Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. You're right, but it sounds like OP only has college grades and hasn't studied at a university.
  3. Some new updates via LSAC, including tuition, which will be $26,300: https://www.lsac.org/choosing-law-school/find-law-school/canadian-law-schools/ryerson-university-faculty
  4. Today
  5. Some schools in Ontario (UofT, Osgoode, Queens, Windsor) and schools outside of Ontario (TRU etc.) do not require a bachelors from a university to apply.
  6. Yesterday
  7. Yes, each question does have a character limit. Windsor only has 2 categories: general and indigenous/Aboriginal. When applying as a mature or access student you should be explaining your circumstances in that optional question.
  8. This just happened to me in firm with a niche practice area (municipal/land development/condominium). I just checked the going rates for the firms in the area using the ZSA chart, and some of the salary spreadsheets on this site to figure out a baseline. But, it might be worth figuring out what your area of law tends to pay in general if the practice area is really niche or in high demand. For example, I ended up getting about 30% more than the going rate because the municipal sector is really hot right now, and I wasn't a superstar candidate.
  9. I wrote it like a short cover letter, i.e., I said I was interested in what you do, here are my grades, here is my experience, and if you are hiring please let me know, I will send you a full application. I wasn't comfortable enough to network over informal coffee meetings and etc., so I never did what other posters might recommend, which is just doing interviews over coffee or something similar. For what it's worth, my formal writing is much better than my verbal communication, so just do what works for you. And yeah, I made it really clear I wanted a job, like everyone else, and did not beat around the bush.
  10. When you were emailing firms like these, did you first start off requesting informational interviews, or were you getting straight to the point and asking whether they intended on hiring an articling student?
  11. I think the best you can do right now is do your best to keep your grades up or improve them, while trying to get experience in the area of law you want to practice in during 3L. For example, I too washed out of OCIs and the articling recruitment, and I wanted to get into municipal and land development law, so some of the things I did in my last year was do part-time clinic work advocating for rooming house reform, worked a part-time job in a corporation that did some municipal work, and volunteered at a food bank. I also took two municipal law courses, the second being a directed research project, and did my best to get A's in those courses. This helped me get my articling position and my first year associate position. As mentioned by other posters, a lot of firms and government departments will continue to advertise rolling positions throughout 3L. If you have a bias against working in smaller practice groups, now is your time to get over it, because size is not everything. You should apply to those positions, while researching different firms you can contact for informational interviews, and frankly ask them to hire you. Apart from this, I think demonstrating a practice area interest is very important because once you do that, firms might be less worried that you are a flight-risk, and that you are just willing to do what it takes to get the job you want. I had the most success just emailing full-service firms (20-40 lawyers) located in medium-sized cities, often because they do not always take regular articling students, and if they do, only one or two. I'm pretty sure I made the exact same type of post you did when I struck out, so what you are going through is normal. If you want PM me and we can talk more; this forum really helped me get my two jobs. Good luck!
  12. More information is needed. You may want to read up on each schools admissions page and/or contact the admission offices to see which of your credits they will actually use to calculate your GPA. Then you can also provide us with additional information like your CGPA, L2 GPA, B2 GPA, GPA with 10 drops, etc. If you actually end up having a 3.9 156 for GPA purposes you'd have a number of schools you have a chance at: Ottawa, Windsor, UNB, UAlberta, UCalgary, TRU, and possible a few others.
  13. It's not really about the particular area of law, but your transferable skills, demonstrated interest in that area/related areas, and the clientele you want to service. A criminal law firm would have different requirements and expectations in who they hire as opposed to a large corporate firm. This is why it is crucial for you to figure out what you want to do. Because there are a lot of students right now looking for jobs, and someone out there is going to have that experience and demonstrated interest that you do not have. You can cast a wide net and apply broadly, hoping to sell yourself as a hard worker that is willing to do anything, but most small and mid-sized firms don't want to just hire anyone that will want to do anything; they want to hire people who actually want to do the work they do, and maybe even stay with them long-term.
  14. I'd err more to the side of the broad strokes than fine details. "When I spoke to your articling student Erica, one thing she mentioned that stuck out to me was the firm's commitment to getting students into court and on their feet as soon as possible. This excited me because..."
  15. You can get into Osgoode with a 3.9 cGPA and 156 LSAT. People have reported getting into U of T with LSAT scores that low as well, though it would be much more challenging. That is if the schools accept OP's college degree at face value.
  16. I removed myself after getting in elsewhere, sorry I can't help.
  17. Tell you what? I'll stay in my lane, and you make a promise to ensure that at least 1 in 10 posts you make on this site contribute original advice of your own, from a perspective of knowledge, rather than just the random shit-posting you do the rest of the time. And note - calling out other people for being wrong isn't a contribution. That comes out of the other 90% of the crap you post. Then everyone wins. P.S. Doing the whole "lol u mad" routine just marks you as a troll. If you genuinely want anyone to contribute here usefully (which, overall, I do massively, and you do almost not at all) it's simply incompatible with trolling. You claim I'm not in my lane. Fine - I take the criticism at least semi-seriously. Would this site be better if I said "lol, I made u mad so I'll do it mooooooore?" Grow the hell up.
  18. I get what you're saying, but you're still trying to work this backwards. It doesn't matter if the experience you have to this point is kind of niche. No one imagines that just because you helped random walk-ins with a couple of landlord tenant issues (or whatever) at a clinic that this defines your future legal practice. I'm saying, in your own mind try to take what you've done and extrapolate, at least in general terms, what you want to do. It isn't that employers want or insist or hiring candidates with direct experience in their areas of practice. The experience isn't the point. It's the genuine desire that's the point. Seriously. Figure out what you want to do. Stop trying to find an employer who'll hire you to do something - no matter what it happens to be. Figure out what you want to do and apply to employers who do that. I've said this before, and at the risk of continuing a pointless argument I'll say it again. My sense, at least, of "big law" employers is that many of them are fine with applicants who have strong grades but are somewhat aimless in their ambitions. Maybe it's for the same reason that small town employers will look for indications you have roots in the community, but Toronto, New York, etc... they just don't care. Big cities assume you'll stay there. Big law assumes that with enough money, talented candidates will learn to like it - or enough of them will, at least, that the ones who leave are replaceable. That's their model. And I can't help but think the focus on big law, OCIs etc. leads students into believing this is true of the entire marketplace, which is where these strange delusions come from. My point is, IF this is true of Big Law, it isn't true of anyone else. Other employers, by and large, want to see indications that you want to do what they do. Applying with your grades and CV and saying "I'm a good student, teach me and I'll do whatever" isn't a good route to those jobs. This thread started out with the question "what do you do if no one called you" which is at least close to the question "what do you do if you washed out of big law and haven't though about doing anything else?" My answer is, seriously, THINK about it asap. Because the rest of the marketplace wants more than just your grades and your willingness to work 60 hour weeks for a lot of money. I'm repeating myself at this point. But it's the best advice I've got. You can change your mind later. You don't need to know what you'll do for the rest of your career in law. But get the best answer you can think of, right now, and pursue that thing. You'll be a bad candidate for other jobs that you don't want anyway, true. But you'll become a good candidate for the few jobs that you do want. And really, you only need one job, right? In all events, good luck.
  19. lol u mad. My contribution here was ensuring that impressionable law students don't take your misleading advice if and when they choose to apply to Big Law jobs, and maybe reminding you to stay in your lane. You have a tendency to think you're an expert on everything and this isn't the first time you've had to be reminded of your limitations. You can think it's a nit or tertiary point, but this is a forum on Career Services and you're doing the readers a disservice with your bad advice.
  20. The thing is, I do have experience (clinical work) but it's in the most random areas of law because those were the clinics my school was offering at the time. So it's kind of broad...but not in areas that most places are hiring in. (It's more of a niche area). I still gained practical legal experience, but I guess employers will choose someone with experience in the area the area they actually practice in. I'm trying to get into another clinic next semester that's a bit more...marketable. Siiighhhhhh.
  21. It really depends on the circumstances, I don’t think anyone here would be able to tell you yes or no. Ultimately you have to use your own discretion. I would caution you on the safer side of not putting it in.
  22. You know what? I scanned about 10 pages of your content ready to call you out as a hypocrite, because you're just having so much fun telling me off like you think you're proving something that it's annoying the fuck out of me. Or it annoyed me enough to invest two minutes of my time with scanning and with this reply. You know what I found? 90% of the shit you post is in off topic. Of the remaining 10%, your "contributions" to threads with content in them (much as in this one!) are really off-topic remarks, either picking some nit or arguing some tertiary point that no one else even cares about. You so rarely say anything of consequence on this board that it's hard to claim you aren't sticking to what you know. Either that, or most of what you know is just irrelevant bullshit, and you stick to it resolutely. So gratz. You win.
  23. Well your reasonable confidence is misplaced and I'll state it definitively - you're wrong. Stop giving advice about Big Law and Bay Street hiring. You don't know anything about it. I'm quite transparent about what I do and where I come from. That you don't know is not my fault. Also you weren't transparent in the post I responded to about the fact that you have zero first-hand or really even second-hand knowledge of Big Law hiring before you started spouting off with dos and don'ts. I work on Bay Street, which I've been clear about around here many times which is where my own experience is coming from. Stick to what you know.
  24. I'm just throwing in my two cents from experience, but it was my second cycle applying and I was accepted. I don't have the best LSAT record (got in with a 150) and my cGPA was pretty average (~3.63), but I really think my personal statement is what really swayed the admissions committee. It's probably the best piece of work I've written in my entire life and I was immensely proud of it. The feedback I had gotten from my first cycle was that my statement wasn't particularly strong in conjunction with my LSAT score at the time (149). Overall, I wasn't competitive enough which I knew. I tried increasing my test score and clearly it wasn't by a lot at all, so I worked very hard on my statement. You shouldn't give up on trying the LSAT again, because even increasing it slightly could possibly help make a difference too. I guess I got lucky with my stats, but that isn't to say that a combination of a good LSAT mark (whatever you may believe that is) and a strong personal statement won't help! I hope everything works out for you!
  25. I was editing my reply when you posted again, but I'll add my edit here instead. Your pissy attitude prompted me to reply in kind. But we do, at least, agree on the basic idea that people should be writing about what they know. I am reasonably confident that the point I made about Big Law attitudes towards applicants with excessive "social justice-type" experience in their background is accurate. I'm not backing away from it yet. But if people from corporate law backgrounds want to come around here and correct me, I'll gladly bow out in favor of their greater experience. That said, I'll point out three further things in reply. 1. I am at least transparent about what I do, where I come from, and the practice environment that informs my advice. I still don't know what you do, or even broadly the area in which you practice law. So calling me out on not being completely transparent is a bit rich. 2. You still haven't said I'm wrong. Only that I shouldn't be the guy saying it. 3. If you do want to say I'm wrong, maybe now would be a good time to give at least some indication of where the hell your own experience is coming from, since you seem so big on that.
  26. You're really not though. You made a definitive statement that is full of shit as a recommendation for candidates with making it clear you were speaking from a place of zero experience, knowledge or otherwise. It's misleading and you have a habit of pretending you know more than you actually do. I don't challenge your assertions regarding what works for a sole criminal lawyer or whatever. The least you can do is stick to your competency and leave the overconfident guesswork to the 0Ls.
  27. Hello Everyone Salary negotiations are coming up for me so just wanted to get an idea of what would be reasonable entering as a first year associate. Like I said firm is super niche and based out of downtown toronto. But the work the firm does is internationally based and there are a few lawyers in the firm. There arent a lot of lawyers that practice in this area so the bar is really small. Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts!
  28. I'm very transparent about where my perspective is coming from. Frankly, I don't even know what it is you do, other than this.
  1. Load more activity


  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...