How to write a clerkship cover letter that will get you an interview*

*Disclaimer: I used this method and obtained four first round interviews. I cannot guarantee this will get you a clerkship interview, as variables such as grades and prior legal work experience can affect your chances of getting a clerkship. I also completed my clerkship in summer 2012/2013 (I feel so old), so my method could be outdated.

The 2015 NSW clerkship application period commences on Wednesday 17 June and closes on Sunday 19 July. During this time, most penultimate students are juggling exams and work commitments. After exams you may find yourself holidaying overseas. None of these conditions are ideal for writing clerkship cover letters, but at least you will have the knowledge your competitors (other penultimate year students) are working under similar conditions. There are some fantastic resources on writing cover letters already out there on websites like Beyond Law. However, I used a more specific methodology for my clerkship cover letters which I will share with you.

General tips:

1.       Every cover letter will be different. If you plan to simply “Find + Replace” the name of the firm and submit, I wish you well, but you will be unlikely to obtain a clerkship interview. Firms like to see you have conducted extensive research and read about how unique they are. Unless you have thoroughly researched and tailored your cover letter, you do not stand much of a chance.  

2.       Before you start writing the cover letter, thoroughly research the firm. At a minimum, this will involve reading the entire website, reading Lawyers Weekly to see if they have had any press coverage recently, and reading any high profile cases the firm has recently been involved in. This will give you a feel for how the firm markets itself. Try and identify factors the firm claims make it “unique”. Identify the firm culture. Identify the money making practice areas. Hint: for top-tier firms this is usually Mergers & Acquisitions, for mid-tier firms it varies but banking and finance, and insurance law are usually consistent money making teams, as well as construction and projects in times of economic boom (ie not in 2015).

3.       Make sure you write about your past experience (working in law, studying law, extracurricular activities, sporting activities) and connect that to how you can contribute to the firm.

4.       Unless you are applying for a “special” boutique firm (in my time at law school Marque Lawyers was such a firm who did not want traditional cover letters), law firms are NOT after creativity in their cover letters. Firms want to quickly be able to see whether you fit their criteria so they can quickly put you in or out of the interview pile. 

5.       Use plain English in your cover letter as this shows an ability to clearly communicate. Many students make the mistake of using what I call “floury language”, using excessive words and flourishes. If the sentence would make sense without the word, then leave it out. Law firms use plain English in everything they do, so if you plan to work in a commercial law firm, you need to get used to plain English now.

6.       Your cover page should be one page in length and no smaller than 11 point font. Times and Arial are acceptable. Make sure you justify your paragraphs.

7.       Proof read your cover letter several times. Nothing screams “poor attention to detail” louder than a typo on a cover letter.

Suggested structure:

The structure I used for my clerkship cover letters was “the three reasons I want to work at this firm”. This structure is ideal as it gives you the opportunity to show how hard you have researched the firm, shows how enthusiastic you are about the firm, and enables you to weave your previous experiences into the paragraphs to show what you can bring to the firm. Again, this is just a suggested structure. If you don’t feel comfortable with this structure, keep experimenting until you find something that fits.

Header: Your Name and contact details

Date

Contact name

Firm name (ie Firm Z)

Address first line

Address second line

Dear [insert contact]

                Application for the position of Summer Clerk 2015/2016 at Firm Z

Strong first sentence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Strong second sentence-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

First substantive paragraph. There are two/three main reasons I would like to work at Firm Z. The first, is the-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. The second reason I would like to work at Firm Z is---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Second substantive paragraph (firm culture and attributes focused). The third reason I would like to work at Firm Z is the -------------------------------------------------culture. I have strong ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Concluding remarks------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Thank you for taking the time to consider my application. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Insert your name

Breaking the cover letter down:

1.       Header

The header should contain your name and contact details and should match the header of your cover letter for consistency and to show attention to detail. There is no need to be too artistic, but you may want to have the header in a different colour such as dark blue or dark green so that your name stands out. The header is part of your “brand” and you should spend some time working on personalising your stationery.

2.       Contact name

Do not write Sir/Madam. You need to find the name of the Graduate Recruitment Officer or appropriate Human Resources Officer at the firm you are applying for. This can usually be found on the firm’s clerkship advertisement or on the website. If you cannot find it, ring the firm and politely ask who you should address your cover letter to. 

3.       Strong first sentence

The first sentence should contain your year level, course name, university name, your grade bracket and the position you are applying for. These are all key criteria firms look at, so need to be in your first sentence. For example: “As a penultimate year Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts student from the University of Sydney with a distinction average, I wish to apply for a summer clerkship position at Firm Z”. If you do not have the best grades or you think the name of your university might jeopardise your chances, you do not have to put them in the first sentence, but you will need to have this information in your resume.

4.       Strong second sentence

I like to highlight the strengths of my application and state that these will enable me to quickly be an asset to the firm. For example: “I believe that my previous experience in commercial law, high level communication skills, and positive, team oriented approach, will enable me to quickly to contribute to Firm Z as a summer clerk”. This sentence is important. Many potential clerks write about what they can obtain from the firm. The reality is, it is a job and you are there to contribute to the firm. This second sentence lets the firm know you understand this.  

5.       Three main reasons why you would like to work at the firm

You need to come up with two or three reasons you would like to work at the firm. These are the firm’s distinguishing features and should be identifiable when you research the firm. One of the reasons should be based on the firm culture or the nature of the firm. If firm culture is not a strong point for that firm, talk about the nature of the firm. Ie if your firm is a global firm a reason for working at the firm is that you want to work at a truly international firm. After you have stated your reason, you need to integrate your prior experience and skills into the paragraph.

Example 1

The first reason I would like to work at Firm Z is that Firm Z has the leading Mergers & Acquisitions team in Australia. I have a keen interest in working in Mergers & Acquisitions, having studied subject X in my Commerce degree, and having worked as a paralegal at Firm Y assisting with a private Mergers & Acquisitions transaction.

Example 2

The first reason I would like to work at Firm Z is that I would like to work at an internationally renowned firm headquartered in Asia. The world’s growth markets are in Asia, and Firm Z is strategically positioned to take advantage of this. I am very interested in the Asia region, having interned at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, studied Government as my Arts major, and having visited China, Singapore, Indonesia and other Asian countries many times. With this knowledge, I would be able to assist the growth of Firm Z by providing relevant legal assistance to clients working across Australia, Asia and internationally.

Example 3

The first reason I would like to work at Firm Z is the firm’s dominance in the resource and energy sector. Having had a prior career in the resources sector working in the Department of X prior to commencing my Juris Doctor, I have a comprehensive knowledge of the resources sector and the daily challenges these clients face. I will be able to combine my sector knowledge with my legal skills to provide industry relevant advice as a summer clerk.

Note: if you are a postgraduate student and had a previous career always mention this. Firms love JD students who have prior industry experience in sectors their clients work in. So if you worked in property, banking and finance or another sector prior to studying law make sure you integrate this into your cover letter.

Example 4:

The third reason I would like to work at Firm Z is that Firm Z has always been a global law firm. Having always been a global law firm rather than having only recently become “global” like other top firms in Australia, Firm Z has an undeniable advantage in its stability and service offerings. I share this global focus, having interned at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, studied Government and International Relations as my Arts major, and visited China and Europe numerous times. I would like to work at Firm Z because of the edge this global focus gives to clients, especially clients in the firms recently expanded energy and resources work in the Asia pacific region.

Example 5:

The second reason I would like to work at Firm Z is that Firm Z offers a team culture committed to customer service. I thrive in a team environment, a recent example being........I have strong customer service skills, having a luxury retail background, and more recently having worked directly with clients on small matters as a paralegal at Firm Y.

An alternative structure would be to have two main reasons why you want to work at the firm and put those in the first substantive paragraph. In the second substantive paragraph you will then cover your legal work experience, written and oral communication skills, time management skills, team work skills and any relevant extracurricular interests.

6.       Concluding remarks

You could just go straight to the “thank you for taking the time...” sentence. However, I think it is better to have a sentence before such as “In addition to the skills and experience described about, I am positive, professional and energetic”. The characteristics you list should be true to your own personality but also mesh with what the firm is looking for. For example if the firm says on the Career pages on its website that adaptability is important, make sure you cover that somewhere.

Remember to make your cover letters your own. Remember that your personal worth is not connected to whether or not you get a summer clerkship. You are not doomed if you do not get a clerkship. I know plenty of Distinction average students who did not get a clerkship but who all got great graduate jobs and are currently killing their careers. Best of luck!

Isbester v Knox City Council [2015] HCA 20 – High Court finds bias and prevents Staffie from being put down - trends in administrative law 2015

Introduction

On 10 June 2015 the High Court delivered its judgment in Isbester v Knox City Council [2015] HCA 20, invalidating a Knox City Council decision to put down a Staffordshire terrier dog called “Izzy” on the ground of bias. In this administrative law update, I outline the facts of the case, the established rule against bias, and the High Court’s reasoning.

The facts - Isbester v Knox City Council [2015] HCA 20

Ms Isbester owned three dogs, including the Staffordshire terrier “Izzy”. In August 2012, two of her dogs attacked another dog in the park. When a passer-by tried to intervene, Izzy attacked the person and caused a wound to the person’s finger. 

Ms Hughes was the Knox City Council employee responsible for regulating domestic animals and was the head investigator looking after the August 2012 incident. As investigator, she determined six charges should be laid, arranged for charges and summons to be drafted and instructed the Knox City Council legal team to prosecute and negotiate pleas with the dog owner, Ms Isbester. The Magistrate’s Court hearing occurred on 12 September 2013 and Ms Isbester was convicted under s29 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) as the owner of a dog who had caused serious injury to a person.

Under s84P(e) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) the Knox City Council has the power to put down an animal where the owner has been convicted of a s29 offence. Ms Isbester was informed that a council “Panel” would make a determination on whether Izzy was to be put down, and that the Panel would consist of the Director of City Development, the Manager of City Safety and Health and Ms Hughes. The Panel members all held relevant delegated authority and Ms Isbester participated fully in the process. On 15 October 2013, the Panel notified Ms Isbester of their decision to destroy the dog Izzy. Ms Isbester appealed on several procedural fairness grounds. The only ground of appeal that made it to the high court was bias.

The legal question

Whether the decision to put down the dog Izzy should be quashed because of the substantial involvement of the council employee Ms Hughes in both the prosecution of charges concerning the dog and in the decision of the Panel as to the fate of the dog.

A crash course in the rule against bias:

The rule against a decision maker being affected by bias is part of the broader concept of procedural fairness. The test for whether bias exists is “whether a reasonable observer might apprehend that the decision maker might not resolve the matter with a fair and prejudiced mind”. The test is known as the “reasonable apprehension test”. If there is a “possibility” a reasonable observer would apprehend the decision maker is biased, the potential decision maker should not be involved in the decision. 

Examples of bias include:

1.       Direct interest in proceedings;

2.       Disqualification by association – for example a person who is associated with parties, lawyers, or witnesses should not be the decision maker. A very weak form of association could be permitted, as the test is whether a reasonable observer would have a “reasonable apprehension” of bias in the objective circumstances.

3.       Disqualification by extraneous information – for example a person who has strong personal prejudice.

4.       Disqualification by conduct – for example a prosecutor cannot also act as an adjudicator.

The category of the rule against bias relevant in this case is that a person cannot both investigate/prosecute and adjudicate proceedings. The investigator/prosecutor should not even be present for the adjudication proceedings, as a reasonable apprehension of bias may arise despite no actual bias occurring. Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509 is the landmark High Court case in this area. Mr Smith was a board member who investigated allegations of bribery for a greyhound racing registration application made by Mr Stollery. There was a Board meeting to decide whether to disqualify Mr Stollery. Mr Smith was present in the room during the decision making process. The decision was invalidated by the High Court, as Mr Smith was the investigator, he should not have been in a position to influence the adjudication of the Board.

There are a few exceptions to the rule against bias:

1.       Necessity – where there is no other qualified person available to make the decision, the otherwise disqualified person may be able to make the decision. In Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70 the statutory requirement that a tribunal perform its functions prevailed over the rule against bias.

2.       Statutory exclusion – where there is a statutory exclusion, it will be construed narrowly, so only the degree of bias essential for the operation of the statutory scheme will be permitted - Builders' Registration Board of Queensland v Rauber (1983) 47 ALR 55.

3.       Waiver – a person aware of the right to object due to bias must do so at the earliest opportunity or risk “waiving” their right to assert bias, barristers should always raise the possibility of bias at their earliest opportunity - Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568.

The High Court’s comments on bias in Isbester v Knox City Council [2015] HCA 20

In their succinct joint judgment (I highly recommend you read it because it is so short!), the High Court clearly set out the test to be applied as “whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality with respect to the decision to be made” [20]. They identify that the case before them is concerned with the incompatibility of roles or a conflict of interest [24]. In particular, whether a person's involvement in the matter antecedent to the decision is incompatible with his or her participation in the subsequent decision [28]. Ms Hughes antecedent involvement in the matter was as a prosecutor. The unanimous High Court state “It is generally expected that a person in this position may have an interest which would conflict with the objectivity required of a person deciding the charges and any consequential matters, whether that person be a judge or a member of some other decision-making body”, drawing this principle from the cases of Dickason v Edwards [1910] HCA 7 and  Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board [1972] HCA 53.

The following points made by the High Court are of particular note. The first four are drawn from the joint judgment of Justices Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Nettle, while the fifth point is drawn from Justice Gageler’s judgment.

1.       Were the decisions related enough that participation in both was incompatible?

Knox City Council attempted to characterise the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court and the subsequent decision by the Panel as separate stages that involved separate issues of the dog’s fate, and that Ms Hughes interest as a prosecutor ended when the Magistrate’s Court proceedings ended [40]. The High Court was not convinced and said a line could not be drawn to quarantine her actions as prosecutor from her actions on the Panel, and that Ms Hughes did have a continuing interest in the matter:

“It is reasonably to be expected that her involvement in the prosecution of the charges created an interest in the final outcome of the matter. Ms Hughes' continuing interest in the matter may be tested by asking whether, if the Magistrates' Court had been asked to make an order for destruction, as could have been done following conviction, it might reasonably be apprehended that she would remain interested in whether the Magistrates' Court granted the order. The answer must clearly be "Yes".” [42].

2.       Was the disqualifying interest personal enough to Ms Hughes?

After identifying the disqualifying interest, the High Court consider whether the interest was of a sufficiently personal level as in Stollery, where the decision maker was directly confronted with a bribe. The High Court explained that a “personal interest” does not have to mean receiving  personal benefit, and in the case of a prosecutor such as Ms Hughes, it refers to a view of the matter which is personal to them [46].

3.       Did it matter that Ms Hughes did not make the final decision?

Although there was a Panel to review the matter, the final decision was made by the Director of City Development. The High Court dismissed this submission. The participation of others does not negate the apprehension that Ms Hughes interest in the outcome could affect the decision making of others. This principle is clearly established in Stollery where the mere presence of the prior decision maker in the room was sufficient to cause an apprehension of bias in a reasonable person.

4.       Did it matter that Ms Hughes carried out her duties with the outmost integrity?

It is not an exception to the bias rule if the person acted diligently and according to their duties.

5.       The three-step test (Gageler J)

It is also useful to note the three-step test Gageler J outlines in his own judgment to approaching these bias questions:

Step 1 –“identification of the factor which it is hypothesised might cause a question to be resolved otherwise than as the result of a neutral evaluation of the merits”;

Step 2 –“articulation of how the identified factor might cause that deviation from a neutral evaluation of the merits”; and

Step 3 - consideration of the reasonableness of the apprehension of that deviation being caused by that factor in that way” [59].

Legal outcome

The High Court unanimously quashed the Knox City Council Panel decision (ie an order of certiorari was made). While the practical outcome was that a dog’s life was spared, the legal outcome in the judgment is also useful, as the High Court drew together a useful and succinct summary of the principles of bias in decision making, as well as clarifying how “personal” the interest has to be to the decision maker.

Paying for a graduate position – is paying $22,000 to join a start-up law firm like adlawgroup worth it?

Would you pay $22,000 for a graduate job? That is what a new breed of start-ups is asking “employees” to pay in return for a two year contract, mentoring experience and legal work. They claim they are giving admitted law students who have no current employment prospects in the legal market an opportunity to obtain the crucial two years of legal experience. The reality seems different. To me, it seems these start-ups are preying on vulnerable graduates who already have a $50,000+ HECS debt from a combined law degree plus their admission to practice course. One of the biggest problems of paying $22,000 to work as a lawyer is that after you have finished your two year contract at the start-up, it will be just as difficult as before to find a real legal job, as a graduate may be seen to have “paid” for this legal experience. In this blog article I examine adlawgroup, a start-up launching in July 2015 asking graduates to pay $22,000 for their position. Graduates should think carefully before joining such a program.

What is adlawgroup?

Adlawgroup is a start-up to be launched in Adelaide in July 2015, advertised as a new “law firm” targeting graduate lawyers. They will be taking-up around 15 graduates initially and another 15 in September, with a view to gradually expand the size of the program. “Employees” pay $22,000 upfront to be part of the “getting started in law program”. The program runs for two years, though graduates can leave the program at any time if they obtain a legal job they want to pursue.

How do they advertise?

Adlawgroup advertises positions as though they are offering a normal paid graduate position. This is far from the truth. In the below advertisement, there is no mention at all that you have to pay $22,000 for the position.

How is the $22,000 two year fee justified?

Adlawgroup claim that the $22,000 covers the cost of a practising certificate plus the comprehensive continuing education program they offer. The cost of an annual practising certificate in NSW is $816. Over two years this would be $1,632. That means about $20,368 of the $22,000 is allocated to the “getting started in law” program which includes mentoring and continuing legal and professional development. Mentoring will be conducted by a panel of senior members of the legal and business professional. Adlawgroup claims that the firm will be self-funded through client fees, which implies none of the $22,000 is going towards running the firm. One must ask where the $22,000 is going? If it is going towards paying mentors, that is a very expensive mentoring experience when there are a host of free mentoring opportunities available during and after university.

How is the relationship characterised?

Is adlawgroup an employer or an education provider? Adlawgroup claims it is a hybrid between employment and higher education. This is all very good, except in the eyes of the law, the business will need to be characterised in one of the categories. The adlawgroup website claims that graduates will receive their pay through the fees charged to clients. It is rare for junior lawyers to be paid on a commission basis. Junior lawyers working at traditional law firms are paid a fixed rate, which is set at Award rate or above. If the lawyers working at adlawgroup are characterised as employees, they will need to be remunerated by at least the Award rate. It is possible that adlawgroup will pay employees the Award rate plus commission based on fees charged, but at this point it is difficult to tell. To me, the relationship appears to have more “educational” characteristics, as graduates pay a fixed fee of $22,000 to receive mentoring, a learning program and professional development.

Other problems that may arise from paying for your graduate position:

1.       Ratio of experienced lawyers to graduates

Adlawgroup will be predominantly staffed by junior lawyers supervised by expert senior practitioners. This is very different from the traditional graduate experience where you will be the most junior in a team of five to ten more senior practitioners who all have the experience to mentor you and guide your legal development.

2.       Who will the clients be?

There are quite a few mentions on the adlawgroup website that graduates will be engaged in providing “quality and value” to clients. The firms is said to offer a full range of legal services at competitive rates, but that gives little indication of who the clients will be. There is some indication the clients will be individuals, as it is stated “young people, in particular, will be targeted to encourage them to seek professional advice and support in a timely manner”. This would not be ideal if you are aiming to work in commercial practice where clients are medium to large sized companies. As a graduate it is very important to know what kind of clients and what areas of law you will be working in, as your next employer will look at the clients you were working for to see whether you have the requisite experience for that job. For example, the difference between working for individuals, small companies, large companies, and public sector clients is vast and leads down very different career paths. The website is almost solely targeted at recruiting graduates, which very little information on clients, which is concerning. The website of a normal law firm is targeted almost solely at clients, with a very small section on recruitment.

3.       Reputation

There is a risk adlawgroup graduates would be perceived as having “purchased” their graduate jobs. In addition to adlawgroup being a start-up which is new to the industry, graduates from adlawgroup will have to do a lot of explaining in any job interviews they can get afterwards as to what adlawgroup is and why they could not get a traditional position after university. Adlawgroup is taking students from a variety of academic backgrounds. This could lower the general reputation of graduates from adlawgroup given the traditional emphasis on grades at law school in the job market up to five years post-graduation.

4.       Getting a job post adlawgroup

Adlawgroup claim that their graduates will have an advantage in a tight legal market. While it is true that after 2 years you will be eligible for an unrestricted practicing certificate, I query whether traditional law firms will consider the two years experience at adlawgroup commensurate to two years experience working at a traditional law firm. For example, if you are competing for a position as a junior lawyer advertised as a 2yr PQE job, an employer is much more likely to choose a lawyer who had been working at a traditional law firm with medium and large sized companies than a lawyer who has paid for their initial experience at a law firm with mixed clients.

The fact start-ups like adlawgroup exist is part of a wider problem

Those in the legal industry are well aware that in some Australian states such as South Australia and Victoria, the number of law graduates is in excess of the number of graduate lawyer positions available. Universities make a significant profit on law degrees, and have increased the number of positions available, due to the demand driven Commonwealth funding system. There is no easy answer to the problem of excessive law graduates. If numbers in law degrees was set to just above the ability of the legal industry to absorb graduate lawyers, students who want to study law but not practice law would miss out. However, the current system, which produces a large excess of law graduates does produce desperation to the extent that junior lawyers would be willing to pay $22,000 for a first job.