Butterworths Series (1 Viewer)

[aaron1975@CDU]

I am odd, in that I actually preferred the Blackshields & Williams on COn law. {NB DO a google search if you are an absolute fanatic and it is possible to download a full e-book version of :

Dicey, AV, 'Intro to the Study of the Law of the Constitution'

Hobbes, 'Leviathan'

Montesquieu ' Spirit of Laws'

Locke, 'Two Treatises on Government'

Yale or Harvard have also provided Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Law(e)s of England' [complete with 'f''s for 's''s]

If you have the time over the long break, and you don't have a life, I reccomend Dicey - particularly with regard to 'Rule of Law' issues, it may one day be useful.

The Butterworth's study guides skim too quickly over important sections, however they are useful for open book exams, but don't base essays on them.

 

[santaslayer]

When a university awards a law degree they should award the degree on the basis that the people who receive that law degree have the basic skills in order to be a lawyer. It wouldn't be very good if everyone out there presumed that the law degree didn't give you the skills to be a lawyer but rather some broad brush legal education aimed not at making you a lawyer.

If a law school made their courses under the presumption that the students will not practice law you might as well call yourself the department of legal studies and attach yourself to the faculty of arts.


I think that would be it right there!

1) Miu Miu was agreeing with you. That post was directed at me.

2) The PLT is one place where practicing to be a 'good' lawyer happens. Other practical legal subjects are just a lead up to the PLT. That's why PLT isn't compulsory. Universities have already kept that in mind. Not everyone in the whole wide world wants to practice. Law is an easily transferrable degree. It can be used across industries. Setting the LLB in a way that assumes you are going to practice is a bit too narrow minded in my opinion.
Couyrt procedure/Litigation is also emphasised if you are doing the Bar course in order to actually become an advocate. Courses and examinations are there for a reason. These people are taking these exams to BECOME a barrister.
I am not saying that these skills are irrelavent for an undergraduate. We (UoW) already has about 8 different practical subjects included in the core (of which a few are litigation, talking, crapping on subjects) which prove to be immensely helpful to ALL undergraduates no matter what field they choose. What I am saying is that there is a reason why courses have different requirements at different stages of your life:

a) Undergrad
b) PLT
c) Bar course

and these skills have stronger criteria as you progress...


3) Dept of legal studies is rather different. That would compromise mostly of theory shit. Like the first half of the Brown et al text. Technicalities would be kept to a minimum. I didn't think that was an exceptional comparison at all.

4) I dunno..just my opinion..your making an undergrad law degree out to be some kingshit course. graduating out of one hardly prepares u for practice...

 

[erawamai]

1) Miu Miu was agreeing with you. That post was directed at me.

I know, it's on the previous page.

Setting the LLB in a way that assumes you are going to practice is a bit too narrow minded in my opinion.

Um...why?

When a university awards a law degree they should award the degree on the basis that the people who receive that law degree have the basic skills in order to be a lawyer. It wouldn't be very good if everyone out there presumed that a law degree didn't give you the skills to be a lawyer but rather some broad brush legal education aimed not at making you a lawyer.

If a law school made their courses under the presumption that the students will not practice law you might as well call yourself the department of legal studies and attach yourself to the faculty of arts.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

It was ORANGE. The title cascaded down the page diagonally. LIME GREEN. Way to ruin an otherwise shmick looking shelf of law books, Brown et al.

But yes, the material inside was good.

Apart from proper leather-bound books the classiest law book I've seen is the 7th Edition Litigation book (Hunter, Cameron & Henning), in olive green with the small classical painting on the front and subtle compass watermark.

 

[melsc]

On another note, rumour has it that a certain university (NOT UoW) is thinking of scrapping the PLT altogether. Money issues. Or something. Not sure of the validity though.

It looks bad, it still is a rumour but the source is pretty trustworthy. I am not happy :burn:

 

[erawamai]

Apart from proper leather-bound books the classiest law book I've seen is the 7th Edition Litigation book (Hunter, Cameron & Henning), in olive green with the small classical painting on the front and subtle compass watermark.

 

[santaslayer]

I know, it's on the previous page.



Um...why?

When a university awards a law degree they should award the degree on the basis that the people who receive that law degree have the basic skills in order to be a lawyer. It wouldn't be very good if everyone out there presumed that a law degree didn't give you the skills to be a lawyer but rather some broad brush legal education aimed not at making you a lawyer.

If a law school made their courses under the presumption that the students will not practice law you might as well call yourself the department of legal studies and attach yourself to the faculty of arts.

You simply copied and pasted a previous post.


I'm not telling law degrees not to keep practice in mind. All I'm simply saying is that they are considering the fact that not everyone will become a lawyer. Not even half of the graduate population ends up practicing. Degrees are catering for everyone these days.

Like I said. Graduates are hardly able to practice.