Jump to content

Should I take less than ideal job in a less than ideal location or wait it out

Recommended Posts

Here is the problem:

I have recently been offered a doing quazi-legal work for an organization that I'm sure I would love to work for but it is not in a city I want to live in where there is limited upward potential. I am leaning towards accepting it, keep applying elsewhere and then leaving when something better comes around. Is this a common tactic amongst new calls? I know that it looks bad and it screws the other organization over if I do indeed leave but here is my situation:


1. I am an anxious person generally and having a job while help alot with that.

2. Since being called I have exclusively been applying to government/public sector organizations which can take months or up to a year to fill a vacancy.

3. I am on EI which definitely helps but this position pays approximately 70k + benefits.


Downsides include:

1. It looks bad if I leave very shortly after joining

2. Moving costs will likely be significant (2-3k)

3. I will be stuck with a 4 month lease minimum (if I can take over a students place for the summer)


As for a little bit of context I've had written tests/ preliminary interviews with organizations such as provincial/federal government, and a few international organization (think UN/OECD/Commonwealth) which are the type of organizations I wish to work it. Articling was by far the worst experience of my life, I worked insane hours got treated very poorly and learned almost nothing. I know other law firms arn't all like that but my experience turned me off all firms (for better or worse)


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were you, I'd take the job.  But I'm more of a cautious type.  I have in fact done exactly this - taken a job in a town I'm not crazy about, because it was the kind of work I wanted to do.


If you do this, I think you owe it to yourself and to the employer to stick it out for a period of time.  Personally, I think about two years sounds good.  You owe it to yourself because you won't even really know what the job and town is like after only a few months.  I actually liked the two small towns I lived in that I initially thought I would hate.  It also doesn't make you look "flakey" if you have a really short job on your C.V.


  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take it but keep applying. I don't agree with Malicious Prosecutor that you should stay for two years no matter what. If your dream job and dream location are offered to you 6 months in, OBVS you would take that opportunity. But if they don't materialize, I would stay in that job for a while to build your CV. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take the job and keep applying for gov't jobs.

If you get gov't job, then you'll have a real decision to make.

Right now, it's just a decision between having job and not having a job - take the job.

I know you say you're sworn off private practice, but you also admit you learned nothing during articles - I would encourage you to apply to private practice jobs as well; there are likely more of them (than NGO/Govn't jobs) and you'll gain valuable legal experience that you can't really get in any where else. It will also beef up your resume because right now it sounds like you have no experience as a practicing lawyer (and in my limited experience, if you didn't article with govt or clerk, getting a position is tough without prior experience.)

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Recent Posts

    • I think there is a general opinion that some GPAs are inadmissible, but thats not the reality. I think there are GPAs that make up for ridiculously low(in my opinion anyways) LSATs and there are LSAT scores that could potentially make up for a very low GPA. For example, last year a TRU student was admitted with a 3.9 GPA and 148 LSAT. May be a bit off on the GPA but im certain about the LSAT. In the same way, assuming they are as holistic as they seem, they may be willing to take a 171 LSAT student with GPA numbers like yours.  I heard from a friend that she knew of somebody who got into Sask for law with a 2.5 or 2.7 GPA and a 175 LSAT. So take that as you will. This is verified by the way, she actually looked at his GPA. Then again, I'm sure some naysayer on here will tell you how thats impossible. Like you said though, nobody really knows for sure about the admissions process and how they go about making final decisions.  
    • Didn't make it to 2nd round
    • Yup. I'm actually the applicant's parent, so I don't want to give too many identifying details. The stats and the result are accurate though. I made sure the applicant applied broadly. Don't feel bad for the applicant. 
    • I assume the concept of "billings vs collections" is the same.

      I've worked at two firms now with the concept that your income is a percentage of what you actually collect from the bill sent to the client (which the client has paid). I think this is the same as the "receipted hours" concept, but correct me if I'm wrong. As you know, the collection rate on bills is never 100%. I think anywhere from 70-80% would be realistic in the private sector. Maybe a bit more, depending on the firm/work. However, if you work with institutional clients, your collection rate on bills can be much higher (almost 100%). As long as you are billing appropriately, they have the money to pay. With private clients, even if you bill for the right things in the right ways, they will fight you on the bill because they are unhappy with the result/don't understand the work performed. In sum, collection depends on the client's ability and willingness to pay. Do not expect 100% collections. A further obstacle in the collections world is that you may not have control over your work being cut. Senior lawyers will often write off your learning and cut anything that doesn't look polished to them/justifiable to picky clients. Your expected take-home pay can be affected drastically by factors completely out of your control/understanding. You did your work, you did what was asked, you took what you thought was an appropriate amount of time to complete the task, but many hours were cut anyways. The one thing I will say about that is that you will very quickly find a way to spend time on what is likely to be compensated. When you realize: "shit, I am making no money by doing task X/Y/Z" .. or "task X takes me way too long, and I won't get paid to take that long".. you will find ways, entirely ethical ways, to be efficient and profitable. Have the people cutting your hours sit down and explain them to you over lunch.. or a quick phone call. This is for your benefit. I went through hours after hours of cuts.. because my style is to learn the shit out of everything before doing. This is a god awful process in terms of billing.

      The collections model is very stressful and unfortunate for junior counsel, especially if you are doing a lot of learning. The collections model, in all reality, is best suited for efficient lawyers who have gotten over any major learning curves. Not for learning a new area of law (as was my experience x 2). This is when you find the collections model starts making you more income than a basic salary with billable targets. Of course, most basic salaries come with bonuses upon reaching certain targets.. but I have found that you can make much more money on a solely-collections-based model, once you are efficient enough. In collections-based models, you need a "draw".. or an "advance": the living money you are receiving.. which is your baseline. You are likely trying to earn more than the baseline in a collections-based system. Say for example the base salary is 70k. You get your 70k as any other salaries employee. Quarterly, or whenever, your salary is adjusted based on the % you take from your collections. In my experience, no firm has clawed-back the base salary you receive, while you are starting out/learning (if you happen to under-perform). This should take some stress away, but may require a discussion about a grace period. Likely, your employer wants you earning as much as you can too. That said, I think if you put in a bit of extra time at the beginning ensuring that you are efficient, that you learn the basics of your practice, you will enjoy the freedom to earn more than a basic salary. I would say that all things being equal.. when you meet the "billable target" (say 1600 hours) in a collections-based system, you will likely earn more than in the salary/billable system -- barring any horrible issues with clients and senior lawyers. Anyways, hope that sheds some light on the collections system. I am happy to address anything else.