Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


epeeist last won the day on August 15

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2199 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

  1. Probably dumb question

    My own personal favourite was at a fencing tournament, while waiting at the side of the piste for my next bout, someone I knew came up to me and started asking whether their idea was patentable. Which was wrong on so many levels (including possible public disclosure) that I had to shut them down immediately (albeit politely, it was a nice person just so very much the wrong time and place!).
  2. Probably dumb question

    Ah, I think some employment lawyers, and HR, might have something to say about this...
  3. Probably dumb question

    [emphasis added] An interview setting is not a social setting, which is why you shouldn't. And for that matter, someone trying to interview you in a social setting - e.g. they meet you at a friend's party and start trying to talk business - is wrong in the opposite way.
  4. Yeah, OP gave no link to the LSUC one - making me have to do a search - and no indication they've done work on it other than asking here for one (the contrary, in fact). And the continually misspelling principal as principle annoys me. And as you get at, any training plan is going to be so highly dependent on what the firm practices etc. OP, here's an attempt to be helpful generally, beyond what you were asking. If you want help, make it as easy as possible to give you that help. And if you're given an assignment you can't complete, do as much as you can first (some exceptions e.g. if there's an emergency/rush situation you should make clear you can't do it in the time available if you can't). Not to be nasty, but if you can't even come up with your own training plan, for what you want and need, how will you cope when serving clients? Have you done as your principal advised and contacted the law society? ("...correspond with the law society if needed...")?
  5. My full-time work is not practicing law, and most of the people don't have law degrees. In my particular case being a lawyer (being a lawyer, not merely having a law degree) opened some doors, but that was more because some of my experience as a lawyer was relevant. I agree with both @Lawtender33 and @kurrika that except for something that requires a law degree, there is always (or almost always) a better, cheaper way to qualify for a job. And my recollection from some US blogs or articles is that some law school graduates find problems finding non-legal work because employers think they're overtrained, will be overly assertive re their rights as a worker, will be looking for work as a lawyer and will leave quickly, think they're damaged goods because they're not working as a lawyer, etc. If you've practiced law for a few years and then change, many of these objections disappear. But if you merely have a law degree and no work as a lawyer, everyone will rightly wonder/ask, why you went to law school if not to become a lawyer.
  6. Is your principal asking you to make it so that they know what sort of experience you're looking for? Or to make sure you've thought about what work will help teach you the various competencies? And will they try to offer those experiences to you based on the plan? I mean, not to get all preachy, but isn't this exactly the sort of thing you want to spend your time working on to hopefully help you get the sort of experiences you want and the education you need?
  7. TWU - The Big Show

    Alice Woolley column last week (includes links to other analyses) re the intervention kerfuffle and legal (and policy) problems with it: "...Like I think many in the legal community, my first reaction to all of this was, “well that was weird”. And concerning. See, e.g., these terrific columns by Patrick Baud and Maxime St-Hillaire, Tom Harrison, and Omar Ha-Redeye, exploring the uncertain legal foundations for the Chief’s order (Baud and St-Hillaire), the general question of how much authority a chief justice has and should have over scheduling and assignments (Harrison), and the Chief’s order as an example of public dialogue and as a potentially troubling precedent (Ha-Redeye). Here I want to explore three thoughts about the Court’s response to Justice Wagner’s original order: that it was understandable; that it was regrettable; and that it shows a now urgent need to change the Court’s process for deciding applications to intervene...." http://www.slaw.ca/2017/09/06/the-unfortunate-incident-of-the-twu-intervention-decisions/
  8. TWU - The Big Show

    I both disagree and agree re external pressure. I disagree because it's adults choosing to attend TWU, they know what they're getting into, it's not a secret. They can go elsewhere if they don't like it - and in fact, I believe TWU is more expensive than most alternatives, so why would (most) people want to go there unless they actually thought the covenant was okay with them? To reiterate yet again a point I've made before...I can recall one letter of support for TWU submitted by a graduate who said he was a gay male who complied with the covenant while he was there, though he disagreed with it, he knew what he was getting into. And a contrary example I've noted before, that supports the external pressure argument you make, one lesbian woman opposed to TWU who said she had to go there (and keep her relationship a secret) because she had been home-schooled and no other BC university would admit her. Now, she faced external pressure that she had to go to TWU (or outside BC, if she could afford it). But her external pressure was imposed as I see it not by TWU, but by the BC government and other BC universities, the government for allowing home-schooling but not requiring BC universities to admit such students (based on testing perhaps, SAT or otherwise?), and other universities for not choosing to be willing to admit such students (I am assuming she was correct that no other BC university would admit her for that reason; if she were wrong, then she faced no external pressure). Going back to an earlier point, re sex-segregated classes in college or university or first aid or whatever, if someone wants to offer such for religious or other reasons, there are many women-only fitness facilities, or women-only fitness classes, women-only strippercise classes, whatever (as well as segregated changerooms). Women can legally go topless, but that's not the same as saying that all women want to. If one person's sense of modesty (religious, cultural, or otherwise) when with the opposite sex is toplessness, someone else's is a bikini, someone else's is long sleeves, someone else's is a hijab, someone else's is a niqab, and if they want to set up a private club, or classes, or college, or university, to allow them to attend with only other women so that they can dress as they want and sit where they want, whether for religious or secular reasons, how is that a problem? My problem with women-only swimming hours is not that such is offered, but that there are no corresponding men-only swimming hours. Also quaere how many people object on principle to clubs that charge nothing or less for women to enter... Lastly (for now), I think I had read something about how some women who had been assault victims liked TWU because the covenant meant that they didn't feel pressured to enter into behaviour or situations they felt uncomfortable with - I think that was mentioned as a fringe benefit not a reason for attending TWU, but it's one reason I mention the possibility of secular reasons for wanting a women-only class or college, or a coed place like TWU that still imposes restrictions on behaviour with other students, etc.
  9. TWU - The Big Show

    I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I noted to Hegdis on the previous page that if the BC government had refused TWU permission to open a law school, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's that they allowed it and LSBC (and by a process that, whatever one's opinion of the result is, was wonky) overruled the elected BC government. Arguments re LSUC different more federalism. I also think adults should be free to choose to restrict their behaviour, including by joining clubs with restrictive policies, but to me that's (for BC) secondary to the LSBC << BC issue.
  10. TWU - The Big Show

    I picked an easier example for my follow-up, not Muslim only, but a school or course for women only, so that Hassidic Jewish women, or Muslim women who in the presence of men believe they need to wear a hijab or niqab, or women who have been assaulted by men and are more comfortable with a women-only class/college/university can feel free to attend. EDIT: and I don't think you, or anyone else in the thousands of posts in this or prior thread, has answered my question about what should happen to TWU re teaching nursing, teaching, etc. and whether professional regulatory bodies in BC or other provinces should be able to exclude graduates.
  11. TWU - The Big Show

    Would you also prohibit her from opening a school only for other women, so that (to comply with what they see as their religious obligations) they don't need to wear hijabs or niqabs since only other women in classes (including instructors)?
  12. TWU - The Big Show

    I also - at the risk certainty of repetition - don't understand why people think educating children at private (or publicly funded) religious schools is okay simply because their parents want that, and allowing parents to successfully object to public school curriculum taught to their kids is okay (re Wynne's riding), but when it's adults choosing to attend a religious school, it should be prohibited (de facto even if not de jure). Or why it's okay for an adult woman to choose to restrict her behaviour and wear a hijab or niqab, but it's not okay for her to attend a school with other women following the same beliefs?
  13. TWU - The Big Show

    So explicitly, do you believe that all professions in all provinces should refuse to admit TWU graduates who studies those professions at TWU? Make it easier, say it's grandfathered, a waiting period of a few years to deal with current students, etc. Do you believe that nurses, teachers, etc. colleges in all provinces - including BC - should deny future accreditation to all graduates? And do you want the SCC to reach such a decision, that gives all professions (not just law) that discretion? EDIT: also, you gave an example of a men's school. Let's say someone wants to open an all-women law school with the secular goal of providing a safe space for those who have been victims of gender-based violence. Would you oppose accreditation? Also, I don't understand your first two sentences, I don't understand what you mean when you say it should be a school issue not an accreditation issue. FURTHER EDIT: If you mean that TWU and all such similar schools that you dislike should be closed unless they meet your standards, who pays for that? Or do you think that laws should be passed using the notwithstanding clause to prohibit even TWU undergraduate teaching not directed to professions? Really, to what extent do you see this argument going? All degrees (do you allow theology degrees still?), all professional degrees, law only (not you, some others say law is special), what else? And politically, whatever happens with law, do you really think the BC government whatever its stripe is willing to pay the cost (monetary and political) of closing TWU as a whole? Also, if the BC government had denied TWU permission to open a law school we wouldn't be having this discussion. I see a significant issue as whether a profession can second-guess a provincial government (LSBC the same one, LSUC a different one) based not on competence nor client concerns (as LSUC conceded), but because they dislike the choice the BC government made?
  14. TWU - The Big Show

    It's denying them the right to practice their faith, as they see it, with coreligionists consenting adults. TWU teaches nursing, should nursing graduates not be allowed to practice nursing in Ontario? What if TWU opened a medical school? And teaching, etc. I don`t recall anyone else answering my questions about, if LSUC and LSBC are successful, is that applicable only to law because law is special, or to professions generally? Trying to pick examples maybe not used already is tough, I'll take a stab at it...apologies if I misrepresent religious strictures. Let's say a Hassidic Jew with strong beliefs wants to become a lawyer, he or she has a problem with attending a law school with people of the other sex, including but not limited to sitting next to them. They find a foreign common-law school in Israel that has mandatory rules of behaviour about e.g. sitting next to the opposite sex, not having sex except in marriage, only recognizing heterosexual Jewish marriage, etc. They go there, an adult who wants to go there, as is everyone else attending. They return to Canada, they should be allowed to go through the NCA process (assuming academic etc. requirements are met). Same thing with an observant Muslim who wants to go to a foreign law school that comports with their beliefs including about sex and the definition of marriage as heterosexual Muslim marriage (and strictures which may, for some women, include a school that e.g. obligates students to wear a hijab if they may be seen by any males i.e. when outside the all-female school, if that's what that adult and that school believe is required?). Now, say that there are enough Hassidic Jews or Muslims who want to start a law school in Canada with the same strictures because they believe they are obligated to follow them and are adults who choose to do so. Why should such a law school be denied accreditation, and/or why should such students be denied admission to the bar if otherwise suitable (academically, character, etc.)? Taking the foreign education example again, as was discussed re Ontario and Ontario educational institutions setting up branches in foreign Muslim countries which impose strictures by force of law, that's very different from people choosing to adopt a code of religious conduct, it's imposed by law. Or some countries - including some Commonwealth countries - criminalize LGBT sex. That raises other issues (and someone especially someone born there might attend school there, they shouldn't be blamed for their country's laws!). Which leads me to I think a genuinely new example (!). Let's say a Canadian who can't get into medical school here attends a Caribbean medical school in a country that criminalizes (and enforces laws against) LGBT sex. That school also has a code of conduct that, with reference to the country's laws, prohibit such behaviour. That Canadian after graduation is a resident in the US, becomes a physician, wants to return to Canada and work in a remote area like Nunavut or northern Ontario that has a desperate need for physicians. They meet all academic and medical requirements. Should they be denied the ability to practice medicine in Canada because they voluntarily chose to attend a medical school (and a country) that discriminates against LGBT people? Similarly for someone who attends medical school in a predominantly Muslim country with laws criminalizing LGBT behaviour, deny them the ability to practice medicine here? Or not? And let's say someone goes to a religious medical school that imposes a code of conduct that is like TWU, should they be denied the ability to practice medicine? Isn't that less objectionable, attending a school that people voluntarily agree to a code of conduct versus having it imposed by force of criminal law?!
  15. [portion only quoted] I appreciate your feedback re LPP situations, my comments were directed to articles (again with the caveat, my own personal experience was years ago). And with the further caveat, my articles were excellent (though I wasn't hired back, I mean from a learning and experience point of view, several lawyers gave me excellent references, etc.), so my concerns are more addressed to the contrast between what articles can/should be, versus what they were/are at the other (worse) end. Assuming it's anonymous enough, did they deserve to fail? I'm actually encouraged that there are people who fail articles (not just weird extremes), subject to: (1) did the principal/employer give adequate feedback in a timely fashion so they knew there was a problem and what they had to do to correct it? and (2) related, was it all really the student's fault (again anecdotally, I can think of at least one person who was very seriously thrown under the bus for something that wasn't their fault that they felt they had to go along with but got screwed permanently). Re (1) for some people this may be their first real job, in some instances they might not have worked even during summers in university (or law school if didn't get a position) or high school, or if they did it was for a family business or something, they may be learning not only about the law but also about being an employee, with a boss (or bosses), staff who you can give tasks to but for whom everyone else is (justifiably) more important and have you learned how to deal with that when you delegate, etc. Also anecdotally, and many years ago, I knew (at another firm, they shared what happened later), ethical exercises that articling students were supposed to complete themselves and discuss with their principal and then submit together with principal's comments to LSUC, one large downtown firm instead called all the students into a meeting, told them what the answers for each should be, told them to write answers matching that, and submit them, to save time so they didn't have to research and think about things themselves. That and a number of other things I heard of make me rather cynical about how diligent some employers are about ensuring their students have a good learning experience rather than a good income-earning (for the employer) experience. And contrariwise, I can think of again at least one person who should have been fired, but in large part because of their situation and not wanting a bad reputation the employer didn't want to risk a discrimination or similar complaint, so kept them employed and they passed articles...