Law Students - Chat Thread

Hi, I'm a new member of the Law Society thread and was wondering if I could get any help!

I am in the middle of writing my personal statement for Law (I hope it's not too late, I have re-sits I have been studying for) and I realised that I haven't mentioned the reasons why I want to study Law enough.

I know why, I'm just having a hard time putting it down onto paper. Any ideas?

I plan on sending my application off by mid-November and take the LNAT like a week after that (I still haven't booked a date, is there a long queue)

Thanks! I'm open to any suggestions! =)

Hey, for more replies, check out this thread: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1409333&page=19

It's more suitable for what you are asking.

Clifford Chance placement at the end of November, and Allen & Overy next Wednesday for drinks and lunch

Exciting times!

****ing international law with it's ****ing conventions.

*****ng Labour Law essay

Anyway, I've got a moot tomorrow, so I should probably go to bed. 'Night everyone.

Good luck.

Thanks.

Oh, and thanks for inviting me to join the society too. I wouldn't have had the sense to do it on my own otherwise...

So have you got a partner for the moot? Which side are you acting as?

Well...yes and no. I'm the junior appellant, but 2/4 people go through (regardless of whether the appeal is allowed) so really I'm still competing against the senior appellant as it's an individual moot.

The case isn't too bad - it's a tort one. A guy goes to a GUM clinic and is diagnosed with HIV, consultant tells the guy's GP (who is also the guy's wife's GP) but the guy refuses to discuss it with his wife. Wife goes to the GP to say she wants to try for kids but the GP doesn't tell her about her husband's HIV. She has unprotected sex with him and contracts HIV.

At first instance, the doctors are held liable (negligence), and the grounds of appeal are:

(i) Consultant didn't owe the wife a duty of care
(ii) If a duty of care was owed by the doctors, providing the husband with advice was enough to discharge their duty - there was no requirement for them to breach confidentiality and tell the wife that he had HIV

I'm dealing with the second point. It strikes me as strange that in the three moots I've looked at, the junior's point seems more difficult (even though the senior is, I thought, "like a QC&quot...