maximumbob

Members
  • Content count

    6608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    99

maximumbob last won the day on April 23

maximumbob had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4111 Good People

1 Follower

About maximumbob

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

904 profile views
  1. Junior associate work may not be particularly complicated (although you probably don't want idiots doing it) but you're hiring associates on the hope that they will become future partners (or, if they leave, that they will find good positions in-house and give you work). So hiring schlubs isn't really an option. Sure, you could fill out a full house of articling students by paying the, $40k a year, but you aren't going to be getting the people you want 4, 10, or 20 years down the road. And, I don't know, the US biglaw lawyers I've met are generally pretty impressive, I'm pretty sure they were hired for more than just prestige.
  2. About the latest stupid guidelines from the LSUC on hiring (let's make students wait overnight to hear if they're offered a job and let's make lawyers get up early to call them), about LSUC proposals around articling (and how the stupid reporting for principals bears no relationship to what big law lawyers do), about their respective best practices around training, about offer/acceptance rates in hiring, about... well, a lot of things. There's no "collusion" around student salaries, there is a competitive market. Firms that want to pay more to attract stronger (or greedier) students (Davies, BJs) pay more, those who are content to pay the market rate pay the market rate. What has happened is that the previous drivers of salary increases for students (a low dollar, rampaging demand for legal services, and competition for top talent from US law firms) have dried up.
  3. Talk to the law schools, but in practice they admit many students before they have attained the required prerequisites on the assumption that they will have them by the time they start law school, so I'd imagine they may admit you conditional on you having achieved them before you start law school. You may have to explain it to them, though. Bigger question, what's the rush? Law school isn't going anywhere, neither is whatever work you will do after you finish law school. The opportunities to travel, take time off, learn for the sake of learning, those, they probably won't be there after you finish law school (because you'll be articling, and will have student loans, and may have a partner, or kids, or a labradoodle). If you finish undergrad in 3 years, that's great, do something for a year before you go to law school. Apart from whatever benefit you get from the experience itself, it might make you a stronger, more interesting, candidate for jobs down the road (its not likely to make you a weaker, less interesting, candidate). Remember success in life doesn't go to the person who jumps through the hurdles first, it goes to the person who is best equipped to jump through the hurdles when they reach them.
  4. It's different from OCIS. As others have noted they're looking at you substantive abilities to fill a particular role - they'll probably ask you about the type of substantive work you've done heretofore. They'll probably probe why you're on the legal market. Some people leave their old firms by choice, because they're looking for something different, some people don't leave by choice... They want to make sure you're not someone else's dud. If you left NY because you wanted to return to Canada, that's probably a good fact pattern. And they'll try to get a sense of your personality and how you fit with other members of the group you'll be joining. Typically, at least in my experience, there's multiple rounds of meetings, some more formal than others.
  5. Four observations. First, in some provinces Canadian trained students are having trouble finding articles, and it's much more challenging for foreign trained students. Second, a willingness to article in rural Canada may give you some flexibility, but I'm not sure how much that compensates for the difficulty facing foreign train students and, moreover, there are no doubt many Canadian trained students willing to do the same thing. Also, how attractive are you likely to be to a practitioner in a rural area - are you from there? Third, with respect to the shortage of lawyers in rural Canada, consider a couple of other point. One, it means there isn't going to be an ample supply of articling positions - students tend to gravitate to cities because that's where the jobs are. Two, ask yourself why there is a shortage of practitioners in rural Canada. Is it because people don't want to live/work there, or is it because the demand for their services isn't enough to make a living. The question isn't whether there is an unmet need for legal services in rural Canada (there surely is, just as there is one in urban Canada), but whether there is an unmet need that is willing to pay you for your services (because, unless your family is so wealthy that you can work for free a la Clay Ruby, and even he bills some of his clients, that's a consideration). I don't know the answer, but don't assume that unmet need mean there is sufficient paying demand to maintain a practice. Fourth, just to clarify, working in the city is not synonymous with working in biglaw. In Ontario, biglaw accounts for, maybe, 15%-20% of articling positions (depending on how generous you want to be with the biglaw tag). The vast majority of students end up articling with medium/small firms, solos and the G.
  6. Just give them plenty of notice and they'll be cool with it. They're human, they have friends who get married too and take time off as well. They got along fine before you joined, they'll manage without you. The key is letting them know ahead of time.
  7. Consider the following points. First "sports law" in both the US and Canada is tiny, and the number of people whose practice revolves around that area is tiny. Second, in practice "sports law" is just commercial law which serves a particular industry - my buddy who works for MLSE does "sports law" which is, in practice, indistinguishable from his old corporate/commercial practice. Third, the US may have specialized firms (no doubt due to economies of scale) but people do serve that market in Canada (though it rarely accounts for the bulk of their practice). Fourth, athletes can usually afford good - nay, great -lawyers, how certain are you that you're all that and a bag of chips? All of which is to reiterate what Diplock said, go to school where you want to work on the assumption that the likelihood is that you won't end up doing sports law. If you do, great, but don't count on it.
  8. In fairness, the personality challenged robots go to Blakes.
  9. Don't forget to budget for vitamin D supplements, they lose an associate or two a year to rickets owing to a lack of sunlight.
  10. People here are pretty reliable. In fact, I used LS.ca as an example of credible online forums whenI was discussing the issue the Queen at dinner last month.
  11. People are also impressed by articling at Davies. I guess people think it means you know how to find all the good shit on amazon.
  12. What, people aren't impressed by $150k in student loans?
  13. Clerking with the SCC has some real cachet if you want to be a litigator. It's the gold star seal of approval and is a great way to kick start your legal career. There's a reason lawyers boast about it on their bios
  14. How much easier would it be if you were only hired by the obviously innocent?