Take Home Exams: The Official Word

Written by: Kiran Gupta (LLB III)

Excerpts of this interview were originally published in Honi Soit. This transcript has been lightly edited by the interviewer for clarity and brevity.

The interview was transcribed by Katie Richards (JD 1).

Kiran: What are the pedagogical benefits and disadvantages of take-home exams, both in terms of the short-release take-home exam and the long-release take-home exam?

Nicole Graham: In the eyes of some of my colleagues, short-release exams reduce the possibility of cheating. But in the eyes of different colleagues, cheating happens all the time anyway, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, so it doesn't matter if it's two hours or two months. Students who are going to cheat will cheat. So, they don't see that the short release take-home exam has any difference to the long release assignment.

I think that all of this is brought about by a pandemic where we can't have sit down invigilated exams. Before the pandemic, we would have long or short release assignments, or we would have invigilated exams. From my point of view, an assignment is not equivalent to a supervised assessment.

The benefit of a normal two to three-hour exam that’s supervised is that you reduce the amount of cheating. Those benefits are lost when it's unsupervised. I don't really see the benefits of a two-to-three-hour exam, I think if it's unsupervised – why does it need to be two or three hours?

Really long take-home exams (24-48 hours) take some time and pressure off students compared to a normal two to three-hour exam but the disadvantage is that some students believe mistakenly that if you give them 24 hours to do an exam, it takes 24 hours to do it. I worry about the pressures that students put on themselves to basically work for 18-24 hours. I think that's a very high amount of stress to put on people when they're in a pandemic.

So I'm not sure that the benefits of the 24-48 hour exam outweigh the risks. The risks are even bigger with a 48 hour exam; students working on one thing for two days really intensively.

That’s why the University introduced what they call ‘Expected Student Effort’ in relation to this so that we could prevent students working too intensively. And hopefully most students understand that a 24-hour exam is approximately about four hours of writing and editing and maybe another two to four hours of research or thinking or preparing and whatever. So, it shouldn't really be more than a normal workday. I hope that our message reaches students.

I am concerned that there might also be questions of equity, because some students have the control over their own time so they can control a whole 24-hour period. But some of our other students have children or parents or siblings/a partner for whom they are a carer. And they could never spend 18 hours on a task so that’s another concern that I have.

Kiran: Can I then take it from your response that, if in a hypothetical world where there was no pandemic that supervised face to face exams, in your opinion, are more beneficial than take home exams for the most part?

Nicole Graham: Well. I don't know about that. I think that if we remove cheating from the perspective, I think being asked to provide all of your knowledge of a subject in two or three hours is a pretty big ask, whether that's take home or supervised. The expectation is that students are going to come up with 60 or 70 or 80 or 90 or 100 percent of the knowledge of a whole subject in two or three hours. I think that's a very big ask.

Kiran: Is there anything you'd like to add to your discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of either take home or face to face exams?

Nicole Graham: The Law School provides programs that are accredited by the Legal Profession Admission Board, the LPAB, and obviously whilst the University is entirely responsible for its own curriculum and assessment, the LPAB does require graduates to have studied certain topics. But now that the pandemic has arrived, it's also an open question now about whether the legal profession also requires face to face learning and supervised assessment.

So, for example, there are a number of international students at Sydney Law School. And those students may not plan to use their law degree from Sydney Law School in Australia. They might plan to use it overseas. And there are a large number of bar associations and accrediting bodies all around the world that will not recognise a law degree where there’s been a certain percentage of unsupervised assessment or online learning.

So that means that if we have an 100% unsupervised assessment regime, then international students would not come to Sydney Law School because then they can’t practice in their home jurisdiction.

So there is interest from the New South Wales accrediting bodies and the New South Wales Bar Association in this question of supervised assessment. It seems from an accreditation point of view, that they prefer supervised assessment as a form of quality assurance.

Kiran:  Would you say there's any advantages to the take home exam in terms of perhaps more breadth of knowledge?

Nicole Graham: I think if you're a fan of exams, you're going to love exams because you think that the learning outcomes that you're getting out of the exam is sufficient. It's like a race. If that's what you're looking for (e.g. if you're a coordinator and your learning outcome is applied knowledge) then you might think an exam is perfect. Whether that's take-home or supervised, doesn't matter. You're giving such a tiny amount of time to apply that there's no way you could succeed if you weren't 100 percent on top of the knowledge. But if you aren’t then you’ll prefer the take-home.

Kiran: What is the Law School’s plan for next year would be if the borders don't reopen?

Nicole Graham: If the borders don't reopen, there would not be much prospect of ‘return to campus’ exams. However, we are under some pressure for our international students in particular to provide supervised assessment. So, if we're going to continue with take-home exams in 2022, then that will need to be balanced by new forms of supervised assessment.

At the moment, we are researching different kinds of ways that we can supervise what our students are doing and mark them. That might be debates or moots or presentations or class participation and things where we can see that the student with that name is doing those skills.

But we don't know. Like all of our colleagues in Australia and around the world, we’re just trying to be really agile, ready to move and ready to pivot at any moment in the same way as this semester where we were supposed to return to campus and now, we're all online.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the Law School cannot determine the style of exam. The decision about that is actually taken by the University Executive, not by faculties and schools. So even if the School said, ‘Oh, we want to stay with take-home exams forever’ – If the University decided to return to on-campus exams, then we would need to think about whether we want to continue with exams and have on campus exams? Or would we have different kinds of alternative, long-release tasks that might test collaborative/oral skills and things like that?

Kiran: In your experience and maybe from discussion with colleagues, do you think that the preparation, marking and writing of take-home exams has been more onerous for staff?

Nicole Graham: When the pandemic started, no one knew how long it was going to last. I think by that stage the exams had already been written and they were going to be sit down exams and then all that changed was that we asked students to submit them online. But as things progressed, we had a really big surge in cheating and a massive surge in special consideration applications and things like that.

As a result, I think coordinators have started to spend more time writing questions more carefully because they thought, ‘well, if there's lots of cheating, then I need to write a question that allows me to see who are the honest students that really understand it and let them perform well’. Therefore, if you needed to cheat, you would be disadvantaged.

I think it's about the same time to write two or three hour exams (whether sit-down or take-home) as you're assessing the same learning outcomes. The learning outcomes of subjects haven't changed through the pandemic.

But I think the marking is different. Online marking is far more time intensive. From the University's point of view, it's less risky and less complicated. But from the marker’s point of view, it compels you to sit at a computer for hours, because the nature of marking is time sensitive. So if you receive 250 exam scripts and you've got nine days to mark them, you're not having a day off and you're probably going to be doing it between 12-16 hours a day.

Now, if you can move around the house with pen and paper and mark those exams, that means that you’ve got some flexibility, in terms of your body and your physiology. But when it's in front of a screen, you do get a lot of repetitive injury. And so I guess that's hard. A lot of us are marking at home and lounges are not set up for work. So, I think that there are some risks to staff with online marking, especially with a high volume in a short period of time. So, it's not necessarily as though they're taking more time to write the exams, but they certainly are taking more time and absorbing more physical risk when marking online exams.

Everything also goes through Turnitin. We separately see the Turnitin report. So, if you have 300 students, you now have 600 papers to look at – 300 submissions and 300 Turnitin reports. It's doubling what you're looking at.

Kiran: You said there was a massive rise in cheating – how does the Law School detect contract cheating and are those processes effective?

Nicole Graham: The University is now spending more time and energy than ever before on new and improved ways to detect all kinds of misconduct. So not just contract cheating, but also collusion and plagiarism. That’s time and money that could be spent on learning. So that's really unfortunate. I think that's one of the downsides of the online assessment world; that resources that can be spent on teaching are now being spent on stopping cheating or picking up cheating. Our sector is under siege so it's not like there's lots of cash to throw around. But markers are getting more experienced now. At the start, some markers had experience with Turnitin and now all markers have lots of experience with Turnitin.

We're having more staff training around how to find, detect and report academic misconduct. The reporting systems are changing. We are, of course, challenged resource-wise. We used to have maybe two or three people in the School who would look over any allegations of cheating on a paper and now our team has more than doubled in size. And that team is made up of academics who already have a normal job to do, and they don't get extra pay to do that. So, it is an unfortunate additional workload. The whole online assessment world brought that to us.

But having said that, there are colleagues who think that online marking is really great because they can do it anywhere. Before, we tended not to take marking home as it was a risk to the exam scripts. So there's pluses and minuses with everything.

I guess the other factor is that we also need to allow for transition time and adaptation time. So, at the moment, things are new and are different. And so we can expect people to not really know and understand how to use these new processes. We’re seeing students writing in upload time because they don't get that it’s like the old days where we had pens down and you stop writing. So students are learning and adapting to go, ‘I have to stop writing now because it's upload time’. And so all those students who used to go, ‘Oh my god, I didn't get to hand in my assignment because I didn't get to upload my exam as the exam site has closed,’ that's decreasing now. So students are learning.

Similarly, markers are learning how to use SpeedGrader. I remember the first time I used SpeedGrader, it took me three times longer to mark one paper than it did before. So I worked 32 consecutive days without a day off, whereas I would normally maybe do that in 21 days. So it was really, really hard and that made it really stressful. But academics are learning. I'm better at using SpeedGrader now than I was.

I'm a teacher and I fundamentally believe that humans are great at learning and we're great at adapting. Students are improving their online exam behaviour and academics are improving their online marking. Also, University systems in relation to special consideration and replacement exams are improving as well. In a lockdown and a pandemic, it's hard and it'd be great if we didn't have to do it. But there’s silver linings, we are learning a lot. And we'll see where it goes.

Kiran: Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Nicole Graham: I just want to thank you for raising it, it's a really important issue and I know lots of students worry about and think about this a lot.

I just want to say to students that most academics have a really close understanding of student experience and we feel for students learning in a pandemic.

It's very suboptimal and we try really hard to give students our best and we wish them the best. We do appreciate how hard it is, and we wish it was different, but we'll do the best that we can to support them and good luck to them.

Footnotes - Imprisoned at 10? The Age of Criminal Responsibility in Australia

Footnotes is a podcast by SULS hosted by students, for students, presenting new and intriguing stories about the law and supported by Gilbert + Tobin. Here are the highlights from their most recent episode where we discuss the recent “Raise the Age” campaign.

The recent Raise the Age campaign, spearheaded by legal experts, doctors and justice groups, aims to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 to bring Australia in line with many of the jurisdictions around the world and to stop kids from being locked up. In this episode of Footnotes, we delve into Australia's current policy regarding the age of criminal responsibility, have a look at the backgrounds of the kids who are ending up in prison because of it, and also discuss potential alternatives to the current practice of youth incarceration. 

‘The age of criminal responsibility’ -  what does that actually refer to?

The minimum age of criminal responsibility is a threshold below which you cannot, by definition, commit a crime. In New South Wales, there is a conclusive presumption that a child under the age of 10 cannot be guilty of any criminal offence. 

Who is in the youth justice system?

In 2018, data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that on an average day in Australia, 910 youth were in detention. However, another AIHW report this year found that 63% of young people in detention, on an average day, were unsentenced; this portion of youth have not been found guilty yet, and may be on remand or awaiting a charge. 

What are their backgrounds?

Common causes include being in the child protection system, family dysfunction, poverty, and drug and alcohol abuse by parents, or the children themselves. We also, unfortunately, see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people majorly over-represented in the youth, as well as the general population. 

Banksia Hill Detention Centre in WA found that nine out of 10 incarcerated youth had some form of neuro disability. Additionally, 36% of these people between the ages of 10 and 17 have FASD (fetal alcohol syndrome disorder), an umbrella term for a variety of disorders that children can be given because of their mother's alcohol use during pregnancy. 

Associate Professor Garner Clancy shared his thoughts on the current age of criminal responsibility in Australia.

Based on your array of experience, what do you see as the impact of detention on, particularly, 10 to 13 year olds? 

In a word: bad. 10 year olds are quite vulnerable in detention and that can be a concern for both their safety, but also their worldview if they are associated with older, more sophisticated offenders and trying to fit in. It can be really quite damaging for very young people to be in custody.

How is the judicial system, as it stands at the moment, promoting rehabilitation and trying to prevent recidivism?

There’s a series of steps depending on the severity and frequency of offences. If a young person engages in criminality for the first time, ideally they’re diverted from the children's court to police caution or to a youth justice conference, with the emphasis on not having them enter the system. Justice conferences build on a restorative justice model; the young offender and victim, in the presence of a police officer sit down, talk it out, and then develop an outcome plan which essentially identifies what the young person will do to make amends. 

At that point, if they continue to offend, they are likely to end up in the children's court which has a heavy emphasis on rehabilitation. There's an effort to try and provide community-based supervision, provide links to counselling services and other support mechanisms.

How would raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years old affect things? 

In a perfect world, welfare, child protection and other systems better respond to the needs of those young people. Raising the age will both clear the very young kids out of the system that can be stigmatising, and divert them into the welfare system which will slow their entry into the youth justice system. 

What have you identified [in your research] as the key considerations for the development of effective crime prevention plans?

In the first instance, effective crime prevention policies require early intervention. The provision of parenting training to help and guide new parents and the provision of child care and school enrichment programmes to help young people are important focuses. Then it's about building strong communities: how do we ensure that young people grow up in neighbourhoods where crime isn't rife, where there are lots of positive opportunities for their development. 

In light of that, would changes in the age just be a band aid solution? 

Not necessarily. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is an adjunct to all of those things: it further helps us keep children out in the criminal justice system to allow them to mature and allow them to get the types of services that are more likely to provide a supportive framework and to assist them to avoid future offending. 

For more insights about the ‘Raise the Age’ campaign regarding the age of criminal responsibility, check out our latest episode of Footnotes, available wherever you get your podcasts.

The recent 'Raise the Age' campaign aimed to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Australia from 10 to 14. In this episode, we explore Australia's current policy on the age of criminal responsibility, look into the backgrounds of kids who are ending up in prison because of it, and also discuss potential alternatives to the current practice of youth incarceration.

Black and Skipsey: Careers in refugee rights and migration

By Joseph Black (JD II)

Many students may have little idea of what sort of career they would like to pursue after graduating from their degree. Others may have some sort of idea. Why not pursue a career in refugee rights and migration? Here are some highlights of a discussion Joseph Black had with Mitchell Skipsey, Lawyer at The Refugee Advice & Casework Service (RACS), on the field.

J: Thank you so much for being open to an interview, Mitchell.  Let me start with perhaps a big question: How can one start a career in refugee rights and migration, and what kinds of careers are available for law students?

One consequence of the limitations on funding and resources in the sector is that there’s not necessarily a single well-trodden path for graduating law students [unlike, say, clerkship programs at big firms]. Instead, there’s a variety of ways into this kind of work, such as through government teams at various Legal Aid commissions, community legal centres like RACS, or even some private firms working in migration [ranging from suburban solicitors through boutique firms and right up to a couple of fairly major organisations]. That means that plenty of my current and former colleagues have come from a wide array of backgrounds working with different kinds of people-centred areas of law, and go on to do a number of diverse and interesting things within the law. 

J: How did you start your current career? Why did you choose to work with RACS? 

While I was at uni, I worked part time at a boutique migration firm in Parramatta, Kah Lawyers. When I finished my degree in 2013, I started work there as a graduate but for the first year I was able to balance my time 50-50 with academic work at Sydney Uni as a research assistant to Mary Crock. I learned plenty of different skills in each context, and after about 18 months a role at RACS opened up. I applied and have been here ever since. 

J: What have been the most difficult parts of your current career? The most enjoyable?

I sometimes describe refugee law and jurisprudence as “relatively narrow, but extremely deep” – it’s a very complex area that’s constantly changing, particularly at the behest of the federal government. The parts of my work I find hardest often involve having to explain to clients why very complex and seemingly arbitrary decisions made by governments or courts have operated to alter and, often, seriously restrict, their rights. Those conversations are made harder by the fact that when such changes happen, they often affect large numbers of people – meaning that we find ourselves having these same difficult conversations over and over again in quick succession.

The most enjoyable parts are, essentially, the “wins”. We get to meet some incredible people in this work, from political dissidents, to women’s rights activists, to members of religious and philosophical minorities. The only real universal common thread is that something has forced them to flee their homes and come to Australia. It’s a privilege to meet many of these people, and it’s even more satisfying to be able to help them achieve safety and start to build a new life. It’s those moments you remember, many of which I’ll be proud of for the rest of my life.

J: How can lawyers working in refugee rights and migration practice self-care and maintain well-being? 

I think every single one of my colleagues has their own answers to this, as it’s something we all have to deal with every day given the emotional toll our work can take and the vicarious trauma that comes with it. There’s some universal “dos” (exercise, sleep, learning to “switch off” at the end of the day, taking leave before you burn out, etc) and “don’ts” (work yourself into the ground, isolate yourself from relationships, etc), but the specifics really vary from person to person. It can be difficult, as we can’t discuss client situations and what they’ve been through due to confidentiality, but I do debrief regularly with my wife about how I am feeling, at the end of a day over a glass of wine. I also go on long runs.

J: As a lawyer working in refugee rights and migration, one may find oneself interacting with individuals coming from different cultures and with diverse cultural practices. This may make communication difficult at times. Should lawyers seek to enhance intercultural communication skills, and how can they?

I think the answer to the first part of your question is “definitely, yes” – the second part is a bit harder. There’s some concrete skills that we can become more comfortable with, such as how to use interpreters or learning about a few relatively general cultural/religious issues, but a lot of intercultural communication simply comes with practice and an openness to others’ ideas and experiences. For myself, I find it helpful to make an effort to read and consume art from a variety of other cultures, particularly those I’ll find myself coming into contact with regularly, and drawing a lot on things I learned in my humanities subjects at uni. And, ultimately, I think the most important thing I have to keep reminding myself of: try and listen more than you talk, and do so with humility and openness.

J: Can students do anything during their degrees to prepare for a career in refugee rights and migration? 

There are obviously certain subjects that are directly relevant to the subject matter [migration law, administrative law, etc], but really a lot of what we’re looking for in a prospective refugee lawyer is about your interpersonal skills and your values. Volunteering in this and related sectors [including both legal and non-legal volunteering], and/or participation in projects that show thoughtfulness and generosity in helping more vulnerable people, can really signal that you’re somebody who’s committed to this kind of work and that you’ve got the personal management skills to handle some of the more rocky moments. It’s also extremely helpful if you learn to speak one or more other languages!

J: Can students volunteer at RACS? If not physically at RACS amid the pandemic, can they volunteer remotely? Do you have any links to RACS volunteer opportunities? 

What a great follow-up question! In short, yes – recent grads or near-grads can do their PLT at RACS even during our COVID-19-modified times. RACS offers remote supervision in line with the requirements of the GDLP program if that’s something you’re interested in. Unfortunately, while we usually also have a small army of legal student volunteers helping us with answering phones, filling forms, etc we’re not able to take on new volunteers at the moment due to COVID-19, but look forward to having new volunteers join us in the future.

There are a couple of non-legal volunteer roles available, involving fundraising and communications, which can be done remotely.

You can find information about our volunteer opportunities, and/or apply, at: https://www.racs.org.au/volunteer

J: Moving onto policy, the idea of implementing a sponsorship program for refugees similar to the one in Canada seems to have gained traction in Australia recently. Do you think this could be a possibility in Australia?

Australia already has a program designed to support community sponsorship of refugees for resettlement, known as the “Community Support Program”; it’s still relatively small and new, and relies upon community resettlement organisations as intermediaries rather than simply individual or groups of citizens as in the Canadian model. There are a lot of exciting possibilities bound up in the idea of directly engaging Australians in resettling people in need, and I think there are plenty of generous people who would gladly get involved. The pitfalls, though, with any such model would be if governments were to use this as a reason to evade responsibility for caring for the world’s displaced people, and shift it onto individuals instead. I think it’s therefore vitally important that any sponsored resettlement program operates in addition to existing programs, rather than being used to reduce the resettlement places offered by the Australian government directly.

Footnotes - COVID-19 and the Law

Footnotes is a podcast by SULS hosted by students, for students, presenting new and intriguing stories about the law and supported by Gilbert + Tobin. Here are the highlights from their most recent episode where we explore how COVID-19 has impacted our lives and catalysed changes to the legal profession.

Law profession

The unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19 have not only raised a number of substantial legal questions, but it's also made a significant impact on the legal industry. What do you think about that?

Courts have always been a place of theatrical tradition, so to move things online has been quite revolutionary. Technology is taking on a really important role with the New South Wales Supreme Court and the Federal Court creating a virtual courtroom through a combination of phone conferencing, WhatsApp and Microsoft Teams. Some people have been hopeful that the impact of COVID-19 is actually driven innovation in what has always been a fairly archaic court process.

On the flip side, there are the problems that we might be seeing as we're adopting technology in the long run. I think there's a lot of significance in everyone coming together face-to-face in one room to resolve conflicts. By relying on technology, we miss that. It might also overlook issues of access to the proper technology and infrastructure: if you're in a remote community or don't have stable access to fast or reliable Internet, it's going to be a real issue of procedural fairness. 

Either way, do you think these new practises and methods will be here to stay or is it temporary?

I think it's good to know that we can trust the technology to work. Plan A is still to have everyone come together but worst-case scenario we have a Plan B that we like, at least for civil proceedings. I think it's going to get a bit more complicated in terms of criminal trials and getting together a jury. Any new jury trials were actually suspended because of COVID but the ones that are still have had to deal with a lot of issues as well. 

Around the country, the courts have been given greater discretion to order judge alone trials to limit contact and reduce the risk of infection. In most jurisdictions, the accused has to consent to the judge-alone trial. However, the ACT equivalent actually allowed judges to order these trials, whether the accused consented or not. That has led to a wide range of concerns, especially from the Law Council of Australia, since the right to a jury trial is actually one of Australia’s few expressed constitutional rights at the federal level. Removing a jury takes away the role of the community in the justice system, which is especially important in a criminal trial. Some have argued that this reduces accountability in the legal system as a whole.

Listen to this episode from Footnotes (by the Sydney University Law Society) on Spotify. What will a career in law look like post-pandemic, and has the student experience been irrevocably altered? Are the current social distancing laws fit for purpose, or an over step and an erosion of our civil liberties?

Gilbert + Tobin: Legal Innovation, Clerkships and the Future

Footnotes is a podcast by SULS hosted by students, for students, presenting new and intriguing stories about the law. Here are the highlights from their most recent interview with Gilbert + Tobin, featuring Kristie Barton (Clerk and Graduate Program Manager), Bryce Craig (Lawyer - Technology + Digital) and Lauren Ziegelaar (Legal Transformation Lawyer) about clerkships and graduate roles, how the delivery of legal services has changed in the face of new and innovative legal technologies, and the skills young lawyers need to equip themselves for the legal industry of the future.

Do you have any tips or tricks for clerkship applications and interviews having gone through the process yourself and, Kristie, been on the other side of that? What advice would you give?

BC: I think it's very important to show your interest in the firm you're applying for, as well as a willingness to learn and contribute to growth. A keen clerk is the best clerk.

LZ: I totally agree. Do your research around the firm you're applying and have a genuine interest in the firm and the work that you're doing; but also have genuine interests outside of that. Don't be afraid to talk about the fact that you love running marathons or horse riding. You want to use your judgment about when to raise those things, but don't feel like you have to be this cookie-cutter person who doesn’t love anything but the law. 

KB: In terms of applications, tailor your application to the film that you're applying for. Try to find exactly what it is about each firm that really resonates with you or excites you and put it in the application. You’ll definitely get further in the process. 

The clerkship process is, obviously, very competitive. What advice would you have for people who may be unsuccessful this year?

KB: Clerkship may be the most linear pathway into a graduate program, but it's definitely not the be-all and end-all. The recruitment process offers such a unique opportunity for students to connect with firms and start building their networks by identifying people that they would like to have as mentors or contacts down the track. That is hugely invaluable. 

What do you see as being the role of technology and innovation in the delivery of legal services, drawing on your own experiences?

LZ: Great question! I was really lucky to work with the legal services innovation team as a graduate. The biggest learning point for me was that technology isn’t going to replace people; it just augments the way we deliver our legal services. I think what we’re going to see is more and more law firms and legal practice groups operating on the model, where it’s not a pure labour market but a labour plus capital market. 

At the moment, we just charge for our time and add disbursements such as court fees or other fees but we’re going to see the way we price and charge our work change. We are moving towards a market where law firms are providing legal advice but also tools, technologies and platforms that can be licensed out to clients. We are moving towards a model where the time of the lawyers is just one element of the services that the firm offers.

BC: Lawyers have always occupied a number of roles for their clients. They are expected to be commercially-minded and risk-averse and think about the ‘people’ element of how a decision is going to impact the client. Now, we're also expected to have competency with technology and data and applying that to matters. All the large matters I've worked on this year have some elements of data management and technology along with digital teamwork help bring clarity to those matters. That's just one example of how technology is becoming another part of the multipronged role we are expected to fill for our clients. 

KB: We need people now that are adaptable and open to new technologies and solutions and have a level of technological literacy. We certainly get some queries about how technologies like artificial intelligence are having an impact. I think lawyers are definitely not going away anytime soon, but we are upskilling our lawyers on qualities such as project management, data analytics and design thinking. We talk about this ‘T-shaped lawyer’ where traditional legal knowledge and skills are in the middle and non-legal skills are becoming increasingly important.

BC: The T-shaped Model is saying that you need to have some level of insight into many roles, but you don't have to be an expert. You don’t need to know how to code, for example, but you need to know how to talk to someone with those skills and to bridge that gap. Often the role that I see myself and other lawyers occupy is one of the conduits between those with very deep skills, and the request of the client.

LZ: There's also another model called the Delta Model. It has three sections: the process, the practice, and the people. The depth of your skills in those areas changes depending on what role you occupy. Your legal knowledge still forms the absolute foundation, but the additional skills you need evolve quickly. I think you guys are probably in the best position for it as early career professionals because you're incredibly adaptive and fast learners. I don't think it's something you need to be worried about as long as you're open to it.

Do you think COVID is going to be the tipping point for the law in the way that it approaches technological innovation? Now that we've gotten familiar with doing things digitally, do you think that this something that we are going to see in the future of law?

LZ: I think there are some elements that will change a lot but other elements are uncertain. Producing change in a law firm model has its own unique challenges. The things that speed up those processes are client-driven forces, internal forces such as staff and employees, and also external forces, such as a global pandemic. I think it will produce change, but it just depends on what areas will see that lasting change. 

BC: I think one of the impacts brought about just by changing economic and financial circumstances will be that a lot more clients will be even more cost-conscious. I think it's going to bring newfound relevance to teams, like Lauren's, that routinely deal with how to optimize the delivery of legal services.

How do you think your experience with innovation has helped complement other aspects of your work as a lawyer?

LZ: Having exposure to so many parts of the firm made me a better lawyer in my role in the corporate team because I really understood how the firm works from a business perspective. As soon as you understand the business side of the firm, it makes sense as to why things are done a certain way, and you can find opportunities to solve inefficiencies. 

If you want more insight from Kristie, Bryce and Lauren on the impacts of technology and innovation, have a listen to the full episode of ‘In Conversation with Gilbert + Tobin - Legal Innovation, Clerkships & the Future’ on your favourite podcast platform. 

Listen to this episode from Footnotes (by the Sydney University Law Society) on Spotify. Considering a career in commercial law? Keep hearing buzzwords like "legal tech" or "legal innovation" but not sure what they mean?

Social Justice: Working in Criminal Law

The SULS Social Justice Portfolio recently hosted the event ‘Working in Criminal Law’, discussing a variety of issues with professionals from the field of criminal law. The panel consisted of Ruth Heazlewood (RH) and Madeleine Avenell (MA) from the Public Defenders Office, Adrienne Ey (AE) and James Ly (JL) from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW and Justin Wong (JW) from Streeton Lawyers. These were the highlights of the discussion:

Why did you choose in the organisation you currently work with? What attracted you to criminal law in particular?

JL: When I was at University, I worked at a small general firm and the exposure I had to criminal law was the most interesting part of the job. When I graduated, I applied for ODPP’s graduate program, the Legal Development Program and I've been here ever since then. The main thing that attracted me to criminal law is that it’s really interesting and different every day. 

AE: I got a position in the LDP when I first finished university. By that time, I already knew I was really interested in criminal law with how it sits alongside social justice issues. Part of the reason I was attracted to working at the ODPP, in particular, was that I wanted to work somewhere where I had access to a mentor and colleagues while getting good legal experience. 

JW: I was a volunteer at the Aboriginal Legal Service in my final two years of university and I tried to do as much criminal law electives as I could. I think what attracted me initially was probably a combination of wanting to help people, finding the stories really interesting and trying to make a difference. Most people I know in criminal law really enjoy what they do, as difficult as it can be sometimes.

MA: I have to admit when I got to the end of University, I didn't know what I was going to do. I got a job as a tipstaff in the Supreme Court and the judge I worked for only did criminal work. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it completely changed my attitude to law, particularly crime. 

RH: I’d always been attracted to criminal law, even as a student. In all my many years of practice, I still find criminal law the most interesting. If you find criminal law or criminal law finds you, then you’ve definitely got a strong sense of purpose.

What are the most rewarding and challenging parts of working in criminal law and, in particular, your organisation?

JW: I think the most rewarding thing is seeing the effect you could have on someone's lives when they're coming to you at, probably, the worst point in their life. The flip side of that is that there is so much responsibility on you. Litigation is always very uncertain and can be incredibly stressful and emotionally taxing at times. But overall, it's much more rewarding and it's a real privilege to be able to act for people.

RH: I think the challenges for any criminal lawyer is to behave ethically. Not in my case, but I have heard that sometimes students are put in ethical situations that are a bit dicey.

A lot is said about being a certain kind of person to work in criminal law. What traits or personalities do you think it takes to work and thrive in criminal law?

JL: I would say, passion and interest in criminal law.

JW: I’d agree with that. There are so many different personalities in our area, so you don't have to be a ‘particular type’ of person.

Some of you mentioned the Legal Development Programme (LDP) along with volunteering and criminal law electives. What do you guys think is the way into criminal law?

AE: There are a number of different ways to find the right role for you in criminal law. Justin mentioned he volunteered at the Aboriginal Legal Service which is one of the big criminal organisations in New South Wales that does take volunteers and PLT students. The same goes for Legal Aid. If you've done extracurricular activities or competitions at uni, I would recommend highlighting things like that. You really just need to be proactive and be willing to do a few different things. 

MA: My suggestion is doing anything that allows you to get to know a few people in criminal law. There are barristers who employ students as researchers or admin assistants and it’s a path to just get to know people.

RH: Public Defenders has so many students come through in various pathways: sometimes through the more structured internship programs but also through PLT while others come as volunteers. My main requirement is that they be in their fourth or fifth years because the work we do can be quite challenging. We also have an Aboriginal and Torres-Strait Islander graduate program, where we take on Aboriginal graduates to do their PLT. It's one way we can assist disadvantaged students in getting the support and mentorship that they need. 

With the current social restriction laws, courts and tribunal have had to change the way they operate across Australia. How have your operations been affected by the recent pandemic and will there be any long-lasting impacts in the future?

JW: Like every aspect of society, the impact is huge. I haven't done a huge amount of online court appearances myself, but it really does affect your ability to be able to stand and advocate in court. We’re used to having the ability to be able to pick up on small verbal cues and I found it very hard to get my point across in the same way through a screen. 

JL: In terms of practice moving forward, I think the pandemic has caused the court to look at how they do administrative things, forcing it to become more efficient. 

Our final question is how students can bridge the skill set gap. Are there any particular skills or aspects that you would encourage someone to have?

JL: Just speaking from the graduate program at the ODPP, we don’t expect you to be an excellent advocate when you come in. That's the whole purpose of the graduate program. I wouldn't be too concerned about bridging that gap now.

JW: There’s a huge difference between learning law and then applying it to a client. I think as a paralegal, observing how lawyers operate is a really great experience. The last three graduate solicitors we've had have all been paralegals while in university, so they're able to learn the skills early and hit the ground running.

Footnotes: Allens "A Day in the Life of a Litigation Lawyer"

SULS Footnotes is a podcast hosted by students, for students, presenting new and intriguing stories about the law. They’ll be releasing monthly podcasts throughout the year, so make sure to check them out on any podcast platform (Spotify, Apple Music, etc.) and follow SULS on Facebook and Instagram. 

Here are the highlights from their most recent interview with Allens on ‘A Day in the Life of a Litigation Lawyer’, with Lucy Zimdahl and Daniel Emmerig from Allens’ Disputes team, to see how the process of litigation unfolds on a corporate scale.

What does an average day for you look like?

Lucy: I probably spend a lot less time in court, and spend a lot less time at my desk in front of a computer than you would imagine. A lot of my day is meetings with barristers, with clients, with internal team members and emails back and forth. I would think that I’m in the office 95% of the time. 

Interviewer: How many opportunities are there for pro bono work?

Lucy: A lot! You are encouraged to treat your pro bono workload very much on level with all your billable client work. It's a big part of what we offer at Allens, definitely check out the website if it’s something that interests you!

Are there any large differences between the commercial approach against the traditional approach that law students might be more familiar with?

Daniel: In law school, you’re writing an exam response examining a fact scenario. When you're actually practising law, you also have to consider things like commerciality; assess the risks. It's more of a consideration in the context of an operating business than in an exam.

Is going to Court intimidating? And does it get easier?

Lucy: It is still quite intimidating and incredibly adrenaline-filled. Even though you are not doing the advocacy, you have to be switched on, which is quite tiring but thrilling; it’s one of the things I find most gratifying about being a litigator.

Daniel: When you're the junior lawyer, you will be going through the documents and will become very familiar with the minutes. If there is a question and the barrister turns around and asks you what actually happened, then you have to find the document or the evidence to clarify. It can be very exciting and intense. 

What is your role in the courtroom? Is it always high adrenaline and high stakes Suits style?

Lucy: [laughter] Ignore what you see on US TV. You don't whip out the smoking gun document dramatically and you're not allowed to ambush a witness. Compared to what you might see on Suits, it's very diplomatic and civilised and the emphasis is on time efficiency and cost efficiency. Having said that there can be plenty of drama: opening and closing arguments from barristers are often a sight to behold and everyone is on the edge of their seats during a witness cross-examination.

Daniel: It's very tense as well for the lawyer because you have quite a personal stake in this matter. Something could happen in the next half an hour which could make or break this whole thing. It is great to watch the product of all your work and it's also very exciting because you don't know what's going to happen.

What are the key skills required and the pressures of your role?

Lucy: Ownership in taking initiative is a really vital thing. The grads I admire most and see the most potential in are the people that will come to a meeting with me and, without any prompting, will say what they would do next. That's important because everyone has to keep driving things forward and making progress.

Daniel: At the entry-level, the particular skills you need would be the ability to learn on the job. Also having the ability to do a draft and accept that it's still a learning process; you're not going to truly master this kind of work for another few years. 

Lucy: I guess some of the pressures are that the turnaround times need to be really fast. But the nice thing about litigation is that it naturally ebbs and flows. And even when it is busy, it's typically because you're on the cusp of trial or settlement of an arbitration. These are the most exciting time in that matter’s life cycle as well. 

Interviewer: Do you have any general advice for lawyers wishing to become involved with or learn more about your work?

Lucy: In an ideal world, a summer clerkship or work experience with a barrister would be fantastic. On a more real level, think closely about the resources that you do have at your disposal. Your lecturers and tutors have many of their colleagues practising in law firms in Sydney; maybe they could put you in touch. Talking to people in the industries that you're interested in is the best way to understand what your future would look like in practice. 

Nowadays I think there's probably better access for students to information about law firms. We have Allen’s Confidential podcast that’s run by our graduate; firms also publish updates on their websites about significant matters. 

Two other tips I would give is that there are probably opportunities at University to volunteer with legal advice clinics, it will give you really significant meaningful experience in diplomacy, drafting, negotiation skills and matter management. 

The other is to follow Chambers, where different barristers publish case summaries that will be focusing on the legal issues at the heart. If you keep abreast of those you’ll understand the kind of disputes we, at Allens, face. That’ll be essential in coming across as well rounded and well developed as a law student applying for work experience. 

Daniel: If you’re particularly interested in litigation or disputes, working for a barrister while you're at university is a very good option. You can see the differentiated roles between barrister and solicitors, and you may get chances for having a crack at first drafts of things, commissions or even discussing a matter with someone senior. 

[Interview ends.]

If you want more insight from Lucy and Daniel on what the role of a litigation lawyer entails, have a listen to the full episode ‘A Day in the Life of a Litigation Lawyer’ by Footnotes on your favourite podcast platform.

Listen to this episode from Footnotes (by the Sydney University Law Society) on Spotify. This is a bonus episode from last year, featuring an interview with Daniel Emmerig and Lucy Zimdahl from Allens about a day in the life of a litigation lawyer.