i haven't blogged in almost a month now. fatherhood will do that to you.

the interim period hasn't changed the fact that some days at work are more taxing than others. i am continually reminded of how fortunate i am to be able to put my five years of legal education to good use. i derive great professional satisfaction whenever i am able to apply my finely honed legal acumen to live problems which are raised by my clients - it affirms a truth that i had, admittedly, often doubted while in law school, i.e. that all the hours of rigorous studying would eventually pay off.

three separate incidents today, that make the job worth doing.

#1 : i received a telephone call from a client who wished me to render some legal advice. the conversation went like this. as close to verbatim that i can remember (though my brain has probably purged the worst parts in some kind of primal self-sustaining measure.)

client : "i have a question for legal advice."

me : "yes?"

client : "i want to give this guy a fine."

me : "yes."

client : "so i type into the computer system he must get a fine. when it print out that time is a detention."

silence

me : "so what's your question?"

client : "so i type into the computer system he must get a fine. when it print out that time is a detention."

me : "yes, and what's your question?"

client : "i just tell you. i type into the computer system a fine, it print out he must start detention today."

me : "but what's the question? what do you want (our legal department) to do?"

client : "i want to know if it's wrong or correct."

me : "you want to give him a fine?"

client : "yes."

me : "and the order printed out says he is going to detention?"

client : "yes."

me : "i think that means it's wrong."

client : "so correct ah? nothing wrong?"

me : "no, i think it's wrong, not correct."

client : "it's wrong ah?"

me : "yes."

client : "why is it wrong? i want to know is it my fault or the computer's fault?"

me : "it's obviously your fault you bloody idiot. i'm not sure whose fault it is. because i wasn't there to see what you typed in."

client slams down phone.

one gets used to the morons that inevitably call up with moronic questions. on the rare occasion, though, one gets to interact with someone who is not just stupid, but who is crushingly, blindingly, stupid. then there are also those that are incredibly annoying. and those who are insufferably rude. this guy had all three characteristics, in spades. someone should place him in a zoo.


#2 : later on in the day, i was asked to approve the following charge. the offender had committed the offence, the particulars of which were detailed as follows : "he, at (place), from (date and time) to (date and time) until he was brought back, an offence is reasonable expected to know."

i dare even the engineers out there to make sense of that. i can just imagine the conversations they have in detention.

offender alpha : "i'm in here for drug consumption. you?"

offender in question : "i'm in here for until i was brought back, an offence is reasonable expected to know."

#3 : then there was this other charge. the offender, in hospital, was guilty of :

"misbehaving in ward 46. [he] entered the female patients' ward & jumped around in the ward. he also often went to the nurses' counter to play with the diet trolley"

mitigating factors : remorseful.

this one i did, eventually, approve. after all, the accused didn't just go to the nurses' counter to play with a trolley. he often did so - and repeat offenders are particularly undeserving of leniency.

maybe i should go off and do a phd.