Starter's orders part 3

Sometimes pupils do things which are utterly incomprehensible, probably most of all to themselves. Whether or not this proves fatal to the aspiring barrister can sometimes be a question of luck.

Probably the most stupidly thing that a supposedly ambitious pupil ever did (and as you can well imagine there is pretty stiff competition for such an accolade) was when the particular pupil was given a case to do during his second six. He arrived at the particular county town in good time for the hearing. Then it all went wrong. For some inexplicable reason, in a decision so bizarre that to describe it as incomprehensible seems pathetically weak, he decided in the 40 minutes available before the hearing that he would go shopping. I hope he enjoyed the shopping, because in some respects it proved to be the most expensive shopping trip that he had ever undertaken. He lost track of the time. (I know: how on earth do you lose track of the time shopping when in a few minutes you are about to go into court?!). Consequently he arrived about 15 minutes late for the hearing. One thing can be said in his favour. His explanation and apology, whilst lacking any sense of guile or attempt to elicit sympathy, had the merit of being entirely true. The district judge hearing the application was too bemused to take serious issue about it and they got on with the hearing. However needless to say this story, which lost nothing in the telling, dogged the poor pupil's steps and inevitably proved fatal to his prospects of staying in chambers.

Another pupil once made an error of a very different kind. His pupil master wanted the pupil to look at an authority. He needed it for a conference which was about to take place. He wanted to see if a certain proposition could be established, and wanted the pupil to look for it. Time was pressing, and the pupil had difficulty finding the book. Eventually the pupil found the book, and found a passage which stated exactly what the pupil master was looking for. Excitedly he marked it up, and took it to the pupil master. By what can either be described as good fortune or ill fortune, depending on your point of view, there was another barrister in the room when this was handed over. The pupil master read the name of the case and then the passage out. "Perfect" he said, "that's just what I wanted it to say". "But that's not what it says that all" said the other barrister. "I'm very familiar with this case, and it says the opposite.". "What on earth do you mean, you've just heard what it says" the pupil master replied. "Read on over the page" said the other barrister. Reading on over the page showed that the judgment then went on to say that although those propositions that have been stated previously were viable they were incorrect for a number of reasons. Although subject to a form of humiliation before his master and another tenant, the pupil was lucky. At least the clients had not been advised that the case said exactly the opposite of what it did say. It also shows exactly why pupil masters should never ever rely upon pupils for their research. The buck stops with you.