nerfco

Members
  • Content count

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Decent People

About nerfco

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

343 profile views
  1. $100,000 is a lot of debt. If you aren't sure if you want to be a lawyer, then perhaps you should defer a year, and learn more about the profession. Perhaps you could get a position at a local law firm, either paid or volunteer, to see how much you might enjoy it. You could also consider your other options, and weigh the costs and benefits of those compared to law. For me personally, I graduated with $100,000-ish debt. It took years to pay off, even with US biglaw. It is certainly a non-trivial amount of debt, and you should seriously think about whether or not becoming a lawyer is worth that much debt to you.
  2. I'd vote for not bothering to read anything into it. If it means you're on good ground initially, does that change how you'll interview? What if you know you're starting at a deficit? Honestly, I can't imagine that knowing either of those should really change how you approach the interview. If knowing this does change how you approach the interview, those changes seem just as likely to hurt you as to help you. Edit: I worked in US biglaw for years. I don't think interview order meant anything at all, based either on my own interviews, or based on people I've interviewed as an associate. In all cases, it seemed like the scheduling staff scheduled interviews based on availability, and not based on any sort of priority ranking. This could vary by firm though, or be different in Canada.
  3. Work visas are basically a non-issue for Canadians, thanks to NAFTA. I also got an H1b first-try in the H1B lottery, but unsure how representative that is. I don't know the numbers of people in the masters portion.
  4. Went to CCN. Lived in the United States for years after law school, then came back to Canada. PM me if you have questions.
  5. They don't publish masters pool numbers, so anything you read is just a guess. For a single data point, I got an H1B through the masters pool the first time I tried.
  6. In my experience, the TN is the default while you apply for the H1B. I'd also note that the lottery isn't nearly as difficult, since you'll be in the Masters pool.
  7. In order: Went to law school. Biglaw. Staying awake in Admin. Don't take Admin. Hope this helps.
  8. Westwood is pretty nice, though, so this clearly doesn't explain UCLA. (USC isn't actually in Compton, but I suspect you know this.)
  9. For what it is worth, I don't think that most people who could get into UofT or NYU will actually need to take a year off to get accredited in Canada. I have taken NCA exams while working full-time and I know others who have done the same. While the NCA process might take a year, you don't actually have to *not work biglaw* during that time. It's only four exams and frankly, they aren't that difficult for the relevant students here. Of course, even once you do get through the NCA process, you still have to "article," at least in name. You may be able to find a firm that will basically treat you as an Xth year associate and pay you accordingly, despite your "articling" title. I am aware of others who have moved to large Canadian firms for whom this is true. (I don't have a real comment on exit options for either NY or Bay St. I am sure both are fine, and NY would probably have more numerous options due largely to being a larger market in a larger country.)
  10. It would be really helpful here to compare expect debt-at-graduation. Of note is that NYU Law's student budget is fairly optimistic, and most people tend to spend more than the budgeted amount. As mentioned by others, you don't really have too many options if you graduate with huge debt totals. U.S. grads with similar debt have more options--due to things like public interest loan forgiveness for U.S. federal loans and NYU having a pretty good public interest program--but you can't take advantage of the former as a Canadian. Given roughly equal debt totals, I would decide between the two schools based on which city you want to live in for the next six years. (Three for school, and then some more years to work in the city after graduation.)
  11. This would tend to vary a lot based on how the economy is doing, what your practice area is, and the ranking of the firm you start out at. Generally, though, it isn't that difficult to find work in the timelines that large law firms give you. I'd also note that most people don't "have to" transition to in-house, but rather, choose to transition to in-house. If you are looking at a move after, say, 3-6 years at a biglaw firm, it will be easier to lateral to another biglaw firm than it will be to go in-house. More commonly, people actively seek out in-house options in order to have a more stable career (no up or out, which usually means out) and to have a better work/life balance (no longer always-on-call). I have not had friends who are forced into in-house from large law firms, but have many friends who chose in-house for the above reasons, as well as choosing in-house based on geography.
  12. Talk to your bank. I don't know of magic programs offering more funding for U.S. law school. USC is a fine school, but is very expensive. I would think that if you can get into USC, you can get into less expensive schools in the United States, and get into Canadian schools. I wouldn't personally pay sticker at USC.
  13. I agree that it's not a bad deal at all, and didn't mean to suggest that it was. But, I think if you tell people outside of biglaw that you were told to a find a new job within the next 9 months (paid), they'll think of it as a layoff of some sort. It's what you and I might expect, but those who don't have a concept of CSM-style biglaw (as contrasted with firms like Williams & Connolly, Wachtell, Bartlit Beck, etc.) won't know to expect that without being told.
  14. There's no solicitor/barrister distinction in the United States. Nearly every biglaw firm is going to do both corporate work and litigation, as well as a number of other practice areas (tax, bankruptcy, etc). You can check Chambers & Partners for specific practice-area rankings if you want, but unless you're doing something especially niche, most large firms will have the practice. There are a couple biglaw firms that are litigation boutiques and don't have corporate work (e.g. Williams & Connolly), but they're more the exception than the rule among Vault firms.
  15. People are often pushed out more forcefully than this in V10 firms in NY at annual reviews. Typically, they'll often tell you that you should really look for other jobs and so on. Then, perhaps six months later, they might officially let you go, which usually means that you get three-month (paid) to find a new job, where you may or may not have to go in to work at all. After that three months, if you still haven't found anything but are on good terms, they'll sometimes agree to let you remain on the website but sometimes not. These layoffs are usually termed as being "performance-based," but it's still a layoff. I know people who were let go in this manner from the majority of the V10. Layoffs outside of the review cycle, such as the massive (~ 50% of the associates in the firm) LW 2008 layoffs are quite rare and make ATL or other law tabloids. Performance-based layoffs are much less rare (perhaps 5-10% of the associate classes in years 4 and up at most CSM-style firms), but don't really make any waves because it's just business as usual.