i have four pairs of black heels for court, all of which seem to spend some portion of their life, in swift and continuous rotation, at the cobblers. this is because they are all stiletto-heels and the thin rubber heel-grip gets worn down or ripped off in the pavement cracks on my way to court and then i have to spend all day walking around on my toes so as not to go clop-clop-clopping all over the state court (which, unlike the family court, does not have soft, carpetted floors.) i ran two pairs down this week alone, and it was excellent timing that the judge stood the case down till net week, not only because i would otherwise have had to go out and buy a new pair of black heels, but because i’m just at the point where i have run out of white shirts and would have had to iron a bunch tonight if we were going to continue tomorrow.

***

things i have learnt: in school they spend far too much time teaching you how to be SUBTLE AND CUNNING with clever witnesses who will niftily sidestep your best-laid traps with EVEN MORE SUBTLE AND CUNNING answers, but what they never teach you is what to do when you get obtuse and oblivious witnesses that don’t fall into any traps because they’re too dumb to. the next time someone gets me to play a witness for their trial advo exam, i will be a very slow-witted and uncooperative one indeed, and call it preparatory for real life.

***

i am also boggled that people would happily believe anyone in a turban must be the Great Davinder himself but then walk past the Great Subhas in the corridor oblivious, and when i poke them in the ribs and say wow did you see who that was, go, huh whozzat? and when i tell them they go, really meh? doesn’t look like. this makes me feel very sad for so many reasons. maybe we need cigarette cards of “famous lawyers of our time”: i should like to design a set!

***

as i watch the trial unfold i am also quietly asking myself: do i see myself mirrored in the prosecutors or the defence counsels? and i find my allegiance and sympathy flickering throughout. for me there is for me meaning and value to the work on either side of the crim process. here is a case theory: one side tries to prove it and the other side tests it. if a theory hangs together properly and can plausibly explain away the evidence that does not fit the theory, and also holds up to testing by the end of the trial, it prevails, and a conviction/acquittal takes place. at least, i like that mathematical elegance of the principle, anyway.

***

on the subject of celebrity lawyers, when law students gawk at them openly in the courthouse, or nudge each other and whisper, it must get annoying and embarrassing for them, much like celebrities going into a restaurant and having waiters ask for autographs. (starstruck as i am, i’ve never yet gone up to anyone in the bar room to ask for an autograph!) perhaps the thing to do is to go up to them and smile (and try not to curtsey), and introduce yourself properly and say (clearly, and not gushingly or mumblingly, girl!) that as someone aspiring to the criminal bar you have (naturally!) followed their career with great interest and admiration and are honoured to meet them, would that be any better, or would that just mawkish and sickening and too ghastly?

***