Handy 60-second explainers cover legal basics — from contract to criminal law
For aspiring lawyers, nothing beats classic case law to spice-up often bland black letter law.
But as law students struggle to make brain space for the reams of legal knowledge coming their way, many soon find that memorising seemingly endless case facts and court decisions is no easy task.
Offering her solution to this textbook law student struggle is Leticia Santoro, a first year law student at King’s College London, who uses TikTok to create 60-second case law explainers. Joining the new wave of legally-minded social media influencers, Santoro, whose amassed nearly 50,000 followers on the popular short video-sharing app, covers essential legal basics — from contract to criminal law.
Speaking to Legal Cheek, Santoro, an aspiring solicitor, reveals her short video summaries began as a personal revision tool. She explains:
“The reason I started filming them was because I learn and memorise things most efficiently when I say them, recording myself reading my notes is something I started doing during my A-Levels. TikTok has a maximum of 60 seconds per video, so I also use it to train myself to be very succinct when I explain myself which seems to be a desirable skill amongst lawyers.”
Santoro now hopes her videos can educate TikTok’s younger user base, particularly “GCSE/A-Level students who want to get an idea of what studying law at university entails”. However, her videos tackling sex and consent in case law are “aimed towards the general public for raising awareness about our rights which we don’t get taught in school,” she adds.
With exam season well underway, here is a handy round-up of the Santoro’s best TikTok case law explainers.
R v Stone & Dobinson
what are your thoughts on this case? It’s R v Dobinson 1977 if you want to know more xx
R v Lipman / R v Kingston
The law on intoxication is A LOT more complicated though
R v Blaue
Do you agree with this rule? The case is R v Blaue ##law
R v Brown / R v Wilson
The case is R v Brown 1994 if you want to know more xx
R(F) v DPP
R v McNally
R v BM
The case is BM 2018 if you want to know more xx
Chen v Home Secretary / C-86/12 Alopka
I explained this so badly
Troughton v MPC
United Biscuits (UK) Ltd (No. 2) (aka the Jaffa Cakes case)
such an important debate xx
Stilk v Myrick
The case is Stilk v Myrick 1809 if you want to know more x
For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub