Dear Colleagues;
Since the problem doesn't seem to be a major one at the moment, I am happy to leave things as they are (though as soon as I saw the email I was concerned about a student simply getting "free" essay advice, and as it turns out- though it would not always be likely- he got quite a lot because he asked about an area which seems to engage people's passions at the moment.) But I am happy to leave it up to Jason to monitor both posts and those requesting membership of the list.
But if it does become more of an issue, I wouldn't honestly see a problem with a policy that those who are currently law undergrads should not normally be entitled to post to the list. With the excellent archiving that Steve does, students can usually browse previous discussions on the website fairly soon after the email interchanges, and will be at least doing "research" by searching for the topic. My students sound a lot like John's. I want to encourage them to do the work for themselves while they are doing their degree. Only when you graduate do you get the privilege of just asking other people for the answers!
Regards
Neil F
Neil Foster
Senior Lecturer, LLB Program Convenor
Newcastle Law School
Faculty of Business & Law
MC158, McMullin Building
University of Newcastle
Callaghan NSW 2308
AUSTRALIA
ph 02 4921 7430
fax 02 4921 6931
>>> <Andrew.Dickinson@CliffordChance.com> 25/11/08 11:57 >>>
For my own part, and without wishing to speak for others, I don't think
that one can fix hard and fast rules excluding law students (or
practitioners, for that matter) from asking questions relevant to their
studies or practice, while encouraging others to do so. Although is is
for Jason, as the list regulator, to decide what is acceptable and what
is not, it seems to me that any list member should be able to seek
inspiration from other list members, on a non-attributable basis, on a
particular problem that he/she is grappling with, as long as the problem
relates to an aspect of the law of obligations that is likely to provoke
discussion. The quid pro quo is that the correspondent should be
willing to engage in the discussion, rather than using the list as an
advice service. In practice, I would suggest, this should regulate
itself. Those who contribute regularly will reap the rewards when they
post a question. Those who do not will face an increasingly
unenthusiastic response. In any event, as list discussions may develop
over a period of days or weeks (rather than minutes or hours), the delay
in a response may disincentivise those facing an essay crisis or court
deadline.
Kind regards
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Neyers [mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca]
Sent: 25 November 2008 12:29
To: John Murphy
Cc: Hector MacQueen; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: roffey discussion
I'll monitor the situation and make sure John's concern doesn't happen.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Murphy <john.murphy@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:12 am
Subject: Re: roffey discussion
To: Hector MacQueen <hector.macqueen@ed.ac.uk>
Cc: obligations@uwo.ca
> I shd have said what I meant more clearly. What I am
> against is the
> kind of phishing that the student that prompted the present
> discussion
> attempted. That said, I guess you have better students
> than me,
> Hector. Mine don't seem to have time have time to reflect
> at length
> (or at least don't perceive themselves as having such
> time). For
> them, under a semesterized system, contract law is a blur: it's
> all
> "wham, bam here's the exam". And all tehy ever ask, or
> seem to ask,
> is (in various degrees of disguise) "what's the answer to
> this
> question?" or "what's on the exam this year?".
>
> JM
>
>
>
--
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law &
Cassels Brock LLP Faculty Fellow in Contract Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
[CC]Personal[/CC]
This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any
attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment
or disclose the contents to any other person.
Clifford Chance LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales under number OC323571.
The firm's registered office and principal place of business is at 10 Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ.
For further details, including a list of members and their professional qualifications, see our website
at www.cliffordchance.com. The firm uses the word 'partner' to refer to a member of Clifford Chance LLP or
an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. The firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Authority's rules can be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct.page
Clifford Chance as a global firm regularly shares client and/or matter-related data among its different
offices and support entities in strict compliance with internal control policies and statutory requirements.
Incoming and outgoing email communications may be monitored by Clifford Chance, as permitted by applicable law and regulations.
For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer
to any Clifford Chance office.