Thinking Like a Lawyer – the Good the Bad and the Ugly

First year law students are invariably regaled with the mantra of learning to think like a lawyer: that law school is all about developing this skill.  As some have identified, 'thinking like a lawyer' is a nebulous concept at best, or at worst, a 'self-aggrandising sham...to justify the existence of a...special lawyer class'. 

There is however a mounting body of evidence to show that the culture of the law, including the way that lawyers think, is linked to stress experienced by law students and legal practitioners alike. (For example, see here and here.) 

While this creates issues for the sustainability of the legal profession as it sees an exodus of early- and mid-career practitioners, and women in particular, I believe it also takes a toll on the personal lives and relationships of lawyers.

Property and Procreation: Problematising Sperm

Recently in the US, bills have been sponsored in a number of states providing for personhood for sperm.  One bill, for example, provided that ejaculating anywhere outside a woman's vagina constitutes 'an action against an unborn child'.  These bills were put up in response to legislation regulating women's reproductive rights - curtailing women's access to contraceptives and abortion.

The law in the US (and elsewhere) continues to regulate the reproductive rights of women with wide acceptance that this is appropriate.  In contrast, the 'sperm bills' are considered satirical.  It's OK to regulate women's reproductive rights, but patently ridiculous to regulate men's.

This shows that reproductive rights and regulation of gametes is obviously a complex issue for the law. (See my previous post here)

This complexity is borne out through a comparison of a recent Canadian decision (JCM v ANA), a forthcoming Canadian case (deBlois), and a 2011 Australian decision (Edwards). (I've written about this case here.)  To what extent does the law recognise rights to sperm, in terms of property; procreation; and parenting?

A Reflection on the Mabo Case

There has (rightly) been a lot of celebration and a lot of discussion in the mainstream media and social media about today, Mabo Day - the 20th anniversary of the landmark High Court decision that has changed the course of land rights in Australia, and a few other things also.

I've been reflecting on the Mabo decision and what it represents for me - a non-Indigenous Australian property lawyer.  To me, the case is about subverting the legal system; it's about representations of identity and how we invest power in the law to do so; and it's about creative thinking - particularly creative legal thinking.

Businesses, boats, securities...

This recent post by Marshall Chambers looks at personal property and the issue of security interests under the new Personal Property Securities Act (Cth).  I suspect that we will hear more of this Act as it settles in.  It seems to have faced a few teething problems in terms of reliability of the register system in its first weeks of operation. It will be interesting to see if any disputes arise out of this, and how they will be resolved.

Getting in (to practice) and staying in... How hard can it be?

And meanwhile, in the world of cultural capital, I posted as a guest on Amicae Curiae recently on what women - and men - wear to work and whether it matters.  Personally, I believe it does matter.  Simon McKay has posted this week too on cultural capital (though he doesn't use the term) in terms of entry to the profession.  See what you think.

Ode to Property Law

Have a look at this great post on Skeptic Lawyer about property law and its meaning. Brought a tear to my eye...

What is the ‘Truth About Marriage’?

...Right-faction powerbroker Joe De Bruyn said marriage had been the union of a man and a woman ''since the dawn of humanity''...

...The Australian Christian Lobby reacted swiftly to the resolution, saying the party - in defiance of Ms Gillard - had chosen to be on the "wrong side of truth".

(The Australian, 3 December, 2011)

These comments by Joe de Bruyn in 2011 piqued my interest.  As I’ve written here before, marriage is, in my view, an institution of the law that seeks to subjugate women.  In a related context, in my view, it is a relationship concerning property.  Yet there is a very strong notion that marriage is so much more than this.

I have no opinion on private or religious views of marriage within the context of religious practice or how one chooses to celebrate it with one’s family and friends.  My interest lies in the legal construction of this private relationship – and de Bruyn’s comments, as with all comments in the same-sex marriage debate, occur in the context of law-making.

So I’ve been doing a little reading into the context of marriage and its regulation by the law.  I’ve a long way to go in learning about this complex institution, but even a preliminary overview provides some interesting contrast to the bluster of the political debate.

Is it true that marriage has been between a man and a woman since the dawn of humanity?  If you consider this as a moral or religious question, it need not enter the legal debate.  In the context of the law, I think that this is the wrong question.  I think that the right question is: since when has the law been so certain about its role in marriage, and in what circumstances?