Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Lawyercvb

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

306 profile views
  1. 90k in house v 110k at firm

    I don't doubt for a second that the people who make the most are "1. people who did manage to make the partnership track. 2. people who went on their own and made it work. 3. people who found in house positions with upward potential." What I'm more interested in is who are the happiest with their lives/careers. I ended up choosing the firm job and so far so good (though its only the first week). I know its the anxiety in me but do firms typically give new associates a year or two as long as they are making good progress and are not total shitpumps or is it common for firms to bring someone on and gut them after 6 months or so
  2. 90k in house v 110k at firm

    Sorry I wasn't trying to come across as entitled. I guess what I was trying to convey is that I've noticed that free time makes me much happier than money and I don't know if there is any amount of money that I could be making that would make me enjoy working late late nights on the regular
  3. 90k in house v 110k at firm

    Thanks for the advice everyone I opted to go for the firm mainly for location reasons but also that seems to be what the majority of people have been telling me. During my articling year I ended up working past 10pm all of the time (and even past midnight occasionally) and was probably the worst experience of my life. If it ends up like that I might end up reevaluating in a years time or so. Personally for me I would jump at a 70k 9-5 government job any day over 110k on bay I unfortunately don't have that option right now.
  4. 90k in house v 110k at firm

    Are there many tangible benefits to starting off at a firm rather than in house?
  5. I'm a June 2016 call and I have recently found myself in the enviable position of having two offers come at me at once and I now have to decide. One is an in-house position offering 90k which is strictly 9-7, no weekends while the other and the other is a big firm (non-sister) that pays 110k with the standard 1800 target. I know there are a number of factors that I should consider in making my choice such as practice area, location but assuming all else is equal which would be the better offer (ie. which would you choose). Is a 9-7 (M-F) roughly equivalent to 1800 billable hours a year?
  6. Here is the problem: I have recently been offered a doing quazi-legal work for an organization that I'm sure I would love to work for but it is not in a city I want to live in where there is limited upward potential. I am leaning towards accepting it, keep applying elsewhere and then leaving when something better comes around. Is this a common tactic amongst new calls? I know that it looks bad and it screws the other organization over if I do indeed leave but here is my situation: 1. I am an anxious person generally and having a job while help alot with that. 2. Since being called I have exclusively been applying to government/public sector organizations which can take months or up to a year to fill a vacancy. 3. I am on EI which definitely helps but this position pays approximately 70k + benefits. Downsides include: 1. It looks bad if I leave very shortly after joining 2. Moving costs will likely be significant (2-3k) 3. I will be stuck with a 4 month lease minimum (if I can take over a students place for the summer) As for a little bit of context I've had written tests/ preliminary interviews with organizations such as provincial/federal government, and a few international organization (think UN/OECD/Commonwealth) which are the type of organizations I wish to work it. Articling was by far the worst experience of my life, I worked insane hours got treated very poorly and learned almost nothing. I know other law firms arn't all like that but my experience turned me off all firms (for better or worse)
  7. I articled at a bay street firm and realized that the lifestyle (i.e. long hours/stress) isn't what I'm looking for in a career and now I'm looking more towards the provincial/federal government. I know for the federal government, internal employees are usually given the first crack at job openings before the competition is opened up to the public. Speaking to a few lawyers and directors within the government I have been informed that it is a known and tolerated practice for lawyers to apply to non-lawyer jobs with the federal government and then immediately attempt to transfer into the Justice Department. From what I gather it can be much quicker to obtain a legal position in this manner than simply applying to the (few) externally posted counsel positions. I was wondering if the same strategy/practice works/occurs with the provincial government (i.e. can I blanket apply to all non-lawyer positions that I am qualified for and then attempt to apply internally to open MAG positions ... which would presumably be less competitive?)
  8. Letter of permission

    Hi there, just two questions about spending a semester (or two) at another Canadian Law school 1. Do you pay your home school's tuition? (similar to international exchanges) Or do you pay the tuition of the school that you are visiting. This would obviously be a factor in deciding to go to U of T vs McGill for example... 2. How competitive is it to get a LOP for say a term or a year? I would assume it would be easier than transferring, but is it competitive in any way? Some schools also ask for the reason you want a LOP, for me it would be to have access to additional courses (though cheaper tuition as well would be a plus) Thanks a Bunch!