Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


epeeist last won the day on August 10

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3236 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

  1. LPP

    If tuition would be drastically lower, and student loans and funding were available through articling so people could live (and buy necessary business clothes and other expenses, etc.) I might well think your approach is better than the current one. I'd love a 2 years undergrad then 2 years law school then 1 year articles (as you would have them be) if tuition were lower. And it couild also be much more accessible to people with lower incomes. And it would be less expensive to offer I think, so could have more places for qualified people. But I see no reasonable prospect of that happening. The only situations I'm aware of in which there's been successful pushback against increasing regulation and professionalization of everything from selling coffins to braiding hair, have been some successful US challenges to overregulation, either in the courts or politically. But in Canada?
  2. Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    I'm reading a lot about what people like or don't like. What do people think that the law, as it is now, allows law societies to do? Not asking for legal advice! Also, whether principles or the law, if a law school doesn't discriminate on admissions based on objectionable categories by HRCs (and ignoring religious exemptions as is the case here now per SCC), is the objection to religious law schools, religious professional schools generally, all religious schools except for theology, what? Secondary only for adults, or childhood education? Privately-funded objected to or only public (Catholic separate, and one Protestant separate in Ontario)? If they don't discriminate against students, can law societies say we don't like religious law schools? Or is the staff/faculty aspect now going to be the crux of argument? Or students regardless of not being bound may not feel comfortable therefore it's discriminatory because people wouldn't like to go there? If not wanting to go there equals discrimination, get rid of that law school in Winnipeg... Also, huge difference between secular and atheistic, and I think many people (generally, not picking on this thread) say secular but mean atheist, in terms of how education should be. If someone opposes religious education, does that include atheistic education being opposed, that the preferred model is secular? Thinking also of years ago Cuba changed from officially atheist to secular.
  3. LPP

    So people should pay tuition for the experiential learning component, which should be provided as an academic and practical learning experience. Great idea! It's already here. It's called LPP or Laurentian program. Or if not, if yearlong articles paying nothing and with no student loans etc., it becomes what I posted before, the rich can afford to do that, the poor or middle class, not so much. I don't know about Canadian stats, but apparently in the UK (study from a few years ago), lawyers over time have come from wealthier backgrounds (it's family background, not lawyer wealth) and intelligence has dropped - wealth and privilege > IQ for getting into law school and succeeding. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/socialmobility.pdf
  4. Interests Section

    I'm thinking that you consider scrapbooking common/generic suggests that it may be another one of those stereotypical interests? Also for weight lifting, apparently from the thread @BlockedQuebecois started (or rather had split off), one might end up in an argument over what type of lifting is done, with what reps, etc.
  5. Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    "... The change will come into effect beginning in the 2018-2019 school year, and applies to new and continuing students. But faculty, staff and administrators will still have to sign the restrictive covenant, a school spokesperson confirmed. ... Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan, who pushed for a special vote to overturn the B.C. Law Society's original decision to accredit TWU, called Tuesday's news "a very positive move." But he said that if teachers and staff at the proposed law school are still required to sign the covenant, accreditation could still be an issue. "To the extent that the university would still wish to fire or discipline staff members for being involved in consensual same-sex relationships, they may still have a serious issue about whether it would be in the public interest to grant them approval," Mulligan told CBC News. ..." https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-students-won-t-have-to-sign-covenant-banning-sex-outside-straight-marriage-1.4784924
  6. Interests Section

    Just from a quick search, I found the sample resumes from Fasken's interesting: https://www.fasken.com/-/media/36702b99d09840069aa4821849782419.ashx?la=en&hash=083FA83A6314149211B8AA76DA022FBD4E78812D&hash=083FA83A6314149211B8AA76DA022FBD4E78812D I wouldn't spend nearly so much space on interests, I'd put multiple languages more prominently than at the end in interests, I wouldn't put "Avid baker" (that's the first Jane Doe resume...), or "Aspiring traveller", etc., but I'm a PT solo and they're a large law firm, so make of it what you will (they have their own disclaimer). But generally, they do tend to be more specific including (if travel) where, etc.
  7. Interests Section

    [emphasis added] TL;DR: again only bold Hmm. Good at cooking but not baking suggests you're not good at precision, following detailed instructions correctly, or keeping track of time and deadlines, but have learned to improvise and cover up mistakes? Sorry, could't resist. But trying to be more helpful, if you run at least one race, you could list e.g. "Running (most recent Scotiabank 10K)" instead of just e.g. "Running" and still fit 3 interest on one line. That is, I think within reason being specific is good, as @providence noted re crosswords, and pointing to a specific measure (even if just, you participated in an organized competition and finished) is a good thing. Whereas, and in fairness I'm not an outdoor person, hiking/backpacking/running alone don't sound interesting. Or if you do rock climbing, I think that's impressive on its own, not needing more, but if asked, you should be prepared to say e.g. your most recent free climb was last summer El Capitan in Yosemite or whatever (that's from a Google search, I get disturbed even from the heights in the current Mission Impossible movie which I saw in 4DX - is it knowing it's practical stunts not green screen that makes a difference, or something subtle in how it looks when not greenscreen?). Also I'd think not more than one outside athletic activity normally? And does cooking extend to a particular interest in a particular cuisine, or are you into wine and can you talk about it? You may not want to be too revealing here, I mean, be honest but also impressive and have something that shows you're an athletic person who can deal with stress (rock climbing) with some client-related interest (winetasting, gourmet food, whatever) and brains (more specific than just crosswords - if not specific like NYT, do you like cryptic crosswords?).
  8. Interests Section

    I agree with the (much briefer than me) Constant, except re the travel thing and I'd do one line not 3 bulleted lines, but generally agree. Interests is only going to be one line (not including spacing/heading) but how much is the typical law student going to have that they can't, with some editing and formatting, make space for something that may be much more interesting to them than anything else on the page? EDIT: re the discussion of crosswords, agreeing with @providence re specificity, and honesty, if you say you like doing the X crossword, have that day's on your phone or in your pocket/purse, and have worked on it before the interview. Not in an interview setting, just networking, ended up comparing answers to that day's puzzle with another lawyer.
  9. Interests Section

    [emphasis added] TL;DR: read only bold. My experience is not current, so take it with a grain of salt. If you're a woman, or overweight, or both, perhaps don't list baking? Nothing suggesting sugar and spice and everything nice unless you're truly bitchy... Be honest, but don't have to list everything. List 3 things, one athletic, one intellectual, and one fun, that you can talk about interestingly with those familiar or not familiar with them (practice on friends and family if necessary). So if an interviewer wants to talk about something other than law, you can, and show how interesting and pleasant you are. Except for my concern about baking (seriously, I wasn't just making a joke, it's unfair but a woman listing knitting or sewing or baking compared to a man doing so, will there be an unconscious stereotypical attitude? But I'm a man, so don't know firsthand), your 3 seem reasonable. Though I think I recall one interviewer commenting that someone who went to UBC or UVic had listed skiing as an interest, and since they were applying in Toronto they got grilled on that (why would a skiier want to leave BC?). Travel might merely make you sound privileged. I met someone who had travelled to over 100 countries, for them to list it made sense because that's seriously unusual. But 25 countries doesn't sound huge to me (which may be a sign of privilege? Not that I've been to that many myself, but I think 15-20 so 25 doesn't sound like a lot?). So it's both not impressive, and might annoy someone not widely travelled? Also, not to overthink, but perhaps fight negative stereotypes with your choice (hence my baking warning) - someone who was worried about discrimination because they had an accent, might (if truthful!) list hockey or golf if a genuine interest and sport they participated in, i.e. in terms of demonstrating fitting-in qualities (whether or not one should do so is a more complicated question discussed elsewhere on this board). Though I've also read about people deliberately listing e.g. interests or volunteer activities related to LGBT or a religion or something because they wanted someone uncomfortable not to interview or hire them, to try to get a better fit? I listed fencing as an interest (and in my law school section, because I was a varsity athlete) and almost every interviewer asked me about it, because it was something different from the typical interests they saw. Some even asked me how they could get started (I'd checked on beginner fencing classes with equipment provided in Toronto and so could tell them). And I'd practiced with family and friends how to briefly describe how it worked with electrical scoring. Though some interviewer were really seriously interested and wanted to talk for 15-20 minutes, which I could. But because I'd listed fencing, I didn't also list archery, as they might have thought that was getting too weird with weapons...
  10. LPP

    To be brief (!) because just posted about this elsewhere, is my rough calculation that for $30 per Ontario lawyer per year the LPP could be fully funded correct? (EDIT: a poster above said $81 per year, still worth it if get free CLE!) Because if so, if that came along with e.g. free online webinars by LPP instructors to meet CLE requirements, would be a bargain I think many lawyers would be happy to make. Also, I've made more than a few negative remarks about the LSO's equity statement requirements, but that's based on my concern about how it was implemented, not disagreeing with the goal of accessibility (which promotes diversity in my view). Given that the LPP participants tend to be much more foreign-born, racialized, older, etc., to me promoting diversity and accessibility ties into it. EDIT: link only since discussed elsewhere see e.g. http://www.slaw.ca/2018/07/27/bridges-over-the-chasm-licensing-design-and-the-abolition-of-articling/
  11. I had already posted to a Slaw piece about accessibility to the profession on August 8th, so for something different related to the topics of articling salaries and accessibility. Which has been discussed, but not in this thread. Any unpaid or low-paid internship, educational requirement, articles, whatever, exert pressure on people coming from less-wealthy backgrounds (including, even if they have an identical LOC as someone else based on law school they went to, they will have had to use more of it and have less to tide them over while articling). So I agree that unpaid articles are a bad thing; I just don't agree that blaming those who offer unpaid articles is fair, because at least sometimes it will be that's all they can afford and they're doing so as a service. There are exceptions, of course, but without more I wouldn't ascribe poor motives. I think I'd posted a rough calculation that if every lawyer in Ontario paid $30 more per year, the LPP could be fully-funded for all Ontario graduates, and argued that that would be a fair bargain if the lawyers were given something in return, e.g. free online webinars from LPP instructors that met the annual CLE requirements or otherwise free resources. I mean, even getting a current copy of the bar ad materials for each year for $30 would be a good deal (I'm a volunteer tutor, and so get and review them for free, and it's a good refresher). EDIT: a post a couple of years ago elsewhere said I was off would be $81 per year, even if so, if got free CLE, would be worth it An analogous US example to unpaid articles (again, discussed here but not this thread) are government positions like with US Attorney offices or some state courts (some others forbid unpaid I think?) where someone who's well-off can afford 6 months or a year unpaid to get a foot in the door to becoming a federal prosecutor - but if you're not, good luck. And that has additional consequences in terms of limiting the intake of new federal prosecutors to those who are inclined to see poor people as criminals waiting to happen (I'm obviously exaggerating and oversimplifying!). From a quick search here's a sample listing: "... Qualifications: Applicants must possess a J.D. degree, be an active member of the bar (any jurisdiction), and have at least 1 year post-J.D. experience. Only applicants with outstanding academic records and superior legal research and writing skills will be considered. Any applicant invited for an interview will be required to submit a writing sample. Recent law school graduates should include a copy of their law school transcript with their application. Applicants must be United States Citizens. Note that employees of the Department of Justice, including uncompensated SAUSAs, may not engage in the compensated practice of law outside of the office. Attorneys are not eligible to serve as SAUSAs if they have been deferred by a law firm and received a payment for the period of their deferral, or if they will receive any payment from a law firm during their unpaid employment with the Department of Justice Attorneys are eligible if they have received severance or other one-time payment before becoming a SAUSA, or if they have an unpaid, future commitment to join a law firm. Salary: This is a one-year appointment without compensation. Note that uncompensated SAUSAs, may not engage in the compensated practice of law outside of the office. Travel: Travel, both within and outside the District, may be required depending on the needs of a particular case. On average, 1 to 5 days a month is typical...." https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/uncompensated-special-assistant-united-states-attorney-2 Even if the travel is subsidized, it's probably typical government pay first and get reimbursed months later with stuff not covered, and you're forbidden from getting payment as a lawyer for anything else while doing this, and it's for a year, and you need outstanding marks.
  12. Does it support that argument, though? Or is there a disappearing middle class generally in society, and the law school demographics merely reflect that? For articling students, I'd like to see data of # of articling students earning say minimum wage or less and those earning more, and I'd guess (just a guess) that there might be something of a trough shape, with fewer middle-income articling salaries, more at the high and low end? Bimodal, like what graphs of US attorney starting salaries are (a lot at low end, a small peak at high end, relatively flat/few jobs in between).
  13. You better fix that attitude, Mister BQ, before you have to make the LSO equity pledge of allegiance and salute!
  14. Middle income students being squeezed out is also bad! Like, when a university (law school or not) is very expensive, but also has generous financial aid for those in need, it may help those poor who get admitted (and can navigate the admissions and aid process and exemption from application fees and do well on standardized tests without expensive tutoring etc.), and the rich will always do well, but the disappearing middle class shouldn't be left out in the cold. Yeah, it was so terrible before that this hasn't, statistically, made it worse...and isn't law school or even university generally too late? If someone has had a worse education in elementary school because even within the same school board obviously not all schools (and students) are equal, even aside from the ability of wealthier families to pay for more optional activities, school supplies, etc., is it any surprise that fewer will have high GPAs and LSAT scores and volunteer activities?
  15. Thinking somewhat more recently, and connecting this discussion to the thread topic, assuming from a search this is roughly accurate: https://www.glassdoor.ca/Salaries/toronto-articling-student-salary-SRCH_IL.0,7_IM976_KO8,25.htm Going partly from memory, and doing some quick searches for U of T and Queen's tuition in law, engineering, and arts & science, in a few decades in which articling salaries (for those earning a good articling salary!) have gone up maybe 50%, with a lot of flatness (at least until last year, see e.g. http://precedentjd.com/news/bay-street-student-salaries-have-not-gone-up-in-a-decade/ ), tuition has risen in law depending upon the law school, by 200% or more. In engineering, up by 300% or more, and in arts and science, up by 200% or more. Perhaps someone wants to (or can link to) a more rigorous model of inflation and average graduate earnings and by specific years not general recollection. But I think the general point, tuition has gone up a lot more, a lot faster, than earnings, holds. And it's both the law degree, and the degree from before the law degree, that contributes to student debt. I think it's the general tuition inflation that's the problem, not law school tuition in particular, and arguing for fewer lawyers or law graduates doesn't exactly help (as well as being a problem re access to the profession especially for those from less wealthy backgrounds). Then, re articling specifically, say you have graduates with high debt and low or no-pay articles, who after a few years are solos or small firm lawyers, looking to get an articling student. They may genuinely not be able to afford to pay more than they received when they articled (and/or may be disinclined to do so!), and it continues. But to blame this on number of graduates or articling etc. alone I think misses the broader economic picture about more and more jobs requiring (effectively, even if not always formally) a degree of some sort even if unrelated, and tuition generally far outpacing salaries (not just in law). As an aside, people say we need more STEM graduates, when annual tuition is twice as high in engineering as arts and science, is it any wonder people are discouraged? I saw a piece recently re US medical school, as I recall it was, in US average 14 years to become physician other developed countries 10, in part because more do research programs, publications, etc., even though not interested, and poor quality research, because number of publications > quality and doing research means better residence opportunities. And a lot of medical education is duplicative, e.g. by time graduating have studied the Krebs cycle again and again at least half a dozen times in different courses (this was an anecdote expressing duplication), that those in condensed medical programs seem to do just as well in practice. But with law (full degree first not two years usually now), education (graduate degree no more concurrent teacher education etc.), more expectation of master's degrees in other areas, etc., the move has been to more and more time required, even when not necessary for competence. I think I've read how some law professors have noted a law degree used to be enough, then law plus master's, now law plus doctorate. How long before law firms start expecting an LL.M. on top of the first law degree?