Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 05/26/17 in all areas

  1. 40 likes
    Yes, your girlfriend is a bitch and you're better off without her. You asked the wrong question. Does it really matter whether this is some extraordinary opportunity that comes along once in a lifetime, rather than a merely decent opportunity that happens to suit you well? Is that really what matters? Like, you can justify ending your relationship for the former but not the later? If your girlfriend is telling you to leave by Friday if you won't stay with her, there's no future there that you want. And I don't know if you need further motivation at this point, but small town girls will definitely drop their panties easily for the new lawyer in town. Hell, their mothers will make sure they look extra easy before sending them out to meet you. Just sayin. Good luck.
  2. 33 likes
    Wow guys. So, update: took the job and got kicked out tonight. The hometown in question is 90K-100K in population. I am, unfortunately, a heterosexual male.
  3. 32 likes
    I think this ties into discussions had earlier about whether criminal defence is welcoming to women, etc. Here is a classic example of a male criminal defence lawyer who can come across as progressive and empathetic on a host of issues but then talks about women as "small town sampler platters" being "easy and dropping their panties" for any old male lawyer. And to say you would say this in a professional office setting? Now imagine being a female articling student or junior lawyer working with a few guys like this and not being able to say anything, or having three male co-counsel like this. That's what it's like to be a female defence lawyer and sometimes it gets really tiresome having to hear this crap because it's a reminder that our profession is still an old boys' club.
  4. 27 likes
    If you want the job then take the job. It's a good offer and it sounds like you have a shot at being happy there. Sorry about the girlfriend. That ultimatum crap is juvenile and mean. It's your heart in play, so your call, but I think your brain is probably the one with the better plan here. (Diplock: the idea is to raise the bar for dialogue among our colleagues here, not to lower it.)
  5. 24 likes
    Shush. Stop trying to derail this thread!
  6. 22 likes
    June 9, 2017 edition: Shopify is seeking a "commercial lawyer who can get shit done", and a criminal defence firm in Ottawa advertises "crappy pay" (to start). I like this idea of the ORs unleashed, without editorial restrictions. "Does anyone have a goddamn will for Jane Capet of Haileybury? I swear to god if I have to deal with this family through an intestacy process I am applying to that posting in Iqaluit" "MUNCHAUSEN MELDRUM LLP would like to congratulate our former partner, Ed Papelew, on starting his own practice and taking half our clients you backstabbing bald ingrate" "Need an expert to sign off on your pre-drafted report? Sure, what the hell, we'll do it. Getahun says it's OK, right?" "The Toronto Lawyers Feed the Hungry Program thanks Brathwaite Rexroth LLP for sending three articling students and one of their 40 associates to the meal on February 9. Nice turnout, guys."
  7. 22 likes
    Mostly because I love talking about myself, but maybe because three stories about lawyers, small towns, and relationships will be useful to someone, here is the story of my adult love-life: Relationship #1. She was also a lawyer. We met during articling. She was the one who got the job in a small town many hours away from the city we lived in. I had no interest in moving to a small town, but when my gf started applying to this small town I figured "well, okay, I guess we can do long distance for awhile until she gets another job back in the city". GF said in no uncertain terms that if we were going to continue I had to move with her to the small town. I did, and got a decent job in private practice there. GF then dumped me two weeks after I arrived. Lesson? Ultimatums are not a good sign in a relationship, whether you give in to them or not. Relationship #2. She was a teacher. I met her several months after breaking up with #1 (though she was still in the small town, which was awkward). At first she was a teacher on a reserve 4-5 hours away, but then she got a job in another small town about an hour away (partially to be closer to me, mostly because it was a better job). Her long-term ambition though was to move back to her home province. In the mean time I was offered a good Crown job in yet another small town, this time about 7 hours away. I asked her to come with me, she declined, and we broke up. No hard feelings there though. Lesson? Sometimes choosing a career move over a relationship is okay. Relationship #3. I was now a Crown. I meet another girl who lives about an hour and a half from me. Things are going good, and she gets a job now in the same small town. We get engaged. Three days before the wedding I am offered a near-dream job in a whole other province. I ask the future-Mrs-MP if she would be willing for us to move, and she says yes. Lesson? She was the right one. If she had said no I would have turned that offer down, no questions.
  8. 21 likes
    Ok, just so I'm clear on the resolution we've reached: 1. Diplock, don't sexually harass your female colleagues; it doesn't matter if you think it's your birthright (this includes talking about their panties, not just butt-pinching!). 2. Providence, don't try to feminize your male colleagues by policing their language (it's perceived as shrill. No one likes a hall monitor). 3. OP, the consensus seems to be that you're not giving off any gay vibes. Personally, I think that you're trying too hard. 4. Artsydork, OP's penis was always part of the equation, implicitly. It seems clear from the facts that it's good not great (not especially long, but thicker than most). I'm open to correction on this point. 5. The majority has found that the OP has tired of this woman's company. A vocal minority find her to be a nag. There are those who have reserved judgement on this matter, out of an abundance of caution that, in my opinion, has no place on the internet. 6. Kurrika likes his ladies to glisten. Personally, I prefer sweaty feet as it allows me to track their movements. My floor at home is covered in talcum powder. 7. Lawful wins the prize for reading the OP (an unnecessary, but traditional approach). In conclusion: it will be a delightful romp when the OP's soon-to-be ex-girlfriend tells her friends that she dumped him and he now lives with his parents.
  9. 19 likes
    I should also add that I don't think there is an equivalent of this kind of thing for women. There is a centuries-long history of men objectifying women, feeling entitled to sex with them etc. which has had serious consequences for women. Women haven't been in the workplace with men that long, and there were and still are systemic challenges with sexual harassment etc. specifically of women in the workplace. We saw in the US Presidential election how sexist stereotypes are still very much a thing. Men don't face these issues in the same way. Also, specifically in criminal defence, there are issues with the macho culture and whether the profession is hospitable to women. Sure, there may be some women who objectify men from time to time but it does not have the same impact or consequences. Some women also do it to try to fit in with what they see the men already doing. So it's a bit of a cop-out for a man not to be aware of this backdrop and to fall back on "Women do it too."
  10. 19 likes
    I don't disagree that women can be crass too - lawyers or not. But there is a difference in being crass about YOURSELF and talking about what you did or would like to do sexually, etc. and in what you said. What I took objection to wasn't that it was about sex or it was crass, but that a woman who had a disagreement with the OP or treated him poorly was a "bitch" and, more critically, that you assumed that because OP is a male lawyer, women will be rushing to have sex with him and their mothers will be encouraging it once he gets an hour outside of Toronto, just because he is a lawyer and male! You don't know if he is attractive, interesting, treats women well etc. We just know that women (and I believe you may have called them "girls?") will throw themselves at him automatically and will have no standards other than materialism. It was the sexism in the assumptions rather than the use of language or the fact it was about sex that troubled me.
  11. 18 likes
    Yesterday I read Diplock talking about this forum getting the professional side of him. Today I read Diplock talking about dropping panties. Stay classy my friend.
  12. 17 likes
    As a labour lawyer at a big company, I get issues relating to sexual harassment across my desk regularly. If someone said out loud in the workplace, anything resembling "small town girls will definitely drop their panties easily for the new lawyer in town", they would likely be fired right away. We have a zero tolerance policy for that type of garbage in our workplace. Women deserve a workplace which is safe and respectful. So Diplock might say stuff like that at his office, but you shouldn't at mine.
  13. 16 likes
    I'm an incoming 2L. Like DenningSkiTrip, I struggled academically in 1L, particularly in the first semester. It's tough. And it should be. Anecdotally, all of my friends found 1L difficult, without exception, but most only felt comfortable admitting so in private. Everyone is stressed out; everyone is worried about something or other; and (almost) everyone is sleep deprived. And it is rarely worth belabouring. You'll only make yourself and others miserable, as Hoju cautions. I was miserable, for too long and for reasons under my control. Try to embrace 1L as a learning experience and also as the tremendous privilege that it is. Yes, it's hard. It's law school. It's also an opportunity afforded to few and those at Toronto are among the luckiest of those few. Your classmates will note and admire your grace (really -- strive to be that person before class who lifts up others with your attitude). 7 Ways my grades increased two letter grades, on average, between first and second semester. (soon to be featured on Buzzfeed) 1. There's no magic formula, but there is a formula. It is important to reflect on what works for you. I read Getting to Maybe in 0L and forgot it all just as quickly. Except for one general observation: the law, generally, and success in law school, specifically, is about coping with ambiguity. It may sound like a trivial observation, but it's helpful to grasp and remember. The ambiguity that characterizes law school makes it difficult to offer general advice, except in the abstract. You will have to determine what works for you and the follow six factors are worth considering before 1L, again 1 month before exams, and once more afterwards. 2. Know how you learn. Second guess how you think you learn. I entered law school thinking that I was a visual learner. Wrong, oops! I'm not. Who knew? It was a long-held belief and who's to question one of those when you have to read 80 more pages for class tomorrow and it's 11pm and last class your property professor cold called you and asked you whether you own your body and you said sure you're in possession of your own body and then they spent five minutes rambling about hunting foxes and you think they mentioned slavery and your exam isn't for another month, anyway. I'm a verbal learner. How did I realize that? Well, the 2+ hour long phone calls that I have with my best friend who's enrolled in a doctoral program about all manner of intellectual topics, including the law, was my first clue. That realization changed how I approached material in the second semester. Rather than writing and rewriting my notes, I bought a huge 6 foot by 4 foot whiteboard and stuck it up on the wall in my apartment. I bought all manner of colourful whiteboard pens (because fun!) and did my best impression of a sophist. Sure, my neighbours think I talk to myself but as far as I'm concerned they're getting a free legal education. 3. Practice recall, not retention. In first semester, I read, summarized, re-read, remembered, and then felt good about myself and watched the Real Housewives. Wrong. So many students sit in the library and read MAPs they've created or, worse, created by someone else. Wrong. Why? The exam isn't a cloze test with paragraphs of text asking you to fill in the missing words. "The test for adverse possession is that the possession is open, notorious, BLANK, BLANK, and BLANK." Uh, no. So why would you study for the exam as if it was structured in that manner? You need to recall information and then apply it. Re-reading your MAP trains you to do neither. Going over the material again and again won't work. It's not even difficult to revise in that way. If the way that you are studying isn't challenging you, then you're not learning and won't develop or improve the skills that are actually tested. Highlighting, underlining, and stuff like that is equally useless and self-deceptive in my experience. It's short-term feel good but without long-term benefits. How do you recall? A few ways. You can take a blank piece of paper, pick a testable topic, and then force yourself to write out what you know. While it is helpful to jot down big ideas related to a topic, it is better to write in bullet points (rather than full sentences) and to focus on the relationships between ideas, moving from low to high resolution concepts (see #5). Refine the way you articulate a topic. This confers two benefits: first, it hones your thinking (language mirrors thought) and second, it builds memory pathways for your exam answers (speech/efficiency on test day). Alternatively, try teaching verbally (this was my preferred method). How do you apply? Oh my god. Practice tests. They're available in large green reference books behind the desk at Bora Laskin. Large green books that, in the little time I spent in the library, spent all of their time on the shelves. Maybe students use them. I saw little evidence that they do. I certainly did not use them in my first semester, despite reading countless times online from law students the importance of doing so. There are many reasons I ignored this advice: I was behind in readings, I struggled to understand the material, and I feared looking at an exam (they are intimidating) and feared even more attempting and failing to write one. This was irrational behaviour. Mimic it at your peril. The law is a tool and the exam evaluates your capacity to wield it. Many students could write an excellent exam but-for the timed conditions. Fewer can write an excellent exam under the time limit. Writing practice tests is the best way of improving your speed without sacrificing your quality. Don't take for granted the importance of practicing applying the law to fact patterns. Do it under timed conditions. What got you a high score on the LSAT? I will bet you wrote many practice tests. Do the same here. Compare answers with a few trusted friends. In second semester, I read dozens of past exams and wrote at least ten practice exams for each course. I also referred to past exams at other law schools as "starter" exams, saving my own professor's for later in the semester (1 month before, or so, depending on the number available). UBC makes its past exams available online for the public. 4. Contextualize your learning. 1L students often comment that at some point the law "clicks" for them. Others experience a gradual accumulation of knowledge. In both cases, my view is that these students are partly referring to their ability to contextualize what they learn. Once you can do this, you become much more efficient in terms of how you read, study, learn, and reason. It "clicked" for me in February. I would have preferred October, but c'est la vie. Understanding is referential. For example, "if the known relation between the variables consists of a table of corresponding values, the graph consists only of the corresponding set of isolated points. If the variables are known to vary continuously, one often draws a curve to show the variation." You can define each of these words. They are common words. But, in combination, their meaning is difficult to discern. This phrase comes from an economics text and to students of that discipline, the meaning is clearer. The difficulty in 1L comes from lacking the requisite background information. In the absence of background information, you cannot discern what matters from what does not or how common words combine to generate uncommon meaning. This lack of context operates on multiple levels: from decoding unfamiliar conventions (like a style of cause), a fairly innocuous example, to grasping the reasons for a particular judgment, in the absence of any knowledge related to legal process or evidence, a frustrating experience. You will frequently read cases to stand for one proposition of law and you may only read excerpts related to that proposition. You will have a limited perspective on most cases. What can you do? It's simple. Read your professor's past exams. Get copies of them. Do it in late September, early October at the latest. You won't be able to answer them and that's fine, it's besides the point. The exam questions and the fact patterns are context clues. If enough past exams are available, you will identify common topics and issues. You do not need to fully understand them to identify them. Even with a sample size of 1, the exam tells you what your professor has asked in the past. There are predictable themes in every 1L subject. For this reason, there is some utility in referring to exams from other professors, although you must be wary of variations in emphasis, instruction, and interpretation of the law. Not all topics are taught by all instructors and those that are will not be taught the same way. Why do this? Because context enables efficiency in terms of how you read, study, learn, and reason. Nodding off in class? Professor says "parole evidence" - wait a minute, you read that on a past exam! Perk up, sip of coffee. This is important, you tell yourself. Most professors reveal their "hand" during lecture and few students realize this is happening because the haven't looked at past exams. This applies not only to concepts, but also to secondary sources like scholars. Professor says "Bender" or "Prosser." Wait, you read that on a past exam! Perk up, sip of coffee. High scoring students will reference more than caselaw on their exam. Your professor will likely also refer to scholars and larger concepts in class, these are worth noting, and often help to contextualize the law by drawing judgements or arguments into broader categories, values, or principles. If this is too intense for first semester, don't sweat it. 5. Focus on low resolution concepts. Low resolution concepts are abstract and categorical. High resolution concepts are particularized and contingent. For example, you may read an excerpt from a case that refers to an interlocutory injunction. Unless you are in legal process, this concept won't be the reason that you are reading this case. Your time is limited (see #6). The injunction is high resolution, focusing on it imperils your ability to grasp the bigger picture. Low resolution knowledge is necessary for developing the context discussed in #4. Learn the big picture. Low resolution concepts work on two levels. First, to clarify your thinking about the different areas of law. For example, tort law chiefly refers to involuntary duties whereas contract law chiefly refers to voluntarily bargained for duties. Second, to clarify your thinking within a given area of law. For example, while the POGG National Concerns power is thought of as referring to issues of a national scale, the criminal law is arguably a specialized version of national concern related to the moral community of Canada. This interpretation of the criminal law derives from a case called Hydro Quebec and writing by J La Forest and also Jean LeClair. Note that this view of crim law is relevant to the federalism section of conlaw, less to crim law itself per se. One is likelier to note this if deliberately taking a low resolution view of caselaw. These kinds of categorical distinctions help to clarify your thinking and impress on an exam. You would think that someone might spell them out for you, but apparently some ideas are so obvious no one feels that they need to be explicitly said. I'm rolling my eyes. Ideally, the best way to learn a new topic is from low to high resolution. Unfortunately, casebooks - which are what you will read - are the highest resolution documents around. They contain excerpts from judicial rulings. These are not written for students. Their complexity is compounded by the tendency to begin with old cases from England scribbled on stone tablets. The language is archaic, not to mention logically loopy and that's without the unfamiliarity of legal jargon thrown into the mix. It's alphabet soup and the letters are hieroglyphs. Some professors take the time and expend the energy to teach low resolution concepts. Most will refer to them, seemingly arbitrarily as they arise. This isn't ideal. Others will not refer to them at all. This was my first semester. Of my 7 instructors, only 1 demonstrated a sincere and successful attempt to teach low resolution concepts. Everyone was deeply appreciative. And it made those others stick out who, seemingly, complicated the law unnecessarily and, seemingly, derived a perverse pleasure from doing so. Of my 7 instructors, I felt that 1 failed in their duty to teach us their subject matter and this sentiment was widely shared. You may find yourself on your own, abandoned at sea, lost in the choppy waters of contracts or torts. Treatises are your go-to lifesaver. These are essentially textbooks. Unlike casebooks, they distinguish between low and high resolution concepts. Look at how they organize information. Look at multiple treatises. Look also at multiple editions of the same treatise. The Irwin treatise from 2005 may be organized entirely differently from 2015 edition. Focus on the logic behind the organization of the information itself. This should help you to begin to learn how to organize your own thinking into lower and higher resolution ideas. You can also refer to existing MAPs and speak to your friends about how they interpret and organize the material. There is a socio-psychological factor at play here. When your professor asks you whether you can own your own body part and you give a bad answer that you thought was a good answer you will begin to betray yourself. How? By reading for class. You will want to be prepared for the future possibility of being cold-called. You will want to ward off any future embarrassment. You should read for the exam, not for class. The difference is in emphasis: between remembering micro-facts ("reading for class") and trying to contextualize and understand the reasoning ("reading for the exam") and then re-teaching it ("recall") and playing with it by using past exams ("apply"). My hunch is that the best students are doing this throughout the semester, while the average student only begins to do this in the weeks leading up to final exams. 6. Time management. I began by saying that success in law school is about coping with ambiguity. That was a half-truth. It is better to say that you must cope with ambiguity within the constraint of insufficient time. Everyone in law school is talented and hard working. What distinguishes one from another on test day is mediated (primarily, in my view) by the limiting factor of time. Your goal, therefore, should be to do things that improve your efficiency during that 3 hour exam. The factors that I have outlined above are designed with this primary goal in mind. If every day had 48 hours in it, you could attend class, finish your readings, sort out your low and high resolution concepts, practice recall (!), practice analysis (!!), cook healthy meals, exercise, corrupt your brain with television, love your loved ones, prance through fields of daisies, run up your line of credit on the Mink Mile and get 9 hours of sleep. You will soon learn the value of time to a law student. That said, I doubt that additional time would suffice. Many other students would capitalize on that time, only raising the standards for the average exam answer. Perhaps then it's best to say that you must cope with ambiguity as constrained by the capacity of other students to manage limited time. The grades are on a curve and it's fairly flat at UofT. Everyone's talented and hard working. So what do you do? First, figure out everything higher on this list. Figure out how you learn most effectively, familiarize yourself with the testable topics, learn the low resolution concepts that allow you to contextualize what you're learning. Now, you have enough information to judge for yourself how much to learn. You should read only as much as necessary, not more. You need to learn how the common law operates and how the case law evolves through judicial reasoning to generate the current law. You may read over 150 cases in contracts or torts. You will refer to maybe 30 cases on the exam. Some cases are likely to arise on any exam. Some are unlikely to arise on any exam. Focus accordingly. Learn to recall and apply the likeliest cases first. You can identify these cases in many ways. I found that writing past exams helped me to determine which cases were necessary and recurrent. 7. Don't make major life decisions, unless necessary. Law school is stressful and, for most, all-consuming. You enter a kind of distorted reality. There is peer pressure, groupthink, and all that jazz. It can mess with your priorities. In short, it screws up your decision-making matrix. Try to limit your major life decisions during the time. You will have to make near-term decisions about your legal interests, such as which clinics to apply to and whether you want to participate in OCIs. Thats's fine. I'm referring to larger decisions about things like personal relationships. You may find yourself less rational, less objective, and more impulsive than in the past, or you may find yourself rationalizing behaviour that you wouldn't have under other circumstances. There is more to life than law or law school. It won't always feel that way in 1L. Your friends, family, loved ones, health, all of that is more important. You may make sacrifices in 1L. You may believe they are necessary to your success. They may be. But they are also decisions made under stressful circumstances that can create a false sense of necessity. Just be true to yourself. And if you can't, avoid making major life decisions. I wasn't and I couldn't and I'm still paying for it.
  14. 16 likes
    I spoke with the admissions staff earlier this week and they informed me that they won't be making more offers until the June 1st deposit deadline and July 2nd provisional to firm acceptance date. So, there will basically be two more batches of offers coming near these dates. The admissions staff member also mentioned that they expect the class to be full by the end of June with a few spots opening up due to those who decline their offer. As mentioned previously on this forum, they also mentioned that the waitlist spots are not necessarily ranked, but consideration is still given more preferably to stronger applications. I thought I would share this information in case others were anxious for an update regarding their application and/or waitlist status.
  15. 16 likes
    Just a few thoughts on being a small town lawyer. I did that gig for a number of years, mostly as a Crown, but part of the time in private practice. Being a lawyer in a small town is not like being a lawyer in the city. Last year I was talking with the dads on my kid's soccer team and we realized that over half of us were lawyers. Being a lawyer just isn't special in the city. In a small town... it is. Which is really kind of cool - you're someone who is looked up to. Your opinion somehow matters more to people. And yes, you're considered something of a catch on the dating market. But you're also in something of a fishbowl. You can't, of, I dunno, go out on a Saturday night and have too much to drink without people talking about it. If you're going to want and go out and build up a book of business, a lot of your social life is going to wind up being tied to your would-be clients. Which means if you like the idea of going out golfing with the local bank manager you're set. If your interest and hobbies are a little more off-beat, well that's tougher. Personally I was very happy living in a small town, but my perspective changed when I had kids. While I would prefer to still be in a smaller town, I think the opportunities are better for my kids in the city. As for the OP's dilemma, the offer sounds solid. It's not so super amazing the OP would be crazy to turn it down for though. It's going to come down to his feelings for the girlfriend, and what path he wants for his life. The girlfriend is mostly not being unreasonable here. She lives in the city, and the OP knew that when they met. Small town life does not appeal to her, and her life and career path is in the city. The "you must be out by Friday" is churlish and hopefully one she would come to regret, but not wanting to uproot one's life is perfectly reasonable. So if the OPs feelings for the girlfriend are stronger than the excitement for the job, he should turn it down. There are lots of law jobs in big cities. But this is the OP's home town we're talking about, so he presumably knows it well. If they idea of moving back home for this opportunity is more exciting than whatever feelings there are for the GF, then he should take the job and not look back.
  16. 15 likes
    I dare say, if that's the hardest you've been screwed, you've lived a lucky life.
  17. 14 likes
    I thought this was going to be a post about getting zits before an interview...
  18. 14 likes
    No, but I got offered a judgeship, partnership, and Nobel Prize. Which one should I pick?
  19. 14 likes
    My issue isn't with libertarianism and people saying what they want. In fact, I said I always let them say what they want without comment. Even if I did comment, my goal isn't to say "Men, you're not allowed to say what you want and I'm trying to stop you." My goal is for the MAN to say "Hmmm, I never thought that this comment could possibly come across this way to a woman. It's more important to me that women - everyone - feel comfortable in my office, as a person who tries to help the marginalized, and so I am going to think twice about saying such things at least in mixed company so that everyone feels welcome." It is a CHOICE. And the choices you make reflect who you are. But I think this ties in nicely to the last time Diplock and I locked horns - the thread by the OP who had a Muslim name, thought that might be adversely affecting him in getting job interviews, put a fake European name on his resume and got interviews. Diplock was upset when I said words to the effect that this was exactly why I had a problem with people getting racialized/minority groups riled up by posting stats about how certain names get more interviews than others, when there is very little you can do about your name other than change it legally, and this does nothing to reduce any racism when you get the interview or the job. My point there was that it's fine for white people who haven't actually experienced racism themselves to make themselves look good by complaining about all THOSE people who are so racist by not hiring Muslims/Asians/whoever. But woe betide the Muslim/Asian/Black/Indigenous person who points that out. Diplock took issue with me saying that admitting you faked your name because you assumed the person hiring was racist would lead to you being judged for having a chip on your shoulder. But look at this thread. For saying that you feel certain comments are sexist, you would be deemed shrill, obnoxious and a social outcast. So the clear message is, keep it to yourself. Why would it be different for race? My point was that the same micro-aggressions women face daily in the profession by listening to these types of comments exist for visible and other minorities as well. Even if you get the interview, you may have to listen to this stuff and suck it up AT the interview. You may have to listen to it at the job. Even in court. And a lot of the time it will be from someone who has power over you and you'll have to keep quiet about it. So my point was that if you, a minority, want to succeed in this profession, you're going to have to learn to play along. And yes, it's not fair, and yes it sucks. But I, a person who has to do this daily, was castigated for not saying people should speak out about this stuff. And in this thread, we see what happens when you do. So again, it is a LUXURY to be in a position where your biggest complaint is someone expressing dislike for comments you make and you not wanting to censor yourself. This takes into account NOTHING of the experience of the minority/disadvantaged group, which then has to disproportionately bear the burden of everyone else's "crass" talk. Over the years, I have nodded and smiled as male lawyers made jokes about ragheads going to get their 40 virgins, or Asian chicks being extra tight, or they love the big asses of Black woman, or they saw a drunk native guy yesterday and wasn't that typical, or I know that chick over there wants to bang me and I'd hit that,.... and I know they gave not one second's thought about how any of that might make me feel. And to know that about your colleagues can feel very alienating. And to say nothing makes you feel complicit in it. And this burden is 10 times greater than any burden it would be to JUST NOT SAY THAT WHEN A WOMAN/PERSON OF COLOUR IS AROUND. But if you don't make that choice, I can do absolutely nothing. So there's no question of having freedom to do or not do anything for me... only for you, and you could care less. Duly noted.
  20. 14 likes
    In all the years I've been here, there has probably yet to be a year that someone hasn't made a similar post. Everyone always thinks that their admissions cycle is the most competitive. From what I've seen this time around, I don't think that this cycle was 'super hard'.
  21. 13 likes
  22. 13 likes
    I have threatened Diplock with his very own megathread where all the threads that derail into talking about him get spliced and collected. There are recurring themes that tend to come up, which will surprise none of you. "Let's All Blame Diplock" is the current frontrunner for this topic title.
  23. 13 likes
    You know, I wasn't going to comment on the relationship, but since it sounds like it's already gone to hell I can actually comment and speculate without disclaimers since it doesn't matter how wrong I am - and I'm more sympathetic to her. OP knows his (I have to choose a pronoun, I'm assuming) girlfriend (1) is living and studying in Toronto; (2) is very much a city, not a small town, person; and (3) specifically hates not just small towns generally, but OP's small town. Now OP is considering taking a job in his hometown that's 15 minutes away from his parents and is an entry-level associate position that includes compensation based on billings. This sounds very much like it could be a permanent, or at least years-long, position. OP might well start and end his career in his hometown. Now, that may be all nice and special, but it clearly shows to the girlfriend that if he takes the job their relationship is over unless he gets fired, or she moves to she small town that she specifically hates, beyond merely liking being outside a city like Toronto, and more that OP doesn't seem to care. Even if the death of the relationship takes time, if OP moves it's most likely over. In that context, her giving an ultimatum I see as potentially either (1) a last-ditch attempt at a wake-up call to OP; and/or (2) born out of understandable anger, that he's all oblivious and wrongly considers her unsupportive whereas it's actually OP who hasn't paid attention to OP and obviously considers her unimportant in making his life plans. Even reaction to the ultimatum is to question its legality and discuss not being on the lease. Dude (again, I assume), read the rules, we don't offer legal advice here. Now, if OP had truly intended this as a temporary, get some experience as a new lawyer, opportunity it would be different, and he could portray it differently, but that's very much not how it comes across.
  24. 13 likes
    https://beautyredefined.org/guys-guide-to-seeing-women-not-objects/ As for OP - I think your girlfriend is in the wrong. If your relationship is really important to both of you, you will find a way to make it work. She should be supportive of you, and vise versa. The fact that she is willing to kick you out of your apartment is a sign that maybe you're better off taking the job and being single. Of course, you both need to compromise, but you need to consider whether you see a future together in the long run and what that future would look like. best of luck!
  25. 13 likes
    I think what you're asking here is "is this such a gem of an offer that I would be stupid not to uproot my life to take it." And the answer is no. Good on you for getting an offer as a new call, that can be tough, but the terms you've outlined are not so magical that you couldn't do as good or better elsewhere. The real question is whether you want to live in your hometown. If you are yearning to go home, then take the offer. If you really want to stay in Toronto but just want a job, any job, then I would keep looking. Whatever you decide I would seriously reconsider your relationship.
  26. 12 likes
    Now. If he staged the attack in the first place, THAT would be creative. Jimmy McGill would be proud.
  27. 12 likes
    I applied and I have the right to make the choice if I change my mind. Given I'm still considering it now...
  28. 12 likes
    Try walking around when you brush your teeth
  29. 12 likes
    Sorry, everyone is busy debating Peterson and just the idea of discrimination in general. On that note, have you considered engaging in more arguments on the internet? May make you wish you were working.
  30. 12 likes
    Thanks, Hegdis, for saying this. I'll chime in just briefly. This thread is one of the most depressing and, frankly, hurtful things I've read in ages. No, I'm not going to elaborate. I am not particularly interested in having an intellectual debate about this. I will just note that I think a lot of things said in this thread were sexist and demeaning, and I am appalled. None of the ex post facto rationalizations have changed my opinion. When you say things like that, it tells me a lot about you. You may not care what I think of you, or what others think of you. In case you do, I thought I would say so. Thanks to providence, Jaggers, and others for speaking up when it matters.
  31. 12 likes
    Accept the job and book a U- Haul for this Thursday
  32. 12 likes
    I've never seen people so upset about other people's Cs.
  33. 11 likes
    Could not be more happy to be posting here today!! Got my acceptance to Osgoode on Wednesday night, and the email Thursday morning! I was in one of the first groups in queue (January 4th), and was accepted directly (not from a waitlist). It took a while, but this should be a reminder to all to never give up if Osgoode is your dream school! To give you an indication of just how holistic they are, my CGPA was 3.92, my application and ECs were superb, and my LSAT score was 151. Despite my low LSAT score, Osgoode gave me a chance and I am happy to have accepted their offer! Best of luck to all of those still waiting for answers! They are on their way!
  34. 11 likes
    I know many of us are anxiously waiting news from Osgoode, myself included, but let's remember to be positive in the comments section! Everyone has a choice to make when accepting an offer and deserves congratulations on their hard work
  35. 11 likes
    I think we're a long way from making a robot that can: -take a custody call from a client and read their voice on the phone to be able to successfully convince them not to make a statement -go to jail cells and reassure a client who is freaking out -calm down a client who is crying in the office -go to court and engage in a back and forth, fast moving conversation with a judge -read the facial expressions of the judge and determine the reputation/bias of the judge and tailor submissions accordingly -select a jury based on a snap assessment of each person's demeanour -try to be warm and likeable to get a jury to like it more than the Crown -write a detailed factum and argue it back and forth with a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal So I'm not too worried.
  36. 11 likes
    There is what you say, and then how you choose to say it. As we all know. (If you disagree with me, walk in to Court and tell the judge your guy should walk "because he is striving to be less of an asshole". See how far you get.) OP, if you want to see other women, being a successful and secure guy with a steady income, a high level of education, and the ability to make an impact on the world around you means you're a pretty eligible bachelor. Women who are interested in those qualities but live in smaller centres have less exposure to the package you present, so it's likely you'll get a boost of romantic and/or sexual attention based on your status. In turn, these women will be able to connect you with the community they know and introduce you to their friends and families. You might find a small town girl to fall in love with and you might love living in your small town. When you next see your ex you'll be able to reflect on what you gained from the breakup, and you might feel a sense of satisfaction in telling her so. Enjoy yourself.
  37. 11 likes
  38. 11 likes
    [Edit] clinic? It's one of the few that is in close proximity to a law school, and has social worker/ social service workers/students. The social workers there aren't necessarily for crisis intervention. The St-Thomas Mental Health crew is a better match and is the more appropriate referral. In any case, Diplock, poverty law IS practiced by government-funded organizations, i.e legal clinics funded largely by Legal Aid. Poverty law, as a subfield of law, is largely regarding housing & benefits in an admin law context. So ODSP/CPP claims and landlord/tenant issues for an Ontario legal clinic. They do not assist in family/criminal law. There are no certificates for this work. Few private lawyers, sole or not, assist in these areas. You'll mainly see duty counsel and paralegals at tribunal hearings. And an occasional lawyer working the family/criminal file throwing in some time at an ODSP/CPP-D appeal. My firm does them on very rare occasion. OP, not to beat a dead horse, but take the time to reflect on the feedback given by the supervisor (supervising lawyer, right? And not the office manager). To be honest, your attitude in this forum is a bit telling - "I have identified a very sensible solution to the problem -- using the employer's own resources to help.... My solution is supported by common sense". Remember, these are career clinic lawyers, they understand their resources more than a summer student does. Note, they have their own cases, which are more complex than what you are carrying, AND ultimately are responsible for going over your files. You may want to have a candid talk with a lawyer there (if [Edit], talk to J. He's aloof but fairly friendly. E is actually a sweetheart but has a really tough demeanor. She values initiative and hard work. K is a giant teddy and can give good advice though he's rarely around). Decompress with other students/staff. The stories of the clientele does take its toll. Their stories aren't your own though, at that is one way that you can separate/distance yourself from the work. Figure out the available referral resources. And you CAN step back at a certain point and tell a lawyer that it's beyond the role of a student. It's part of your role to appropriately triage those out. I did so as an articling student. In one case, the lawyer convinced me that I could act and walked me through the next stages. The big thing is as follows : these are real cases with real people involved. I'm in agreement with the supervisor - referral to a crisis line, schedule a meeting during your availability and no, you shouldn't be dumping on your colleagues. You're early in to your placement. There will be rough days. Make an appointment with the lawyer (or another staff lawyer) and go over some practical elements. "What is an appropriate referral if client says X?" "How do you distance yourself from the clients?". I had some lovely unwind sessions with supervising lawyers. It's also important to ensure that you have wind down activities outside the clinic. That is a great way of keeping client stories from keeping you down.
  39. 11 likes
    I encourage you to sue the poverty law clinic for putting you in contact with a person in poverty.
  40. 10 likes
    I would reread the professional obligations chapter - all of that comes up a lot so its really worthwhile having that in your head (this includes skimming through the bylaws and such). I did not notice a focus on any one of the areas over another (tax, business and wills all seemed to have an even number of questions). The real estate section was written by someone who personally hates you, me, and themselves. The didn't know how to articulate that hate and hence gave birth to the real estate section.
  41. 10 likes
    Guise, can you give me input as well? How am I doing? Crime: A+ Prop: A+ Torts: A+ Const: A+ Contracts: A+
  42. 10 likes
    I'm liberal, of course I know what offended means.
  43. 10 likes
    Improving your LSAT or GPA (particularly your L2 GPA) will be far more helpful for getting into law school than completion of the law clerk or paralegal programs. Law schools will still look at your undergrad grades, and they are unlikely to consider your paralegal/clerk coursework.
  44. 10 likes
    Even the sexism issue aside, I think this convo is actually kinda useful when it comes to advice on articling or associate positions. Girls dont drop panties for lawyers. Thats like a bad 1L guy fantasy. We used to make fun of dudes who thought this shit so i cant believe it got brought up here but whatever. Its not good advice to tell someone that because it sets up wrong impressions in their head. Moving to a small town will have an impact on your sex and social life because you are in a totally different setting than a big city. It can vary by small town depending on factors such as population, if its a boom town attracting lots of young people, if there is a large college campus. Honestly, with the current economic situation in Alberta I know a lot of people who went to smaller towns for any articling position they could get and the ones who do not have a family or connection to the city are miserable and cannot wait to get out. And every single one of them sites a lack of social and sex life as a big factor. Im not discouraging people from going to small towns (if i was married, living in a small town could be pretty fun) but the dating life in small vs big cities is very different and lets not kid ourselves about that. When people are deciding on long term relationships, a person's financial stability and status factors in, obviously. But there are a fuck ton of other factors that go into, well, "dropping girl's panties" if we're going to use that dumb phrase. A lot of it really comes down to your looks, height (for a guy), and personality and how fun you are. A dorky and mediocre looking lawyer isn't getting laid for being a lawyer. This is also sorta why the "nice guys" get made fun of - because they think that one specific aspect of their personality (even though they aren't even that nice) makes up for much more important factors like looks and actually being interesting. You aren't getting laid for being some lawyer. You may get more girls looking for a serious relationship to go out with you if you are a lawyer but its just one small factor. I would have done the same thing OP did and took the job. However, unless I know what OP looks like, what his personality is, and how he generally comes across, i would never give him assurance that he is magically going to find a relationship or constantly get laid in a small town. And in a different situation, this could be disastrous advice to someone considering ending a relationship because "watch out ladies in Grand Prairie, big dick lawyer is coming to town".
  45. 10 likes
    This thread is exactly why I don't participate on this board as much as I'd like to. Yes, this is the internet but I didn't come to this specific forum to read locker-room talk. I'm sure it's not intended but a lot of time I feel like this forum inadvertently reinforces the idea of law as an old boys club and that women (and minorities) are simply guests and that they need to act and react accordingly.
  46. 10 likes
    OK. I guess we're still on the topic so.... First of all, in real life I probably wouldn't bring this up to a male lawyer I knew professionally and wasn't close with. I would sit there silently and listen while he made the comment to our male colleague and likely say nothing or smile or comment on the original problem only or change the subject. Because that is a part of the reality of being a female defence lawyer - as somebody said, if you do say anything, you're "being shrill and no one likes a hall monitor." I get that. But here, on an anonymous message board where all we have is our words, I thought it would be ok to speak candidly about something that bugs me and maybe even one guy reading this might reconsider his own behaviour. Re: the issue of whether it is true that in smaller communities, professional men are considered more desirable or whether being a lawyer gives a man higher status in the eyes of potential partners and so on - I really think that that is a separate issue. Of course, law is a status profession and yes, there are people who are impressed by that, including potential romantic partners. I think being a professional woman can also be a status symbol to men but not in the same way as a) some men, even professional men, are intimidated by professional women and b) in the stereotypical, traditional dating world, other attributes of women are as much or more important. I would think for same sex couples, being a professional is also an asset for a lot of people. I personally would not be interested in any man who is not educated and in a good job because I'm not interested in supporting him or dealing with his insecurity about what I do. So yes, I agree that that is how things can be even if I don't like it. My issue was not with Diplock or anyone else pointing that out, but my issue was with the fact that it is not ONLY the fact that you are male and have a certain profession that matters. Yes, being a lawyer is desirable. But if you also treat women terribly and are a rude and insensitive person and have awful habits, even if you are a lawyer, most women are discerning enough not to throw themselves at you. Diplock portrayed this as there would be "girls" (presumably not children 17 or younger) lining up to drop their panties for the OP and all we know is that there was an assumption made that OP is male, and OP is a lawyer. I don't agree that "male lawyer" overrides any other personal attributes, unless you think multiple women have absolutely no ability to discern any of those other things or are that shallow not to care. Also, OP is talking about a long-term relationship with someone who is herself a professional woman and has her own career and education on the go. Why would anyone think that sex with random multiple women with no description of THEIR personalities, attributes etc. is an equivalent substitute? Is the goal just to be having sex with a woman, any woman, or to actually have a meaningful connection with someone you care about? OP has to make a choice as to what is more important - the relationship or the job. I'm not sure where other random sexual partners is even relevant, and that was what rubbed me the wrong way as it seemed to suggest that one pair of panties is interchangeable with another.
  47. 10 likes
  48. 10 likes
    Only two ways to improve your writing: (I) writing, and (I) reading good writers. Your writing will probably improve in law school - you do a lot of writing - but most of your improvements will probably come once you start practicing. In practice, lawyers get lots of practice writing - a huge part of the job is either (I) explaining complicated issues to people in writing (memos, letters, emails, articles, blogs, etc.), or (ii) pursuading people in writing (negotiations, factums, submissions, statements of claim, etc.). And young lawyers get a lot of feedback on their writing, from senior lawyers, from clients, if they write poorly, maybe from snarky judges - every articling student, no matter how accomplished they are, has a horror story of the first memo they gave to a lawyer only to get a marked up copy back covered in red. And your writing matters in practice. The typo that some university professor would ignore could be critically important to your memo. Truth is, lawyers are basically professional writers.
  49. 9 likes
    Honestly, is this the same person who comes here every six months or so and makes a new account to ask the same damn question? I'm sorry to the OP if that isn't the case, but try searching for related topics on this forum. I'm feeling déjà vu for the last time I felt déjà vu for the time before that when I pointed out that someone keeps bringing this damn topic up every six months. Briefly, in the sense that AI is theoretically going to replace all human activity when we fuck ourselves completely by creating singularity, then sure, all of what we do is doomed. So there's really no point in learning anything or aspiring to any kind of human activity, in anticipation of the time when our poor, inadequate meat brains will be as useless as Vic 20s. But in the realistic sense where we are comparing ourselves to other working, human beings, legal work is just about as highly skilled as you can hope for, and it will absolutely not be automated like some kind of manual work. The only people who think you can replace lawyers with some kind of jumped up version of Google are people who have never engaged in actual litigation. The day they replace judges with AI is the day you can replace lawyers with AI. No sooner than that.
  50. 9 likes
    It's not an unconscious assumption, but it is an interesting and relevant point. Gays flock to city centres. There is a movement of queers in the country, but there are much less. If OP was female, yes, I would speak to them about difficulty of finding a partner in a smaller-town. Lifestyle is highly relevant for queers. I lived in London for 2 years and damn right it was on mind when I was making the determination whether to move back home or not. Single and gay in London? No thanks. Single and gay in Pickering? Mind you, 1.5 hours outside of Toronto still has cities of 50k+. Diplock, there is a huge difference in telling someone that having a full-time job and being new in town makes someone desirable versus saying "women and their mothers will be dropping their panties". Mind you, sometimes you tell it like it is. Alternatively, you speak like a giant douchebag.