Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/25/17 in all areas

  1. 3 points
  2. 3 points
    I got in with a considerably lower LSAT, slightly higher cGPA and same L2
  3. 2 points
    Or "Good morning/afternoon/evening, Mr/Ms X..." Or "Greetings."
  4. 2 points
    Ottawa do put a lot of weight on CGPA. However, that doesn't mean they will NOT consider someone with high LSAT and good L2. Give it a try
  5. 1 point
    Would've loved to see Year 1 finally bumped to 110k or 120k but I suspect you're right. Thanks again for the insight.
  6. 1 point
    I also heard this today from a very reliable source. The numbers sounded the same or similar to those described above for Faskens.
  7. 1 point
    I have direct sources that have confirmed the numbers for Faskens and also a similar pay raise scale for a seven sister firm, each of which I understand took effect as early as this week (although Faskens may have been a few weeks ago). One caveat - I understand that only the 2nd year salary raise is fixed, the others are "up to" the amounts shown by the OP. Its great to see progress on the salary-raise front in Toronto, but keep in mind that these are the first set of raises (outside of BJs and Davies) in over a decade and on first blush seem to only (or maybe not even) cover inflation for those years actually getting a raise (sorry first years). In keeping with tradition on Bay street, I expect these increases will be made across the board (in some form, perhaps others will offer better discretionary bonuses) at most large, Bay street firms and will also be used as an excuse not to raise the salaries for another extended period of time.
  8. 1 point
    I actually noticed someone using that extra comma in an email recently. I noticed it immediately because it looks so out of place. That's an unnecessary amount of commas in such a short space. "Hi, dan1010, [...]" Nope.
  9. 1 point
    I applied regular. I really do think you're an above average applicant for Ottawa despite your cGPA
  10. 1 point
    The big flaw in your master plan though is this: lawyers are some of the most highly paid government employees (our ADM has gently reminded us of that if we start asking about compensation). I'm nicely above the pay range you mention, and still get regular hours, very few weekends of evenings, good benefits and pension. I believe I do have the theoretical ability to lateral into other departments, but who would do it given the pay discrepancies?
  11. 1 point
    A lot of what you wrote didn't ring true with me; some thoughts/responses in bold above...
  12. 1 point
    Only 1/3 of Canadians have undergrad degrees. Something like 1/2 the population has post secondary, which includes college diplomas, intensive certificates and trades. Just over half of the population is functionally illiterate. It's 54% in Quebec. Can we stop this nonsense of "everyone has a BA"?
  13. 1 point
    Completely ignores that you need at least some of a Bachelor's degree to enter law school. Once you do that a JD is both more expensive and takes longer than a BCom.
  14. 1 point
    Hmm. "Like I said wrote, my English is not perfect." [quotation altered for demonstrative purposes] Hmm. "...learnt learned the rules." [quotation altered for demonstrative purposes] "... In the U.S. and Canada, meanwhile, learnt appears only once for approximately every 500 instances of learned, and it’s generally considered colloquial...." [emphasis added] http://grammarist.com/spelling/learned-learnt/ Though this is more arguable, and from what I recall of your background and given your use of the expression "taking the piss" I assume you're adopting a more British style; and I wouldn't criticize anyway were it not amusing (to me at least...). I often use less common words, e.g. I sometimes use "fortnightly" as alternatives like "biweekly" or "bimonthly" are subject to confusion (the former, every two weeks or twice a week, the latter every two months or twice a month) - though I don't use "sennight" as "week" is perfectly serviceable. And I use "Hallowe'en" not "Halloween". I tend not to use accents for English words though, such as "naïveté", I'll tend to just use "naivety" unless I'm really taking the piss.
  15. 1 point
    I have not submitted references yet but there is no drop down to differentiate which is academic vs non. So I believe they'll just know when they read it
  16. 1 point
    I suppose this all just means don't use hi. Unless they use hi first, and pay special attention to the placement of the comma. I can't believe this is actually a thing.
  17. 1 point
    I would write Hi, Jessica. That's fine isn't it?
  18. 1 point
    I tend to do the same thing; skipping details (most of the time by accident) and lose focus when the passages are long and boring. I find circling key words really helped (e.g. only, most, some) because I find I keep getting wrong answers by skimming through the passages (which is a really bad habit of mine). One key word really makes a difference sometimes on the LSAT. I basically improved just by doing more LR sections, and finding what worked for me to get the right answers. Still trying to make improvements, haha.
  19. 1 point
    Terrible idea. It's definitely for things you've published.
  20. 1 point
    I only know UBC: you are automatically in both categories if you have a BA. Given this, you should absolutely apply as a discretionary student if you qualify. Also the UBC admission staff are very speedy and friendly and I'm sure will clarify if you have any questions. I applied in regular and they advised me I could do discretionary too; I was able to switch my application. I was accepted too! Good luck.
  21. 1 point
    You have strong upward gpa, along with strong lsat. It's worth trying and should try+1
  22. 1 point
    I studied this summer for Saturday's LSAT while working 40hrs/week (sometimes more, depending on the given week in question), so we'll see how well my studying technique actually worked, but I found it helpful to push my studying to weekends, and on days after work where I felt I had enough energy. Couple tips: Never study when you really don't feel like it - you have loads of time, and you'll become miserable and tired very quickly if you're always pushing yourself to hit a hard target of hours Set a loose goal of hours per week that you want to study - base this number off of your cold diagnostic/recent scores. If they're far off your target, it'll probably take more time. Study smart, not hard. Doing PTs endlessly will do you no good if your score in only one section is struggling. Drill that section. Building off of that last one, as someone who was frequently tired at the end of the work day, drilling individually timed sections takes a fraction of the time, is more efficient, and far more bearable. Save full practice tests for days that you don't have anything else to do, and get it out of the way early in the day - this way, you've done some heavy lifting, and after blind reviewing and writing a full LSAT, you've earned a break. Don't shy away from taking a day or two off if you feel like it. I found that I got the most benefits by taking a day off, relaxing, then getting back into it.
  23. 1 point
    Government is the first thing that comes to mind. There are a lot of non-practising lawyers in government. A law degree does help to better understand the law with which you will be working, and there are a lot of higher-ups with law degrees. But, a law degree is not essential to the position. Just as a side note, I took the only legal course I could find during my [first] undergrad, and it taught me pretty much nothing with respect to the law. Other than that, a JD on your resume sets you out. I know quite a few folks who are getting law degrees to not practice law. I always forget their reasons or their desired fields after graduation, but I know I've heard a wide variety of careers that are made more accessible with a JD, and I'm always impressed. I've also met quite a few people in random places that had law degrees and after graduation they were offered a more lucrative or more desirable position outside of the practice of law. A law degree does not just mean you have to practice law. I've been surprised at the number of people with JDs that I've met whom are not practising law. And I will say this: NONE of those people regret getting their JD. I will caveat this however: nothing "opens doors" for you. You have to open those doors. Once the door is open, certain things will help you through that door, but don't think that a JD on your resume is an automatic win button.
  24. 1 point
    Prior to heading off to law school I worked in government alongside many non-practicing lawyers. A few of them practiced for a number of years after law school, and for various reasons (mostly family / work-life balance) chose to leave the field and get into policy work (steady 9-5 work, great benefits and competitive salary). A couple of them went directly from law school into non-legal government jobs. I do know of someone who made the transition from lawyer to police officer. There are a couple of individuals in my year who do not plan on practicing, but would love to teach. It's not common to head to law school without the intention of practicing, but it does happen. Unless you're planning on a career in legal academia, however, it's a very expensive and stressful way to achieve the same result as a number of other cheaper, less intensive education streams.
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    It's hard to believe I'm already this far out from being a summer student. It feels like I was just that little bucket of nerves a few weeks ago. For context, I'm a fifth-year litigation associate at a Bay Street firm. (Actually, crap, I'm about to be a sixth; we'll be hiring the fifth round of associates under me in the next two weeks. Good God.) There's some great advice in here already, but my perspective has adapted a bit as I've gotten more and more distant from the experience of summering, and gained some understanding of what partners are thinking and what their needs are. (I haven't quoted everyone and I might overlap on some existing responses, but these are the main things that occurred to me as I was reading through the thread.) All Firms Are Different: The dreaded 'culture' word raises its ugly head. All firms do the same work and look the same on paper, but their cultures are actually quite different. I read with some horror about the 'scooping' of work that was going on at Harvey's firm. If anyone was undercutting other students at my firm, it would be apparent quickly and that student would not be doing well with the partnership. But our system is built to be highly collegial rather than highly competitive, and if there's a rift in the student population we're rigged to see it early. We don't have the Pearson Specter Litt 'bullpen of conspiracy' going on. As students, we would actually hold off on taking work if it sounded like something Susan would have wanted to do. That might sound like a brag, but it has its drawbacks too. Our students' collegiality can sometimes devolve into a casual approach to work and collaboration, which I imagine is much less of a risk in a more cutthroat environment. And we're not doing it to be bunnies and rainbows; we have a sound strategic business purpose for fostering maximum cooperation and community-building. Solve The Problem Part 1 - Actually Deal With The Problem: The most important thing you need to do is change your mindset from question-answering to problem-solving. Whenever we ask you to do something, it's because we're in a situation where we need your help. When you come back with your assignment, please make sure you have actually provided that help. Apply this thinking to all situations. See above, where everyone is suggesting, "Sorry I can't help you, but I've checked around and Amir and Susan can"? They're showing you an iteration of this principle. I'm not asking, "hey, out of curiosity can you help me with this project?" I'm saying, "I need help with this project and I'm coming to you with that problem." Saying 'no' with a cool apology is legit, but it isn't actually helping; you've just sent me away with the same problem. Saying 'no' with contact information has gotten me closer to having my problem solved. I tip my cap to the students that save me that half-hour of muddling around with a staffing decision. The example I always give is of the student that was asked to note up a section of the Evidence Act that permits the introduction of government records into evidence without having to be sworn by a government employee. After three weeks, the student came back advising me that there were no cases on that point. He was right. There were, however, hundreds of cases on the specific subsection dealing with it. And obviously there must have been those cases --- obviously government records get into court somehow. See, he answered the question, but didn't help me at all. I might have asked him, "note up Section X"; but what I wanted help with was finding a way to get those records into evidence. Try to understand the 'why' behind every assignment, so that you can provide the help you're asked for; or even add value. More often than not, lawyers (and especially associates) don't even know the right questions to ask. You can become a superstar if you regularly show up in people's offices showing them a thoughtful assessment of the best thing to do next, rather than just performing a function and receding back into your charging station. (Just make sure you don't spend dozens of extra hours chasing a lead --- check in before stumbling down a rabbit hole you weren't asked to investigate.) Solve The Problem Part 2 - Deal With The Problem Yourself: Don't be Lily. Lily is a kid I saw at a family picnic once that ran up to her mom in a panic and said, "Mom, there's a bee!" No one knew where the bee was, or what was to be done about said bee, but we were all officially on notice about the bee situation. I get three or four Lilies in each articling class. They run into my office and tell me they screwed something up, and they stare at me with wild, panicked doe eyes waiting for me to fix it for them. But they were hired because they are among the leading intellects of their generation. And yet, decades of performatted education with defined performance parameters and minimal real-world work experience has left them not incapable of proactive problem-solving, but unfamiliar with that process. When the process breaks or something goes wrong with the superstructure of an assignment, they run to the teacher. Are they capable of solving these problems? Absolutely. Are they dumb for not doing it? Absolutely not. But they seem to have this trained reflex to report to authority rather than assuming it themselves. Confidence is a factor too, of course. Scenario: A student sends out an affidavit with some privileged notes in it and comes screaming up to me: "Mom, there's a bee!" Here's what you ought to do. Get a draft without the notes ready. Attach it to a quick e-mail advising opposing counsel of the issue and asking them to destroy the original and advising that a fresh copy is on its way. Then call me and let me know what the problem is and what you plan to do about it. I might have a better idea, but I also might just have to say "ok, go ahead". If you've prepared a solution, you can minimize the impact of your error on me to near-zero. If you just rush into my office saying there's a bee, we have to discuss the problem and hash out a solution together --- even when nine times out of ten I'm just sitting there coaching the student to reach the solution she would have reached on her own anyway. It's a huge waste of time. Solve The Problem Part 3 - Don't $%&* Me Over: The corollary of trying to solve my problems is trying even harder not to be my problems. I once gave someone a week to do an assignment and she came by three days in to tell me that she got started and realized that there's no way she can do this and meet her other, pre-existing commitments. That was a drag, and it cut down the next student's timeline by three days. But hey, you dealt with the issue and it all worked out. Seven out of ten. Competent job. Would work with again. But very often I run into the day-before or morning-of Liturgy of Excuses. At that point, just flip me off and strut laughing off to the bar. I mean, you might as well own it at that point. If you're creating an emergency for me, don't waste even more of my time explaining how really none of this was your fault. All I care about is getting that affidavit filed and you're no longer part of that equation. And don't get creative with it. I'll never forget homeboy that decided to pop into my office the day before a deadline and just alpha-male confirm with me that we agreed on a different, later deadline and is that made-up date still cool. I still don't know what he was thinking, like I would have forgotten what the deadline was? Say I gave him a deadline building in two days for review before my filing deadline. There's no way I would have agreed to a deadline three days later, after the thing was due to be filed. You're going to disappoint people. I still do. Often. Every day. At home and at work! But we're not high school principals; we're co-workers trying to get our own work done and you're doing a chunk of it. Give us the same heads-up you would give your friends on Law Review if you weren't going to make the editorial deadline and needed someone else to pick up the slack. Don't count on Future You to pull it off somehow. Do Good Work for Lots of People: This seems like it should go without saying, but it's a lot more complex than you think. Your hireback is a committee decision. Every firm does it differently but generally speaking there's something resembling a vote. Don't assume you know the politics of that situation. Did you work exclusively for the most important partner in the group? Great! Maybe she doesn't even remember your name, though. Or maybe the other partners are sick of her getting her pick of students and she has more than enough support already. Did you really ingratiate yourself into a subgroup? Fantastic! What's their work-in-progress looking like? Can they support more than 0.5 of an associate for the next three years under the current strategic plan? It's a good idea to have champions, but it's a great idea to make sure everyone in the department you're applying for knows your name and respects your work. If two people love you, that might be enough --- if they have enough pull and enough work that particular year to get you hired. Much better is to have one person absolutely adore you and everyone around the whole table agree that you're an asset. So, as difficult as it is, try to walk the line carefully in terms of taking on work. Try to work for a diversity of people while cultivating a key partner or two, but don't take on so much work that you disappoint half the people doing the hiring. Aim to be 80% busy (so that you only end up 125% busy). It's better to have Partner X pounding the table for you and 10 people nodding along than to have Partners X and Y advocating for you, four people nodding and Partners A and B mumbling about your lazy research. To The Extent Possible, Be Eager: Look, we've all been articling students and summer students. We know how much it sucks to be told on Friday afternoon that your weekend is ruined. It doesn't feel good to do that to someone, and more often than not, we do it to the students we like the most because we trust them in a crisis. We like doing that even less. You don't need to be a robot or pretend it doesn't suck, but it sure helps if you can bring some positive energy to the situation. Moping and pouting isn't a good look; it makes it hard to imagine you sticking with this job for very long. We're Going To Forget You're A Summer Student: I saw this up top, and I'm horrified at how bad I am for this. Now that many firms have first-year summer students, second-year summer students and articling students rotating through and interviewing in three different waves every year, I'm sorry. The months fly by here as we rush towards the next deadline and I can barely remember that it's Tuesday. I might know a student very well, but I might not have the capacity to always remember if I've seen someone for the last two years because they were a 1L or 2L summer two years ago. The more insidious part of this problem is in our expectations. We will always feel like we don't know too much. Impostor syndrome is common among Bay Street associates. I still kind of feel like a veteran articling student. But what that means is we don't appreciate how much we've learned until we interface with someone that hasn't learned it. Once you get to five years of call, you gradually start losing touch with how confusing it is to sort out what you're supposed to put in a Notice of Motion, or what kind of facts you can lay out in an affidavit. I'm always seeing partners frustrated with correcting students' vocabulary. ("There was no award made; there was an order issued.") It's little things like the wrong word in the wrong place that get more senior people frustrated. Don't let it get to you. They have to deal with it every day and you're not the only one that's still learning. Wherever you're confused about what a partner wants, consider popping in to see an associate. Sometimes we can give you a road map within five minutes that will save you three hours of procedural or precedential research. Just Pay Attention to Stuff: At every firm in every country forever, the #1 complaint of lawyers is that students aren't detail-oriented enough. Use spellcheck if you're not a strong writer. Don't use generic language where it isn't warranted. Assume every minor inaccuracy is a problem. For example, don't write in a memo "but this point is controversial" without following up with an explanation as to how and why; or "there are several cases on this point" without providing citations to show you know that for a fact. You're being asked to be extremely diligent in tracking down the most minor of details, and there's no substitute for spending the time to make sure it's right. What we want more than anything is to develop a level of trust with you that could justify giving you significant responsibility. We love it when that happens; it makes our life easier and we like helping you along to the next level. But that's hard to do when you spell the plaintiff's name wrong and your research is full of generalities and platitudes. It's a huge adjustment for everyone to get four big boxes of documents and be honest-to-God expected to look over all of it. And to be able to say, "No, Ms. Smith was not informed of that meeting" because you literally read all her e-mails. And when you saw an unfamiliar e-mail address in the cc: line, you pulled up that e-mail address and read all of those too. I just can't tell you how good it feels as an articling student and as a lawyer to be in a situation where the judge asks, "did Ms. Smith have any actual notice of this?" and to be able to make eye contact lawyer-to-student, shake your heads and reply confidently, "No, Your Honour." The scramble when the student is like, "I don't think so; I don't remember any" is a bad, bad feeling. It's a hard job. But it can be a really fun job. And we pay you a ridiculous amount of money at a ridiculously young age to compensate for the 'hard' part of that equation. So buckle up and work hard enough to give yourself confidence later, when you need to rely on the fruits of that hard work. Phew. There I go again with a huge post that was supposed to be short. Good luck out there!
  27. 1 point
    Coming from the perspective of a large firm (but not a full-service/national firm), I'm impressed when students really take ownership of their work and show initiative. This can manifest itself in different ways. For example: - If you get a research assignment and you come across a tangent that seems useful, either just include it if it seems sufficiently relevant/useful, or bring it to the lawyer's attention and ask about expanding the scope of the assignment. - If you get a research assignment and you come across something that seems to go against the premise of the assignment, or that makes the assignment itself not make sense, and you're confident that you're correct about it, bring it to the lawyer's attention and ask if the scope of the assignment should be modified, early enough that you can still make your deadline. - If you get a research assignment and can't find anything (or much) directly on point, try to offer an alternate solution to accomplish the same thing. This involves asking the right questions early on - so you know not only what your assignment is, but WHY you're being asked to look into it. - If you get an assignment that, once you start working on it, seems unreasonably large (like, really unreasonably, more so than the assigning lawyer may have anticipated), respectfully say that you think another student should be assigned to it (early enough that you can still make the initial deadline). Bonus points if you take care of explaining and delegating the assignment to the additional student, so the lawyer doesn't need to spend the time twice. This probably would be most applicable to things like books of authorities or doc review, rather than more substantive work. - If you finish an assignment and know what the next step in the file/process will be, offer to get started on that next step. This has the benefit of getting you more integrated into a file (and, hopefully, eventually making yourself an indispensable part of the file), and shows the lawyer you understand what's going on more broadly than your specific assignment. I only work with articling students now, but many of these are also things I did when I was a summer student (with positive results/feedback).
  28. 1 point
    Current DOJ articling student So, besides the plusses already outlined I'll add my two cents. Litigation experience really can't be paralleled. You get your own cases. If you don't do a good job the government is out money. Real money. This is in contrast to what I hear from other colleagues from law school that are stuck doing uncontested motions. You cannot beat that rush of being the point-person for a file- it's probably better than drugs. Other plusses it's a unique mix of big and medium firm. DOJ has tonnes of resources like a large firm but your rotations will be in specific units where you'll be working in a smaller office such as the Departmental Legal Unit of Transport or Treasury board. So, it's still chummy they hold your hand all the way through. Whether its signing up for benefits, helping you look for post-articling employment, or just explaining the ropes people here don't ever set you up to fail. It's meaningful work because even if you're working on some boring evidence problem it's always part of something larger that is (generally) helping out Canadians. It's hard to beat that sort of job satisfaction where you are helping shape the sort of country everyone else lives in diversity of subject matter: in the federal government there's a lot of lateral transfers and in articling you can jump from immigration to bankruptcy and then to war-crimes. There is no firm at all that'll be giving you that opportunity. EVER. unique ethical and moral concerns when working with DOJ. Can't recommend DOJ enough.
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-04:00

  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up

×
×
  • Create New...