Cultural differences in litigation
A dear friend of mine once said that litigation occurs when two parties having serious personality defects disagree on something. The import of the comment was that, when people are reasonable, there is no litigation -- they accept settlement. Similarly, I have heard that often litigation results in an award not to the "better" party, but to one of two equally difficult parties.
During the course of my work at the court of appeals, and particularly because I am employed to process appeals where the law is settled (and identify appeals where the law is not sufficiently settled), I review a number of very unmeritorious appeals. The most painful cases to review are those where a party refuses to accept an outcome or decision in a situation, and fights against reason and the law to get the result reversed. They go through as many options for redress as are available, and in the American system, there are many levels.*
In some cases, I understand that appeals having no legal merit nevertheless make sense to the litigant: If you would be removed from the country if you were not otherwise pursuing avenues of appeal, and you really wanted to stay in the country, I would expect you to file whatever you can. By the same token, I understand the filmsy arguments of incarcertated persons, who often write pro se appeals (without the benefit of a lawyer), because it is a common failing of humanity to interpret information as favorable even when it isn't.**
Beyond criminal litigants, however, I am least pleased with litigants who bring unmeritorious claims that are clearly blind to the application of the established law to (reasonably) settled facts. Either because litigants lack adequate legal advice regarding the merit of their claims, or because they are stubborn and ridiculous in the face of such advice, appeals seem to be submitted as if relief were awarded by lottery. Ah yes, let's see ... this one: 1 million dollars for you. Thanks for playing and paying your filing fee.
All this means that I am paid by the government to spend my days sifting through many wacky claims. I often find myself reporting to the judges of the court that despite the litigant's claims to the contrary, the law does not permit them to: get out of federal prison; avoid paying taxes; keep their job after violating the law and company policy several times; or stay in the country after entering it several times illegally and lying about it under oath. And after I have moved on in my career, the members of this office will continue to process appeals just like these.
The indelibility of this system irks me. In short, American law and its various levels of appeal work to prolong the acceptance of an outcome that a litigant does not like, but must ultimately accept. And I do not like litigants to be so strung out. I wish the system would move people out of denial sooner.
In going to London, I expect the culture generally encourages the average litigant to move from denial to acceptance sooner than here in the states. My hunch is that people are told to "get over it" by more people earlier in the process of dispute resolution, and so good legal bureaucrats like me are less needed. I wonder, also, if English people have less confidence in the law providing them justice, or if they simply take more responsibility for things not going their way.
Finally, I am curious about the barrister's role in deflecting unmeritorious appeals. I would expect it to be quite strong, and the division between barristers and solicitors quite helpful.
* My critique on the number of levels is a post for another day.
** Additionally, I don't expect people whose conduct ran afoul of the law to fully understand the law or its consequences. I suppose this is part of my naive belief that no one who understands the law's penalties, and the realities of incarceration, would ever opt to flout it.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Chambers assignment
36 days to go
Today Ms. Heaton let me know that I will be working with Quadrant Chambers for the first three weeks of the scholarship. She is still waiting to hear from the chambers where I might be placed for the second half of my trip. Rebecca, my co-scholar, will serve with Blackstone Chambers and Serle Court.
Ms. Heaton is also making arrangements for Rebecca and I to visit Edinburgh and Belfast over a weekend.
Today Ms. Heaton let me know that I will be working with Quadrant Chambers for the first three weeks of the scholarship. She is still waiting to hear from the chambers where I might be placed for the second half of my trip. Rebecca, my co-scholar, will serve with Blackstone Chambers and Serle Court.
Ms. Heaton is also making arrangements for Rebecca and I to visit Edinburgh and Belfast over a weekend.
When I run into co-workers at the office, they often ask me to remind them when I am leaving for London and how long I will be away. I have also collected from them several questions that interest them about the English legal system. Among them are:
Are English lawyers compensated as well as American lawyers?
Who decides how many judges are needed, and how are they appointed?
Are there administrative courts?
How do the courts manage their caseloads?
How is entry to the profession of barrister limited?
Is it easy to choose law as a second career?
Are appellate standards of review similar to the standards used in the federal courts of appeal?
How do barristers manage their fees?
Additionally, because I have been interested in oral argument practices in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, I am similarly curious to know how cases proceed to oral argument in the English system, and the extent to which the role of oral argument is different there than here.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The Structure of English Courts
Or: how I came to appreciate federalism (again)
As I explained in my last post, English barristers generally practice out of chambers. Because I was unfamiliar with this terminology, when the Inner Temple's Pegasus Scholarship coordinator, Clare Heaton, e-mailed me to request that I specify what sort of chambers I would like to be placed with, I erroneously thought that she was referring to judicial chambers. I next concluded that I should inform myself a bit about the structure of the various courts of law in England (and Wales).*
My first attempt to understand the structure of English courts was a miserable failure that ended in frustration and a jumble of words that sounded familiar, but lacked meaning.** Based on the reports of previous scholars, I determined that civil and criminal cases are considered by different courts (but the word "generally" fell in there somewhere), and that there are different routes of appeal, circuits outside of London, High Courts, magistrates, the House of Lords, and something called the Privy Council.***
Instead of completing sufficient additional research to straighten myself out, I sought the advice of a former Pegasus scholar from Britain to the United States, with whom I had been in e-mail contact. This former scholar, Heather McMahon, had been the guest of my local Inn of Court in Richmond, Virginia, the John Marshall Inn of Court, in 2004.
Heather reminded me that the United States and Britain are "two countries divided by a common language," and informed me that "chambers" describes "a set of barristers working out of one building and sharing administrative staff and expenses." Nearly the same day, Ms. Heaton clarified that I needn't specify which individual chambers I would like to be placed with (this would be the equivalent of asking, "Ah yes, please set me up to observe the litigation team at Skadden, Arps in New York City, post haste"), but rather what areas of law I have experience in and would like to see in the English context. She added that I should try not to be too obscure -- as an example, she mentioned that "equine law" would be too narrow -- and suggested that a general commercial/chancery set might be appropriate.****
Ms. Heaton's suggestion not only forced me to rule out my narrow practice interests,***** but also pushed me in a welcome direction, as I have approximately no experience with the practice of law. (This is not to diminish my experience as a law clerk for law firms large and small, or for a federal Court of Appeals, but rather recognizes that my understanding of the law is largely intellectual.) At any rate, I requested to be placed with a set specializing in commercial law and one focused on garden variety criminal law.
The question of chambers put to rest, I revisited my interest in the structure of the English legal system, and discovered the following.
The English system is a bear
It is not merely that civil and criminal courts follow separate paths, and that the distinction between law and equity persists, but it is also that, unlike our system of federalism, which sets one elegant structure alongside fifty complex structures, the English system is one structure (and one that happens to give you a headache). Since it would require unnecessary effort to summarize the courts' structure myself, I will use quotations from internet sources instead.
The majority of civil actions are heard in the 218 county courts, which also handle some family and bankruptcy hearings. The manner in which each case is dealt with depends on the value of the claim, so that the time and cost spent on the case is appropriate to its value.
The High Court sits at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, as well as at some major court centres around the country. The work is handled by three divisions, depending on its subject:
Chancery Division: equity, trusts, tax, bankruptcy
Queen's Bench Division: contract, tort, commercial matters
Family Division: divorce, children, probate.
The Divisional Court of the High Court sits in the Family and Chancery Divisions, and hears appeals from the magistrates' courts and county courts. The Administrative Court in the Queen's Bench Division deals with a variety of judicial review matters.
The Court of Appeal also sits at the Royal Courts of Justice. The Criminal Division hears appeals from Crown Court cases, while the Civil Division receives appeals from the High Court, tribunals and, in certain cases, county courts.
* Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems.
** My social science friends will forgive me for writing that I had language, but no verstehen. Everybody else will pick on me for shoehorning German into my blog.
As I explained in my last post, English barristers generally practice out of chambers. Because I was unfamiliar with this terminology, when the Inner Temple's Pegasus Scholarship coordinator, Clare Heaton, e-mailed me to request that I specify what sort of chambers I would like to be placed with, I erroneously thought that she was referring to judicial chambers. I next concluded that I should inform myself a bit about the structure of the various courts of law in England (and Wales).*
My first attempt to understand the structure of English courts was a miserable failure that ended in frustration and a jumble of words that sounded familiar, but lacked meaning.** Based on the reports of previous scholars, I determined that civil and criminal cases are considered by different courts (but the word "generally" fell in there somewhere), and that there are different routes of appeal, circuits outside of London, High Courts, magistrates, the House of Lords, and something called the Privy Council.***
Instead of completing sufficient additional research to straighten myself out, I sought the advice of a former Pegasus scholar from Britain to the United States, with whom I had been in e-mail contact. This former scholar, Heather McMahon, had been the guest of my local Inn of Court in Richmond, Virginia, the John Marshall Inn of Court, in 2004.
Heather reminded me that the United States and Britain are "two countries divided by a common language," and informed me that "chambers" describes "a set of barristers working out of one building and sharing administrative staff and expenses." Nearly the same day, Ms. Heaton clarified that I needn't specify which individual chambers I would like to be placed with (this would be the equivalent of asking, "Ah yes, please set me up to observe the litigation team at Skadden, Arps in New York City, post haste"), but rather what areas of law I have experience in and would like to see in the English context. She added that I should try not to be too obscure -- as an example, she mentioned that "equine law" would be too narrow -- and suggested that a general commercial/chancery set might be appropriate.****
Ms. Heaton's suggestion not only forced me to rule out my narrow practice interests,***** but also pushed me in a welcome direction, as I have approximately no experience with the practice of law. (This is not to diminish my experience as a law clerk for law firms large and small, or for a federal Court of Appeals, but rather recognizes that my understanding of the law is largely intellectual.) At any rate, I requested to be placed with a set specializing in commercial law and one focused on garden variety criminal law.
The question of chambers put to rest, I revisited my interest in the structure of the English legal system, and discovered the following.
The English system is a bear
It is not merely that civil and criminal courts follow separate paths, and that the distinction between law and equity persists, but it is also that, unlike our system of federalism, which sets one elegant structure alongside fifty complex structures, the English system is one structure (and one that happens to give you a headache). Since it would require unnecessary effort to summarize the courts' structure myself, I will use quotations from internet sources instead.
From the British Department of Constitutional Affairs, I learned:
Most minor criminal cases, called summary offences, are heard in local magistrates' courts either by a panel of lay magistrates assisted by a legally-trained clerk, or by a legally-trained district judge sitting alone. Magistrates' courts also house family proceedings courts and the youth courts. The most serious offences, called indictable-only offences, are passed on by the magistrates' courts to the Crown Court to be heard, usually by a judge and jury. Some cases fall in between, called either-way cases, and may be heard in either court. Only Crown Court judges have the power to pass sentences above a certain level of severity, and so some cases may be transferred from magistrates' courts for sentencing once a verdict has been reached. There are 78 Crown Court centres throughout England and Wales.
The majority of civil actions are heard in the 218 county courts, which also handle some family and bankruptcy hearings. The manner in which each case is dealt with depends on the value of the claim, so that the time and cost spent on the case is appropriate to its value.
The High Court sits at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, as well as at some major court centres around the country. The work is handled by three divisions, depending on its subject:
Chancery Division: equity, trusts, tax, bankruptcy
Queen's Bench Division: contract, tort, commercial matters
Family Division: divorce, children, probate.
The Divisional Court of the High Court sits in the Family and Chancery Divisions, and hears appeals from the magistrates' courts and county courts. The Administrative Court in the Queen's Bench Division deals with a variety of judicial review matters.
The Court of Appeal also sits at the Royal Courts of Justice. The Criminal Division hears appeals from Crown Court cases, while the Civil Division receives appeals from the High Court, tribunals and, in certain cases, county courts.
For most legal cases in England and Wales, the House of Lords is the final point of appeal, although a small number of cases each year may be referred to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law. All appeals to the House of Lords are about the meaning of the law, rather than the evidence in a case. The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords receives appeals from the courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and in civil cases from Scotland; in addition, they sit as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to hear appeals from those Commonwealth countries whose legal systems are still linked to the UK.
I found helpful the following chart of the English courts:
As if all this weren't enough, the English system recently enacted the Constitutional Reform Act, which shifted things a bit, and established a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. This court is still in the making, and will begin operation in October 2009.
* Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems.
** My social science friends will forgive me for writing that I had language, but no verstehen. Everybody else will pick on me for shoehorning German into my blog.
*** The Privy Council sounded particularly odd, because among my imaginings of British people is this idea that they have several, and to American ears, unusual words to refer to the bathroom, including the word "privy." But of course then it is being used as a noun, not an adjective, and that makes all the difference.
**** Had I not moved to Virginia, and stayed in New York State (which has its own eccentric rules of civil procedure), I might not have recognized the word "chancery," and rather might have mistaken it for a word to describe the dynamic an attractive single woman experiences when she finds herself seated in a busy bar on her own. However, as a result of my education in Virginia Civil Procedure, which retains the distinction between remedies at law and in equity, I understand chancery to be related to equity jurisdiction (the court's power to grant relief other than money).
**** Had I not moved to Virginia, and stayed in New York State (which has its own eccentric rules of civil procedure), I might not have recognized the word "chancery," and rather might have mistaken it for a word to describe the dynamic an attractive single woman experiences when she finds herself seated in a busy bar on her own. However, as a result of my education in Virginia Civil Procedure, which retains the distinction between remedies at law and in equity, I understand chancery to be related to equity jurisdiction (the court's power to grant relief other than money).
*****My comically narrow legal interests are in peat mining and mishaps arising out of extreme ironing feats.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Becoming a Barrister
The long road from law student to barrister
One requirement of the Pegasus scholarship is that its recipients must submit a report to the Board of the American Inns of Court following their return to the United States. Until recently, several of these reports were available through the American Inns of Court website, and I was able to print-out and review them. Additionally, one of the 1997 scholars published her report.*
Most reports begin by explaining that the English legal profession is divided between solicitors and barristers. Solicito
rs provide legal advice to members of the public, whereas barristers are specialists in courtroom advocacy. Barristers wear the traditional robes and wigs that Americans think of when imagining English lawyers. The Pegasus program focuses on barristers, although scholars receive some exposure to the work of solicitors by observing solicitors' conferences with barristers.
The reports do not discuss in detail the educational and vocational path that is required to become a barrister. What follows is what I have learned about the extensive preparation and training required to be "called to the bar" as an English barrister.
Because the terminology can be confusing, I note here that barristers work out of "chambers," and groups of barristers with a common specialty practice are called a "set." Chambers are led by experienced barristers, and often have a common clerk who, among other things, distributes work among members (who are also called "tenants").
The path to becoming a barrister
Most people wishing to become a barrister begin with a university degree in law, or a first degree.** This foundational degree takes three years and results in a bachelor of arts.*** This degree completes the academic phase of English legal education, although certainly some barristers may complete advanced degrees.
The next phase is called the vocational phase. This phase involves an application to work alongside a barrister as a pupil for up to a year (a pupillage), and completion of a one-year specialized course (the Bar Vocational Course). It culminates in the honor of being called to the bar of one of the four English Inns of Court: Lincoln's Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. (I note here that the Pegasus scholarship is associated with the Inner Temple, whose crest features a Pegasus).
While in university, many students opt to undertake one or two "mini-pupillages" in barristers' chambers. During a mini-pupillage, which generally lasts a week, the student may observe a barrister's courtroom proceedings, attend the barrister's conferences with solicitors, discuss cases, and complete written assignments. Students use these mini-pupillages to determine whether they like the work, and to establish a professional relationship with an experienced barrister.
After completing the law degree, aspiring barristers apply for a limited number of pupillages with barristers' chambers, and membership in one of the four Inns. Before commencing the pupillage, however, students must complete the Bar Vocational Course, which takes one year. This course emphasizes practical skills and professionalism, and classes often incorporate role-playing exercises. The course also tests students' knowledge regarding civil and criminal litigation, evidence, sentencing and two other areas of law (out of a choice of six).
Having completed the Bar Vocational Course, a student transitions into the pupillage (or apprenticeship), which is split into six-month periods or "sixes." During the first six, the student observes and assists a barrister in chambers, who is called his pupilmaster or pupilmistress. If the student finishes his first six successfully, he receives a certificate enabling him to take on work of his own within the barristers' chambers during the second six.**** Pupils are also required to attend compulsory courses in advocacy and practice management, and must attend a number of formal dinners at his Inn.
At the end of the second six, a pupil hopes to be offered a tenancy in chambers. Students not offered tenancies may opt for a "third six," after which they again hope for a tenancy. Barristers also work for the Government Legal Service, Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Magistrates' Courts, the armed forces, and in other public service positions.
* Allison L. Alford, O Yea! O Yea! An Alabama Lawyer Goes to London, 59 Ala. Law. 383 (1998).
** A law degree is not necessary, however. Aspiring barristers with a university degree in another subject may also take a one-year "conversion course." For more information, I recommend this website.
*** Students select a law specialization (what we would think of as their major field of study) at the start of their second year of university.
**** I employ the male pronoun merely because the English language does not offer an elegant and inclusive alternative pronoun.
One requirement of the Pegasus scholarship is that its recipients must submit a report to the Board of the American Inns of Court following their return to the United States. Until recently, several of these reports were available through the American Inns of Court website, and I was able to print-out and review them. Additionally, one of the 1997 scholars published her report.*
Most reports begin by explaining that the English legal profession is divided between solicitors and barristers. Solicito
rs provide legal advice to members of the public, whereas barristers are specialists in courtroom advocacy. Barristers wear the traditional robes and wigs that Americans think of when imagining English lawyers. The Pegasus program focuses on barristers, although scholars receive some exposure to the work of solicitors by observing solicitors' conferences with barristers.The reports do not discuss in detail the educational and vocational path that is required to become a barrister. What follows is what I have learned about the extensive preparation and training required to be "called to the bar" as an English barrister.
Because the terminology can be confusing, I note here that barristers work out of "chambers," and groups of barristers with a common specialty practice are called a "set." Chambers are led by experienced barristers, and often have a common clerk who, among other things, distributes work among members (who are also called "tenants").
The path to becoming a barrister
Most people wishing to become a barrister begin with a university degree in law, or a first degree.** This foundational degree takes three years and results in a bachelor of arts.*** This degree completes the academic phase of English legal education, although certainly some barristers may complete advanced degrees.
The next phase is called the vocational phase. This phase involves an application to work alongside a barrister as a pupil for up to a year (a pupillage), and completion of a one-year specialized course (the Bar Vocational Course). It culminates in the honor of being called to the bar of one of the four English Inns of Court: Lincoln's Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. (I note here that the Pegasus scholarship is associated with the Inner Temple, whose crest features a Pegasus).
While in university, many students opt to undertake one or two "mini-pupillages" in barristers' chambers. During a mini-pupillage, which generally lasts a week, the student may observe a barrister's courtroom proceedings, attend the barrister's conferences with solicitors, discuss cases, and complete written assignments. Students use these mini-pupillages to determine whether they like the work, and to establish a professional relationship with an experienced barrister.
After completing the law degree, aspiring barristers apply for a limited number of pupillages with barristers' chambers, and membership in one of the four Inns. Before commencing the pupillage, however, students must complete the Bar Vocational Course, which takes one year. This course emphasizes practical skills and professionalism, and classes often incorporate role-playing exercises. The course also tests students' knowledge regarding civil and criminal litigation, evidence, sentencing and two other areas of law (out of a choice of six).
Having completed the Bar Vocational Course, a student transitions into the pupillage (or apprenticeship), which is split into six-month periods or "sixes." During the first six, the student observes and assists a barrister in chambers, who is called his pupilmaster or pupilmistress. If the student finishes his first six successfully, he receives a certificate enabling him to take on work of his own within the barristers' chambers during the second six.**** Pupils are also required to attend compulsory courses in advocacy and practice management, and must attend a number of formal dinners at his Inn.
At the end of the second six, a pupil hopes to be offered a tenancy in chambers. Students not offered tenancies may opt for a "third six," after which they again hope for a tenancy. Barristers also work for the Government Legal Service, Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Magistrates' Courts, the armed forces, and in other public service positions.
Reflections on the education of barristers
I was happy to read that English barristers commonly have junior "shadows" that are expected only to watch and learn because that will be my role when I arrive in chambers. The pupillage requirement also added to my understanding of one vignette from a previous Pegasus scholar. On the day she arrived in chambers, the barrister that she was assigned to cleared off the end of his desk for her to use, and comfortably conducted his professional and personal affairs in her presence. The scholar was taken aback by this behavior, not only because she was accustomed to the privacy of her own office, but also because it would not be expected from an American litigator of comparable experience. Now that I understand that the English system requires the pairing of junior and senior practioners in close quarters, the story makes more sense.
Other scholars also commented that they sensed that barristers' extensive apprenticeship periods fostered greater professionalism. I would have to agree that, even merely understanding pupillages as an institution from this side of the Atlantic, the focus on practical skills training (forcing students to address situations and determine what is the proper behavior in a variety of situations) is bound to instill a deep committment to professionalism.
I also think that it is relevant that English barristers are chosen essentially as if they are joining a social organization or mixed-sex fraternity (at least one scholar mentioned that Inns conduct "rush" to attract law students). Overall, the institutional structures that vet law students seem to directly scrutinize how the student behaves as an advocate, negotiator, and colleague. The system also continues to monitor a barrister's behavior, through Inn membership, and the practice of dining among members of the Inn.
Put simply, it seems to me that in the English system, if you behave like an inconsiderate, unprofessional litigator, you will have no chance of obtaining a very competitive pupillage. And, should you turn into such a litigator after you win a tenancy, you will find yourself friendless at dinner.
Although the American system of legal education does not place as much value on the development of new lawyers' interpersonal skills, it has been my experience that lawyers with these skills are nevertheless valued in the profession. In other words, while I do not think that American legal education nurtures professionalism or good lawyering in any deep sense, if a student comes to the profession with an ability to navigate social situations without compromising his ethics or integrity, that skill will help establish the junior lawyer's reputation as a good lawyer among lawyers.
I am interested to know what barristers consider to be the disadvantages of their system of legal education. I would imagine that a logical downside of a socially focused group is that it would supress individuality among barristers. Additionally, the pupillage system apparently presents a significant financial burden for a junior barrister, and the expense may limit the number and type of candidates seeking the join the bar.
* Allison L. Alford, O Yea! O Yea! An Alabama Lawyer Goes to London, 59 Ala. Law. 383 (1998).
** A law degree is not necessary, however. Aspiring barristers with a university degree in another subject may also take a one-year "conversion course." For more information, I recommend this website.
*** Students select a law specialization (what we would think of as their major field of study) at the start of their second year of university.
**** I employ the male pronoun merely because the English language does not offer an elegant and inclusive alternative pronoun.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Welcome and Application Process
Discovery of the Pegasus Scholarship, and application process
I met Jeremy Colby, one of the American Inns of Court's Pegasus Scholars for 2005, in the fall of 2004, when he was serving as a law clerk to U.S. District Court Judge John T. Elfvin, and I was continuing my graduate school work in political science. The two of us were assigned to serve on the same panel for a law school moot court competition, a semi-final round of the Desmond Moot.
Jeremy and I were both members of the Buffalo chapter of the American Inns of Court. Several months after the Desmond competition, Jeremy spoke briefly about his experiences as a Pegasus Scholar in London during an Inn meeting at the Mid-Day Club. Among other things, Jeremy descibed proceedings he observed between Iraq and Kuwait in an English court. This interested me because I had concentrated in international law (and civil litigation) in law school, and such a proceeding (state versus state) would not take place in a United States court. I spoke with Jeremy after the meal to hear more about these proceedings and his trip.
Jeremy was happy to tell me more about the Pegasus Scholarship Trust, which sends two American lawyer-members of an Inn of Court who have less than five years of years of practice to London, England, for six weeks to study the English legal system. Scholars spend most of their time in barristers' chambers, and observe trials and arguments in various English courts.
Not long after this meeting, in late spring 2005, I moved from Western New York to Richmond, Virginia, to take a position as a law clerk for the Fourth Circuit's Office of Staff Counsel. Because the position concludes in August 2007, in August 2006 I began thinking about new professional opportunities, and recalled the Pegasus scholarship.
I reviewed the online application materials and program brochure, spoke with Jeremy by phone for his advice, and completed my application by the deadline. Within a few weeks I received an e-mail that I had been selected as a finalist, and would be contacted soon by a member of the selection committee for an interview.
During the interview, I was asked was how I thought I would benefit from the program. My answer was that I expected that I would gain insight into the American legal system, and added that I imagined that there would be strategies that barristers employ that would have some relevance to my future work as a litigator.
I was also asked about my experience living outside of the United States. Although I have never traveled to the United Kingdom, I lived for a year in Hungary in 1998-1999, and have spent several months at various times in Germany. I have also traveled to France, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Yugoslavia.
About a week later, Justice Donald W. Lemons of the Supreme Court of Virginia, who had written in support of my application, was given the opportunity to call me and tell me that I had been selected for the scholarship.
I continue to be very thankful for the letters of recommendation from Justice Lemons and Karen Gould, president of the Virginia State Bar. I also appreciate the support given to my application by the Fourth Circuit's Senior Staff Counsel, Robert Jaspen.
I created this blog to share my experiences with my colleagues, friends and family. I depart for London on February 16, in 42 days.
I met Jeremy Colby, one of the American Inns of Court's Pegasus Scholars for 2005, in the fall of 2004, when he was serving as a law clerk to U.S. District Court Judge John T. Elfvin, and I was continuing my graduate school work in political science. The two of us were assigned to serve on the same panel for a law school moot court competition, a semi-final round of the Desmond Moot.
Jeremy and I were both members of the Buffalo chapter of the American Inns of Court. Several months after the Desmond competition, Jeremy spoke briefly about his experiences as a Pegasus Scholar in London during an Inn meeting at the Mid-Day Club. Among other things, Jeremy descibed proceedings he observed between Iraq and Kuwait in an English court. This interested me because I had concentrated in international law (and civil litigation) in law school, and such a proceeding (state versus state) would not take place in a United States court. I spoke with Jeremy after the meal to hear more about these proceedings and his trip.
Jeremy was happy to tell me more about the Pegasus Scholarship Trust, which sends two American lawyer-members of an Inn of Court who have less than five years of years of practice to London, England, for six weeks to study the English legal system. Scholars spend most of their time in barristers' chambers, and observe trials and arguments in various English courts.
Not long after this meeting, in late spring 2005, I moved from Western New York to Richmond, Virginia, to take a position as a law clerk for the Fourth Circuit's Office of Staff Counsel. Because the position concludes in August 2007, in August 2006 I began thinking about new professional opportunities, and recalled the Pegasus scholarship.
I reviewed the online application materials and program brochure, spoke with Jeremy by phone for his advice, and completed my application by the deadline. Within a few weeks I received an e-mail that I had been selected as a finalist, and would be contacted soon by a member of the selection committee for an interview.
During the interview, I was asked was how I thought I would benefit from the program. My answer was that I expected that I would gain insight into the American legal system, and added that I imagined that there would be strategies that barristers employ that would have some relevance to my future work as a litigator.
I was also asked about my experience living outside of the United States. Although I have never traveled to the United Kingdom, I lived for a year in Hungary in 1998-1999, and have spent several months at various times in Germany. I have also traveled to France, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Yugoslavia.
About a week later, Justice Donald W. Lemons of the Supreme Court of Virginia, who had written in support of my application, was given the opportunity to call me and tell me that I had been selected for the scholarship.
I continue to be very thankful for the letters of recommendation from Justice Lemons and Karen Gould, president of the Virginia State Bar. I also appreciate the support given to my application by the Fourth Circuit's Senior Staff Counsel, Robert Jaspen.
I created this blog to share my experiences with my colleagues, friends and family. I depart for London on February 16, in 42 days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)