With these routines in my own daily life also come routines at work. I'm getting to know familiar faces not only of the volunteer lawyers and law students that come into the Centre on a weekly basis but also clients with special needs and circumstances. It is interesting how certain clients are so proactive about their cases, and will come in and ask time and time again for updates on the status of their application while others are more passive and wait for us to contact them if there is something we need to move the application along. It is inspiring to see these people that really are so involved and care so intensely about their issue and the work that we are doing for them. It gives me an extra push to but just that much more effort into the work that I do.
What was not so routine was going to a hearing at the Disputes Tribunal. The Disputes Tribunal is a subdivision of the District Court (the lowest level of court) in NZ. The parties involved are not allowed to bring an attorney or somebody to represent them. It is about the two conflicting parties sitting across from each other at a table, with the "referee" sitting at the head of the table. The burden of proof is just as high as it would be in the District Court, but the rules of evidence are relaxed. Each party is allowed to bring one "support person" and may also call a witness. My client brought her father as her witness and I came along as her support person since I'm not a "lawyer" yet, only a law student I was allowed in. I know that my client really appreciated my presence as her support, even though in the hearing I would not be able to speak (the "support person" is legitimately only there as moral support and nothing more). The goal of the Disputes Tribunal is to facilitate an open discussion between the two parties to encourage a formal negotiation and agreement on their own accord under the supervision of the referee. If they do not reach an agreement, however, the referee will decide the outcome. This outcome whether reached by the parties themselves or the referee is enforceable by the District Court. It's really like a way to conserve judicial resources. If an issue can be resolved this way, why have it go to trial? What actually happened in our case was that it was adjourned because of a procedural technicality. It was really neat though that even though we did not have the actual hearing, I was there to ensure that things went smoothly for my client and spoke up for her when the other party was stepping on my client's rights. I also did end up being able to speak in informal negotiations that we had at the table by permission of the referee since the actual hearing would take place at a later date. Once we left the room, the opposing party approached me and worked out informal negotiations to reach a middle ground on the issue because he was fairly heated and furious. I was fortunately able to calm him and facilitate a conversation between him and one of our lawyers. I hope I'll still be around in Wellington by the time the hearing gets rescheduled so I can see this through with her.
The irony of it all was that I felt more like a lawyer than ever that day, but the reason I had been allowed to attend the Disputes Tribunal hearing was the fact that I was not a lawyer, but a law student. All in a day's work.
No comments:
Post a Comment