressing the points as put to him, this is without mentioning his ad hominems. He is sneering and condescending, really not a generous participant. I didn't enjoy listening to his argument at all, especially when he reiterated the terms of the debate initially, the terms which he himself arranged which presumably thought afforded him the best chance of 'winning'. It became clear to me why he was appreciated by the audience when he played to the gallery and attacked Oxford. He admitted that it was a cheap shot, and I thought, why do it then? Because you're speaking to Cambridge undergraduates. That explains why he made a part of his argument about the cost of studying at university, as if Cambridge law undergraduates haven't, for the most part, just come from fee-paying schools. It isn't Oxford that came off badly in this debate, it is Cambridge and the virgo dude.
Agree with Lord Sumption.
Scire leges, non hoc est verba eorum tenere, sed vim et potestatem. To know the laws, is not to observe their mere words, but their force and power. -Maxim of Law.
Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt. The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood -Maxim of Law.
cannot tie a pink tie
I truly believe that law is “over” taught in the school setting. And the principle function of law is at worst a glorified way to be play devils advocate (literally) and at best it’s misguided. Too complicated of a system creates the chaos that it is designed to prevent or eradicate. In reality it’s basically a machine that sorts through our infinite problems. But, only the problems that are put on paper. How can you have a system that works for the overall society when there are literally infinite ways to manipulate the paper system. I feel that law should be passed culturally, organically, tribally. Law should be enforced locally in general. Only commercial transactions should be enforced nationally or globally. Because the only language and principle that is the same across the world and across cultures is numbers. Money. Transaction ledgers. Accounting. Humans should not be treated like numbers unless they ask to be. It’s a soulless existence. In prison they ask for our number EVERY DAY ALL DAY. It’s exhausting. Its like being asked for your social security number 10 times per day and out loud. But it taught me how to quantize this society by seeing a “mini” version of America. Prison became a science experiment. A social canvas. I studied law in prison, and put it and practice to see how it would actually play out in this system that it was designed for. I became very successful in court. But they were always very reluctant to honor their own codes. It was the most bizarre experience I’ve ever had in life. It was hell and demons type of vibe. These people tried to be impervious to the facts and “law.” It took years and multiple trials and appeals to end it all. But ultimately I fell just short of being compensated for my sabbatical in a cell. But the key thing that I learned was the the topic of syllogism. It has no moral prerequisite. It’s a fill in the blank system. Honestly, it’s a little outrageous when I think about it too deeply. The academic study of law is a pure programming. A bending of the logic. If done correctly it should teach one to divide and support both the immoral and moral perspective. This is institutional law. Systematic control that puts in the code to the operating system. Social architects are equivalent to computer programmers. The society that they build is only as moral as the writer of the code. As long as abundant power and money are involved then expect the immoral and greedy to show up. Those are the dark magicians. The ones who want to bend words to do unnatural things in their favor. Call me crazy, but I feel that we could do a better job by governing ourselves in our respective villages and towns. Keep it simple. Keep it concise. The legal system and the “codes” and “high court” is the asset engine to this version of virtual reality. But anyway, I’m a little stoned. God bless
what was meant by criminals and picking limited pockets? is this a reference to the fact its not about just-us (justice) but rather financial gain or isit about over charging to limit ppl knowing the law when it should be free and taught in schools for free without exception as man that does not know hes rights, has no rights at all!
***** Our rights are fairly few and are largely known to most people; I think incorporating the contents of a law degree into the free education system would be overkill in that regard.
Loving Sumption saying it should be taken as a second degree, as I am taking law as a second degree now lol so I am biased. I don't know how much more depressing my life would've been if my time learning about human achievements in world war 2 and the life of Caesar in my early adulthood were replaced by the million different ways killing someone isn't technically murder and is instead, a million other different crimes.
i am going to start gdl soon. I infact agree that llb is waste because medics and engineers are more analytical ,imaginative and thinking ahead. i have bachelors in computer science engineering and master of?research in biomedical engineering. I cant see a meagre llb student cant have research ability than me
You must be a simpleton
At which point in the video does he say that?
28:46
Lord Sumption, I did not understand finally, did the hen make the egg or the egg the hen?
15:18
Would the greatest liar please put their hand up.
Please fix that TIE!!!
Haha! Thought I was the only who noticed.
Who cares about the damn the. Focus on what's important.
@@braddouglas1621 It's a terrible distraction. He apparently doesn't realize that the tie label is sewn in such a way as to permit the small part to be inserted into and held in place behind the front wider part. Or he could invest in a tie tack or tie bar. He didn't tie it correctly either. The narrow part should never extend below the front wider part.
shabby.
Being good lawyer is all about traits suxh as self control not training
No as the Law Society does not allow or
Iike peoplebwho know common law which Parliament can not revoke. Statues are the best way to subjugate people. Acts are only allowed if we consent. NO consent no act.
8:00
THE LAW. pfff.
the law is me.
quoting legally blond?
For all of his undeniable wisdom, Mr. Virgo submits a fallacious argument for numerous reasons - please allow me to shed some light on one; the analogy between a one year law conversion course and becoming a GP, which Mr. Virgo moots at roughly 29 mins into his rebuttal, is quite simply factually unsound - a better analogy would have been that of, perhaps, an A&E junior (though they remain the dregs no doubt) - one doesn't simply complete there medical degree and then, subject to not being good enough in order to specialize, become a GP of the batt, so to speak - its a rather arduous process, full of much training - however, the result often, but certainly not all of the time, results in a practitioner who doesn't particularly know much and is reliant upon readily accessible data in way of diagnosis. The best GP's that I have ever met are those that have a wider understanding of things - not matter how that understanding is derived - seldom from Med School though.
They should study 📖 law not case law. BAR school isn't law.
!😂
Looks like the cameraman didnt have much imagination...no reaction-shot at ua-cam.com/video/uMR1NIEifWM/v-deo.html
I thought Virgo unconvincing: shrill, camp, catty, vaguely lightweight.
I thought Sumption weaselled out of the argument by merely saying: "lawyers can study non-law too". Each to their own.
And what does "vaguely lightweight" mean? Vague lightweight, yes. But vaguely lightweight would simply mean "slightly lightweight".