Armed in my black gown with a thick red law book in my right hand, I entered. There, 18 pairs of eyes looked at me curiously and somewhat sceptically.
This week I had a very special gig for a unique company. And they did not make it easy for me. Their questions were extremely interesting, critical and entertaining. This time it was not a court I had to convince or a group of entrepreneurs who wanted to know the best practices of my profession. I found myself in a class full of today's youth.
My son is in the last class of primary school. The final tests are over. Parents may come and talk about their profession. It was my honour this week to talk about how you become a lawyer, how the court works, why there are judges and law books, and how to resolve arguments. And the best part was that the students wanted to reenact a court case with each other. In their own gowns, of course.
Of course there were the standard questions: How to defend a criminal as a lawyer? Whether I had ever represented a famous person? Had I also ever been threatened? What is the point of the gown? Which case had impressed me the most? And I also had questions for them: what do they think about quarrels and what do they think is a good way to resolve them? They had some pretty good thoughts on that.
And then came the highlight of the morning. They were introduced to the concept of a case study. That one involved a boy who had stolen wireless earphones from his boss, had been caught doing so, admitted guilt, then a classmate spread evil rumours about him within the village. The charge against the classmate was defamation. What did the groups of public prosecutors, victims, lawyers (3!) and judges (4!) dressed in children's gowns with befits think? Incidentally, the messenger, the press and the court clerk were also eager, articulate and in the right party order.
Has the offence charged been proved? Has the offence been proved? Is the accused guilty? Are there mitigating circumstances? Above all, where does freedom of expression end? And may it be restricted once insult, libel or even defamation occurs? After careful consideration, the penalty for the imaginary suspect was remarkably high, and during the evaluation round, all (!) schoolchildren also personally maintained that insulting, slandering and putting others in a bad light really should not be allowed.
I am under no illusion that occasional fights in the schoolyard are now a thing of the past. But how wonderful it was to experience so much youthful curiosity and enthusiasm about how our legal system works.