Update
Last three and a half weeks have been a bit disjointed. We had our "options" for three weeks, one of which had a weekend with a bank holiday Monday attached to it. My options were in the first two weeks, with the third week "off." So I began my immigration option on Friday 15 May, then family option on Friday 22 May, the 25 May was a bank holiday, and I finished family on Friday 29 May.
Last week I happily conceived of as "off" to do job-hunting etcetera but as we had to turn in our "professional ethics" file on Friday, not so much. I spent it combing through my notes to write retroactive entries for my "reflective journal" and doing a final half days' court visit and writing up all my court visits on their prescribed forms.
I have so far applied for two paralegal posts in London -- not heard back from either; the tutoring course Sameen suggested -- have been sent a proper application form which I'll fill out and send before the end of this week; and four language schools in Istanbul -- one of which has written asking me to fax over my degree certificate, TESOL certificate and pages from my passport (Mum, you have my TESOL cert. Could you possibly get it scanned and email it to me?); and my friend Alex has today written me to say that one of the parents at her school wants a live-in English tutor for their children for the summer. This is tempting. They have a nanny as well, so I wouldn't be watching the children, only tutoring. They would want me to go on trips around Istanbul with them and possibly on holiday elsewhere in Turkey and they are offering room and board plus salary, although Alex doesn't know how much. I have written to her asking if she thinks my being vegetarian would be an issue, and that I would need ten days off towards the end of July to come back and be called to the Bar. We'll see what she says.
Anyway, should send out more CVs over the next couple of days.
And also on Friday, our exam papers and schedules were released to us. YES, they left it until the Friday before the exams started and thought this was perfectly reasonable. All immigration option students had to turn in our skeleton arguments on Monday. My immigration assessment was yesterday. My family assessment was today. And of course, with perfect timing, I got some sort of bug over the weekend which completely exhausted me. It was like flu, without the cold symptoms. All I wanted to do was sleep. But I got my skeleton done somehow.
In immigration, I made closing submissions at an appeal against the refusal of refugee status for a Somali woman. The original decision was basically made on the grounds that she was lying about coming from a minority clan because she'd contradicted herself in her interviews and statements (this included the fact that in her first interview she didn't mention having been raped to her MALE interviewer and MALE interpreter -- yes, they will honestly try to hold this against people). I think it went well. I can't think of anything I really should have addressed or any way I should have done it differently, so if anything bites me in the behind it will be something I haven't thought of/don't know about. We shall see.
Today in family I made an application for a non-molestation order (an order preventing someone from using or threatening violence against another person, getting anyone else to use or threaten violence against them, or harrassing or intimidating them) and an occupation order on behalf of a battered husband. We did a couple of these for battered wives through the course, it was nice they put some sort of twist on it. After the application, we were given the judgement and told to draft up the order. Again, I think it went fairly well. Looking at the judgment, I neglected to mention one part of the order -- that the husband be declared to be entitled to occupy the house (to put this in context, I remembered to say that he should be allowed to occupy it; that the wife should be prohibited from occupying it; that she should leave within six hours and not return, or attempt to return; so the omission wasn't massive). I'm a bit worried I may have mixed up one or two of the specific statutory tests I was addressing, and can't really decide whether to double-check or just try to let go of it. The drafting, I think, was fine. It's a fairly straightforward matter of copying appropriate precedents word-for-word.
Finally, on the suit issue. I spoke to Susannah about speaking to her friend Henrietta, who is apprenticing with a very posh (men's) tailor near Fleet Street. Susannah said that, from what she's heard from Hen, women don't get suits made up from scratch so much because they're so fussy about exactly what they want (which doesn't really make sense to me, this seems to me like a reason to have it made up from scratch, but who am I to argue) so they just buy the suit they want and have it adjusted by tailors. I still think it might be worth talking to Hen personally, maybe even seeing if she'd be willing to do me one on the side, and if so, for what cost, but at this point the conversation became more interesting because Susie's boyfriend, Nye, who's a pupil barrister with a posh criminal set, started paying attention. Susie said, "Would you want a skirt suit or a trouser suit?" and Nye instantly broke in, "Skirt. Trousers aren't smart enough." We both stared at him. "It's true," he said. "Women barristers don't wear trousers in the higher courts. It's like how lounge suits aren't smart enough for men [Nye wears a three-piece suit with a waistcoat which he is, quite frankly, ridiculously vain of. He also has very special tailored shirts which must be washed on their own.]" "I'm not going to be in the higher courts, I'm going to be in tribunals." "But your pupil master will go to the High Court, maybe above, while you're working for them." "Do I have to dress like my pupil supervisor does?" "You should dress appropriately for the court. Also it has to be black, but you know that [I did, actually -- again, for the higher courts; for the family courts and immigration tribunals, I can go in a grey trouser suit and fit in fine]. And make sure it buttons high enough to get your collarette underneath it. There will be other rules. You should speak to a woman barrister."
I also had a look at my grey skirt suit to figure out what sort of thing I want in a skirt suit. It's actually pretty good, and I've realised that unlike in a trouser suit, I don't need a long jacket to cover my bottom in a skirt suit because it's already disguised by, well, the skirt. Unfortunately, this doesn't get me much further forward. I thought yesterday of this suit, and was convinced it had the option of a skirt to go with it instead of the trousers -- but it looks like not. Back to the drawing board.
Last week I happily conceived of as "off" to do job-hunting etcetera but as we had to turn in our "professional ethics" file on Friday, not so much. I spent it combing through my notes to write retroactive entries for my "reflective journal" and doing a final half days' court visit and writing up all my court visits on their prescribed forms.
I have so far applied for two paralegal posts in London -- not heard back from either; the tutoring course Sameen suggested -- have been sent a proper application form which I'll fill out and send before the end of this week; and four language schools in Istanbul -- one of which has written asking me to fax over my degree certificate, TESOL certificate and pages from my passport (Mum, you have my TESOL cert. Could you possibly get it scanned and email it to me?); and my friend Alex has today written me to say that one of the parents at her school wants a live-in English tutor for their children for the summer. This is tempting. They have a nanny as well, so I wouldn't be watching the children, only tutoring. They would want me to go on trips around Istanbul with them and possibly on holiday elsewhere in Turkey and they are offering room and board plus salary, although Alex doesn't know how much. I have written to her asking if she thinks my being vegetarian would be an issue, and that I would need ten days off towards the end of July to come back and be called to the Bar. We'll see what she says.
Anyway, should send out more CVs over the next couple of days.
And also on Friday, our exam papers and schedules were released to us. YES, they left it until the Friday before the exams started and thought this was perfectly reasonable. All immigration option students had to turn in our skeleton arguments on Monday. My immigration assessment was yesterday. My family assessment was today. And of course, with perfect timing, I got some sort of bug over the weekend which completely exhausted me. It was like flu, without the cold symptoms. All I wanted to do was sleep. But I got my skeleton done somehow.
In immigration, I made closing submissions at an appeal against the refusal of refugee status for a Somali woman. The original decision was basically made on the grounds that she was lying about coming from a minority clan because she'd contradicted herself in her interviews and statements (this included the fact that in her first interview she didn't mention having been raped to her MALE interviewer and MALE interpreter -- yes, they will honestly try to hold this against people). I think it went well. I can't think of anything I really should have addressed or any way I should have done it differently, so if anything bites me in the behind it will be something I haven't thought of/don't know about. We shall see.
Today in family I made an application for a non-molestation order (an order preventing someone from using or threatening violence against another person, getting anyone else to use or threaten violence against them, or harrassing or intimidating them) and an occupation order on behalf of a battered husband. We did a couple of these for battered wives through the course, it was nice they put some sort of twist on it. After the application, we were given the judgement and told to draft up the order. Again, I think it went fairly well. Looking at the judgment, I neglected to mention one part of the order -- that the husband be declared to be entitled to occupy the house (to put this in context, I remembered to say that he should be allowed to occupy it; that the wife should be prohibited from occupying it; that she should leave within six hours and not return, or attempt to return; so the omission wasn't massive). I'm a bit worried I may have mixed up one or two of the specific statutory tests I was addressing, and can't really decide whether to double-check or just try to let go of it. The drafting, I think, was fine. It's a fairly straightforward matter of copying appropriate precedents word-for-word.
Finally, on the suit issue. I spoke to Susannah about speaking to her friend Henrietta, who is apprenticing with a very posh (men's) tailor near Fleet Street. Susannah said that, from what she's heard from Hen, women don't get suits made up from scratch so much because they're so fussy about exactly what they want (which doesn't really make sense to me, this seems to me like a reason to have it made up from scratch, but who am I to argue) so they just buy the suit they want and have it adjusted by tailors. I still think it might be worth talking to Hen personally, maybe even seeing if she'd be willing to do me one on the side, and if so, for what cost, but at this point the conversation became more interesting because Susie's boyfriend, Nye, who's a pupil barrister with a posh criminal set, started paying attention. Susie said, "Would you want a skirt suit or a trouser suit?" and Nye instantly broke in, "Skirt. Trousers aren't smart enough." We both stared at him. "It's true," he said. "Women barristers don't wear trousers in the higher courts. It's like how lounge suits aren't smart enough for men [Nye wears a three-piece suit with a waistcoat which he is, quite frankly, ridiculously vain of. He also has very special tailored shirts which must be washed on their own.]" "I'm not going to be in the higher courts, I'm going to be in tribunals." "But your pupil master will go to the High Court, maybe above, while you're working for them." "Do I have to dress like my pupil supervisor does?" "You should dress appropriately for the court. Also it has to be black, but you know that [I did, actually -- again, for the higher courts; for the family courts and immigration tribunals, I can go in a grey trouser suit and fit in fine]. And make sure it buttons high enough to get your collarette underneath it. There will be other rules. You should speak to a woman barrister."
I also had a look at my grey skirt suit to figure out what sort of thing I want in a skirt suit. It's actually pretty good, and I've realised that unlike in a trouser suit, I don't need a long jacket to cover my bottom in a skirt suit because it's already disguised by, well, the skirt. Unfortunately, this doesn't get me much further forward. I thought yesterday of this suit, and was convinced it had the option of a skirt to go with it instead of the trousers -- but it looks like not. Back to the drawing board.