Being so close to graduation really makes me reminisce about my time in law school. There were many tutors who helped mould my legal mind but if there was one tutor who tested my resolve, determination and perseverance.

The module was LAW311. It is criminal procedure and it was taught by the then head of program, Prof Ferlin. My batch was split into 3 tutorial groups and I was fortunate to be in the tutorial group that was taught by him. I am quite sure that some may not feel the same way because every class was really intense. Well for me in a good way, for those less prepared, I guess not.

This was the first time I had him as a tutor. I heard good things about him from a friend of mine who is practising law. She mentioned that he was one of the more popular tutors in Temasek Polytechnic where she was a student. Good thing I had my buddy Kester in the same tutorial group as well. Just to introduce briefly. Kester is like my conscience in law school. He would always do all his readings. By all, I mean all. Then he would discuss the case and its principles with me. At times he would ramble off some case and then I realised that while I covered the essential readings, he had already moved on to the additional readings. When I cleared the additional readings, he would highlight some recent case that followed the principle gleaned from the case mentioned in the study unit. I could not catch up with him. I did not have the time to clear so much even though I had the discipline to be prepared for every class.

However, preparation for Prof Ferlin’s LAW311 class was not about doing the readings listed in the study units. He would give us some news article that cropped up recently and we would discuss about it in class. The first time we did this I flopped so badly. Prof Ferlin would want the classroom to be mapped out in a semi-circular fashion. We could see him and he could see every student. Then he would ask someone for their opinion. In typical fashion, I would try to break the ice by volunteering to answer. My answers were horrendous according to his facial expression and his response. At times Kester would chip in only to also fail miserably. I am pretty sure most lessons I attempted to respond the most and most of the time my answers were not yet what Prof Ferlin wanted. In fact, once I was actually sick and I still volunteered my answers the most in class.

After the first lesson, Kester and I discussed our answers on the way home. We then made a pact to be better prepared for the second one. The second lesson came and we again did not give ideal answers. We started meeting an hour before class to discuss the topic he sent to the class for discussion. Then it became two and three hours earlier. I know some of my tutorial mates found the class stressful. There were times where class attendance was not as healthy as it should be. Some people just did not feel comfortable to be called out in class to answer questions. This class was extremely stressful because I usually had the answers for questions the tutors posed but for LAW311 I was missing more than I was hitting. And you know what? I loved it. It was like a challenge. Sometimes Kester and I would prepare for class for hours and once we are done one of us would say to the other,

“You know this will still not be enough and we will still kena shot down right?”

That was the moment I knew that I had the sadistic tendency of enjoying being shot down and yet coming back for more. Perhaps that was what I needed to have to be a lawyer. A really thick skin.

As the semester wore on, I felt I got better. I could somewhat spot the pitfalls that Prof Ferlin intentionally set up to try to see if we as a class were sharp enough. I remembered he once discussed a 1964 case referencing a principle from a 1980 case. I noticed it immediately and when he dramatically said that his previous batches could spot something that we could not, I told him that the cases were chronologically the other way around. That was my “boss” moment for the day.

I really wanted to do very well for LAW311. I think the faculty knows that criminal law is not my strongest aspect of law. I think I did as well as I could and should for my criminal law modules. However, as I reflect back on LAW311, I do not think that I really cared too much for the B+ that I obtained. I think the biggest thing that I learned was to keep trying. I do not think I was ever embarrassed when I was told by Prof Ferlin that I was wrong. Oh and he can be pretty dramatic when he tells you that you are wrong. He was an actor for crying out loud! The man has many talents and an IMDb page to boot. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2077327/

You know what? That did not matter. Being in upper management where I worked in the past meant that most of the time, I was the one dishing out the questions and deciding whether the answers were appropriate. Having the tables turned was actually refreshing. If I am going to do this for a living, I will need to stand up in court and make arguments. At times, the decision from the judge is a binary one. Which means that my arguments may or may not hold up in front of the court. The interesting thing is that Prof Ferlin also shared with the class how he too faced up to judges who did not agree with him. How the heck am I going to survive submitting my argument in front of a court when I cannot even handle answering questions in front of people who I am familiar with?

I know some of my friends in year 2 are going to embark on their LAW311 journey. I do not know if Prof Ferlin is still teaching any of the criminal law modules. If you want to build up your confidence, pray that you will get him as your tutor. If you want to fade into oblivion in class then pray otherwise.

Trust me when I say that I have never been so wrong in a class before LAW311. However, this only affirmed my belief that I had the right characteristics to make it as a lawyer.

 

Non desistas non exieris…

 

Yours sincerely,

Daryl