Indifference

I remember feeling exasperated standing at the back door the newsroom building while have a smoke, several weeks into the Manila inquest (or several weeks after the conclusion of the inquest - I can't really remember), saying to an editor who was also having smoke, that the media attention seems too much. He paused and said to me that Hong Kong people value life. I still remember the expression on his face, and the hesitation before he pulled a drag.

Now, the pro-democracy protests are in full swings again. I can imagine the frustration of the moderates, the pro-Beijing people and the indifferent having their lives disrupted. Throughout, I believe that freedom of expression and the right to protest stand. But at times, the balance between these rights and the rights of others shifted a little. At the end of the day, excessive force by the police will always be uncalled for in a civic society. Yet, when I see comments on social media about police "brutality" for throwing a few punches, all of a sudden it looks to me like a bunch of naive, narrow-minded, spoiled and self-centred kids talking. Sure it is not right that several police officers gang up on a protestor and have a one-sided punch on and such actions should be accountable, but "brutality"?  A few punches is not brutal; machete-clad attack is. Have these people ever, ever felt the impact of "brutality"? Hardly anyone from Hong Kong, on social media at least, reacted with the same kind of anger to events that happen elsewhere in the world. There was no mention of the beheadings which, chances are, they have heard but shrugged with the kind of aloofness that demanded nothing more than the "oh my God that's horrible". This is not a criticism to residents of a particular city, but just an observation of indifference to humanity outside of one's immediate surroundings.

I hate to agree with older people who do not believe in human rights or democracy for that matter, but people in this small city can be incredibly small-minded. So, what next? The media's focus on the barricades ? (because the tear gas was used once and so editors think all subsequent protests will need to be monitored closely!) Its focus on thugs? Oh wait, no, it's gonna be the sacking of the officers involved in the punch-ons, their CVs and wives and kids.

The highs and the lows

I was thoroughly thrilled to find out that my latest Caribbean dude won his appeal. When I first got the lead to follow up on it, I thought it was gonna be one of those time wasters' case. Then I spoke to the partner who seemed genuinely upset on the phone and okay with fees. Then I struggled to find out the procedures, the story and directions to the detentions centre (or so called Immigration Removal Centre with super dooper security like multiple security screening (frisking) and fingerprint scans).

Never had an asylum interview unnerved me that much, with the vague answers and an issue from the previous interview record that I (arguably) should have spotted. Such dig-your-own-grave performance that I now know I can't blame him for.

Weeks leading up to Christmas stressing over getting evidence together with a bunch of bureaucratic barriers, and having to shout down the phone at a nurse to get what I wanted. All of this probably comes down to a lack of experience.

The (fairly) junior barrister had high praise which I am pleased about. Of course he needs to suck up to his paymaster, no doubt about that. But none of the other barristers has ever said that. Well also, he was speaking to a consultant who tends to be experienced, without realising the work behind the scene.

Just over a year ago, I was astounded by the level of responsibility that I was given. I never thought it was because I was special or particularly bright. Alarm bells were ringing because I thought it was irresponsible for such matters to be delegated to me. It seemed to me it was more to do with cheap labour.

Three offices and two new bosses later (over the last 3 months), my work is once again being amended and approved somewhat properly (albeit with some schizophrenic variation). This smaller environment compared to the last is much more peaceful, slightly more trusting and less "you gotta cover your back (even among your colleagues and your seniors!)". And you wonder why law firms are so big on teamwork: it's because they realise that their culture is the exact opposite, regardless of how they promote/market themselves to be.

I used to think kiss-ass staff are bloody annoying and I despise them for their tendency to (attempt to) step all over you to get ahead (or at the very least to cover their own backside). It's one thing to be competitive, but another to lack human decency especially when most people who do that have nothing else to show for save for the mini skirts and three-inch makeup.

Now I see it a little differently: it's all about surviving and reducing the number of times you get shouted at (or reduced to a tiny, tiny, insignificant and easily replaceable person). Slow and lacking insight? Sure. It's a blessing and a curse that my previous supervisors to date (save for the ones at my first couple of bar jobs) saw me as someone who was committed, responsible, not too dumb and has integrity.

But none of these things matters. It's all about catching up to bosses; schizophrenic patterns and ride the waves when you can spot them.

Humans are innately evil, selfish, greedy and revengeful morons. If I had to put up with that shit, then I'll make sure that you do. Anyone who believes otherwise is a moron.

I never realised I could annoy others in the workplace this damn much until now.

A few days ago, I borrowed a stapler from this lady sitting next to the pigeonholes and where the post is done. Letter and cheque in hand, I walked a couple of steps towards her, grabbed the stapler in the other hand and mumbled "sorry can I borrow this". By the time I finished my brief sentence, the stapler was already back on her desk. She turned around, looked at me with a creepy grin, took the stapler and put it on the other side of her desk against the wall.

Earlier that day, I strolled to the main office with a green file in hand. Inside is my resignation letter and a couple of other things. As I went up the lift, my heart was pounding and I was thinking shit he's not even going to be there. There he was, zooming out of his office to speak to his secretary (? accounts person? paralegal?) and I said good morning. After he was done with his orders, he said "hi I want to introduce you to our manager". I smiled to both and said "we have met". As he said "can you go speak to him", I stopped him and said I need to speak to you first. He paused and asked "before you have chat with him?" So I followed him into his office and said here's my resignation. He was shocked and he muttered "you have found a new job. That's it?" I can see the numerous streams of thoughts racing his head: why so sudden, why the half-ass reason and what about my old boss who is his consultant.

His reaction made me decide to skip the Christmas party. Much rather not sit across the dinner table seeing him twitch at me, or desperately wanting to find out more about what's going which I would either lie to his face or evade.

He has made work life in the last month and a half more difficult than I have ever experienced. The shouting, the orders, the virtual electronic tagging in the form of an excel time sheet, the overreaction to printing getting sent to the wrong office inadvertently and the multiple speeches in his attempt to put me in my place.

This professional world is small, and as much as I would stay far far away from his firm from now, I am bound to run into people that I met there at some point. I am not thrilled that I am leaving on such nasty terms, and how much I feel like a fly that he wants to slap away, but hopefully the only people that are cross with me are him and the woman with the stapler.

Oh and the other day when I told my old boss I had a scream-off with the lady in the our new office who apparently has been given the reins to whip the juniors including me, she said "good, don't put up with it".

Once I got the ball rolling with my "up yours" resignation, avalanche came and my old boss gave the same "up yours" termination. Rumours (from her and a middleman) have it that Mr Control Freak was going to give us the boot. Had I not beat my manager/boss to it, I would have had a stern warning form the manger coming.

So now I have just over a week of loss of income, but such is the price of a sweet vindication, and I get to spend some time to take care of cases and people to ensure the next transition will not turn into the same kind of flop. Of course the market is tough and 5000+ lawyer wannabes are churned out from the mind-numbing LPCs every year. But from our meeting/interview (in front of my old boss) and his comments, it was obvious that what he wants is a cheap caseworker who can do everything and who he does not have to invest in training, especially in an area of law that he has no interest in and clients he does not want to see in his office (cos they don't wear suits/ethnic/illegal/(insert his thought bubble)).

What I take away from this is the running of a commercial firm with a tiny office, big Central London ego, West End identity crisis and the "lawyers are here for your money not to help you" reality.

P.S. 117 firms face imminent closure as a result of the insurance fiasco. Trust my luck to find myself in this just over a year after graduation.

Office politics. Hierarchy. The kind of environment where merit is almost synonymous to favouritism (plus billing), and here, throw in the pretty good looks.

Must be my lack of experience in office politics in such environment. Well I was either the pet or indifferent and had no reason to be more involved apart from getting on with what I was paid to do.

Down under, it is about fair go. Of course there is the unspoken nepotism, networking and private school alumni doing business with their own kind. But at the very least, it is not blatantly displayed. Then in the tiny so-called autonomous territory wedged between China and the sea, the biggest banks hired the Chinese princelings without publicity or criticism until they got blasted recently. This, even among law firms, is nothing new either.

The trouble with law, the legal system and legal education is that they present themselves as the ideal, all about justice, procedural and substantive fairness and the rule of law. But the reality is that it is about business, money, recourses and contacts. So many more people work in commercial law than the idealistic poorly paid areas of law. So why then are criminal law and constitutional law compulsory among six areas? Even in courtrooms, judges show a degree of deference to certain barristers they are meant to rule over. And of course, there is promotion within the judiciary.

The moral of this rant would be: don't tell your kids or younger siblings or in fact anyone to be a lawyer; don't let your new boss become your old boss' boss, and don't let those who want to get everybody's skin to come even half a metre to you. And treat extensive discussion on rectifying defect in title as a sign that this is a very wrong place to be.

At times of adversity, we try to rationalise the situation. We wonder how it happened, what led to it and how we got here. This is how we make sense of the world. But certain things, like accidents, are incapable of being rationalised. We want to feel that we have some kind of control in an unpredictable world, and we attempt to attribute meanings to random events.

At what point do we retreat to accepting it as what it is. At what point do we fight on to get to the bottom of something, even if it is not your war to fight.

Expectations breed disappointments. Nobody in this world owes you the time of the day. Some people are nice, but most people are not. Even priests, preachers and judges are incentivised by promotion.

Sometimes you hit a bump on the road. You get out, you check that the wheels are fine and you carry on. Other times, irrationally, you think "damnit I should have taken a different exit". It doesn't always make sense to find someone or something to blame, in fact, most of the time it doesn't. Blaming someone or something is like masking your own incompetence and your inability to navigate or survive in your environment. (Hello employment tribunal 101). But however illogical, one just needs to park it somewhere; it's a matter of self-preservation.  When you can't park it, the thought goes round and round and round in your head, until you run out of reasons, until it exhausts you, until it puts you to sleep.

Another day, another year.

It has never mattered any less if anyone remembers, who remembers and who doesn't.

By force of habit and the indoctrination with cakes and gifts that we are led to believe such is worthy of celebration.

So much effort and planning have gone into ensuring smoother sailing and a less bumpy road ahead, but the ship is sinking. The mind is inevitably filled with "what ifs" and "could haves" that drag down any uplifts in spirit.

A wonderful year ahead? I have many doubts.

At what point does mutual good faith become blind faith?

At times over the past year before all hell broke loose, there was a voice at the back of my head saying "this is a bad idea". Other times, it was the savaging of damages left behind by others who got where I wish I am by possibly nothing more than sheer luck.

People have come and go, for better or for worse. I have always believed that such environment was fraught with dangers. This was even before I committed to this. I have anticipated all kinds of problems that would arise before 1 Nov but this was not one of it. No one really anticipated this. To an extent, this was anticipated and as such measures were put into place to avoid this consequence but the unforeseen delay and incompetence, so I have been told, contributed to this consequence that hundreds in the profession have found themselves in but the professional body has provided no assistance.

The professional press coverage of this is disappointing. The editorial is too lazy to present voice of those affected. It chooses to speak to an advisor for those affected instead. The rest of the profession not affected by this because their firms avoided it on the basis of size and the commercial viability that comes with it as a customer, has no interest and only utters a few words of sympathy, not camaraderie. Well, they don't have to be. It's like an entrepreneur turned FTSE CEO who doesn't have to care about the small FTSE-listed wannabes. But the difference is that certain areas of law are considered bread and butter while others can only command a certain level of fees on the lower end of the spectrum. So how is it that big firms seek someone passionate about law when the less profitable areas are clearly law as well, and if anything, the less commercial areas. Yet none of the big guys from the big firms have anything to say in public. (Whereas when it come to legal aid, many who don't practise in that area have a lot to say. Why? Barristers are vocal, and many of them make at least of their living out of it.)

Let's face it, a lot of lawyers out there are shit. They have no interest in keeping up to date; no interest in doing the right thing and shouldn't have qualified in the first place. But surely when insurance is a requirement, the regulator should have more teeth, through black letter regulations or soft power, to persuade the insurers with their commercial interest to do the right thing, rather than basing their models on legacy claims and not recent records. Well unless the regulator is dead set on putting small firms out of business (but surely this is not the case when it is pro-consumer rights an pro-competition). How exactly are insurers well place to assess risk when they have vested commercial interests? Who else are professionals meant to turn to if not their professional body?

No amount of venting will change this situation (unless someone gets a dime every time I vent). If all that can be done has been done, there is nothing else to do but to carry on and reassess at every turn.