Jump to content

Diplock

Members
  • Content count

    6096
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    261

Diplock last won the day on June 12

Diplock had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10673 Good People

5 Followers

About Diplock

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

14533 profile views
  1. Diplock

    Softssss

    Honestly, rather than mess around with finding something to volunteer at only so it makes you look good, just spend the extra time improving your grades. Why you would decide the best you are capable of is a B-B+ average is beyond me. If that's the best you can do, maybe you shouldn't be in law school at all. If you can do better, but simply feel you don't have the time, then see above. Here is where you invest the time. Good luck.
  2. Diplock

    Mid-life crisis during Articling?

    Am so amazed no one has asked, yet, where you're located and if you are hiring a new student now.
  3. Diplock

    Mid-life crisis during Articling?

    As sometimes happens, the problem with this thread is that it's trying to be two things at once. Those things are, roughly: 1. I have a problem, what can I do to solve it? 2. I am miserable, and I want my misery validated. For the last couple of pages, this discussion has been entirely about "2." Not surprising. OP isn't helping himself there, because that's all he wants to complain about. Every suggestion that his misery ins't objectively reasonable gets met with more argument. Here's the thing, though. It doesn't matter. Misery doesn't need to be valid to be real. One person's dream job is another person's nightmare. Arguing over how a person "should" feel about something has got to be the stupidest waste of time imaginable. So here's my only advice to the OP on that topic. When you are feeling shitty about your life, confide in your friends and family who have a natural wellspring of affection for you. Don't bring it to the Internet. You won't do well here. On the first question, which is actually the more important one from the perspective of helping the OP in any meaningful way, the answer is fairly simple. Many articling situations are difficult and disappointing. Not surprisingly, many first jobs in law don't turn out to be everything that every law student ever wanted. But it's less than a year of your life and you get through it. If you are not being abused or asked to do unethical things, then it doesn't sound like there's anything wrong, exactly, with this job, other than the fact that it's not what you want. I think everyone (including the OP) blew past the point where he complained about the work itself (too much research, no time in court, no client interaction, etc) and that's actually really important. It's easy to do work you enjoy. But I'd be miserable too sitting at a computer writing all day also. The good news is, once you get called you can reexamine your situation and find whatever work in law that you want, or do something else entirely. But the "solution" to your problem, in immediate terms, is to suck it up and realize that it's a short term thing that you get through. Let me add two final points. First, this has been canvassed above, before, but if you actually feel like you're on the verge of losing it, stop what you're doing and get help. Get real help. My version of problem-solving help may be the last thing that someone in genuine crisis needs. Get help-help. Second, your need to be right is interfering with your need to be happy. Stop trying to convince everyone else working in law that the thing that makes you unhappy represents some kind of universal injustice that everyone should be outraged about. Your problem is that you are unhappy - not that you are the only sane person who sees slavery and exploitation where everyone else sees a good job. So you gotta let that one go.
  4. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. There IS an interesting argument to be made for more closely tying available workers in each trade/profession to available jobs. But that argument essentially presupposes a FAR more managed economy than we currently have. Maybe not communism, but something closer to classic socialism at least. Anyone who really wants that for legal training needs to show me either (a) why the practice of law is so damn special that it deserves to be an exception to the economy generally, or (b) some true commitment to reforming the whole system, that goes beyond rank and naked self-interest. Mainly, it's been my observation, that the people who complain most are those who are very, very happy to reap the rewards of our competitive economic marketplace so long as they are winning, but complain bitterly when they lose. Excessive focus on articling as the focal point of all this supposed unfairness to law students and would-be lawyers is a red herring. Students complain about whatever hurdle is in their way. Weak applicants insist they deserve a chance in law school. Weak law graduates insist they deserve a chance to become licensed. Weak job seekers argue they shouldn't face excessive completion for jobs and clients, BECAUSE they were allowed to attend law school and become licensed to practice. Get comfortable with the competition for what you want. Or at least be intellectually honest and argue for socialism. You can't have it both ways.
  5. Any line of reasoning that continues at length about what's best for would-be lawyers (no matter the path) and then considers what's needed to protect clients only as an afterthought is not worthy of debate. I'm not saying you're the only one. This approach is depressingly common. But it's unfortunate to hear this attitude from any member of the profession. And barely less so from an aspiring member of the profession.
  6. Diplock

    Drafting a Master Service Agreement

    What kinds of people are you hanging around with!?! Literally none of those things have ever happened to me.
  7. There is a sharp division between people here who have ever argued that prestige is somehow a meaningful and reasonable thing to want and strive for, and those who think it's stupid and empty. That division is simply this. Law students and wannabe law students frequently argue on the side of prestige as a life goal. Lawyers just about never do. Now you can argue that this is just a difference of opinion, and that it's just a statistical fluke that the students who see value in prestige are still students, and their views won't change if/when they become lawyers. And it's only prestige-less lawyers, or those who can't see the value of what they have, who hang around this site. But really, I prefer the simpler explanation.
  8. I don't think of my practice in the same terms that you are dealing with, but the basic issue is this. You are already doing everything right from the perspective of being a conscientious, proactive employee. Good for you. But as stands, you may be the articling student they sincerely regret not hiring back because they simply don't have enough work for you. If there's no work, there's no work. The only thing you can do is bring in more work. Which is obviously not something you do on your own. So, rather than keep asking other people to give you billable assignments (which they may be short on themselves) if you have done the rounds and taken on whatever is available, have a conversation with your Principal and raise this issue. Because the thing that you do after you've done all the paid work you can do, is you do things that get you more paid work. Ask him what you could be doing that could conceivably help the firm to grow the pie. It's not billable hours. But it's the next best thing. And if you want to be considered potentially part of the future of the firm, they'll appreciate that you view it in those terms.
  9. Diplock

    Disappointed Cycle?

    See, this is ... I understand your friend got an offer in the first week of September. And good for your friend. Must have seemed miraculous at the time. But how in the world do you conclude that means they were deep into the waitlist? They could have taken five off the wait list, and the fifth and last was your friend. That's just faulty reasoning.
  10. Diplock

    Drafting a Master Service Agreement

    This topic has been flogged to death, and everything important has already been said. But just for future reference, you've got that backwards. When someone has already done something, berating them at length is a waste of time. All you can do is engage with the consequences of their actions. It's when someone hasn't done something yet, but either came close or it or is thinking about it, that a long response is appropriate. Because then you can prevent the stupid shit from happening in the first place. Law can be a great profession. And I'm not going to give you a lecture about how you have to cross every t, dot every i, and follow every rule. I know great lawyers who don't do that. And I know opinions will differ and I've just made a controversial statement, but in some practice environments I consider it damn near impossible to follow every rule - and certainly impossible while serving marginalized clients effectively and in volume, for example. That said, law is a profession where you absolutely must know what you are doing, and not doing, at all times. What concerns me isn't that you asked about breaking a very important rule - though you were asking about breaking an important rule, and in a way you should never break it - but that you asked about it in a way that reveals you don't even know the rule exists, and/or that you don't understand how it works or why it matters. And that is really, really bad. Accept the correction and get your shit together. Because if you don't, it's going to eventually cause one of those nightmares from which your career is unlikely to recover.
  11. Diplock

    Disappointed Cycle?

    I don't know how much profit there is in focusing on a personal statement, because ideas of what constitutes a "good" statement are so subjective. I don't even know if I wrote a good statement myself. I mean, it got the job done, but maybe it was just my grades and LSAT and other stuff. That said, I would take a solid look at whatever you wrote about the "law in relation to climate change." This is the sort of topic where I find students can veer completely off track and reveal, inadvertently, that they don't know what the law actually does and, by extension, that they don't know what lawyers do. As a lawyer, you argue before decision-making bodies (often the court, sometimes other things such as tribunals) or advise you clients in relation to what would happen if their issues came before courts and other decision-making bodies. That's simplistic, but basically accurate. So what decision-making body do you imagine adjudicates laws in relation to climate change? The answer is, none. What you're talking about is in the realm of treaties and international diplomacy. I'm not saying you're wrong that it's a concern, but it isn't a concern that any court adjudicates. At most, it could theoretically be covered by some kind of treaty like the Kyoto Protocol. But do you seriously think there's actually an adjudicative body where you litigate over disputes? Here is where my knowledge of international treaties ends. There are surely dispute-resolution mechanisms. But the idea that any country would subjugate their sovereignty to an international enforcement agency where you could appeal for a remedy ... that strikes me as extremely unlikely. Even in cases of genocide and war crimes that barely ever happens. International criminal court is, for the most part, more theoretical than actual. You think it's going to happen for climate change? And so again, work in this area (which does happen, and is important) exists in the realm of policy and diplomacy and not in the realm of legal practice. You can talk about this subject and sound intelligent, if you have a nuanced enough view. But it's a minefield. Lots of students talk blithely about "international law" like they think they are going to travel around the world suing dictators and polluters and exploiters until the world gets better. And those students sound like idiots, whether they realize it or not. If you're interested in policy, then you can talk about that. But there's no one to sue in relation to climate change.
  12. Diplock

    Drafting a Master Service Agreement

    Seriously. This. And not in a sarcastic way. In a "this is really something you should already know, because it's important" kind of way. If you really think you can do legal work, and charge for it, while not being a lawyer and while not defining it as acting in a legal capacity, you should really review that shit you theoretically learned to pass your bar exams.
  13. I may have been in an unusually pissy mood when I wrote my post, so if there's really nothing to it then feel free to ignore. But for clarity, I wasn't saying that you were humble-bragging about your undergraduate degree, or about anything. I was saying that there was something similar to humble-bragging going on in the sense that the presentation suggests one concern, but the real intention is something else entirely. It's not quite schadenfreude. It's just ... feigned concern that I can't help feel conceals the real hope that the person you're expressing concern for isn't doing well after all. Anyway, I don't wish anyone badly. I just don't see why anyone would need to seek confirmation that their friend is full of shit - especially if they don't intend to use that information to help in any way.
  14. Posts such as this are something along the lines of humble-bragging, and it needs a name. This is couched as concern, but really you just want it confirmed that your "friend" is an idiot, so you can feel certain he isn't actually on the path to success. Which may well be the actual case. But your motive in asking isn't out of his best interests. Here's the thing. If you are concerned that your friend doesn't know much about how to get into law school, you should direct him to legitimate sources of information. This forum may be one, but he can also contact law schools and ask directly, or engage with whatever academic advisors he has access to. The way to make sure your friend gets legitimate information is not for you to ask strangers on the Internet and then filter it back to him in a game of broken telephone. If your friend can't be bothered even visiting a website on his own then here's a hint - he's not going to law school. A genuine friend would just accept he's not there right now and let him talk or not talk about his plans with some tolerance, without any need to probe whether they make sense or not. A less genuine "friend" might be comforted to know that what you're describing doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. You can decide which you are.
  15. Diplock

    Partner Compensation in Canada vs US?

    I'm with Uriel. Words matter. We can all go nuts with our various interpretations of what we think other people mean when they say something. But by definition, if the meaning isn't clear then there's no common explanation for what other people mean anyway. They all mean different things. The only way to avoid confusion is by using a term that has a specific, agreed-upon meaning. Without that, there will inevitably be confusions, both large and small. When someone tells me that they want to work at the biggest, most prestigious law firm doing whatever big important things are done there, and they don't particularly care what work they perform as long as they are paid lots of money and have lots of prestige with which to flagellate their lesser peers ... well, I think that person is a douche. But at least they are a douche with a plan and with an idea of what they want. And that's better than many law students who don't have a holy fucking clue and just end up applying to whatever firms do OCIs because they don't know how else to get paid after law school. When someone tells me they want to work at a Seven Sister, I assume they are both douchy (see above) and also stupid. Which is a far greater failing in this profession.
×