Texts for Legal Referencing? (1 Viewer)

[Tabris]

Australian Guide to Legal Citation (2nd ed, Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc, Melbourne, 2003)


The text above is prescribed, but i have the Butterworths one By Anna Stuhmcke called Legal Referencing 2nd Edition (It is a little blue book with some gold on its front cover). Question is, can i use this isntead of the Australian guide to legal citation?

 

[hfis]

Re: Substituting books

I'm pretty certain that they both refer to the same system of citation, so you shouldn't have a problem. In any case, the MULR guide can be viewed online for free here.

 

[melsc]

Re: Substituting books

We use the Butterworths one as hfis said provided they use the same system you wont have a problem, just make sure, you don't want to be using them wrong system in an exam or assignment I was also told to just make sure you are consistant as well :uhhuh:

 

[Frigid]

Re: Substituting books

honestly, people, citation in an assignment is no biggie, and even less so in a written exam.

 

[melsc]

Re: Substituting books

They make it out to be a big deal my lecturer pointed out a difference between the citation we use and the citation used in the case we were analysing, and it was as simple of failing to put the name of the legislation in italics

I guess we are focusing on it a lot since its a part of our first test in week 4 :uhhuh:

 

[MiuMiu]

Re: Substituting books

Its no biggie when you're in third year Frigid and its something that is coming totally naturally by now, but when you're learning, it takes a bit of time to make sure you're doing it exactly right.

As hfis said, if its the same system, then it doesn't matter which book you get it out of, but just look closely and make sure its exactly the same cos its a bitch to lose marks on an otherwise perfect assignment just for failure to put in the right comma or whatnot.

 

[wheredanton]

Re: Substituting books

I have always relied on 'Effective Legal Research' by Neams and Coss. Mainly because the law school prefers a different type of oxford system (the 'note [5] at 415' method) than arts.

Everyone should be forced to learn both Harvard and oxford! I find both good for certain situations and I'm glad I was forced to write a major essay in Harvard, otherwise I would have never learnt!

 

[melsc]

Re: Substituting books

My school made us use Harvard and now I need to learn Legal for Law, Harvard for Criminology and APA for Psychology, I suppose they will come in use somewhere...

 

[MiuMiu]

Re: Substituting books

God I hate intext referencing.....it is ugly, annoying, and not thorough enough.

 

[wheredanton]

Re: Substituting books

I recon harvard is good for some essays where it's more about your ideas and what you think about the writer...essentially when you use less references. It's more efficient.

But if the essay is research intensive and you want to show how much research you have done oxford is the way to go.

I found that the essays I wrote in Harvard for Arts got better marks. Maybe because they were more to the point?

 

[MiuMiu]

Re: Substituting books

When I was doing my arts degree way back when I took a subject in the education faculty and had to do my first essay harvard style--such a culture shock.

 

[Frigid]

Re: Substituting books

Its no biggie when you're in third year Frigid and its something that is coming totally naturally by now, but when you're learning, it takes a bit of time to make sure you're doing it exactly right.

actually, i found it quite straightforward even as a first year. i recall that we spent no more than 1 class of Legal Research spent on citation.

it may come more naturally as you get through law school, but legal citation is not exactly rocket science. if one cannot remember the difference between parentheses and brackets, and what the order of the numbers mean, how can one cope with digesting the voluminous readings of law school?

i was not impliedly patronising the first years, if that's what you're getting at.

 

[MiuMiu]

Re: Substituting books

Im glad you found it so easy, Im trying to point out that many don't find it as easy.

You can't possibly compare getting the art of citation perfect with coping with the readings. They are two totally different things.

For some people it takes practice and its better to have the citation guide to refer to for your first few essays rather than just winging it and hoping you did it right.

 

[Frigid]

Re: Substituting books

You can't possibly compare getting the art of citation perfect with coping with the readings. They are two totally different things.

so you are saying that, balancing respective difficulty, objectively, it is invalid for me to say learning how to cite cases is easier than learning to cope with the massive amount of reading we get? i think it is a fair comparison - both are skills to be learnt in law school; with one, in my view, more difficult by far than the other. it's not apples and oranges.

 

[MiuMiu]

Re: Substituting books

Massive amounts of reading is about stamina and commitment. Learning to cite your work is about practice and getting it down to an art.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: Substituting books

Learning to cite your work is about practice and getting it down to an art.

Hmm, I think it's more about just learning to break it down into the various formula and then learning it. In a first year non-law essay, you'd really only be referencing articles and books - with books only having a few different things to learn (things for translation, editions, specific chapters with editors, etc...)

Then again, I've only had to do 3 styles of referencing; all of which were anally enforced, and I haven't done law yet.

I love referencing, though. I think it's fun to hear lecturers and tutors rant on about how x referencing is better and that 'you'd better get it right, or else!' They really should just say 'when you get your essay, sit down with the guide, and replace their example with your own'.

 

[Frigid]

Re: Substituting books

Massive amounts of reading is about stamina and commitment. Learning to cite your work is about practice and getting it down to an art.

so the former is mutually exclusive of continuous practice and is not "an art", as you so eloquently put it?

i don't think citation is that colourful; for if it was, it would be separated from legal research and writing, and made into its own subject.

it looks like you're trying to flog a dead cow here.

 

[santaslayer]

Re: Substituting books

citation should be banned. takes up too much time and effort. esp when ur inserting many ideas from different books within a few paragraphs...comparison of ideas ...bleh..

copyright is ghey...


melbourne guide was online years ago...

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: Substituting books

so the former is mutually exclusive of continuous practice and is not "an art", as you so eloquently put it?

i don't think citation is that colourful; for if it was, it would be separated from legal research and writing, and made into its own subject.

it looks like you're trying to flog a dead cow here.

Yeah, it's totally not an art at all, it's a matter of sitting down with the guide, and moulding your own references to the style of the examples given. Most bad referencing is just laziness -- look at your example, look at their example, match it EXACTLY, punctuation and everything.

citation should be banned. takes up too much time and effort. esp when ur inserting many ideas from different books within a few paragraphs...comparison of ideas ...bleh..

Citation is perfect for tightening up comparisons.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Substituting books

An interesting question is whether to follow tradition (and the High Court) and put the year of the statute in italics, or follow the rebel suggestions of Nemes & Coss and leave it unitalicised.

I mean, it may be more logical to leave it unitalicised, but I'm still following the HC thank you all the same.