I was granted the opportunity to undertake a mini-pupillage at Alex Chang & Co. (“ACC”). While a fortnight may seem inconsequential in the grand trajectory of a legal career, this experience proved profoundly transformative.

It is important for me to chronicle the first two weeks of learning.

I arrived expecting to engage with live cases, only to be humbled when my first task involved drafting an appellant’s written submission for an internal moot against a fellow pupil. It dawned on me how much knowledge from my Certificate in Legal Practice studies had eroded (returned to the lecturers without a refund)—and, crucially, how deficient my practical legal skills were.

Understanding the Concept of Thinking on Your Feet

From the outset, my grasp of foundational legal principles proved to be a little rusty. However, the greater challenge lay in mastering seemingly simple yet critical abilities. During progress reviews with Mr Alex Chang and Miss Lim Wen Mi, it became evident that I hesitated far longer than my peers when responding to questions.

In litigation, the capacity to think swiftly and articulate responses precisely is indispensable. Each pause or falter conjured the imagined rebuke of a judge: “Case dismissed.” I grew to appreciate the urgency of processing information rapidly, structuring thoughts coherently, and replying with accuracy—a skill as vital in court.

The Importance of Verbatim Transcription

Mr Alex Chang highlighted another issue: my tendency to misinterpret questions. He illustrated this with an analogy: “If I ask for an aircraft carrier and you give me an aircraft, is it the same?” This exposed my habit of paraphrasing rather than repeating queries verbatim, leading to inaccuracies.

Despite prior internships in two other firms for 10 months, where this issue was flagged, I have yet to rectify it. At ACC, the stakes crystallised. When tasked with repeating questions verbatim, I stumbled—a grave concern for a budding litigator, where precise recall of testimonies underpins effective cross-examination. Observing Mr Alex Chang confront witnesses with their exact words, leaving no ambiguity, underscored the non-negotiable nature of this skill.

To address this, Mr Alex Chang introduced transcription exercises, later testing my recall without notes. This exposed my weaknesses, compelling me to adopt his advice: focus on the “intent” behind each question and answer. Mastery here, I realised, is not optional. Hard as I will try, to achieve this.

Understanding the Purpose of Proceedings

My struggles extended to document review. While preparing written submissions, I passively skimmed the court documents, missing critical facts—a “mindless reading” approach that yielded little. Miss Lim emphasised reading with purpose: “Before delving into material, understand the why.” Only by anchoring my analysis to the proceeding’s objective could I identify relevant evidence.

This redefined my approach to legal research. Instead of hunting blindly for a “needle in a haystack,” I learned to align findings with the case’s core intent, ensuring relevance and precision.

Conclusion

This mini-pupillage, under the candid guidance of Mr Alex Chang and Miss Lim, laid bare some of my weaknesses—and the path to addressing them. Their mentorship, though unflinching, has recalibrated my understanding of litigation’s demands.

I am deeply grateful to ACC for this opportunity. The lessons, though arduous, are invaluable. Mr Alex Chang and Miss Lim’s willingness to challenge me illuminated some issues I must conquer. While two weeks may seem fleeting, the skills honed here will resonate across decades. As the adage goes: “The best preparation for tomorrow is doing your best today.”

Lew Rong Hua
2025