rglasgow

Members
  • Content count

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

rglasgow last won the day on December 13 2015

rglasgow had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

326 Good People

About rglasgow

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1541 profile views
  1. I hear at Morgan's the cool kid table is made up of gold and the skulls of their enemies.
  2. I hear at Morgan's they don't just make you check your phone - they implant a communication chip directly into your brain so you don't need to waste the time physically looking at or picking up the phone.
  3. I will say that, from a personal point of view, I will add just about anyone that asks to be a connection on linkedin and wouldn't think anything untoward about a law student adding me on the service. Heck, I think that's partially what it's for.
  4. Prefacing my comments with the knowledge that I work at a large national firm, so mileage may vary. Frankly I don't do much international travel, and a lot of it is what Maximumbob has identified - work comes in from other places needing help on Canadian law issues for import/export issues. Others are Canadian importer/exporters needing similar help or help interpreting or getting guidance on issues like economic sanctions or export controls. However, some of the files you work on do require the possibility of travel, such as corruption investigations and ISDS cases. These can land you out in some very... interesting... locales. You also do a lot more travel across the country than outside it - as frequently you're working in a small department of a much larger firm with both your own international clients, but also helping out the various other business units when they hit an "international-y" problem. Nowadays a lot of that can be handled remotely with calls and video-conferences, but even today a lot of people greatly appreciate a true face-to-face meeting. I'd also agree with Maximumbob again that the practice area that's underrated and, in many ways, understaffed. Canada for a long time has been a relatively internally focused country (apart from our resource industries). But with increasingly globalized trade, and further FTAs that greatly open up the services are, our economies are becoming increasingly enmeshed with those of our trading partners. It doesn't help that when most people think of "international law" they immediately seize on human rights, social justice, or other government focused areas and don't realize the very real need for lawyers in private practice in this public/quasi-public law area. For a lot of people they just assume it's not something you can really do as a career choice, so they never really consider it. Which is a shame because the work can be incredibly fascinating (though most of it not as exciting or exhilarating as the adrenaline rush of an ongoing trial).
  5. To be fair some of us do practice international law - but it tends to be international trade law (customs, export controls, corruption of foreign officials, and investor-state dispute settlement) more than international human rights/criminal work.
  6. Not gonna lie. I initially read this as asking about "Certificate Farming"
  7. Given that the vote is nearly 50/50 - it's odd nearly all the comments are on the "nay" side. I was wondering if someone who voted yay to term limits could provide their rationale? As I said, it seems odd to me that you would, prima facie, just exclude anyone from an appointment when they have a load of experience, capability, and expertise in a field. I would definitely support 10 year renewable terms (or heck, I'd actually go with 3-5 year terms that are renewable) - it just seems to me that term limits are generally a bad idea. Earlier we discussed other public employees and it bears questioning - would those that vote for term limits here also advocate for term limits for police officers? Fire fighters? Foreign affairs officers? CBSA agents? What is the line, and why is the line there?
  8. I can't imagine the reason for term limits in general. I mean, can you imagine this applying in any other context, "Look - we know you've spent the last 10 years on this job. And you've accumulated huge amounts of expertise and experience which are relied upon by our clients and partners [read in this case - parties and the judiciary]... but look it's been ten years. Yes, we realize you're still fantastically qualified and highly regarded - but nope, time's up. Goodbye" It just seems wrongheaded that not only will some of the most experienced people be excluded from jobs - but that this exclusion is a feature and not a bug.
  9. Let all who have never dined there be guided by this.
  10. I can't be the only one who got the "Cash money... cash money ya!" song in their head from this thread title.
  11. It's not just cash - it's offsets. You have a very limited selection in housing (indeed, at times you get none) and sometimes the bureaucrats can get pissy (we once had an audit and a whole hullabaloo over whether a particular officer's posting housing was 2 square feet over the limit for their salary level) but you pay substantially lower rent than you ever could here. You also get additional benefits if you happen to have a family - such as equivalent education guarantees (largely in the form of private/international schools whenever you're on posting). Also note - this is to the best of my recall, it's been a few years and from what I've heard the austerity measures the government has taken has hit all branches of the government (including DFAIT) leading to some cutbacks which could change some of the above. I will agree to this wholeheartedly. I can't remember if it was in another thread, or this one that I then decided not to post because I was somewhat onery that day, but if you want to earn a lot of money either become an entrepreneur and take huge risks, or go into the financial banking sector (usually at an i-bank and then make the slide into private equity where the big money typically is) - though that latter path demands an extraordinary constitution and for you to be very good at your job.
  12. The real key for government work isn't so much the salary, but the benefits. And I'm not just talking about the vested defined benefit pension. If you go on to work as counsel for DFAIT (or whatever they're calling it these days), you accrue significant benefits from living abroad (allowances, utility benefits, COLA, cheap housing etc).
  13. Ignoring the petulant bullies that call themselves protesters in Quebec. General Canadian undergrad tuition is still ridiculously cheap. College tuition is even cheaper. Professional schools are expensive. One reason for this is because of the expectation that professionals have higher future earning power and thus their degrees can be more expensive. Importantly, another reason is that a some of law school tuition doesn't actually stick around in the law school. A lot of the money that's paid by professional students gets set aside into the "general" fund - which then gets applied back to the school at large (thus making professional schools money dynamos of sorts). Why do schools NEED this money dynamo? Because undergraduate tuitions are so low and that money is needed for both faculty and equipment (modern high-tech lab equipment does not come cheap). I actually agree with some of the above - notably that I think there are enough opportunity costs that students would still have to seriously consider whether or not they want to go into law. My problem is the assumption that you can just drop money on this problem from "the government". Which government? Is it the Provincial government that is so far in the red that it's getting its credit rating downgraded? You can't just spend money freely and expect no repercussions. There is a bottom somewhere (particularly when you don't control your own monetary policy). So who is going to pay for this? Or are you going to severely cut lab equipment supplies? Cut back on the number, quality, and hours of libraries? Sell off corporate sponsorship (The Pizza Pizza Library - we find your book in 30 minutes or less)? And in a couple years the Province would be completely broke and we'd be here. Also - given how many of my colleagues seem to take Caribbean vacations during our spring break (and the number of undergrads that take similar trips during theirs - or ski vacations) they're clearly not hurting for money. People that are hurting for money don't flit off for that kind of trip (at least, one would expect they don't). I just have trouble holding these two thoughts in my head: 1) I'm too broke to pay for anything. Law school is too expensive. I need more money from the government. 2) I'm going to Cuba! Woooo! It's like those two ideas are angry weasels that we through into a sack. A reasonable brain looks at them and realizes they can't both be true if we're being intellectually honest. It takes real cognitive dissonance to reconcile the two angry weasels. I'm not trying to say that students shouldn't take breaks or go on trips - merely that it's completely mealy mouthed to, on the one hand, say "woe is me I cannot afford tuition for a human capital building move that on a statistical level creates more wealth for me in my lifetime than I could possibly be paying" and then say "let's blow a couple thou on booze and sunshine"
  14. Partly because you don't have the funds to create all the jobs required with immediate funds. Those working in the forgiveness programs don't have to be working directly for the government - they can have private sector jobs. The key is that the type of law being done, and the area its being done in, are aimed at areas that are underserved and have access to justice issues. It's related to solving geographic saturation issues that plague articling job requests and access to justice. As for the government simply handing over money, you have problems of a general lack of funds in the public purse. Regardless of what certain students might think, Provinces and nations cannot simply spend more and more money without consequence. The debt forgiveness of those that are going that track can be directly financed by the reduction in subsidization of law school for those that don't go that route. Will it be cost neutral? I don't know - depends on levels of subisidization and levels of loan forgiveness given out. Again , this is an embryonic idea that requires a panel to actually investigate it. If only some kind of law society just had some kind of massive investigatory panel to look at options... Note again - this is simply one idea I've kicked around in my head and think has a certain appeal. I'm sure there are other multilateral options that could work equally well if not better - and all of them likely have better outcomes than LSUC trying to do it alone. Insisting that it had to be a solo initiative by the law society hamstrung the effort from the get-go and I disagree with the process. And I still think you're under-estimating the amount that law school tuition goes to things other than law school - and will continue to as long as undergrad tuitions are kept artificially low and we simultaneously want world class research facilities. Beyond that, I think you must have had some poor professors. I know some of law school are readings of cases, but if your profs have really given you no value add then I'm really rather sorry. Some of my favourite profs have been the ones that have gone through some cases and absolutely eviscerated the judges for what he thinks are misstatements of the law and basic legal principles in his area. Again, there's a difference between "my CDO sucked" and "CDOs are a bad thing". As we used to say in APDA - 'Don't do it the dumb way'. Yes, a poorly run CDO can be a complete waste of money. The solution isn't to dump the CDO, but change the way it works. Have it merged and interact heavily with the alumni relations board. Having experienced a US CDO/Alumni relations effort versus the Canadian one it's absolutely no contest. I still get phone calls from my alma mater about events going on at campus, in my alumni area, for reunions, and, yes, for annual giving donations. Not just emails, mass mail, and monthly alumni magazines, but actual phone calls from people that I went to class with (and frequently had dinner with). The effort taken to reach out to alumni both to stay connected, raise money, and provide a network for careers and personal lives is extraordinary. I credit my undergrad career and alumni offices with helping me secure both a summer job, and a job immediately after graduation. I can agree with you that some law CDOs are as currently constituted giant wastes of money. My disagreement is that the fundamental concept is wrong. I also think that, given the job market, anything a school can do to help their students secure placements is a good thing.