Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/17/18 in all areas

  1. 50 points
    Like many of you, I could not believe it when I saw it. After getting rejected everywhere last year, I wasn't sure if I was going to get in. I am happy to say that I was accepted today. LFG!!! cGPA: 3.62 LSAT: 156
  2. 29 points
    Never thought I'd post here, I'm still in disbelief. Saw my status change to admitted! LSAT: 155 (4th take!) CGPA: 3.57 General category.
  3. 26 points
    Yeah, but they take your left kidney as a deposit and only give it back once you've billed the number of hours that Tony Merchant claimed to docket the previous year. That's a law fact.* *Views expressed above are not factual, do not reflect the views of the lawstudents.ca community, and do not reflect this hat's best effort at humour. To the extent that Bennett Jones' defamation lawyers may read this, I have no assets, only debt, go away.
  4. 25 points
    I wrote a response yesterday - deleted it, thought about it some more, and came to the understanding that this might not help the OP but I want to say it. THIS PROFESSION IS NOT THAT GREAT. All over this site are people who are putting their entire heart and sole into the fulfillment of a dream. That's great, wonderful, reach for the stars, rah rah ... [NTD: insert a great deal more bs here] But, many years out - the happiest "lawyers" I know aren't practicing law. (note in point - probably the smartest guy I knew in law school now does this: http://www.mycozyclassics.com/ ). We have a huge burn out rate and our predictors for mental and physical health are among the lowest of all professions. A large enough portion of us as to be very scary have alcohol and drug dependency issues. The majority of the lawyer/parents I talk to would not recommend this job to their kids - I know I wouldn't (if either of them come decide to do it of their own accord - they will have my support of course - 'cause parenting- but believe me I am really working on how fun STEM subjects are). It also just isn't the path to riches and easily attainable upper middle class living it once was. And I say this as someone who has worked very hard to create a practice that is sustainable from a mental and physical health perspective. I know we are suppose to overcome every obstacle climb every mountain [ntd: more of that bs here as well please] - but please take a long second look - "failing" at this specific objective maybe the very best thing that ever happens to you. Edited to add - I am more than happy to talk one on one if you like. I don't know what skills i bring to the table in that regard. What I do know is that when you say "i want to die" that I can speak for all of us here and in the profession when I say "we don't want you to". We want you healthy and strong.
  5. 23 points
    This is not how this thread works, but congratulations on your offer.
  6. 22 points
    Hi all - this forum has been so helpful (and anxiety-inducing, at times!) that I wanted to share my personal adventure on the road to law school acceptances - for those needing a bit of love and support at this time in the application cycle. When I first considered applying to law, I wrote the LSAT on a whim and scored in the 140's; a few months later, I tried again, with a one-point increase in score. I had applied to UVic that year (also on a whim, so stupid), and was rejected (duh). My self-confidence was bruised, and I figured law wasn't for me, so I put the idea of law school to bed. After a good deal of wallowing, some painful self-discovery, and way too many episodes of Gilmore Girls, I decided to pull my socks up and try, try again. I was in graduate school at the time and self-studied while completing my thesis (so stupid - see a theme here?). I wrote the exam and scored in the 150's. Forever the idealist, I re-wrote a few months later, still in time for that application cycle at UVic, and scored the exact same as before. This was a fantastic wake-up call, fueled by two years of rejection. The LSAT is a beast, I was not "smart enough" to take it on without support - that's something I needed to accept. I dished out a painful $1,000, took time off work, and gave myself one month of full-time studying to try, try again. I told the instructors of the course that my goal was a 160, because I truly thought that's all I would be able to achieve. Progress was slow, but as the month came to a close, I saw improvement, scoring on practice tests between 160-162. I wrote the exam for a fifth time, and scored a 163. This year, I applied to five schools: TRU, U of M, U of A, U of S, and UVic. I've been accepted to all/waitlisted at UVic. My approach to the LSAT was sloppy, I recognize that. I was nauseatingly idealistic about my ability to self-study and receive an offer with some cheesy 80's music playing the background with smiles all around. For the majority of us, getting into law school is tough, admissions committees are ruthless - but that stubborn determination paid off, even if it took a few years! So, for those of you tackling the LSAT right now, or waiting anxiously to hear from the schools you applied to, know that if it doesn't happen this year, or on this exam, you have options, and you have time. One way or another, you'll make it happen. Be ambitious, stay strong, keep hoping, and be the badass future law student that you are. Cheers! 🍻
  7. 22 points
    I turned down this offer earlier today. Thank you all for your input.
  8. 22 points
    This post highlights the the exact type of person you are. This is ridiculous.
  9. 22 points
    You'd be surprised. I was in court in a medium-sized city a couple of weeks ago for a routine matter on consent. I wasn't expecting anything special to happen; the court was making its way through the list, I was barely paying attention, when a tort issue came up between a female plaintiff and male defendant. What caught my attention was the judge's question: "Before we proceed any further, defendant's counsel must acknowledge that the protection of women's rights are the most important thing in the law, much more important than any male entitlement." I was pretty shocked, but the defendant's lawyer - a highly esteemed member of the local bar with lots of family law experience - coolly rose and replied: "Your Honour, who is responsible for the protection of our fundamental rights in Canada?" The arrogant judge gave a Soros-like smirk and replied, "The Attorney General of Canada - who is a woman, as it always should be." "Wrong. It's been 58 years since John Diefenbaker created the Bill of Rights. If Jody Wilson-Raybould were responsible for protecting our rights, we would all be in internment camps by now." The judge was visibly shaken, dropped his gavel and copy of The Rights Revolution. He stormed out of the courtroom (and nobody stood) showing the same childish rage that left-wingers display when they demand 'equity' in the legal profession. There is no doubt at this point that the judge wished he had sought power by running as a PPC candidate in the next election rather than some unelected unaccountable sunshine list public sector appointee. The lawyers, the court clerk, the court reporter, and the interpreters all donated to Maxime Bernier that day and bought copies of Twelve Rules for Life for themselves and all of their friends, family, and colleagues. An owl named "enforced monogamy" flew into the room and perched on the Canadian flag, shedding a tear on the ((gold fringe)). O Canada was sung several times with the godly 1926 lyrics, and the Duke of Edinburgh himself showed up and declared that there are only two genders. The judge and the entire Canadian Judicial Council were removed by Order-in-Council the next day, they all had to move to northern Manitoba and died because they refused to use fossil fuels for heat. So you'll be fine, OP.
  10. 21 points
    As a follow-up, I accepted a paid position from a promising personal injury firm just now. Thank you all for your sound advice.
  11. 21 points
    Was having this discussion with some colleagues and thought it would fun to continue it here. Mine continues to be when a client calmly cracked a beer in court while a cop was testifying. Think about how loud that sound is, and then amplify it by about a bajillion to account for the silence and decorum of the court against the backdrop of my total and utter lack of preparation for that moment.
  12. 21 points
    Please show some respect for all of the other talented people who are working incredibly hard to get an acceptance from any Canadian school. You received two acceptances before December, relax. There are so many others here who would do anything to be in your position.
  13. 20 points
    For those of us who are already forced, ethically, to do pro bono work for vulnerable clients, I'll lower any remaining boundaries and say this is a fucking disgrace. A fucking disgrace we all could see coming--but, nonetheless, a fucking disgrace. The reactionary bullshit of "Well, don't commit a crime then," is just too much to handle after a long and difficult week. I don't want to believe things are that bad. Though I know they are. My LAO clients (and the ones who can't even get LAO) are the most vulnerable and marginalized persons likely to die in the ditch they're calling home. To suggest that they set their own trials and advocate their own Charter defences and/or factual defences is a sick joke. I'm tired of this. I can see how my clients live before they die at 35. Hey, no problem paying a Crown $200,000 to prosecute some homeless and mentally ill person. But I guess our government draws the line at paying a lawyer (maybe even now a duty counsel lawyer) a pittance to defend that client. We'll see how these cuts shake out--what services are cut, what jobs are slashed. From what I've seen working in courthouses 5 days/week, there's no "fat." Maybe it'll be the entire non-CCC (i.e. refugee/immigration/landlord-tenant) wing. Who knows. I see duty counsel run off their feet in every jurisdiction. I guess we'll see. It's goddamn sad.
  14. 20 points
    Hi Everybody! It's been a while since I checked in on this site...hope you're all doing well! I wanted to take a minute tonight to post about something that happened recently at my firm. For context, I'm a female mid-level associate at a biglaw firm in Toronto. I'm posting for a few reasons - first, because I need to vent somewhere, second, because I think it's important that people acknowledge when these things happen, and third, because I want to record how gender stereotypes have an impact on lawyers in 2018. One of my (also female, also associate) colleagues recently quit. She is by all accounts a skilled and well-liked lawyer. She left our big firm to go to another big firm for better opportunities - a combination of mentorship, file type, partnership prospects, etc. Her decision was a loss for our firm, and a windfall for the firm she's joining. When I spoke with a senior partner about what we could do differently going forward, he said a few things that were surprising to me. He started by saying that different people have different "reasons" for leaving their jobs, and he said that "not everyone is interested in private practice and the path to partnership". At first, I couldn't understand how this related to my colleague's departure - she was going to another prestigious law firm, to continue her private practice with an aim to becoming a partner. As I continued to press him, he shared his theory - he felt that my colleague might have left our firm because she wanted to be an in-house lawyer, and posited that she would use her new position at this other big firm as a stepping stone. Given that I know she has no interest in going in house, I might be biased. Maybe this is something that actually happens sometimes. But I do not believe that a male associate with her qualifications and skills, who decided to go to a competitor firm, would be accused of having a secret plan to go in-house. The suggestion that the senior partner was making was that she wasn't "cut out" for private practice - that in his opinion, she was probably seeking an easier path or a less demanding career. (for the record, I am not at all suggesting that lawyers who work in-house have it easy - many work similar hours to lawyers in private practice, and many are required to have broad knowledge in multiple areas - but I do think that's what this partner was suggesting). Here's why this matters: quite apart from the broader issue of retaining associates, we all (as big firms) have a hard time retaining skilled female associates - especially as they become more senior. Female associates face a host of obstacles that are overt, and to me, this experience really underscored the additional subtle pressures and assumptions that female associates experience on a daily basis. In terms of things that are still overt, they mostly relate to child-having and child-raising. We are frequently asked whether and when and how we plan to have children. We are consistently worried about the significant drop in our salaries during maternity leave (because remember that although many firms are supportive of female associates taking twelve months of maternity leave, they will only pay you for four). We still struggle to be invited to male-dominated events. And every day, many of the people in positions of power at our firms still assume that we are less interested or capable or able to become successful partners. For all of the discussion and effort that takes place about understanding and fixing the problems that prevent female lawyers from staying at law firms and progressing, it still seems to me that many female associates are "written off", or aren't fought for, because it's assumed that they will take time out of their working lives to have and raise children. Here's the tough thing to fix about it: in many cases, it's true. Women are still expected to take a twelve month maternity leave, whereas men (in my personal experience) are not expected to take paternity leave of more than a couple weeks, if any. Women are still generally expected to take on a bigger role in raising their children when both parents continue working. Without addressing these later assumptions, it's difficult to criticize people for making the earlier assumptions that women will eventually require more flexibility - they often will. But is that right? Relatedly, I found the recent episode of that Netflix series "explained" about the gender pay gap very interesting, and would recommend it. It suggested that unless men are equally expected to take leave to have and raise children, the gap will remain difficult to close. Anyways, those are my thoughts as a full service law firm associate in 2018. I'd be interested to know what others think about this story and/or these ideas generally. Feel free to share your own anecdotes if you feel comfortable, I would be interested to know whether others are having similar experiences.
  15. 19 points
    Op, tbh, only do it if your gf is OVER 2 points above you on the scale, and has discussed marriage with you. That’s, in my option, the only way to rationalize it.
  16. 19 points
    I've been meaning to make this point for ages, in response to this subject and in particular the title. I just haven't had time. I have two related rules I live by which, when taken together, render this question meaningless and even self-destructive. Those rules are: 1. Never assume you are going to out-perform the people around you, and 2. Never be afraid of competing at any level In application to my own practice, it would go something like this. Sometimes people in smaller markets want a defence lawyer from Toronto. I have no idea why. It isn't like we have no crappy lawyers in Toronto, and it isn't as though small market lawyers are necessarily bad. I understand, to some minor degree, why clients feel like they are getting something special from Toronto. But that's a delusion particular to clients. I would never, ever, walk into a smaller courthouse and assume that I'm a big deal just because I come from the city. That lawyer I've never heard of may be great. Hell, he or she may be far smarter than I am, to work someplace where the houses are affordable and the quality of life leaves time to actually enjoy a professional income properly. On the other hand, I can't succumb to anxiety over my relative abilities either. I litigate before the same judges who see the best defence lawyers in the country. I argue with Crowns who have 30 years of experience. If I wasn't sure I could handle the big show, I couldn't do my job at all. These two rules are not contradictory. They are complimentary. You can't be afraid of competition. You also can't take it for granted, or assume you're better than anyone else just because of some real or imagined achievement in your past. So, in application to choosing a law school, if you somehow believe you can guarantee you'll be a big fish at Windsor, Lakehead, or anywhere else, you're simply wrong. No one is stupid in law schools. Yes, the class on average may be stronger at certain schools. But there will be brilliant students at every law school and you may not be one of them. In fact, you likely won't be. Imagining you'll stand out at any law school is arrogant beyond belief. You have no idea what you're facing in terms of competition. At the same time, you can't be afraid of competing with "the best" at U of T, UBC, or anywhere else. If you're afraid of the competition as students, what the heck are you going to do in legal practice? At some point, you'll be facing a lawyer at a school you were afraid to go to because you might look bad by contrast, only that lawyer graduated 20 years ago and now she has two decades of experience on top of the presumed superiority to start with. You can't adopt that view. Assume you can compete everywhere, and don't assume you'll dominate anywhere. Anything else is an impossible and unproductive attitude to take into a legal career.
  17. 19 points
    Accepted today - no e-mail but status changed on ozone and I have my PDF in front of me as proof LSAT 156 cGPA 3.1 and L2 3.3 Older student with an MA and tons of work experience I have been working at this for two years (studying LSAT and applying). I was rejected in 2017, waitlisted in June of this year and am now finally accepted. I'm on the verge of tears right now...
  18. 18 points
    I did not know I needed to explicitly state reasons to post on this forum - I ask because I am a young associate myself and I want to hear more from women who’ve been doing it longer. i want to hear their genuine experience without being sugarcoated for workplace formalities. As a woman on Bay St myself I find myself wondering what makes YOU assume we’re not? 3-5 years were in brackets as an example. Personally, that is my experience. I am asking how to balance killing it at work, as I try, and having quality time with my husband. I want to hear Senior Associates + Partners’ with children experience Reality is, on Bay, there are women, like me (thats what makes me assume), who want to make Partner and want to start a family and who may also be of colour and are more likely prone to code switch often. Side note though (I’ve been reading your comments on the forum for a while) I dont believe you’re on Bay St + I am certainly not interested in your male partner’s experience, so I don’t understand why you’re commenting in a manner clearly intending to undermine the purpose of my post.
  19. 18 points
    To me, the key part of this subject title is the anxiety over giving up something "for good." That's something you (and all law students) need to make peace with. When you are young and talented and privileged you go all your early life getting told you can do anything. You internalize that message. And to a degree there's truth to it. But the other side of that truth is that you won't do everything. You can't. Obviously. Don't try to keep all your options open. It's an idiotic and self-defeating way to live. Every choice you make, every path you commit to, implicitly rejects other choices and other paths. If you fear closing off options, you'll continually hedge against committing to the things you actually want. And that's no way to live.
  20. 17 points
  21. 17 points
    Accepted today! GPA: 3.0 L2/B2: 3.91 Lsat: 161 General category!!!!!!!! I can't believe I've been accepted in one of the first rounds. I applied to the MA econ/JD program and really focused my PS on why I specifically wanted to go to Queen's for that program. I started bawling when I saw the acceptance because I really couldn't believe it! It's my first choice so I will most likely be accepting Good luck everyone!!
  22. 16 points
    Ok. Now I know all I need to know. Tell these people to go fuck themselves. Edit to add: Don't actually say that. But this is shady as fuck.
  23. 16 points
    Baby Lawyer sounds like a really bad movie starring the Rock as the part-time dad of Baby Lawyer who gets looped in to helping Baby Lawyer take on a big bad pharmaceutical company all the way to SCOTUS and along the way learns the true meaning of fatherhood.
  24. 16 points
    1. Some people will not graduate with an articling position and will have to go to great lengths to find a position. 2. Some people will have awful experiences articling. I had a position that lasted one day, I left and never went back. I was yelled at and berated by a sole practitioner. Don't "stick it out" it's not worth your self-respect and dignity. Anyone that tells you to stick it out doesn't care about you. No-my "reputation" wasn't ruined. Yes- I found another position within two weeks. 3. Some people will job hunt for 8-12+ months. It can be depressing. Apply to non-law jobs in the meantime, it's not the end of the world. 4. Many lawyers are too proud to admit they struggled to find articling and/or an associate position but trust me you are not alone if you found this post by googling "i cant find an articling position" or "i cant find an associate lawyer position" or "im an unemployed lawyer". Keep your chin up and stop letting a title define your worth. 5. Yes this can happen if you have good grades, summered/articled at a "top firm" or went to a prestigious Canadian law school. 6. Yes it can leave you feeling worthless. But you're not. Stop the negative thinking it will get you nowhere. 7. Yes there's a whole wonderful world outside of our law "bubble". Get out of the damn bubble. 8. I went through all of this. I survived. I have a wonderful position now. 9. I am posting this to give someone the support they need to push through. 10. You are smart and talented. There are so many opportunities out there for you. The world will beat you enough, don't add to it by beating yourself up.
  25. 16 points
    Death is bad and lasts a very long time. Take advantage of the outrageous ancillary fees you are paying at wherever you are, and see a crisis counselor immediately. It's good you're asking for help. Here, or anywhere, seeking help is a start. But what you need is professional help, rather than off-the-cuff ideas from people on the Internet. Seriously. Go now. Everything else can wait.
  26. 16 points
    I don't have any answers for you, but I love the honesty. I have no doubt that this thread will get juicy.
  27. 15 points
    For anyone who's reading this, who may have received bad grades just as I did.... Just know that I received two job offers (not through OCI's) for summer work. One with a mid-size firm, one with a boutique firm. Grades do not define your success, if you learn to network, interview well and sell yourself properly.
  28. 15 points
    I can't wait to get rejected either.
  29. 15 points
    To be fair, this is more an observable fact than a partisan opinion.
  30. 15 points
    Beyond advice, I just want to say I'm sorry you're going through this. You're valuable, and worth something. You will amount to something (even if you do change paths). People care about you. Merry Christmas.
  31. 14 points
    Accepted this morning! First law school acceptance after getting rejected everywhere last year. 3.8 GPA with drops, 164 LSAT, MA degree. Feels good to finally share an acceptance!!
  32. 14 points
    My advice to you (and what would have made 1L much more enjoyable) is to drown out all the noise. Most law students are lovely but some are absolutely insufferable. They’ll humble brag about how their undergrad in Xyz studies has prepped them so well and half the classes are like review, or they’ll go on and on about that family member that’s a lawyer, the list goes on and on. Coming from an educational background that’s vastly different or never having been exposed to the law, this can be intimidating. But I promise you no one has an edge and no 1L knows what the hell theyre doing. Everyone is just as confused and unprepared as you are
  33. 14 points
    Got the email just now. cGPA: 3.5 LSAT: 155 As a current fourth year at UofT, I'm honestly very ecstatic to be approaching my final days in this extremely unpleasant, money-hungry, apathetic institution. Good luck to everyone else and see ya never UofT. 😎
  34. 14 points
    Hi everyone, I found this forum very helpful while I was preparing for the LSAT so I thought I'd share my story here and perhaps it can help others. A little bit of background information about me: I moved to Canada around 5 years ago and decided to go to law school about a year ago. I did not have much previous exposure to the LSAT and I consider myself ESL in terms of vocabulary. I started studying in June for the September LSAT. I took an in-person course with PoweScore and found it useless. The instructor did not really care about the students and the numerous LR categories really confused me. Although to be fair, it helped me build on my LG foundations. By the time the course was over I was scoring in low 150s and I was not happy with it. I decided to work on my LG first using the Fool Proof Method on 7Sage. (You can look it up here: https://7sage.com/how-to-get-a-perfect-score-on-the-logic-games/) I made 5 copies of each game from PT 1-40 and started foolproofing them. After a month I was getting around -6 to -8 wrong on LG I was not being consistent so I decided to change my strategy a little. I decided to split my game board less and practice a strategy that would produce more consistent results. I had one session with a tutor who taught me about the Square of Opposition method. (If you like to know more about this method you can message me). For LR, I took 5 sessions with a different tutor and she really simplified LR for me. Instead of power scores' infinite categories, she divided the categories into only 3. Basically, the first category is question types that you can predict the answer almost 100% and these are usually MP, Sufficient Assumption, Method, and a few more. The second one is the category for which you can predict answers more loosely and you should approach these answers with more flexibility. And the last category is unpredictable so instead of spending time predicting we just dive into the answer choice (Must be True, Resolve, Most Strongly Supported). Reading Comprehension was my weakness. Ironically, I had always enjoyed reading and had always tried to read books in English since I moved to Canada. But I had trouble understanding words like parody, convoluted, sporadic. To address my weakness I purchase a set of GRE flashcards and memorized 5 words per day. I also started reading books with more convoluted wording. (Just before my November LSAT I started reading "Brief answers to important questions" and it introduced me to the concept of entropy and my last passage on the LSAT was about entropy!!! I ran out of time for the last 4 questions but it definitely helped ) So these are some details about each section but I want to also talk about my journey in terms of my mindset and attitude. When I started studying for the LSAT in June I was scared, negative, and stressed. I stopped going to the gym because I thought I need to focus all my life on the LSAT. I stopped socializing and didn't see my family for 4 months. I can't say that my failure on the September LSAT was only because of this (on September I got a 155 but I was PTing in mid 160s) but I am sure that it affected my score and my mental well-being. After I got my September score I was devastated. I thought I could never get a good score! But keep in mind, especially if your actual score was lower than your PT average, that luck also matters. Example: On the November test I got 3 linear games which I was really good at and got a -3 on LG. From September to November I changed my attitude. I realized that doing intense cardio helps with my mental stamina and also helped me to manage my mood and my back pain. I studied in moderation and around 4 hours per day. Most importantly, I decided to not think about the outcome of the test and started actually enjoying doing PTs. Did everything go perfectly on test day? No! The night before the test I slept for 3 hours only. I decided not to panic, did the body scan meditation by Jon Kabat Zin which helped me fall asleep, and had a bulletproof coffee (coffee+MCT oil+butter) in the morning to compensate for the lack of sleep. During September-Novemebr I was PTing in the mid 160s although my average was a 163 so I was happy when I got my 161 in Novemebr Feel free to send me a message if you had any questions.
  35. 14 points
    I'm not quite as virulent on this topic as I once was, but I would strongly urge the OP (and anyone else presuming to advise the OP - especially those without a history in this profession) to remember that the articling relationship is not an ordinary job. This is true both in terms of the articling candidate's rights and obligations, and the employer's rights and obligations. I took a glance at the OP's history. They graduated in April of last year and only found articles recently. Not long ago they were looking for anything at all, I'm sure. And while a PI firm offering low pay isn't ideal (I can't even fault them for the commute - that's on you for applying there) they at least were willing to pick up a student in the off season and it's still paid. It could be a lot worse. And so far I'm seeing nothing that goes to any dissatisfaction in the actual articling relationship - no issues with supervision, learning experience, etc. My biggest concern is this. Does your new proposed employer know that you are already doing articles elsewhere? If no, you have a problem, and you should probably come clean with them. Because lying your way through this profession is a bad, bad idea. If yes, you may have an even bigger problem. And that's simply because it is almost inconceivably bad form to hire an articling student who is already employed. That isn't to say it can't be done with appropriate caution. But I can barely imagine another firm saying "this person has articles elsewhere, but we'll just offer them a job and see what they do." My point being, if that's what they are doing you probably don't want to work there anyway. It's a little like hooking up with the guy who's cheating on his wife and his existing mistress to be with you. You gotta ask yourself - even if you end up with him, what do you expect in the future? I won't say you need to stay where you are right now. But talk with them honestly about it. A month ago you would have killed for articles anywhere. Maybe this isn't the best time to immediately burn the only bridge anyone has extended to you.
  36. 14 points
    I should also say that if you choose to post here to express what you need to express, the mods will make an exception to our never-delete rule if you request the topic be removed. Your mental health is what is most important and the people here can be incredibly supportive and kind. Again, no one here is a professional so please, do seek out help offline too, and understand that all advice here is well meant even if any of it strikes a wrong chord.
  37. 14 points
    They only think about nature if your degree was in environmental science.
  38. 14 points
    I think Uriel *was* that student. But I remember it being tripping the fire alarm that emptied the building. I like the addition of real flames tho. Let’s go with that version.
  39. 14 points
    TIL, as I return from a lovely vacation to my professional managed, newly renovated rental apartment, with a fully stocked fridge, comfy furniture and a big TV, check my bank account that is continually increasing, and then hop on the subway for my 20 minute commute to work, that I am merely “surviving”.
  40. 14 points
    If I were applying right now I would be looking at the price tag before pretty much anything else. A more expensive school would need to be clearly worth it, based on something more solid than just a vague sense of “reputation”.
  41. 14 points
    Thanks for your reply. I would say: 1. Yes, many associates go in house - but that's not what happened here. This person went to another large bay street law firm, and has never shown any indication of wanting to go in house. I believe that the suggestion that she had some sort of secret long term plan to go in house would not have been made if she were a guy. 2. The default in our industry (and society at large) is that women should take maternity leave, and anything that men take is "extra". You refer to your partner taking "her year off" - but why is it hers and not at least partly yours? I wonder what society would look like if, for example, every new parent was entitled to six months leave instead of one parent being entitled to twelve months. Would women and men be seen (and treated) more equally, because it would be assumed that most associates (not just female associates) would require a leave from work? Right now, partners (mostly rightly) assume that their young female associates will fall a year behind their young male associates in terms of experience for every mat leave (which by the way, we want less than anyone). I think it's interesting to think about how things would change if that wasn't the default. If you're interested in seeing how this would work, the documentary I mentioned shows it in practice, including in Iceland where leave goes 3 months to the mother, 3 months to the father, and 3 months to be taken by either partner. What do you think of that model?
  42. 13 points
    Wow, if a Crown did that in a trial I was on, I would protest to the judge. It’s not the Crown’s role to ask people to leave open court who aren’t causing any trouble. And a person testifying at trial is not necessarily a “victim.” If onlookers are discreet and respectful, I don’t see a problem - all witnesses should be prepared for that possibility. The judge controls courtroom decorum/procedure, and there are tools to assist witnesses such as screens, support persons etc, so I don’t mean to be insensitive - if it becomes apparent to a judge that a witness is struggling with the courtroom environment, this should be addressed, and there are options that fall short of the drastic action of kicking the public out of court. I think a law student who is serious about wanting a career in criminal law SHOULD watch the graphic and explicit stuff - how else can they know if this is an area they really want to practice? I agree junior high kids probably aren’t ready for sex assault trials, but law students should be.
  43. 13 points
  44. 13 points
    This will seem petty but I swear it isn’t: it’s “advice.”. Advice is a noun. You want advice. Give me advice. Inviting advice. It is pronounced exactly as it is spelled Advise is a verb. I advise you to wait. You advise action. Advise me. It is pronounced as if the “s” were a “z”. It is a very very common mistake but as a new lawyer you need to know the difference.
  45. 13 points
    In my other life I work in emergency management (part of trying to stay healthy eh!) That is one area where i have seen a real shift in perspective around mental health. It still needs work, don't get me wrong, but the change from - oh if you can't handle a little blood and guts this isn't for you, and "drink it off" to today's debriefs, mental resiliency training and proactive approaches is night and day. The legal profession has been talking about this in the corners and around the periphery for too long in my opinion. We still hold up as pillars people who are living really unhealthy lives. We still don't take care of people that deal with just totally horrible situations on a daily basis. I did one child porn case when I was just starting out and still get actual physical symptoms when I think about it. How legal professionals (defense, crown or judge) go though some of the child abuse trials that you hear about without some level of assistance is beyond me. I really hope they get the help they need. As a first-responder, if I go to an incident where someone is stabbed. I will likely go back to the hall, fill out a form (I know weird eh - but PTSD is cumulative- so we want to make sure we are tracking exposure), I will do a debrief with my crew, if we have any issues/symptoms we can take it up the chain and professionals will be brought in. We then talk about healthy approaches to what we have dealt with- exercise to help flush adrenaline, mindfulness, talking with our team) we will be reminded of the symptoms of PTSD, our family are invited to talk to our mental health practitioners and most importantly we commit to watching out for each other. The defense counsel who will be going through all the gory details of that incident with the victim, perpetrator with the family of both right behind him or her gets what? We do have the Lawyers Assistance Program - which I encourage all students and lawyers to learn about hopefully prior to needing it - http://lapbc.com/ I just think we need to be serious about this issue and it requires a culture shift.
  46. 13 points
    Okay, so I have a civil/corporate story. I'm a junior associate at a small town law firm. Our firm represents a hotel. An oil company is going through a CCAA reorganization. The partner forgets to file whatever paperwork he should have filed in order to get the outstanding hotel bills paid by the oil company. So he send me to the city. Honestly we don't have a leg to stand on other than the fact our debt is really small potatoes compared to the overall re-org, and no one else is really challenging the re-org. This was a long time ago so I forget a lot of the actual legal details. We have to wait for the judge for awhile, and eventually we get told to appear after lunch. The lawyer for the oil company agrees to just pay our hotel bill. We come back after lunch... and the judge is gone. We check with the judge's chambers, and he's left the building. This is a problem - I have to get back to my small town practice (pretty sure this was a Friday afternoon), and this other guy wants to get this reorganization finalized and signed off on. So the lawyer goes "I think I know where he is". he takes me to this ritzy social and sports club. We start wandering around the club, until we eventually find the judge in the men's change room. So the judge signs off of the CCAA order in the change room at the club.
  47. 13 points
    Boy do you have an interesting view on life. I get COL is high in Toronto. But to say 75k a year (a single person salary) is nothing is just so crazy to me. And both my parents are professionals. I'm not saying this even from personal experience. I just have my eyes open enough to know how ridiculous that sounds.
  48. 13 points
    Pay your employees. To any students reading this, having prior law firm experience is entirely unnecessary to getting hired at a large firm and more often than not is not at all a deciding factor. You're better off earning some money and getting any form of work experience than giving away your labour for free to someone that wants to take advantage of it for the promise of "exposure". Read up before you work "for exposure": https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jul/09/creative-careers-is-it-ever-worth-working-for-exposure https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2017/03/13/no-i-wont-work-for-free-for-the-exposure/#6af4dab64402 https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10926-no-working-for-free.html
  49. 13 points
    Look out kids! A straw man is on the loose! Run for cover! Seriously though. Unless I'm seriously misreading Komodos point, she isn't saying anything remotely similar to enforced identical outcomes. I read it as: 1. We acknowledge that societal (not biological, yo) duties impose a heavier burden on female parents than on male parents. 2. We posit that it is a moral, social and economic good to subject men and women to equal treatment within our profession, thereby encouraging the smartest and/or most hustliest (its a word (it COULD BE a word (Shakespeare made up words, why can't I?))) to stay and excel in the highly lucrative and influential field of private practice. 3. There's anecdotal and statistical evidence supporting the fact that private practice loses women due to a culture that favours men, and one of the primary ways this occurs is through unequal treatment of parental leave and the conscious and unconscious biases that result from that. 4. This is a problem. We can discuss and argue about solutions, but step one is acknowledging that this is a problem caused by industry and societal culture. I'm also just going to lay this out there : is your argument above actually based on the idea that "science says" men and women want different things for reasons other than (1) societal expectations/conditioning and (2) lived experience with discrimination? I'm not trying to strawman you, just trying to make sure I understand.
  50. 13 points
    1: General life advice -- don't let some line in a job posting ever prevent you from applying. 2: I can say with near 100% certainty that your grades are fine, and would not be a barrier to you getting a job (in any market). If you're lateraling, the firms will care far more about your work experience than your grades.
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...