Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/17/19 in all areas

  1. 82 points
    I can't believe I am saying this but it does look like uozone was just slow to update. Just checked again and I am pleased to say I have been admitted to my dream school, one that took me three years to do and took every single ounce of faith to continue. I became really cynical after a while because I didn't think I was capable of pursuing law school for a multitude of reasons, all stemming from my continuous rejections. But I knew I had something to offer and kept the faith. Part of me thinks I was never supposed to be here because of my past and the struggles I've endured. However, that's what makes this all the more special. I could go on and on. I have a complex mix of emotions right now but I am ultimately ecstatic. My future begins today. THANK you to all of the well wishers and waves of support I've had on this forum. Y'all are the best. Stats: 3.4 cGPA, 3.9 L2, 164, MA degree. Time to show uOttawa what I'm made of! Going to accept the offer tomorrow.
  2. 53 points
    So after @capitalttruth mentioned about a status update, I checked my file and saw i was under evaluation. Checked again 15 mins later and saw a BIG FAT ADMITTED. I SPENT 10 MINUTES BREAKING DOWN AND CRYING TEARS OF JOY GUYS. AFTER FOUR YEARS OF APPLYING TO LAW SCHOOL, AND WAITLISTED AT WINDSOR (lol) THREE TIMES, I AM SO HAPPY TO SAY I GOT ADMITED AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. anywho, 3.56cpa, 154 lsat, 3.78l2 good luck all. I'm going to go do some drinking now.
  3. 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
  4. 49 points
    Not sure why you need to be so vague in your posts. We can either wait to hear confirmed news, or you can say that a source (unconfirmed or not) has said that big firms will be laying off lawyers/cutting pay/shutting down, whatever. Saying “shit is hitting the fan this week at some big firms” without further comment or context is simply unhelpful.
  5. 46 points
    I mentioned this earlier, but I was laid off on March 25th. My (now) former firm practised personal injury law on the plaintiff side. We had 6 lawyers. I've been practising in personal injury almost exclusively since my call to the bar in 2016. Since my layoff, I've been applying pretty widely to job postings in the GTA related to that area. I had 6 interviews and recently accepted an offer to join a larger PI firm for more money than I was making before. The offer that I accepted was ultimately brokered by a recruiter who reached out to me on LinkedIn. Anyhow, I'm not sharing this to brag or otherwise gloat. I just thought landing a gig was an interesting (and lucky) thing to have happened during the pandemic. I used LinkedIn, Indeed and Ziprecruiter to apply for gigs before the recruiter got in touch.
  6. 39 points
    Hi all, I can't believe it, but I was accepted yesterday (Jan 29th), but just saw the acceptance on OASIS this morning!!! OLSAS GPA: 3.3 B2: not sure of the conversion, but was about 89% LSAT: 152 Indigenous Status, wrote about personal connection to MMIW and childhood abuse as a factor for going into law, which probably really helped me. I'm in utter disbelief right now, I've been crying all morning.
  7. 38 points
    It’s funny how merit = white though, isn’t it? Many white colleagues will always wonder about the “merit” of their racialized colleague while never turning the same eye on themselves. My favourite result from the government experiment of screening applicants by removing their names from their resumes was that the number of racialized candidates moving forward in the process stayed the same, but the number of white candidates went down; simply having a familiar name helps borderline white candidates get ahead.
  8. 35 points
    While I can't speak for the legal market as a whole, in terms of gaining legal experience you're going to be responding to an unprecedented problem that no one knows what the holy fuck to do about. And that is, of itself, valid legal experience. Tomorrow, I'm going to a court to figure out a very messed up situation with a client caught up in this (intentionally vague, here) and then I'll be working some more on related issues. It's true that the cash flow for legal businesses may be impacted. And it's possible some articling jobs may be threatened as a result. I can't dismiss that possibility. But it would take either a very tight-fisted or desperate employer to fire articling students over this. Almost any lawyer I know would save money or take the hit elsewhere first, until there were no other options. Bottom line - this is going to create a significant amount of work (just responding to the general mess) before it creates no work. And then courts are still going to need to find a way to function. Which again, may occur in novel ways that constitute some of the best training available. Also, what solutions exist will be technology-driven, so younger folks may have an advantage there. So basically, buckle up, be prepared to be creative and flexible, try to maintain some positivity, and learn as much as you can from this experience. The very definition of lawyering is responding to shit that no one else knows how to deal with. If it was as simple and straight-forward as paint-by-numbers all the time, then any idiot could be good at it and we wouldn't get paid as well as we do. Some lawyering is routine. But honestly, that shit is basic and you can learn it any time. If there's less of that happening right now, it's no great loss. It's learning how to deal with the very not-routine stuff that will teach you how to be good at this.
  9. 34 points
    I know a lot of people are stressed about starting 1L online, but I think it would be more beneficial to look at the pros rather than the cons right now. A lot of people would be glad to have the chance to attend law school, whether online or not. This is a privileged problem to have. I would also be disappointed if school went online because I was hoping to move to a brand new city and meet a lot of exciting and interesting people. But worrying about it won't change anything besides elevating your stress level. As a lawyer you will probably find yourself in a lot of "less-than-ideal situations" and you must challenge yourself to problem-solve and find ways to make this experience the best that you can. The onus is on you for how good your outlook is, don't make the mistake of concerning yourself with circumstances beyond your control. On the bright side, if you live with your parents for an extra semester you might be able to save on rent and maybe you'll bond with your cohort even more since everyone is struggling to maintain ballast in the same rough waters. At the end of the day, you're one step closer to realizing your dream of practicing law and that alone is something to be grateful for.
  10. 34 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.
  11. 33 points
  12. 32 points
    Where to start with this one! And of course I see this at the end of the day! I think I'm just going to go point form... -your friends are right - it does get better. Right now everything is brand new, you have to research every last point, you question your every decision. But it gets better. You'll start running into the same legal issues, and no longer have to research them. You have enough experience you know how something will happen. I know I used to have to spend a couple hours getting ready for an impaired - now I typically spend 5 minutes. -please do not be afraid to ask people for advice! Everyone has been there before. I've always found that other Crowns are very generous with their answers and advice. There's no need to re-invent the wheel if one of your colleagues has already done this kind of application, or has already researched a sentencing memo. -all of that being said... crying in the shower every day is probably not normal. Throwing up and getting sick is not normal. That's not that there's anything wrong with you, or that you aren't tough enough or strong enough. I would urge you to see a doctor - not so that he can just prescribe you anti-anxiety meds, but just to double check that you don't have medical issues causing some of your problems. -more generally - self-care is important! Make sure you're eating right. Make sure you're getting some exercise. And for goodness sake alcohol or drugs are not a viable stress-management tool in the long run (you didn't mention, just in case) -you say you are burning yourself up trying to be perfect. I'm going to tell you you can't do this. They don't give us nearly enough time to be perfect. You just need to be competent. You WILL make mistakes. A lot of those mistakes will be from not having enough time to do things. On the really, really important cases sure you take extra time, and dot every eye. But just accept and embrace that mistakes are a part of a crazy busy crim law practice. -it doesn't sound like time management is your problem, honestly -so I'm a Crown from Alberta with 10+ years experience. If it helps to talk to someone not in your office I'm here for you. PM me a message, and we can talk over email or even on the phone
  13. 28 points
    I understand this sentiment, but you can be grateful for an opportunity and also disappointed by the prospect that it will take a dramatically different form than you anticipated. For many students, online learning could mean a significant impairment to their learning, extra-curricular opportunities (i.e. skill-building, practical experiences), sense of community, and capacity to build or maintain relationships. That's not to say they shouldn't appreciate how lucky they are, but I think it's unfair to ask students to be excited for any form of law school they can get.
  14. 28 points
    Many food banks aren't stringent about means testing. The idea being that the costs of enforcement are higher than the returns from catching fraudsters, and they don't want to dissuade the needy from accessing their services by raising the administrative burdens. The programs are often run by good people who don't like to turn anyone away. I think that's right. But someone with a full time job and five figures in the bank is not their target recipient and shouldn't have gotten help. As someone who volunteered at food banks for many years, I know that lots of small donations come from people with little or nothing. We saw people on social assistance, who were still struggling to make ends meet come in with a few extra items from the store or a couple of dollars here and there. Others gave their time to sorting, packing, and distribution. They did so, because they benefited from the program and wanted to ensure that others in the community got the same amount of help. Often there's not enough nutritious food, so we usually prioritized families with kids, even though there were lots of other people who needed those items too. I can guarantee you, none of us were there to help someone fund their JD, even if that person came from a lower income background. Maybe you don't care about any of that, and fair enough. But I'd advise you not to proudly announce it to your classmates and colleagues the way you did here. Reputation is important in this profession. I'd want nothing to do with someone who (i) took from the hungry to fund their degree and (ii) either thinks it's clever to imply that Mal meant give back the food, rather than donate going forward, or is too dumb to understand that "give back" referred to donations.
  15. 28 points
    I think it's more common during articles.
  16. 27 points
    I graduated law school in 2018. I used to read forums like these a lot, and looking at them now, I can clearly see so much of the anxiety I once felt about law firm rankings. I've made a lot of progress on those anxieties and wanted to share some wisdom of how things look from "the other side". From where you stand right now, it's understandable that rankings seem important. I guarantee you, however, that over the long term law firm rankings are not very important. Your concern with rankings is largely driven by your ego -- you want to work at a prestigious firm because you think that will reflect well on you, or because you believe it is a measure of your worth. If you are being honest with yourself, you do not want to work at these firms because that is where you think "the work is the best", "the people are the smartest", or "that is where you will be happiest". As you go through your career, you will realize those statements could be true of a lot of firms. You want to work at these top firms to make your parents proud and feel good about yourself when you tell people where you work. The wake-up call all corporate lawyers one day get is this: these firms do not care about you, as a human. Law firms are not benevolent organisations. They are for-profit pyramid structures where lots of associates serve as cannon fodder so that a small group of partners can make vast sums of money. As a general trend, the better the firm (according to your rankings), the higher the pay. But the higher the pay, the worse the hours. Firms are not charities, they are not giving you more pay because they like you. They are giving you more money because they are charging their clients more, and they are charging their clients more not because they can do work that other firms cannot (when you do deals you will sit across from "lower ranked" firms), but because they can get it done faster (a.k.a. you work longer hours). These firms rank well because they deliver for their clients, yes, but at your expense. To these firms, you are 100% dispensable until you become a partner, at which point you prove your worth largely by how much money you bring in. If you want to have a long and prosperous career, where you make lots of money, feel fulfilled and have real responsibility, do not worry about law firm rankings. Worry about doing a good job at whatever firm you do end up at and about making career moves based on genuine enjoyment of the work. Over time, it is this behavior which will be the determinant of your long-term financial success, stamina, and happiness. Loosen your grip on the image or story you've crafted for yourself about how your life can or should play out. The reality is that you have very little control over the future and the trajectory of your life will ultimately be determined in large part by events beyond your control. Most people can barely control their own thoughts and emotions, so what makes you think you will be able to bend the world to your will. Yes, you should continue to work hard and push yourself. And yes, if you are genuinely interested by a certain practice area, you should try to work at firms with strengths in that area. But stop obsessing over rankings. Focus on what is real in the present moment, let go of your ego, and you will find your way.
  17. 26 points
    I don't want to derail this thread and wasn't going to comment further, but this just irked me quite a bit. Do you know that immigrants and first generation Canadians are flooding professional school programs like medicine, dentistry, and law? Something they all have in common is that they worked hard (very hard) to be there. You yourself admitted to not working harder in undergrad. I came from a relatively poor background and was working multiple jobs in undergrad while commuting 4 hours to university everyday. I went to Osgoode and got into a number of other schools as well. My parents came to Canada with nothing and could not afford to pay for my education even if they had wanted to. Yet you have the luxury of travelling abroad for law school and are calling the people here who worked their asses off to get into Canadian programs elitists...tell me, who is actually privileged - you or me? If I did not get into a Canadian law school, my legal aspirations were done. I took out OSAP and a student line of credit at prime interest rate to pay for the whole thing. I depended on bursaries from my law school. While you can take out a line of credit to attend a foreign school, you need a co-signer with good credit (which I did not have) and the interest rates are high. Scotiabank just recently stopped giving out loans to students travelling abroad altogether. We need to stop these kinds of nonsense statements in its tracks. I see it a lot from my friends and peers who went abroad for law school. Something they all have in common is that they come from money, are well-connected, and they didn't work as hard as us elitists in undergrad to get into a Canadian school. But, hey, bring out the banners and march on the streets because us elitists are blocking them access to these "high paid jobs" to maintain the status quo.
  18. 26 points
  19. 26 points
    I don't mean to derail this conversation any more, but "work your ass off" means very different things for those who come from an extremely financially stable background vs. those who don't. It's a lot easier to "get into university, maintain a high GPA, pass the LSAT, get into law school, maintain good grades in law school, kill articling interviews, work yourself to the grindstone during articling, pass the bar" when you don't have to worry about financial burdens. utmguy is not guilty - he/she is just recognizing that he/she had it better than other people. No need to lambaste someone acknowledging that.
  20. 25 points
  21. 25 points
    I don't care if the Fall semester is in sign language and taught by a gorilla on Skype, I want in and I want to start by Fall. Would be more than happy to snag whatever seats are forfeited or deferred from anyone who's put off by online classes.
  22. 25 points
    Each year at Dal, they gathered us in the atrium and offered everyone who wasn't interviewed by either Stikeman Elliott or an appellate court near the Laurentian river as a sacrifice to the ghost of JSD Tory. This helped ensure that school's recruiting numbers stayed high. I only escaped by hiding in the basement under a fort made of old McGill guides and feeding on scraps that fell from wine and cheese events above. Needless to say, 2L and 3L grades felt functionally meaningless, given that the only two options were (1) a life of work on Bay St. following your first year of law school or (2) literal death.
  23. 25 points
    I too struggled with answering this question. There are certainly elements of my life with which I am very satisfied, and law is a defining part of it. I'm very satisfied with my job, with what I do everyday, with the people I work with, with the people I work for, and the compensation I get for it. I am also satisfied with my general position in life. Growing up, I was repeatedly told that I was a failure, I would not amount to anything, and that people like me don't enter this profession. Everyday I can wake up and do what I do as a massive "fuck you" to the people who said I couldn't or shouldn't do it. That is pretty satisfying for me. But at the same time (and mindful of potentially stepping into the cesspool created by Mycousinsteve) I do feel guilty about my success. I am incredibly conscious of the fact that I earn now as a young lawyer what my father was earning, after a lot of struggle, at the peak of his career. My mother works a close-to-minimum-wage job and works way harder than I do, but I charge 20+ times more than she makes an hour. Something just seems off about that sort of discrepancy. I get it that I am smart (relatively speaking) and that has its market value; but I wouldn't say that it is all effort and no luck of the draw. I just happen to retain and understand more information than the average person, am able to direct that towards seemingly useful ideas, and am able to express those ideas in a coherent and polished way. All of that means that I get to live way better than my parents ever could. So when I take my parents to a nice restaurant, I am equal parts satisfied that I can take them to that place, but also guilty that more value has been placed in me than them because of some random combination of values.
  24. 25 points
    Some people may tell you, at times, that you should regularly acknowledge your privilege when you have it. I'm not one of them. What you choose to acknowledge, or not, if your business, and people who shove your face in it at inopportune times are assholes. However, if someone else chooses to acknowledge their privilege, and you are triggered simply by hearing that, then you have become the asshole in the exchange. Big time. I'm not even going to refute your ignorance. I'll choose another time and place. You don't need to agree with every commonplace fact to function as a lawyer - and yes, the existence and nature of "privilege" if not its absolute contours is a commonly acknowledged fact - but you do need to be able to hear things you don't agree with without completely losing control of your sense of the appropriate. You're responding to an off-hand comment, and objecting simply to hearing someone else offer perspective on their own life. Right, wrong, or otherwise, someone else's perspective on their own life is none of your fucking business - even if they were wrong and you're right. Neither of which are true here, btw. Grow the fuck up.
  25. 24 points
    I don't quite understand this attitude. People work very hard to get into law school and then pay tens of thousands of dollars to attend them. The school's aren't doing them some favour by letting them attend, they earned it and will be paying for it. The idea that revrent gratitude is owed to the institution seems odd to me. People have every right to be disappointed and frustrated, pandemic or not.
  26. 24 points
    I see day 15 of social distancing is going well on this forum
  27. 24 points
    ALEXANDER How can I, bastard, orphan son of a whore And a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot in the Caribbean By providence, impoverished, in squalor, become a fancy Osgoode Haller? DIPLOCK I get it, young man, no doubt you've seen your share of strife But's there's this thing I call the Fallacy of the Perfect Life Your dad's gone - that sucks, but it's not a claim for Access How's that gonna explain your repeated mediocre LSATs? Yeah, so, if the shoe fits wear it Your application sucks but you've got years to repair it And if you make that effort I sure do wish you the best, sir But don't you fucking come back here and ask 'bout going to Leicester
  28. 24 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! 🍻
  29. 24 points
    This is not how this thread works, but congratulations on your offer.
  30. 23 points
    I find myself with time to weigh in on this, since I was summoned. I originally had the OP pegged with two, fairly common problems. I've since added a third. This is going to be a longish post, but what the hell. It's not like I'm allowed to go anywhere anyway. Good Old-Fashioned Arrogance This is the least interesting thing the OP is doing. I wasn't going to start with this, but everything else stems from it. It basically boils down to this. You've got some strange ideas in your head based in limited exposure to actual legal practice. That's fine - it happens to all of us. But most of us are willing and able to correct our strange beliefs when we get better information from people who know more than we do. So far, with limited exceptions, OP has not done that. And unless he (she? - I'll say "he" until corrected) fixes that approach, it's going to make their whole career harder and more limited. I've said this before in other contexts, but the problem with law students is that prior to law school, most of us are used to being one of the smartest people in many environments we find ourselves. So we get used to the idea that our thoughts and opinions - even formed in relative ignorance - are often better than the thoughts and opinions of others. It's gross to say it that way, but often still true. Then we get to law school and most of us learn better. For the first time, we're surrounded by people as smart or smarter than we are. And that doesn't mean we can't have good ideas of our own. But it does mean that the first thing that pops into our head probably isn't the brilliant insight everyone was waiting for. Somehow, OP got all the way through law school and into articling with that ridiculous arrogance intact. And I fail to see why. Was this person even a particularly distinguished law student? If so, I fail to understand how or why they ended up articling for crap wages in a not-especially prestigious practice. Don't get me wrong - good students can and do pursue crim. But seriously - get the hell over yourself. If you were Marie Henein's star recruit then maybe, maybe a thimble-full of arrogance (and not the truckload you've got) would be warranted. As stands, you are fucking nobody. And you think you have all the answers? The only good lawyers I know are ones who are constantly open to the possibility that someone else around them - judges, opposing counsel, students, anyone - might be about to say something smart they haven't considered yet. When you close your mind to that, it isn't proof of your superior insight. It's proof that you are just a stupid kid who hasn't gotten over the ego you developed in high school when everything was easy. Excessive Ideological Identification With Your "Side" I find it ironic that the OP wanted to go about Crowns that he feels are being too Crowny. First let me say it does happen on occasion that Crowns are just too Crowny. But it also happens at times that defence are too defencey. And most of the time neither is true. So let me start where the OP is being flatly, ridiculously ignorant. To suggest that "all Crowns are this" is something he can't possible even have perspective on. See arrogance, above. And also, he's heard differently from many practicing lawyers now. So either learn the lesson or don't. Most Crowns have an excellent perspective on the law and take a balanced approach to it within how the law actually works. See below. Where this gets amusing rather than just ignorant is that the OP seems to expect Crowns, in order to be "fair," to move to positions that any practicing lawyer would deem ridiculous. Wanting a conditional sentence in Humbolt...I can't even. Let me get back to arrogance for a moment. You are a fucking articling student with no experience at all and you're looking at a high profile case and thinking "the Crowns aren't doing their jobs right, the defence aren't doing their job right, the judge obviously can't do their job right either..." Who in the holy fuck do you think you are?!? I don't know the bar in BC which means I don't know the players involved. But when I saw pictures of those lawyers going in and out of court with their client, I saw lawyers with the weight of the world on their shoulders and I empathized with them. And you saw...lawyers with decades of experience that you don't have, but who clearly need to take a lesson in sentencing from your punk ass? Back to my previous point. There is an objective truth to the law. There is a sentencing range for driving offences causing death. Defence know it, Crowns know it, and one day you'll know it too. The law isn't based on your gut-check opinion - or mine or anyone else's. It changes and develops, yes, but it still moves within parameters and with reference to existing jurisprudence. If your idea of "good" Crown judgment is that the Crowns should entirely abandon those existing standards and advocate a defence-friendly reformation of the law...that's just fucking crazy. There are times when defence may advocate for something entirely novel. Even those situations are rare. Expecting the Crown to join us is impossibly stupid of you. And the only way you can imagine that, the ONLY way you can think that's not ridiculous, is if you are ideologically buried up to the neck in your own ass. This is why your accusation is ironic. Either side can get afflicted with this problem. And you are developing a bad case of it already. Don't turn into one of those idiot defence lawyers (and there are a few, just like there are some Crowns) who believes everything the Crown does is wrong, stupid, and prejudicial. That's like being a fan who screams at the ref every time they make a call against your team - as though you honestly believe that everything the ref calls against your team is wrong, and somehow the league has recruited an entire squad of refs who hate your team specifically. As a fan you can believe that if you want to. It still makes you a stupid fan, but fandom comes with that right. As a lawyer, it makes you a very stupid and ineffective lawyer. Thinking Your Opinion Matters Based on new issues you've raised, I'm going to add this. And I'm quoting (and paraphrasing) the late, great Eddie Greenspan. When a client sits down in your office (or when you visit one in jail) you don't know if that client is guilty or innocent. After you've heard his story, you still don't know. You will never know until the court pronounces guilt or innocence, at which point it becomes someone else's problem. This may be a point too subtle for you to appreciate right now, but you need to remember and absorb it over time. Legal guilt is a product of the justice system. It happens when a court pronounces guilt. It isn't perfect and it isn't the same thing as factual guilty. Factual guilt is between the client and God. Legal guilt is something far more complex and artificial than that. And the reason I say that is because you are one small part of the legal process that is going to create an outcome. You cannot prejudge that outcome when a client sits down across from you. If you think that you can, that means that you believe your knee-jerk opinion is larger than the system itself. See arrogance, above. And read it several times again. Your opinion, not now and not after 40 years of legal practice, is NOT a substitute for the entire justice system operating with its checks and balances. If you think that it is, get the fuck out now and find an area of work you are better suited for. We have an adversarial justice system. Your job as defence counsel is to advocate one side of the case, and to argue it as best you can against a Crown whose job is to advocate the other side. We both have rules to follow within those roles - the rules are asymmetrical but we still have rules to follow. And then based on everything that goes before the court (again, following rules) the judge (or jury) will find fact. That's how this works. Right now, your problems span arrogance and attitude and your general misapprehension of how this all works. You don't only want to abandon your own appropriate role, you fault the Crown for not abandoning theirs. There's so much wrong with your ideas here I could write for pages and pages more and still not capture it all. Bottom line - you are an articling student because you need to learn. Law school cannot and does not teach practical criminal law (or probably practical anything) in a useful way. So basically, as someone who just started, you know fuck-all nothing. And that's fine. You could get good at this, if you actually learn what you're there to learn. But I'll tell you, based on your interactions here, you're not off to a good start. Good luck.
  31. 23 points
    I volunteered as tribute and just called them 5 minutes ago. The information I got: First acceptances will be sent out some time this week. There have been delays due to outside factors not in the school's control.
  32. 23 points
    Dude, come on. This person worked hard to get into law school. Why poke fun at them now? Major congrats oceann. You're going to law school and on your way to becoming a lawyer. Wish you the best of luck in the rest of the process.
  33. 23 points
    Thank you for the thoughtful messages and kind words. This morning I accepted that I was in crisis and a danger to myself, so I reached out to some resources for help. It's been a long day of sitting in waiting rooms and explaining myself to health professionals, but I am safer than I was earlier. There's a tough road ahead and I'm still anxious about my career. But I do feel that after months and months of falling into a hole, I maybe took a small step back up today.
  34. 22 points
    Miller Thompson? Why are we not just naming names.
  35. 22 points
    CRYING AS I WRITE THIS: I AM FINALLY ACCEPTED AFTER REJECTION AND REJECTION LAST YEAR L2: 3.83 LSAT: 151 ALOT OF WORK EXPERIENCE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
  36. 22 points
    Well, if accommodations mean any of your classmates (of future colleagues) think anything less of you, congratulations - now you know who the assholes are.
  37. 22 points
    Yeah, because after paying law school tuition for three years and now renting an apartment in Toronto, it's monthly payments on my marijuana and iphone 6 that are the real difference maker.
  38. 22 points
    Okay, I'm going to give you some very important information to start, and slide gradually into opinion. I know it's hard to separate fact from perspective, at times, so I want to start by acknowledging the slippage. As a fact, the sorts of legal practice you will most easily be exposed to in law school - in both official terms and unofficially through other students talking about what they are aware of and engaged with - is skewed heavily towards business-oriented legal practice. And this is an inaccurate view of the legal market as a whole. No one is doing this intentionally and it's not a conspiracy, but it does happen as a strong trend nonetheless. The simple fact is that some kinds of law happen primarily in the context of large and organized employers and other kinds of law happen primarily in the context of smaller legal practices, often sole practitioners. Your CDO is eager to bring you every contact and opportunity that they can, but they can't get every individual lawyer to play ball with their processes. Small shops don't hire their students a year in advance so that they can participate in OCIs. A two-person operation sure as hell isn't sending someone around to every law school in the province to conduct on-campus interviews. And so the predictable consequence is, what you see is skewed badly towards what happens in large firms. Now, students routinely fuck one another's heads (and their own) into imagining that if they want to have a career at all they need to get on board with these large employers and do business-oriented law. The groupthink gets intense. Again, it's not intentional, but it's powerful. Particularly, the biggest problem is that because large and organized employers hire far earlier in the cycle, any student whose interests don't align with the work these employers do feels immense pressure to not pass up the chance to apply to jobs they don't even want. They pass on that pressure to others, and you end up in the situation you've just described. Often, students don't know what they want. They are encouraged to pursue "full-service" firms based on the idea that they'll be exposed to a little of everything. But that's flatly untrue. Full-service doesn't really mean full-service. There are all kinds of things you'd never see done in a large firm. What full-service really means is "a full range of all the legal assistance that large entitles (corporate and otherwise) and high networth individuals might routinely seek." But that doesn't mean everything. Also, students who have been conditioned to always chase the best and hardest things to achieve may feel that corporate practice is the next version of that, but that's also not true. No question, articles and future employment in large, national firms is competitive and represents some of the harder positions to obtain. But there's plenty that's highly competitive outside of this environment also. There's absolutely no truth the the idea that the best go to Bay Street, and everyone that's left over settles for other things. As an aside, the OP has already gotten halfway through an exercise that I often recommend to students who don't know what they want to do. The most natural thing is to start with a practice area and try to find interest in this or that area of law. The OP has mentioned some interest in torts. That's fine. But the OP's first instinct was to emphasize interest in helping people. To me, the clearest division in legal practice (not in terms of the law, but in terms of what it feels like to be a lawyer) is between institutional vs. retail legal practice. In other words, large firms serve entities. They deal in abstract work, and work with representatives and corporate officers to pursue that work. That's institutional. In the sort of work performed in smaller law offices (this is a generalization - not always true but usually true) you're serving individuals. In other words, real people with problems affecting themselves. This is retail work. Note, "problems" is a broad term in this sense. Residential real estate fits this bill. So does immigration. The point is, you're working directly with the individual clients. To students who can't figure out what they want to do, I encourage everyone to stop thinking about practice area and to start thinking about the clients themselves. Some areas of law are inherently oriented to individuals - criminal law, family, immigration, much of real estate, some areas of tort (personal injury - absolutely - though mainly plaintiff side) - while others are institutional. It's a good place to start thinking - better, in my view, than trying to find intellectual interest in an area of law divorced from considering what it will feel like to work with a particular kind of client. The toughest part of the advice I saved until the end. For those students who decide through whatever means that their interests align more with retail-type smaller legal practices, there is nothing at all wrong with this sort of work. You can have a great career doing it. But you won't find the same support and guidance in law school towards that kind of a career as you would towards the large employers doing OCIs. You'll be stuck, unavoidably, trying to network more directly, searching on your own for job postings, etc. It won't be spoonfed to you. And worst of all, if you want to stay true to these ambitions, you'll be skipping OCIs while all your classmates are freaking out over them, you're virtually guaranteed to be heading into 2L without a summer job lined up for the end of the year, into 3L without articles in place, etc. Which isn't to say you won't find those jobs - not at all. Just that the employers you'll be looking for probably won't hire that far in advance. So you'll be staring down a lot of anxiety. And frankly, a lot of students break and apply to OCI employers anyway, and some end up working exactly where they don't belong. Which I am convinced contributes to the big-law burnout rate. Anyway, that's a lot of information. I hope it helps. Incidentally, to remind, I'm in criminal defence, myself. But for all of the above, despite your question being more about family law, it's exactly the same. I've been there and done that. And it worked out very well for me.
  39. 22 points
    Without wading into the underlying debate, I just wanted to specifically respond to this comment because I couldn't have said it better. Although I'm only a 2019 call, so I don't want to derail this, I just managed to secure a better than expected associate position in a niche area of law in a small practice group with colleagues who seem to just be all around great people. And from the ground running I will be making way more than my grandparents ever did, who both worked in a factory for 50+ years while raising me as a kid, and now experience real health problems from how hard they had to work in less than ideal conditions, with never having anything like a financial cushion (one of my grandparents was an orphan, the other the oldest of 12). When I get them simple gifts, like craft coffee beans or other things they like, I literally have to rip off the label and say it bought it on sale or they will not use it because it is "too good for them." I really wish life could be more fair, but it isn't, and so I'm just thankful for what I have and trying to be a more open-hearted person in the process.
  40. 22 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.
  41. 22 points
    I turned down this offer earlier today. Thank you all for your input.
  42. 21 points
    The power imbalance is significant here. This is not two colleagues who disagree or calling out a buddy over pizza. I think you should reach out to a trusted professor or admin person and explain you have concerns (up to you if you name the prof or not) and you to figure out how they can be addressed. If you focus on what next steps would be you can make a more informed decision about whether to take them. It’s a cautious route but should get you better situated to act. You can also be more direct and email the Dean about your concerns. It may be that you wouldn’t be the first to do so. An email - something in writing - is harder to ignore than a simple conversation. I suppose this goes without saying but there are ways and ways to approach the actual complaint. “I have concerns about X topic as it was phrased because it relies on offensive stereotypes about lesbians” is a lot more effective than “Professor Y is a homophobic misogynist”. (To use extremes - you get the idea.) Focus on what you want the resolution to be: a change to any future class assignments? An apology from the prof to the student body? A formal complaint filed against them with the University? You might not get it but it will focus you and inform how you go about this.
  43. 21 points
    Don't be an asshole. Everyone here has been very nice to you, despite your self-pitying.
  44. 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.
  45. 20 points
    I think the problem is way beyond coursework. If your law school has full-year 1L classes, your Dec grades don't even matter. One of the most cherished aspects of law school is finding a group of like-minded peers in 1L to trudge through the journey together. It makes me sad to think that incoming 1L students may be thrown into classes without an orientation or a chance to get to know each other. I can only imagine the horror of diving into a Zoom lecture cold, listening to a gunner take over the conversation, and thinking you're just not cut out for law school anymore. Having a person or two to digest, discuss, and work through new topis was probably the most endearing part of law school. I sincerely hope you all get to experience that cohesion.
  46. 20 points
    You used a food bank while saving $40K+ in cash?
  47. 20 points
    Guys it's official. Queen's Law will not be giving out any admissions offers for 2020. Instead I have been informed that the law school is headed to Southeast Asia to "find themselves". Think of it as a conscious uncoupling from its students
  48. 20 points
    I think you're really trying to avoid difficult courses, but don't want to admit it.
  49. 20 points
    associate: "sir madam" partner: "My lords and ladies" managing partner: "Your highness"
  50. 20 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.
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...