Ouch. That has to be one of the best retorts on LI ever, imagine this in real life and the guy asking "who is x" would be running away with his tail between his legs
Its always easy to showoff one's privileges then to generously pass on knowledge and experience. Surely so called good law school failed to imbibe human values.
This is great advice. Especially the one about starting instead of thinking of starting and perfecting the starr. Thanks a lot!!!! I really needed to hear this.
During a recent 7-judge hearing on a constitutional matter, GShanks cited an article by Prof Dam to support his argument. The CJ asked for the details of the article and then said yes I know about his scholarship, I cited his book in another case. Looks like people who matter know about his work
Simple concept - spend more time doing things than thinking of doing things. many people are caught up in the technicalities of thinking and perfecting their start to one skill. You gotta fail sometimes to not fail sometimes to winning everytime.
Intellect in law is all about knowledge and application. Knowledge comes from reading - judgments, commentaries, books, bare acts, articles. Application will come from practice - writing that article, that research paper, that opinion on a complex issue.
Trust me, even seasoned lawyers don't get everything right the first time, and they make a lot of changes to the first draft of their legal opinion, as the complex law these days starts to make sense when you have already spent a lot of time thinking about it.
I got rejected twice and only succeeded the third time, obviously you have to show that you like research and aren't just saying so for CV points. They would have seen a lot of applications to know the difference
Read Dam Sir's recent analysis of the gay marriage decision and you'll get a good example of original analysis. I learnt way more about research and writing by interning under him than I did in the first 4 years of my law curriculum
Read on whatever you intend to write. Do not restrict yourself to few papers/reports/blogs etc. Do not just read for the sake of reading, make notes on whatever you find useful and add your observations, especially when you have different opinion then that of the author/organization. Do not restrict yourself to one reading, especially when the text is comprehensive/important etc EG works of Shubhankar Dam on ordinances. Soon you would find exactly on what to write and how to go about it. Also see how other authors address the findings, analysis and opinion of the previous works. Ask yourself who you would support and why or whose arguments are more satisfactory and can you convey that more persuasively or with more supporting points etc. Last but not the least, be patient, I don't think there can be overnight success with regard to it.
I see all these people in my law school and LinkedIn who are able to write so well and critically analyse things and generate original thoughts on various subjects in their blogs and papers. I have till now submitted most of my research papers by paraphrasing and I want to change that. The most common advice that I have come across is to read but is that enough? How can I become like these people. Any and every advice is welcome.
Intellect in law is all about knowledge and application. Knowledge comes from reading - judgments, commentaries, books, bare acts, articles. Application will come from practice - writing that article, that research paper, that opinion on a complex issue.
Trust me, even seasoned lawyers don't get everything right the first time, and they make a lot of changes to the first draft of their legal opinion, as the complex law these days starts to make sense when you have already spent a lot of time thinking about it.
Law is for IQ 60 people.
Read.
But read what??