Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/08/19 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Ten to 25 per cent roughly. Cannabis companies, mostly.
  2. 6 points
    Our Law Society is run by people who only thought as far as wanting to eliminate a statement of principle that was bothering them. I have faith you'll get there - far more than I have in them.
  3. 5 points
    I had a really good friend who was not successful in the OCI process a few years back and I remember seeing her take months, even years, trying to heal from the process and build her confidence back. If you did not come out of the process with an offer, please be kind to yourself and remember: you may feel like your "friends" are starting to distance themselves from you/you're constantly trying to have to prove yourself in discussions because you're not working on Bay St. like them - those aren't people you want to associate yourselves with in the long run. Your real friends would not care where you worked - they know you're still your awesome self and can be kind of weird/quirky at times - but they'll still love spending time with you regardless and they'll work with you to make you feel like your awesome self again, however long it will take. you may feel like you're less likable or qualified - but what you didn't get a glimpse into was the partner/associate who fought and advocated for you in the boardroom at 4:45 pm on the Wednesday and left the room out of frustration because they couldn't extend you an offer. They skipped out on after hour drinks because they were heartbroken knowing that you were heartbroken. There are certain things you can't control (i.e. business need and firm politics) so there is no need to beat yourself down and think you are any less than other candidates. give yourself time to heal. I know it's not as simple as "not finding a job" to you. Getting an offer from Bay St. could mean so much more - but I would echo what most posters have already mentioned - it's not the end-all-be-all and the doors to Bay St. haven't closed yet. I have a colleague who networked so hard after he didn't receive an offer in 2L and 3L, he actually fought himself back into becoming an associate on Bay St. (took him a few years, but he did it). Aaaaaannd then there are those candidates where I must say, it's not the arbitrary elements in OCI's, it's definitely you. If you had such low self awareness that you managed to insult and offend our juniors and support staff during the limited interactions you had at our firm or you think there are certain tasks that are "below" you as a law student or you are "above" certain people - those are what we call glaring red flags. We don't care how many As and how qualified you think you are on paper - partners would pick their articling students and assistants over you any day, sorry not sorry. Take some time to figure out why you think you're better than everyone else in the room. Everyone brings different things to the table and it's no different when we measure contribution in a large law firm setting. It will do you well to understand that sooner rather than later.
  4. 5 points
    Implying one should only discuss an issue if they have the power to change it? Also, some of the people discussing these issues may, in the future, have some of the power necessary to make change. I can't think of a group more likely to wield some of that power in the future than law students/lawyers.
  5. 4 points
    I'm so torn on this. On the one hand, I do appreciate that interviews are stressful, that some students struggle with the process and the some (not always the same ones) struggle with the results. I believe in supporting people who need support, and trying not to judge "good" and "bad" reasons for needing support when it's required. But at the same time, we're talking about candidates who (a) have already succeeded at virtually everything in their lives and have immense amounts of both earned and unearned privilege, and (b) are applying for jobs which would entail dealing with stressful and complex problems on behalf of clients who are paying a lot of money for the service. So I'm left wondering. Am I a dick for just really not caring if immensely privileged people have trouble dealing with the first real failure they've ever experienced? Is it unreasonable of me to imagine that if you're applying for stressful, difficult, competitive jobs where clients are expecting you to solve their problems, that you yourself should be able to cope with stress, difficulty, competition, and even failure without falling the fuck apart? Is it unfair to suggest that if someone can't deal with just the interviews, or with managing temporary professional setbacks, then they really should be rejected, because they are just lacking in some essential skillsets that lawyers need? I don't know. I feel like maybe support and validation can't be the same thing in some of these cases. As in, anyone who is hurting deserves some sympathy. But this crap about how everyone is awesome gets thick sometimes. Everyone isn't awesome. Every year, there is a real slice of candidates who are applying for these jobs even though they very obviously do not belong in these jobs. Some will do well in other legal positions elsewhere. Some shouldn't practice law at all. Not everyone who has the skills to succeed in law school has the skills to succeed in legal practice. Even some of the professors teaching in law schools don't have those skills. Pretending that every student who applied can or should find one of these jobs is just wrong, and untrue.
  6. 4 points
    So you guys got the job and are still complaining?
  7. 4 points
    I don't know what gave anyone the idea that entrepreneurship and social enterprise are somehow the same thing. A very small subset of smaller and start-up businesses can reasonably be described as anything like social entreprise. You can potentially get rich starting the next uber eats. Not denying that can theoretically happen. But to describe starting the next uber eats as somehow contributing to the improvement of society, over and beyond simply lining your own pockets, is a stretch. I don't know what sort of metric I'd apply to measure what percentage of any particular profession is engaged in socially progressive work. But I'm happy to assert that there is a very sizable percentage of the legal profession that's doing so. Look, here's one very specific example from my own experience. I do criminal defence. The Criminal Lawyers' Association is having a fall conference in just a week. There are 700 spots and the thing is almost sold out. It will be full - always is. Here's a link to the agenda: https://criminallawyers.ca/events/47th-annual-cla-fall-conference/ So, what's here? On a quick scan, panel on impaired (not too progressive), sexual assault (hot button topic, if nothing else), prison conditions (pretty progressive), cultural reports for black clients (check!), representing Aboriginal clients (check!), some other technical stuff, etc. And that's day one. This will be a room full of 700 lawyers learning this stuff. You can't tell me this is somehow a small fraction of the profession. And this is only criminal defence, and only one conference. You think family lawyers, immigration lawyers, etc. don't also do progressive work much of the time? Here's my take. Absolutely I've seen a lot of people head into law school making grandiose claims about saving the world and then ending up where they do jack shit all about it. And some of them bitch and moan about how they were never given the choice and had to settle for making good money helping corporations make tons more money than that. And that's bullshit. Of all the people in any profession who talk a good game at the start, how many do you think stay committed to saving the world, or even doing hard, socially progressive work when they could be making easier money doing something else? Not a lot, I'd wager, in any field. Really, this gets to the heart of my concern about Mazzy as the OP, and a concern I'd have for anyone coming here with similar complaints. Maybe she doesn't belong in law. Maybe she'd do better with a MBA - I'm in no position to know. But when someone says "I want to be creative, do interesting work, do progressive work, contributing to bettering society, and on top of that make at least decent money doing it" I think "okay, that's possible, and I feel I know many people who are doing that." When they add the criticism about how they feel the path isn't easy or well laid out for them in law and so they are going elsewhere I think "fuck, you're screwed." Because it isn't well laid out anywhere. The easy paths, the easy jobs, the easiest money all lead to the same mainstream shit. I mean honestly, is that so hard to predict? You want to do things differently but you're shocked that the shortest, straightest, easiest paths lead to things that aren't different? That's my take. It isn't only law. If you hold on to your dreams, and make the necessary sacrifices along the way, you can do a hell of a lot of good with a law degree. I'm sure you can also do a hell of a lot of good outside of law also. But in neither case are you going to find it easy. And people who give up because it isn't easy, and then claim they were somehow prevented from doing the good work they pretend they were committed to before they were somehow forced to work for "the man" instead - yeah. I understand the world comes with choices. But quite honestly, the people I knew when I was younger who really had their shit together are still doing it. The people who thought that being progressive was easy, and someone would throw them a parade just for showing up...they're all doing other things now. And it's not hard to see why.
  8. 4 points
    Probably true. But since a summer student at a law firm has no special standing at all anyway (seriously, no ability to do anything a high school drop out can't legally do) then isn't what firms are paying really just a premium to lock up their perceived top candidates? This goes exactly to Uriel's point. Students aren't being paid based on real worth anyway. They are being paid so the employers most interested in their top picks can scoop them up early. And despite putting money in student's pockets, that's part of the problem.
  9. 4 points
    Ban firm sponsorship of frosh week and first year events. Get better career offices at the law schools to help students understand the entire landscape of potential articling and career options.
  10. 4 points
    This thread is what I imagine watching reality TV feels like: I'm not invested or connected to any of the parties whatsoever, but I can't help but stay engaged.
  11. 4 points
    There's a big difference between something being procedurally easy, like getting a list of employers and having them have a set time to call you, and something being easy to go through. You're smart enough to know that, and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that no one here is complaining about how difficult applying or answering the phone was. Or maybe you aren't, who knows.
  12. 3 points
    1. Factual overview. Try to keep this as simple as possible to set up the background for part 2. 2. Issues in dispute. Make sure you are precise in stating these. 3. Argument. Explain what position each side is taking. Be as generous as possible to each party's position. 4. Ruling. Say what the judge decided, and summarize the judge's reasoning. (Often I would just give a brief summary of the key quote from the ruling, and then literally embed the quote from the decision.) 5. Comment on the case. Commentary can take a lot of forms. Some examples: - Point out flaws or confusing arguments in the judge's reasoning. - Talk about how this case interacts with other leading cases in the area. - Say how the decision might be good because it clears up a certain issue. Or perhaps alternatively, why the decision might have poor precedential value because the judge decided the case on an extremely narrow point. - Is the decision good or bad from a policy perspective? Does the decision accord with the policy objectives that the law being applied is intended to have, or does it feel like it goes against those objectives? And countless more.
  13. 3 points
    Accepted on Wednesday. Surprised but really excited to be accepted so early! 169 LSAT, average ECs, MB resident, decent PS. I'm not sure how they would have calculated my GPA because they included grades from an MA which I did in the UK and I don't know how they converted them.
  14. 3 points
    I've agreed with most of what you have posted on this issue but I am not on the same page with you here. If only from a professionalism perspective, I much prefer the idea of being told I am cut rather than playing the game of wait-and-see. This process is often compared with dating. If that analogy is accurate, "ghosting" candidates is simply unprofessional. In the same way, I am sure firms appreciated candidates who called them back quickly to turn down their offers on Wednesday as quickly as possible, despite the fact that such prompt communication wasn't required. It just isn't professional to cease communications once a decision is made.
  15. 3 points
    Absolutely. I'm still physically exhausted, emotionally drained and distracted - despite ultimately accepting a job, like you. I'm trying to get back into school work but also trying to give myself some latitude. We just went through a whirlwind. Hopefully you can remind yourself that even the 'rejections' were dependent on you getting in the In-Firm door: a HUGE accomplishment in itself.
  16. 3 points
    I know that this isn't on topic, except that it is. If you want to alleviate stress, have the provincial government cap tuition fees. The most stressful part of this profession so far has been debt. If I was a U of T student paying $38,000.00 per year in tuition, that's why I'm stressed about getting one of these jobs -- I actually need the money. Tinkering around with the timing of the hiring process might've made a marginal difference. Reducing the cost of education would've made a big difference to my wellbeing and my life. And I don't care how schools justify the cost of education. Law school is getting too expensive now.
  17. 3 points
  18. 3 points
    I tried writing something clever about how I'd change OCIs by requiring students to take some kind of mandatory counseling or orientation course before they were allowed to participate. I couldn't make it sound funny because it's a ridiculous suggestion, but I'm not actually kidding. OCIs are hell because students turn them into that - for themselves, for each other, and I'm sure to some degree for the poor interviewers on the other side of the table. You can't "solve" what's wrong with OCIs without addressing what's wrong with the participants in OCIs. And I know that isn't a fun answer, but it's a genuinely held belief. The thing to remember about OCIs is this. The process may not be perfect, and there may be tweaks available that could make them better, but the central intention of the process is already what you want it to be. It's a process (believe it or not!) designed to protect students from employers. Apparently back in the "good old days" (well before my time - I've only heard stories) the market for top students was so voracious they were being recruited before they even started 1L. It was a free-for-all, with negative consequences. So employers got together and with the involvement of law schools and the Law Society they put together this process meant to impose some rules and limitations and timelines - again, primarily to protect students. Because there's absolutely nothing that says there needs to be rules at all. Anyway, I'm not saying this to deny there are real concerns and things that students are rightly worried about. For example, as compared to the "good old days" just noted, there's legitimate reason to fear that a reasonable candidate might have trouble securing entry into the profession at all. Now that gets into other things, but my point is, yes, that fear builds into the OCI process. But it isn't caused by the rules governing OCIs. Even when I've got a total handle on my tendency to be snide about this, there are certain things about a competitive employment market that are going to suck no matter how you structure the way in which students are trying to enter that market. I do believe it could be tweaked. I don't believe any system is perfect, so there's probably room for legitimate ideas for improvement. But in terms of where there is the most potential for improvement, I genuinely believe it's with the students themselves. Every damn year there's a new crop of students who run at this process like their very lives depend on it. And every year the same team on this site responds to the ensuing crisis, talking about other jobs to come, practice options outside of big law, how to search for positions post-OCI recruiting, etc. And it really makes me wonder - why does it take the idiots hanging around on this site to get this information into the heads of students? Is there really no other organized effort out there to make this information available? Anyway, sorry for the serious post. But I really think the best possible innovation would be to force OCI participants to listen to some of the same stuff that people like Uriel post on this site every damn year. It won't solve every problem, but at least it might calm people down a bit.
  19. 3 points
    Re: nepotism Direct nepotism is few and far between, especially in the formalized recruitment process. These firms are large, sophisticated enterprises with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually (at least dozens, I may be wrong on the number). It is not in their best interest to be nepotistic, and they put mechanisms in place to stop it. It still happens, but it's rare. However, I think there's room for a Frank (and calm, I.e not in this thread or just after the recruit) on the effects of indirect nepotism. Often times these recruits can go one way or another based on knowing what to say and knowing what not to say. Based on knowing how to frame your interests, and how not to. More factors like this are at play too. If candidate A knows going in that Goodmans has a solid S&E practice because your uncle knows a guy who knows about it, then you'll emphasize that in your applications and interviews. Then candidate B (who might genuinely be into it) but doesn't know that, might try to be more of a generalist because that's the general wise thing to do. Candidate A might have a leg up because of that. It's not an exact science. Indirect things like that still influence hiring (everywhere, even government). So it's certainly a discussion worth having, especially since law (as far as I'm told) used to be quite nepotistic in the past.
  20. 3 points
    Your threads are getting shut down pretty quickly, so this appears to be my last shot. I’m writing this because prospective students and other people heading into OCIs read the forum and they should have a reasonable response to the anxiety in your threads in order for them to build their own healthy relationship to law school. I think everyone has confirmed for you that you do not need an HH to get an OCI position. That’s statistically demonstrated in the UV surveys and every graduate of UT law will (and has) told you that we knew people with no HHs who got the same jobs as people with HHs. It’s been a few years since I dug into the stats, but while only 40-something percent get an OCI gig, something like 70+% of the people who toss in their name get interviews. That’s an extraordinarily high number - there is no other job I have known of other than medicine where such a huge number of graduates get a shot at top paying jobs. It may well depress you to know that buying the UT admission didn’t buy you a job, but relative to the world of options any of us could have faced, we all came out of law school with pretty remarkable employability, especially considering law school teaches so few skills. It’s late August. If your year is anything like my year, you will find the halls of UT largely insufferable until call back day. Students will grow increasingly nervous. They will share greater and greater numbers of supposed ‘insider’ wisdom and little tricks like ‘Blakes likes people who wear straight colored ties; no design’ - that’s one a human being, a real live breathing human being who considers themselves smarter than your average anti-vaxxer, actually said to me. They actually thought a serious law firm had a secret tie color policy, like a caricature of skull & bones. The real truth is, as it almost always is, far more boring and straightforward: law firms may have grade floors, they may have flexible floors that can be impacted by your resume/life experience, but once OCIs start it’s just a question of whether you interview well and leave a good impression on people, as in literally every other job on the face of planet earth. Get this deep into your heads - law student job apps are not unique, they are just job interviews like any other, and the more you buy into the skull & bones image of Toronto law, the sillier you sound. This is all a function of immaturity, crippling inability to deal with uncertainty (itself a function of inexperience in life), and, bizarrely, success. At law schools with very low biglaw rates, students do not experience the same kind of stress about grades or OCIs. It sounds weird to say that the higher your chances at something, the higher your anxiety, but with students it’s often true. The reason is that you’re not merely hoping to get a job or pay a bill, but actually trying to affirm your sense of self. We talk about law students as ‘type A’, but it’s far more accurate to say they’re just highly insecure and lack the life experience to contextualize unfamiliar developments. You walk out of undergrad seeing yourself as one of the smart kids, one of the success stories - then law school comes and there’s a meaningful risk you’ll have to reframe yourself as someone who isn’t always awarded the highest honors by whatever authority is standing nearby - scary! And what’s worse, half of your friends get to keep that identity as you watch it sail away. That’s far harder to swallow than if one out of twenty friends retains that identity. So how to stay sane, happy, un-anxious and productive? You need to recognize that the set of fears you’re treading in is quick sand. There is no set of secret buttons you can push to get As or get the job you want. There is no checklist. There is no secret another classmate knows that you don’t know, and the student who tells you they know the secret is masking their insecurity by feigning knowledge. There is no magic, no incantation, no study approach, no flash card trick, no reading selection method, nothing at all that will give you certainty. All you can do is your best, and the good news is that’s very often enough. A prof is mean or another classmate cold? Son. You’re out here talking about your dream of being a bigshot corporate lawyer. Someone was mean to you? Boo hoo. Aren’t you trying to become the guy who fields furious calls from private equity clients at 11pm? None of us enjoys assholes, and I’m the first guy to tell you all of that shit should end, but you can’t really cry to me that you’re struggling in life over a prof being mean to you but also you deserve to represent some of the most notably asshole-ish clients on earth. If you can’t stay happy through a mean prof, why should I recommend hiring and putting you in front of a mean client? Sounds like a terrible idea. And this applies far wider than corporate law - you want to be a criminal defence lawyer? Want to handle divorces? Employment disputes? We have a job to do here, some people are going to be assholes and you need to be able to just set that aside and not take it personally in order to do your duty effectively. School is hard? You don’t know if you’ll get an A? Son. You’re asking for a seat at the table of stress. You think school is hard, wait till you’re the only person really in charge of making sure $800,000,000 is transferred properly and correctly. Wait till someone’s liberty is on your shoulders. A child’s life. I’ve written this spiel a bunch of times, but you need to reframe all of this in your head as something motivational. You want to be great at something? Good. It’s hard work and there’s stiff competition. Do you think Sidney Crosby was sad the first time he found a league he couldn’t score 280 points in? Or do you think he woke up and thought ‘great, I’m where I belong and I’m being challenged’? Take a look at yourself. Do you want to be the person who can only feel happy when they’re in a room they can dominate? Or are you the person who wants to grow, challenge and find their ceiling - actually flex the muscles of their ambition and capacity with real peers? Be the second guy. Not because it gets you riches, but because it’s more fun for you and everyone else in the room. Do the right things. Exercise, take long breaks, smoke a joint and play video games...whatever is pleasurable. Be happy because life is happy - the sky is beautiful and rain feels nice and dogs are entertaining and strawberries are delicious. If you literally have zero friends, go make friends. Honestly, take a week to go camping and clear your head if you get too deep into the muck. Law will be here when you return. Stop listening to the rumor mill. Stop paying attention to everyone else’s anxiety. Stop using the hallways as an echo chamber of fear and intrigue and judgment. For the love of sweet baby Jesus, stop believing that 2Ls have secret insider information on law firms - they barely know how to get to the buildings and much of the ‘knowledge’ they pass along sounds hilarious to practicing lawyers. But most important of all, stop letting your sense of self and identity get tied up with being a law student. You are not a law student, you are a human who happens to sometimes go to a law school. I am not a lawyer, I am Hoju and I spend too much of my time at a law firm. One day I will be Hoju-who-doesn’t-spend-too-much-time-at-a-law-firm. One day I will be Hoju-who-doesn’t-practice-law. One day after that I will be Hoju-who-is-dying. The only consistency is Hoju, everything else is just sauce. You are your interests, your loves, your creation, your intent, your actions and your thoughts, and only some of those do or should relate to being a student. Here’s the good news: being stable in your identity, having a healthy response to school, and managing challenges with motivation rather than anxiety are all things that will help you to succeed in our field much, much, much, so much more than one extra HH. I can’t tell you how much more. This is where you come back and say “that’s all well and good but I have a practical problem in front of me where I need to get a job and the odds are uncertain”. Indeed they are and always will be - it’s entirely possible that OCIs is the time in your life when the odds you get some job you want are highest, but sure, I agree they are uncertain. That is precisely the reason your rock in the storm is your actual identity - you, a human, who among other things, happens to go to law school. Now that we’re back to square one, I’ll ask it again: Are you the human who wants to coast, or are you the human who wants to be challenged and to grow? You’re the latter. So enjoy it - you’ve finally found the right room.
  21. 2 points
    Hello Lawyer Candidates! I am starting this new topic to remind anyone here writing the Barrister and Solicitor exams this November, myself included, that we can do this. We just need to keep doing what we have been doing till now and not give up. If you are working full-time like me, I feel your pain. Two main things keep me going: 1) I was successful, like any of you, throughout law school and everything that came along. This should be no different. 2) I will be extremely relieved/happy once this is over. I visualize this feeling every day, which helps me make the necessary sacrifices that the studying requires. Finally, if any of you wrote the June 2019 and would like to provide us with some "advice"/feedback/warning, we would highly appreciate it. Thank you and good luck to all of us!
  22. 2 points
    Received my email (and scholarship guarantee) this afternoon -- absolutely ecstatic and shocked; this is very much a dream come true! 4.0 on a 4.0 scale (without drops)/157 LSAT (one write)/lots of extra-curriculars/NL resident with no connection to NB. I applied in mid-September. Good luck to everybody else!
  23. 2 points
    The OCI process is quite literally the easiest job recruit in the world. Somebody else compiles a list of employers. Said employers all take applications through one online portal. Somebody else then schedules your interviews with the employers. The employers come to a common location to interview you. Then, as you move on to the second stage of the process, all the employers agree to call you on the same day so that you can schedule your interviews well. All the employers agree to meet with you during a set date, and make a decision by a set date. They also all agree to let you hold open your job offer while you wait to see if someone you liked more wants to give you a job. You’re likely in for a rude awakening entering the informal job recruitment process if you think the OCI process is anything but easy peasy lemon squeezy.
  24. 2 points
    God help me if women start emailing me to tell me they don’t want to have sex with me.
  25. 2 points
    Okay. I'm sold. I don't agree with every one of Uriel's suggestions, but then he knows a lot more than I do about all of this. I agree with his values and the bases of his approach enough to simply trust his developed opinions are better than my own. I move he be put in charge of all of this, and tasked with complete authority to fix everything.
  26. 2 points
    1. Exactly, not the same but similar so I'd advise taking a pause (you can) after doing the practice and thinking about how you did and what you would do different because you can watch yourself back. I started right away and could have probably used a minute or two to calm my nerves 2. You have to do the practice questions! 3. No timer it's like a loading bar? You'll see how much time you have left so just check on that while speaking 4. I don't want to give away any questions but I will say they are very normal questions as in, they only give you minute to respond so they don't ask any question that is too elaborate 5. I would have done the practice questions, waited maybe 10 minutes then did the real questions, I was hyped on nerves so I went right in
  27. 2 points
    I I really wish I had taken a screenshot but in the moment I was so flustered I was trying to get it through the system. An update... OLSAS did not help however almost all Ontario schools granted me an extension on Monday. Lesson learned. I did not expect this outcome, and I am very grateful.
  28. 2 points
    Let's examine the extreme here. The most frustrated individual in this recruit would be someone who... did OCI's. Successfully landed a handful of in-firms. Did the in-firms with multiple firms. Got the dinners. Got the callbacks. No offer. Perks: Predictability- you always know what the next step is. Cons: Some politics. E.g. didn't know where they ranked in the firm's list and chose the wrong cocktails and dinners *gasp* But come on. It's not that bad of a process. We could argue about the aRDuos nature of applying to 40+ places, yadda yadda, but you know what you're getting into. At the end of the day, it's a way to attract some unique, (essentially) unskilled talent into the profession. But when it comes down to it, you're not crying about the apps. You're not crying about your 17 min OCI's you didn't receive. Or even the in-firms you didn't receive. You're shedding that tear for the firm who welcomed you into their client floor and took a brief interest in you for 30-90 min. And when they welcomed you to an exclusive, beauuuutiful dinner, you went to Davies instead because they gave you a f*cking colouring book. And to this day, your one single regret is not realizing that you were too naive to ask the right questions and gauge each firm's interest. So you choose to blame the sYsTEM. --- But hey, to everyone out there. It's really tough. So proud of you for taking this huge jump to build up your legal career. This process brings up so many emotions amongst all of us. Just know that you have value and the OCI's are not a reflection of your talent. No recruit is. If you are a law student reading this, you are already one of the most exceptional minds in this country. The world sees values in the skills you will learn over the next few years. Don't lose hope. If anything, you are already in very high esteem amongst a handful of firms and will likely be a familar face if you ever choose to apply again for articling/ jr assoc roles.
  29. 2 points
    For what it's worth, Calgary doesn't have OCIs. We do "in firms" over the course of around 6 weeks, so it's rather close to the suggestion. Firms have kind of sorted themselves into windows through the course of the six weeks; there's about 6 that hit candidates up super hard right on the very first permitted day, yes, but there's a second wave that pick up a week or two later for interview #1. The 2nd/3rd interviews for Wave 1 get scheduled after Wave 2 of interview #1s. It's kind of interesting that everyone's game theory'd it out, because (I assume) it's very resource intense for firms to go really hard for six whole weeks and not every firm is willing to do that (even national ones). We do have a set call day so I think that takes the pressure of some firms from going crazy hard right from day 1 when it's a 6 week long process. As a student, it might be grass is greener but I think I'd prefer OCIs + an in-firm week. The expectations of candidates seems way higher with our lengthy process. Going through my calendar out of morbid curiosity, I had 59 interviews/meals/coffees and I wasn't particularly prolific: I converted about 50% at each stage from 1st to 2nd to 3rd etc. I don't think I ate at home for two weeks in the middle. Getting a call from some firms requires a one-on-one or at most two-on-one with the entire committee, since the process is long enough to do that. Sure you have some flexibility to schedule your commitments, but the sheer number of them means I still ended up missing three weeks solid of class.
  30. 2 points
    Don’t do this. 25-30% of the material is professional responsibility which is repeated. 6 weeks was enough to prep and write both (4 weeks before the first exam and then the two weeks after it). Honestly, there is no need to prolong the suffering.
  31. 2 points
    1. get rid of thank you letters. Mandatory rule leading to a decade long ban from the legal industry if done (students) and a decade long ban from any recruitment sooner than winter of 2Ls (firms). 2. In firms happen over a month, with students selecting a date that works for them, after OCIs. Offers to be made any time within a 1.5 month window that in firms can be held (september 25 to Nov 5) and must stay open for at least 15 days. 3. Any claim of a sign of pressure from a firm to a student to get "first choice" will be subject to mandatory arbitration by the Arbitration Board of Anxiety Inducing Illegal Recruitment Activities, with findings of guilt leading to bans of various length from participation in any recruitment until winter of 2L. 4. Any firm rejections must be communicated to the student as soon as possible and within reasonable time of knowing; no ghosting is allowed (because that's just mean and lazy). 5. Align all canadian cities' recruits together in the same time period, so students don't end up doing multiple recruits over possibly a whole year, missing out on learning at school 6. Faculties of law must allow their students time off for interviews and make accommodations regarding in-course evaluations and assignments (not sure how to enforce this).
  32. 2 points
    @mazzy - Okay, at this point I'll wish you good luck. But you know, you really need to find a way of describing what you want, and what are trying to avoid, in terms that do not suggest you think the legal profession is too small-minded to accommodate your genius and the vast impact you plan on having in the world. The terms in which you are engaging here are unavoidably insulting to just about everyone practicing law, and self-aggrandizing in terms of your ambitions to an almost comical degree. The last advice I would give you is this. I truly and genuinely think you are looking for everything at once (which is dangerous, see above) but if I had to pull out one general theme it would be that you want power. You want to make an impact. And you don't want to wait to develop knowledge and seniority in your field, necessarily. You want people to listen to you now. I'd encourage you to consider whether that's realistic in any field. Leaving aside tech entrepreneurs and people who manage to be in charge at a young age mainly because they own whatever they are in charge of, no one is welcoming 20-somethings into any profession and saying "please tell us what you think we should be doing here, because we don't have a clue!" And again, maybe I'm starting to sound like an old man here, but there's a difference between seeking a profession where you feel there's room to learn and grow into a leader (which is rational) and seeking a profession where you get to start calling the shots before you learn where the bathrooms are located (which is obviously not rational). I've been practicing law long enough that I have literally seen several distinct waves of graduates, each of them swearing up and down that theirs would be the generation that breaks everything, reforms everything, and that dinosaurs like me would be begging to work for them in whatever kind of gig-economy-machine-learning-driven-blockchain-empowered-megalaw-application they end up conquering the world with. Now to give you some credit, you are at least sort of giving up on law entirely. You don't think you're going to conquer it. You just think ... I don't know, that it's too broken a vehicle to do anything with at all. And maybe that's true if you want to reform the world. But I'm not aware the kind of transformation you're talking about has an identifiable profession. There are people who are doing it, no question. But there isn't a specific credential that gets you there. And quite a fair percentage of the people leading change at that level are lawyers too. Generally not fresh out of law school. Anyway, good luck.
  33. 2 points
    Quite frankly, it sounds to me like you have a very superficial and immature view of what lawyers do in a variety of fields. Bear in mind as I say this - I'm a defence lawyer. I butt heads with the Crown on any number of issues. But the one thing I would not say about them is that they should be disparaged because they lock up minorities for non-violent offences. So you ... what? Heard a couple of people say something and decided it isn't for you? Asking questions is fine, but I'd strongly encourage you to do two VERY important things before making sudden career moves. First, figure out what you ACTUALLY WANT out of your career. Because right now it sounds like you want everything. You want an intellectually fascinating practice. You want a comfortable and relaxed work environment. You want a job where you get to unambiguously be a hero, so that you can tell anyone what you do and they all think it's neat. And you apparently want more besides. How you imagine you're going to get that with an MBA is beyond me. But whatever. My basic point is, no one gets everything. So pursuing everything at the same time is a waste of time and energy. You need to figure out what you MOST care about in your job, and focus your ambitions on getting that. Second, you need to learn a lot more about what jobs in law (and perhaps outside of law) actually entail, so you can compare (a) to (b). Honestly, there could be a lot of different things going on with you right now, but when generally smart people start complaining about the law being too inflexible and prescriptive, it usually means that someone told you in class your creativity isn't welcome and no one cares how you think the law should work. That's flatly true. You work with the law we have, not with the law you think we should have. I suppose if you want to be an artist you can paint or compose whatever you want (though even there you should built a knowledgeable foundation first) but in all fields, you're going to be told to shut up and learn before you start telling everyone what you think. I hate to have a "kids today" moment, but here it is. Kids today seem to think that their work environment should prize what they themselves thought up over breakfast rather than what authorities in the field learned and developed over long periods of time. And that's just crap. In any field, you can eventually contribute to change. In law also. But first you need to learn the existing law down cold. And expecting otherwise - expecting professionals twice your age to welcome you to the job environment and say something like "thank God you're here - we don't know how to do this and we're hoping you can teach us!" is probably unrealistic. Note - I REALLY ran with a few vague statements you made and just drew sweeping conclusions. If they are unwarranted, I apologize. But I'm leaving them in just in case they are useful. I was prone to the same thing when I was younger. Still am, somewhat. But I know it's a dangerous instinct. The law is built on a very solid foundation. Desperately smart and committed people have put entire lifetimes into figuring this stuff out in the past. Learn it well, because that's what gives you the knowledge base to tinker with it when you're ready. It isn't a waste of your time to learn how and why it works the way it does right now, or even how and why it worked differently in the past. A lot of smart people did a lot of smart things before millennials and their non-hierarchical thinking came along. Don't be too quick to dismiss it.
  34. 2 points
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/canada-1-per-cent-highest-paid-workers-compare/article36383159/ https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dv-vd/inc-rev/index-eng.cfm If a salary in the top 10% of Canadians has you eating canned sardines, I worry about the state of this country.
  35. 2 points
    This thread is making me viscerally uncomfortable. And the basic reason is this. There are many, many people in this world who are out of touch with realities other than their own. I am unquestionably one of them, in many ways. One might suggest that I don't know much about the biological reality of being a woman, and that's absolutely true. Ignorance isn't something to celebrate, but it's an unavoidable facet of life and in many cases harmless. But if I were a medical researcher, and my work was based entirely on the assumption of male physiology (as it was for a long time) then my ignorance is no longer harmless. My inability to perceive or to even imagine the differences in people other than myself has become harmful. Many legal issues have an unavoidable financial component, and many lawyers deal with people who have average incomes or lower than average incomes. If that isn't you, then your ignorance is harmless - maybe not attractive or laudable, but at least not dangerous to your work as a lawyer. You can think that a six-figure income represents struggling and disadvantaged, if you absolutely must, and still do your work competently helping large corporations merge with one another, or manage their tax structures. But for any other lawyer whose work touches even tangentially on the lives of normal people, this is a dangerous and damaging delusion. It will unavoidably lead to you doing something awful and ignorant one day - not because you are hateful or ill-intentioned but only because you can't take into account what you aren't even aware of. Like the medical researcher who puts out a drug that was only ever tested on men, and is blind-sided by the way if affects women. I'm doing very well for myself in this profession. I had far less of a head-start than most, and little assistance along the way, but I had at least some of each and that's more than some people get. So to riff off the privilege discussion elsewhere, it's complicated and always will be. I keep in mind how fortunate I am and I quite seriously worry about taking steps to keep in touch with the lives of less-privileged people - because if I don't do that there's a danger my family and particularly my children may become ignorant as hell. I think nothing of eating out any time it strikes me, and that alone is bizarre by the standards of most people. It's not to say most people can't afford to eat out sometimes - but they at least think about it. I can remember when I used to also. That hasn't happened in a long, long time. Uriel, in a long-ago thread, referred to what it's like to visit a grocery store and to buy whatever you want without thinking about that either. That stuck with me, because it's so true. Recently I was in line behind a family buying groceries and they were forced to ring everything up and then strategically remove things they couldn't afford. That is not grinding poverty by the standards of Canadian society, and certainly not globally. That's just being pinched in a fairly ordinary way. When was the last time any of us experienced anything like that? Seriously - get a fucking grip. Because the ability to relate to normal people isn't only a life skill, it's also part of doing your job well in most of the legal marketplace. No one is saying you need to feel satisfied with your six-figure income or to stop striving for more so you can have more of whatever it is you want. But if you think your life at that income is at all close to "average" then you are, quite frankly, a giant fucking tool.
  36. 2 points
    If you have a household income of $250-300k and no kids you are doing quite a bit better than “ok”, even with student debt.
  37. 2 points
    I have been practicing family law for a few years, first in Toronto, now in a smaller city. I agree with the points OP has raised. I would like to add the following about our role and practice as family law lawyers: 1) Family lawyers motivated by their wallets: It is unfortunate that there are lawyers out there who profit from families' misery. Some lawyers act like "hired guns" and will write anything their clients tell them (no matter how ridiculous or irrelevant). They fan the flames of conflict. They bring motion after motion for minor infractions. They goad the already angry spouse to air his or her emotions in court. They only tell the clients what they want to hear. They write aggressive letters 24/7 which agitates opposing side beyond reason.... The list goes on. I have inherited numerous files which caused me to shake my head at the strategies previous counsel employed. I understand that with respect to legal strategies, counsel are entitled to tremendous deference and clients do not always tell us the whole truth - some strategies are recipes for litigation. Worst of all, these lawyers will dump their clients after they are out of money (A pre-signed Form 4 Change in Representation). The entire Family Law Rules are premised on the principle of encouraging parties to settle. Family law is about helping families restructure, protecting the children, and re-establishing stability. Part of the role of a family lawyer is try to take the emotion out of a separation, to act as a filter to discuss legal issues, and to manage client expectations. More importantly, lawyers must recognize that no matter what happens, the parties will forever remain the parents of the children. Family law is ultimately about human relationships. People have memories of horrific events. Litigation will undercut the post-separation relationship between the parties to the detriment of the children. I make it very clear and blunt to my client from the outset that: "No one is going to walk away with everything." "No one is winning." "Would you like a stranger (e.g. judge or lawyers) to make important decisions for the future of your children?" "Don't spend money on me, spend it on your children's education and your own pension." "Would you like to go on a vacation with the children yourself or would you want to send me on vacation?" "You need to separate your spouse's lawyer from your spouse." (Sometimes it is an angry pitbull of a lawyer on the other side trying to agitate my client). Vice versa, I tell clients not to direct their anger at opposing counsel who may be trying very hard to settle the case with me. "You can choose to pay [insert outrageous sum of legal fees here] to drag this to court, or consider taking a reasonable offer in which no one would get everything they want, but it is one that spares the children." "Domestic violence and litigation are emotionally and psychologically destructive for the children." "Your children love both of you and they still probably hope that the marriage can be saved. Don' t make this anymore painful than it already is." 2) Lawyers who have not a clue what they are doing: You think self-reps are horrible? I have seen horribly drafted Applications and Answers which later require an amendment because a lawyer forgot to make certain claims, which can add weeks of delay into the fray. I have had opposing counsel screaming at me in court or interrupting my submissions. I have had lawyers who think that withholding financial disclosure is a legitimate litigation tactic (Note well, it definitely is not). Lawyers who make outlandish claims in court about something the court has no jurisdiction to grant. Lawyers who do not respond to Offers to Settle, miss filing deadlines, miss court dates, show up late to court dates, not show up at all, send articling students who have no clue what the file is about --> to take the blame, take vacations during the most critical time of the file, show up without client instructions, making deals behind their client's back, lying about opposing counsel's position, overbilling their clients, withholding information from their client, misrepresenting their client's position.... so on and so forth... I take the position that we are not "hired guns," we are here to help families move on and protect their children from the wrath of otherwise intelligent and wise adults who act like children due to emotions. 3) [Client Management] Lawyers must recognize that for many families, this is the first time they are going through a separation when the known world is crumbling around them. People do not enter relationships or have children with a view that one day everything will fall apart. A skilled lawyer can talk angry clients back down and recognize that they are not angry at you; they are angry at the system, the perceived injustice they experienced, at themselves... I have had clients apologize to me in a letter after I gave them the "calming talk." They tend to take more reasonable positions afterwards. 4) Try to be reasonable with self-reps on the other side. People are immediately apprehensive when they receive a letter from a lawyer, a divorce letter at that, especially out of the blue. Of course, people read and interpret emails and letters differently from what the writer wanted to communicate. I put in extra effort to make sure that my letters are not unnecessarily aggressive (even when I am demanding a response, I provide a reason why I am acting this way). People are more willing to come to the table to talk rationally when they are not being threatened, coerced, bullied, or blamed - when they see the other lawyer as a person who is trying to help the family move on and not as a bully. 5) "Without Prejudice" Telephone Calls with opposing counsel can save a lot of money and time Sometimes, a "without prejudice" call can dissolve a hostile situation quickly or convey a lot of information under 10 minutes. A barrier to communication is what gets many files in court because of the emotions and the perceived ill-intentions. If at the end of the call, opposing counsel is happy with the progress, then we can commit discussion in writing. Emails cost money. Letters cost money. Sometimes neither can get the file moving as quickly as it should. A lot of my files settle because I am having telephone conferences often. Of course, when I get an angry letter from opposing counsel, I make a call. "Okay, I see either you or your client is angry; I am listening." This can allow opposing counsel to air his or her grievance with me or my client. Most of the time it's due to a miscommunication or misunderstanding. It is also a power move to tell an aggressive opposing counsel that I am not intimidated by threats of costs and involvement of law society or LAWPRO. My overall point is, family law file requires delicate and measured handling. A firm approach is needed when clients do not listen or wants everything on Earth. How lawyers practice directly impacts how quickly and inexpensively a family can move on. A lot of the delay in court, imho, is caused by lawyers who could've made more effort to resolve files out of court through calls and alternative dispute resolution. A lot of mistakes in court can be avoided if lawyers actively learn about recent developments in family law and listen to judges who offer sage advice. Unfortunately clients often pay the grave price for the mistakes of lawyers. Sorry, this is an issue that bothers me day in and day out. /End Rant.
  38. 2 points
    The median stats for Oz is posted right on their website (same with U of T since you asked this in that thread too). I'll do your 10 second homework for you - median is around 3.69 cGPA and 161 LSAT. At this point, your posts come off as a not-so-humble brag. What do you think your chances are with close to an A- cGPA and 99th percentile LSAT score? You can very easily google this information.
  39. 2 points
    Oh boy, I get to do the speech again. Let's try the how-much-I'm-assed-this-time version. There's no such thing as a 'best firm' blah blah blah Blah blah blah better or worse in different practice areas, blah blah defined by individuals and not a firm as a whole blah blah Different offices of the same firm will yield blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah won't guarantee you will be happy working there just because yadda yadda no experience until you're ten years blah blah BLAH Blarg blarg biggest firms don't necessarily pay the highest salaries or bonuses yarbleglarbl cease to be impressed that you work at a plargldrarb Doop dee doo doo job security *whistle, whistle* strategically place themselves in different markets TORP DE DORP Sometimes the most exciting clients aren't at SHOOP DOOP DOOBIE DOO B'TANG institutional clients that you'll never BEBOP SKIDDLEY BOP total package of enjoying work, hours, and compensation bear no relation to abstract notions of 'prest-BANG CLANG PLAY DRUMS ON DESK
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    You're responding as though you have a wealth of experience to draw from. I'm not sure that's true. I entered law school as a mature student having had several different career phases. I went through the 1L recruit, 2L recruit, found articling elsewhere, found an associate position elsewhere, found further work elsewhere. I've done a buttload of job applications, in different job markets, and constantly, for most of my adult life. From that experience, I propose that that you are not approaching this in a reasonable way. The fact that you succeeded does not mean your experience is indicative of how easy the process is, how much other people do or need to do to properly engage with and succeed in any particular recruitment process. The idea you have that it is "not relevant" that other people who struggle with interviews, and that this does not have an effect on how easy one process is versus another is, frankly, humourous. Think. If one finds it difficult and stressful to interview, surely that will have an effect if a particular process emphasizes interviews, and many of them, in a very brief period of time. Are you certain that those with interview-anxiety won't have it easier outside the OCI recruitment process? Again, and I'll leave it here: you should consider experiences other than your own before responding.
  42. 1 point
    BQ either made this topic to be purposely combative and kick the people who didn’t get OCI jobs when they’re down, or he genuinely thinks and ponders about this stuff (wtf man). Either way the act of even putting it on this forum is socially unacceptable get a life dude.
  43. 1 point
    I'm going to leave this alone. I hate that every single thread about Ryerson gets derailed and don't think it is fair to future students (I didn't realize when I replied to this comment that it was in a thread about Ryerson). I do think there's room for discussing the appropriate methods of law school evaluation, just as I think there is room for discussing the concerns with an oversaturated legal market or the ideal law school curriculum, but I think that these topics belong in their own threads, as they implicate schools other than Ryerson. In short, I'm making a concerned effort to discourage snarky and off topic commentary about Ryerson so that prospective students can get the necessary information they need.
  44. 1 point
    If I walk into a firm at exactly 12pm, should I greet the receptionist with "good morning" or "good afternoon"?
  45. 1 point
    If it makes you feel better, I spent 5 months at home after my call to secure a job. Out of that 5 months, I took 1 month off to relax. I had five interviews, bombed two of them (at good firms too, one of the interviewer is also a leading expert in the field). My background is in family and my past work experience/course selection/accolades are all in this area of law. Here are some tips: 1. Focus your application - law firms do not like to receive "generic" applications which just summarizes your previous work experience. Answer the three "WHY" - 1. Why are you interested in this area of law, 2. Why your past experience/courses can help you succeed in this area of law, 3. Why you are interested in this particular firm/office/in house position. 2. Write out a difficult/interesting life scenario to grab the recruiter: sometimes the best cover letters are the ones that describe a past incident and how you managed and learned from it - writing about your failure or "oopsie" can land you an interview rather than IMO the generic: "I did this, I accomplished this, I have experience in this." It can distinguish you from a dozen of other applicants. 3. Networking is good and all, but is limited depending on your area of practice - some areas of law have many network events, others (like mine in family law) have few network events (I am not counting CPDs here). 4. Think about moving to a less saturated market for jobs: I can tell you from experience that areas outside of Toronto (for example) have a demand for good lawyers too. Many firms in small metropolitan areas or rural areas are having trouble replacing retiring lawyers or retaining experienced and ambitious lawyers. Some senior lawyers are willing to take on a junior and teach him or her because this approach frees up their own time from grunt work. While it is true that you might take a pay cut taking on rural legal positions, but some benefits offered in smaller cities or towns can't be bought with money. For example: my drive to work is only 15 minutes (only 7 minutes if I ignore the speed limit and traffic lights ) and my cost of living is low. I can actually afford to buy a detached house here after a few years. 5. Don't be discouraged and rush to take the first job: We all have bills to pay and student debts to manage. However, don't take an awful job where you would be miserable working 10 to 12 hours per day in a toxic office environment. I bombed interviews, lost positions to more qualified candidates, and spent hours working away at applications for nought. There is no shame in it and it certainly does not mean that you are less worthy than other lawyers.
  46. 1 point
    You're safe. Here's what you do - register for both tests immediately. Wait for your score from the October test. It sounds like you are aiming for a 165, so I will use 165 in this scenario. When you submit your law school applications, you have the option to indicate future LSAT test dates that you are registered for. Indicate in your application that you are registered for the January 2020 LSAT. If you receive your score, and it is below a 165, write the January LSAT and pray for a better score. You will be considered in the admissions process for your schools of choice starting 3 weeks after the January 2020 LSAT and will still have a good chance if you come out with a decent score. If you receive your score, and it is 165+, you can change information on your law school application after the submission deadline. So all you would do is go back into your application, and de-select the January 2020 LSAT as the one you're going to write. Then just go to the LSAC website and request refund. You will be considered in the admissions process for your schools of choice soon after you de-select the January 2020 LSAT as a future LSAT.
  47. 1 point
    Okay, I do think that is worth mentioning in your statement, with the possible exception of not liking your major. It is generally the conventional wisdom that you should discuss how those experiences shaped you or how they led you to be interested in law. I don't think your past will sink you if you've pulled up your GPA. Some schools focus on your last two years for that exact reason. They understand that people can struggle for some reason but turn it around.
  48. 1 point
    I don't know. Emotional intelligence and mental illness as a required 1L course may not be a bad idea given how it's so prevalent in law school and the legal profession and a neglected topic.
  49. 1 point
    Would I still get into the law school I got into years ago? Would I be able to get into all of the schools that I have taught at? Nope, better not to know .
  50. 1 point
    This is the most confusing and unexpected rankings I have ever seen
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-05:00

  • Newsletter

    block_newsletter_signup
    Sign Up

×
×
  • Create New...