Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/03/19 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Well, the driver in the Humbolt crash chose to plead even though he likely had a triable issue. The urge to confess and take responsibility is a pretty hefty thing. That a person later regrets their candid discussion with police is not a legal issue. In the moment they feel a sense of relief, and that is a great motivator. I am not saying that it isn’t an uncomfortable and frightening process. But what’s the alternative - to prevent police from investigating? At a certain point society’s interest in solving crime does counter the balance.
  2. 4 points
    I should note that anyone can be waitlisted at any time. It is one of the options the file reviewers have. I always avoided doing it because, based off my limited experience, the odds of getting off the waitlist are not great. It’s not to say it doesn’t move at all but it does mean that, by the time they draw from it, there remain little to no unevaluated applications that are still potential contenders. So I’d rather have someone rejected than sit around on the waitlist for a spot that would never come. But this was just a personal practice of mine and other adcom members were free to do otherwise.
  3. 4 points
    We can all thank American tv for this one. Canadians who are detained or arrested get their 10b right to a lawyer - they get to 1. Be informed that they have a right to counsel and there is free counsel available if needed and 2. IF they assert that right they get to speak to counsel “without delay”. The case for establishing what that phrase means is Taylor (2014 SCC) and it boils down to the facts of each case. Once they have spoken to counsel and confirmed they are satisfied with the advice, police can hold them for up to 24 hours post arrest and interview / interrogate then as much as they please as long as it does not overwhelm the will of the accused (eg the person must be given food and water and reasonable rest, must not be threatened or promised anything in exchange for a confession). The only time they get another shot at calling counsel is if their jeopardy changes. For example if the victim suddenly dies and it’s no longer assault but murder. There is no right for adults to ha e their lawyer in the room. Smart lawyers only give advice in person if the stakes are high. A murder suspect should expect his lawyer to come down to the cop shop and sit there with their client until the accused has been fully advised / calmed / supported. But once they leave the police can talk to them all they want. A right to silence does not equal a right not to be spoken to.
  4. 3 points
    Again, many criminal lawyers are sole practitioners and don't have students. Though how many articling students are trusted with speaking to arrested individuals on murder... In my jurisdiction, there are a whomping 4 articling students finishing up their articles. One with us, one with another small firm (5 lawyers spread over 3 offices), crowns office and the real estate/civil lit firm. 2 of them do criminal work. There are only 3 "firms" that do criminal law - the remainder of practitioners in my jurisdiction operate as SPs. 1 of these firms has the federal prosecutor contract.
  5. 2 points
    Yes! Bay Days is also great. Also, if you're in Toronto (and maybe in other large cities? I just haven't tried), take advantage of the Bays personal shopper. You make an appointment, give them your size and price range, and style you are looking for. I found everything I needed in 2 hours, without having to sort through racks of clothes. It was amazing.
  6. 2 points
    If I were king of confessions law for a day, I would create some sort of rule that investigators must allow counsel (or maybe someone else) to be present throughout questioning, where investigators know or reasonably ought to know that the accused has a disability or mental illness, which may impair their ability to understand the nature of the questioning or produce a false confession. I understand that where the markers of reliability are absent, judges can exclude the evidence after the fact. But I think that the justice system should do more to protect the rights of the most vulnerable throughout the process. We already afford the protection to youth. I don't see why we shouldn't extend the same right to other individuals, who, as noted by the SCC in Hart, are at similarly elevated risks for giving false confessions. Alas, despite my continual monitoring, I haven't seen a single posting for a king of confessions law position (w/ requirements: not called to the bar yet, minimal experience valued).
  7. 2 points
    The account will stay the same. All LORs and transcripts will need to be re-submitted.
  8. 2 points
    man this waiting game sucks.. still haven't heard from Osgoode, Windsor, Western, Ottawa, Queens
  9. 2 points
    The police are entitled to do their jobs. Investigating crimes is their job. It is not the roll of lawyers to interrupt an otherwise valid police investigation technique - the accused is entitled to know her rights and how to exercise them. That is the limited role of counsel at that stage. If the police can then take advantage of a guilty conscience to properly identify the guilty party, we as a society are ok with that. The best way I have ever found to get a client to keep their mouth shut is to tell them that every single word they say gets recorded, transcribed, and a copy ends up on my desk. If they ignore my advice I will know. And then we will sit in my office afterwards and they will have to answer to me for every single word that escapes their mouth. I make that very clear. I find it gives them context for the interview, which can otherwise feel totally alien and awful and never ending. If they can imagine sitting across my desk in my office a short time into the future, well away from the interrogation, they seem much less inclined to get chatty with the cops.
  10. 2 points
    No. It is not. Your lawyer is there to make sure that your trial follows rules of procedural fairness. Your lawyer does not protect you from your own mistakes. The interview process is hardly hands off. Courts are very involved in assessing the appropriateness of the interview.
  11. 2 points
    R. v. Sinclair, [2010] 2 SCR 310, 2010 SCC 35:
  12. 2 points
    I have thought about this question quite a bit. I am a K-JD person. Prior to going to law school I traveled, I worked fun summer jobs, I worked office summer jobs and was exposed to many areas of law in those jobs. As a result, I had a good idea of what type of law I wanted to practice. I ended up in that practice area. I think about what I would have done had I taken a break between LS and UG. For me personally, delaying a year would not have mattered one bit... I would still have been in school. Would delaying by 2 years have made a difference? Sure, I may have traveled some more or worked in some other sector, but I have been able to travel plenty since graduating and I already had a fairly good idea of where I wanted to be. Being a K-JD was the right decision for me but it's not for everyone.
  13. 1 point
    There are no guarantees in life, but a few years of working in HR/LR would make you a pretty attractive candidate for the Bay St firms that do employment and labour law. The likely upside is a whole lot bigger than the MIR.
  14. 1 point
    Still a bit new to LS.ca... is it like reddit? Can I give you gold for this tip? Take an imaginary gold anyways!
  15. 1 point
    DONT PAY ATTENTION TO THE NUMBERS since they’re old and American, but this graph illustrates the weird bimodal of distribution of lawyer salaries also found in Canada. Many lawyers can reasonably expect to make six figures within 5-10 years, while it will take many others a very long time (if ever) to make what freshly called big law associates start at.
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    Staying frozen at 80k or close to it, when looking at all the different practice areas in law, is unlikely. Starting? Sure. After 5 years? 10? Doubt you're close to 80.
  18. 1 point
    My experience is that it’s entirely possible and totally not guaranteed and the specific needs of a given practice group will dictate. NY firms will hire from Australia or HK or London if someone with good experience in the right year with the right practice comes along at the right time. If the question is whether Bay Street lawyers apply with the same footing as other NY biglaw lawyers - no. That doesn’t seem to be the case. If the question is whether Bay gives you enough to have a reasonable chance at moving - sure, market- and practice-dependent.
  19. 1 point
    I think this is stretching the definition of being a splitter.
  20. 1 point
    Of course voluntariness should be within the court's purview. My point is that in some cases, a phone call and a potential future voluntariness inquiry are insufficient safeguards against improper police actions in interviews.
  21. 1 point
    You have killer stats youll get in (unless you tortured animals and wrote about it in your PS I can’t imagine you not getting admitted)
  22. 1 point
    Admissions are still going on, so until you get a rejection - have hope!
  23. 1 point
    It’s because we are social beings, and silence between people is incredibly uncomfortable, so the urge to break the ice by talking can be overwhelming. The alternative is to find ways to investigate that don’t rest so heavily on pressuring vulnerable people to say things that may not even be reliable.
  24. 1 point
    Well man you've already been accepted to one school, so you have more than alot of other people. Not much more you can do besides wait like the rest of us, seems like you have good stats, but maybe you suffer a little bit on the holistic part. Did you apply to UofT? Or is Osgoode the only Toronto school you applied to?
  25. 1 point
    But this depends on what jurisdiction they are in. In the US, accused are entitled to have a lawyer present, and the hope in Canada, on the part of defence counsel at least, was that when that trilogy of "advice" cases went before the SCC, we would also move in that direction. I think that the analysis often overlooks or minimizes the extreme power imbalance between police and accused, and that's not even taking into account the large proportion of accused persons who are indigenous/racialized, have severe mental health and/or cognitive issues, have limited educations, and so on. The presence of counsel could redress that imbalance somewhat and prevent police exploiting clients' frailties. We allow counsel to attend for youth, recognizing the power imbalance there, which doesn't magically correct itself when an accused turns 18. Nor does having counsel at youth interviews impede valid police investigations. I know a Crown who was arrested and brought to the police station, and they told me that as a Crown, they had never really understood the sheer terror of being alone in that tiny room with a cop, and that they had to fight the feeling of just saying whatever it took of getting out of there, and they now understood how accused, with less education and understanding of the process, would feel. I find that it takes a lot of time on the phone with most clients to get them to keep their mouths shut, and most counsel or students don't spend that time, which is understandable when you consider that it's usually unbilled time, often when you are woken in the night from a deep sleep or are busy trying to have private time, but is not excusable. I will tell them what you said above as well as role-play with them, describe common police techniques and give them examples of clients who had good outcomes because they didn't talk, and the opposite.
  26. 1 point
    Accepted yesterday afternoon! L2: 3.6 - LSAT: 158 4th year undergrad. Strong EC's, work experience in the legal field, and strong personal statement IMO.
  27. 1 point
    Listening to Bobby Lee talk about Stardew Valley makes me feel like my parents whenever they ask me if those are "real people I'm talking to?"
  28. 1 point
    I’m doing this right now too!! 😂
  29. 1 point
    Not really. It’s fun and I encourage people to attend. I did meet a number of people who will probably be life long friends but there are other ways to meet people (ie: join clubs). The sole purpose of it is to bond, nothing more
  30. 1 point
    That's literally why we have lawyers in the criminal process, and why it's such a unique process with all the various protections in place. I find it strange that with the court's tendancy to favour the accused in almost all situations which allow for it, and lately the court's explicit appreciation for the marginalized status of the majority of accuseds in the criminal system, that this part of the process is deemed hands off. It's frankly baffling.
  31. 1 point
    It is very rare that I would ever advise a client to give a statement. I think I did that once in a very unique situation. Cops rely on statements too much instead of investigating properly. False statements are relatively common as well. Read up on the Reed technique and the psychological pressure police put on people. Given that many clients have mental health issues, addictions, intellectual disabilities etc it is hard for them to withstand that pressure and I agree that the courts have failed to adequately protect them.
  32. 1 point
    I have had judges find statements involuntary several times. Police have made inducements, wrongly stated the law, threatened people, denied them food/water/bathroom/meds, behaved in overtly racist ways, etc.
  33. 1 point
    You do not have a Charter right to have a lawyer save you from your own mistakes. And police are somewhat limited in their ability to try "sneaky tactics". They can lie, which does offend some law students. But they can not do anything that would overwhelm the Accused into giving a statement involuntarily. And really, I can't do much better than repeating a lot of the Sinclair decision quoted above. There's no real reason to suggest that Justice would be better served by having lawyers in the room.
  34. 1 point
    Should be hearing of more offers this week or next. What are your stats?
  35. 1 point
    I find it wholely strange that in the civil context at a deposition, you have counsel present to keep opposing counsel in check, but a similar (admittedly not identical or perfectly analogous scenario) you don't - especially given the different things at stake. Very informative though. Thanks @realpseudonym @Hegdis @providence
  36. 1 point
    The Supreme Court has made it very clear that there is no right to have counsel in the room with you, as there is in the US. Adults have the right to consult with counsel by telephone as long as they want before being interviewed. Youth have the right to have counsel and/or a parent/guardian present. However, if the police consent, which they rarely do, adult accused may have a lawyer there, but it is not their right. In practice where the charges involve a loss of life or potential loss of life, police often do let lawyers attend the police station and sit with the accused BEFORE they are interviewed, but not during. Also, if someone’s jeopardy changes ie. the potential victim dies, or more evidence is found, they should be given another phone call to counsel.
  37. 1 point
    Just call and ask
  38. 1 point
    I'm replaying the Dragon Age series. I'm reliving the glory days from before BioWare burst into flames.
  39. 1 point
    I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate. I already accepted my offer but I had until April 7th I believe
  40. 1 point
    Medicine operates in that black and white area where for a time "if X happens you do Y" and then later "if X happens you do Z" and then if "X happens you do A" and so on...
  41. 1 point
    https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/authors/244030/rupert-ross "RUPERT ROSS is a retired assistant Crown Attorney for the District of Kenora, Ontario. Starting in 1985, he conducted criminal prosecutions for more than twenty remote Ojibway and Cree First Nations communities in northwestern Ontario. His first book, Dancing with a Ghost, started his exploration of aboriginal visions of existence and became a bestseller. His second book, Returning to the Teachings, was also a bestseller and examined the aboriginal preference for the “peacemaker justice” he observed during a three-year secondment with Justice Canada. Both books were shortlisted for the Gordon Montour Award for the best Canadian non-fiction book on social issues, and are presently used in universities and colleges across North America. Following his retirement, Ross was awarded the prestigious 2011 National Prosecution Award for Humanitarianism, and the Ontario Crown Attorneys Association has created an award named after him." https://uofrpress.ca/Books/F/Firewater "Drawing on his years of experience as a Crown Prosecutor in Treaty 6 territory, Harold Johnson challenges readers to change the story we tell ourselves about the drink that goes by many names—booze, hooch, spirits, sauce, and the evocative “firewater.” Confronting the harmful stereotype of the “lazy, drunken Indian,” and rejecting medical, social, and psychological explanations of the roots of alcoholism, Johnson cries out for solutions, not diagnoses, and shows how alcohol continues to kill so many. Provocative, irreverent, and keenly aware of the power of stories, Firewater calls for people to make decisions about their communities and their lives on their own terms." http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/publications/attorney_general_prosecution_function.htm "Since the 1980s, our understanding of the role of the Attorney General in the administration of criminal justice has evolved dramatically. The independence of this role has been eroded by the fact that courts and law societies have taken a more active role in scrutinizing the decisions of Attorneys General, and the public has demanded greater transparency and accountability. What has emerged is an expectation that the office of the Attorney General be protected from improper political influences and that prosecutions be conducted in accordance with fairness and respect for the law. The author argues that while the most important factor in the impartial administration of justice may be the personal character and integrity of the Attorney General, our system of checks and balances also protects the prosecutorial functions. This system involves four separate safeguards: constitutional conventions, institutional safeguards, and the roles of the law societies and the courts in supervising prosecutorial functions. Despite these safeguards, the author argues that there remain concerns regarding the proper role of the Attorney General, including the Attorney General acting as counsel, the publication of prosecutorial guidelines, the practice of giving reasons of decisions regarding whether to proceed with a prosecution and the practical costs of increased judicial scrutiny of prosecutorial functions. Finally, the author comments on the continued mistreatment of people detained before trial — that is, people who have possibly been denied certain Charter rights, and he argues that the Attorney General needs to take leadership over this issue." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2050574 "Attorney Generals and Crown prosecutors are endowed with a constitutionally protected role and the quasi-judicial responsibility of handling criminal prosecutions on behalf of the Crown. This includes deciding whether to bring the prosecution of a charge laid by the police, to enter a stay of proceedings, to accept a guilty plea to lesser charge, and to withdraw criminal proceedings in accordance with what the public interest dictates. While the vast majority of prosecutors are careful to separate their function from that of the police, occasionally police advocacy and the high level of police commitment can lead to accepting police information without appropriate confirmation and turning to the police for guidance in the exercise of prosecutorial functions. This article argues that recent examples of significant partisan advocacy by prosecutors warrant re-considering the limits of Crown independence from the police and re-evaluating the current effectiveness of institutional accountability in Ontario." https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/policy_research/pdf/Macfarlane_Wrongful-Convictions.pdf "In this paper, I will discuss two critical factors that have arisen in all jurisdictions: First, the existence of environmental factors or “predisposing circumstances” that foster wrongful convictions to occur in the first place, including so called “noble cause corruption,” an ends-based police and prosecutorial culture that masks misconduct as legitimate on the basis that the guilty must be brought successfully to justice. Second, I will examine “tunnel vision,” which leads justice system participants to focus prematurely on a single suspect. At the end of the paper, I will discuss lessons learned in the criminal justice system, and how they may apply to the field of forensic pathology in society’s quest to eliminate the spectre of convicting the innocent."
  42. 1 point
    This is really important and a note for those entering into or still in law school. Your colleagues in law school will likely be your colleagues for life. You never know who is going to be your next source of business and it's very likely that, at one point or another, that source could come from "Cheryl" who always sat two rows behind you in your Wills class. Don't be an ass hat - keep up a great reputation - and if treating people nicely doesn't come naturally to you, treat them as though they could be the source of your next big cheque (because that could actually be the case).
  43. 1 point
    I did not enjoy 1L. I don't blame the workload, my profs, other students, etc ... I just don't think my head was in the right place. I was in this weird position where I wasn't working hard enough (I recognize this now), but simultaneously felt like law school was the defining element of my existence. I ended up with some bad grades, which was quite disheartening (major imposter syndrome). But like most other people who have gone through 1L, I survived. I think my 1L experience really forced me to do a bit of self reflection, which was very helpful later on.
  44. 1 point
    A thing to keep in mind is that much of what drives hiring at any stage isn’t candidate quality or experience - it’s whether the firm has a hiring need. The most reliable way to get a NY job is through OCI because, no matter what the economy is like, large New York firms will always hire a summer class. It may be smaller or larger and that will impact the grade cutoffs they’re looking for at a given school, but they’re all going to hire a bunch of people. Once you get past that their interest in hiring you is driven by how badly they need someone, or don’t. If the deal market is gangbusters and everyone is leaving they will take laterals who they would not have touched on the OCI market. Conversely, if they feel like they overhired their summer class there’s no amount of credentials or experience that will get you hired. I had a very qualified medalist and appellate clerk reach out to me once and I tried to help get this person hired at my firm and they said “look we’re just not hiring anyone right now our incoming class for his year is already big.” My same firm would have hired people with “lesser” credentials from OCI a year before and a year later might be happy to take someone with far lesser credentials from a Canadian firm as a midlevel. If the market is crazy it’s much easier to get a job and when it dies you may be hosed no matter what. There are really no guarantees other than that.
  45. 1 point
    My experience stems from working on the same floor as recruiting at a NY biglaw shop and sharing a wall with head of recruiting for a number of years, so I got to overhear a lot of conversations. I'd say that Bay Street lawyers who applied were generally given a good look, but not always given an interview if, say, there were a bunch of NY or large US-based biglaw lawyers at the same level also applying to lateral. And there were always a number of US biglaw folks looking to lateral, so it kind of put even well-qualified Bay Street lawyers a bit behind the 8 ball. Agree that if you were at a firm that did a lot of work in the US, so it had good name recognition down here, then you'd start to be treated as in the same pool of recruits. But in that world, it's kind of the same issue Magic Circle lawyers have looking to lateral. Freshfields is baller in the UK, but in the US is a bit less well regarded. So a lawyer at Freshfields lateraling into the US market is going to take a bit of a hit and have a bit of an uphill (though not insurmountable) battle landing at a firm comparable to Freshfields UK when they get to NY. And might take a class year hit if they weren't called to NY bar at time, etc. Meanwhile, any ONCA or SCC clerks were basically guaranteed an interview when they applied. It was kind of seen as like clerking on the 9th circuit or 2nd circuit.
  46. 1 point
    Hi everyone! Just wanted to update you as to what happened! I ended up staying with my prior position. It just felt right and after reading everyone else's point I was reassured. Thank you all!
  47. 1 point
    I went to Queen’s because I wanted to see what living in Ontario would be like. I was 21 and had very few attachments. It was a perfect time to explore.
  48. 1 point
    Heh, and I could hardly disagree more. (Especially if you think it's possible that living in the new place could lead you to want to stay in the new place, thus increasing the size of your target job market.) If I had one regret about going to Osgoode, it's that I lost the opportunity to see and live in a new part of Canada. I don't think that requires one to look at law school as a vacation. But living in a new place is itself a learning experience and one you will take with you for the rest of your life. (This is particularly valuable if you have always lived in the same place before.) Plus, the career cost of getting that (real living) experience after law school is going to be a lot higher than the cost of getting it during law school. ETA: I do want to note that for this purpose I would consider Kingston and Toronto to be "different parts of Canada", however absurd that may seem looking at a map.
  49. 1 point
    Your career is not a vacation. Working on the east coast after graduating... why on earth would any atlantic firm hire you? It's a smallish bar. I know way too many atlantic lawyers who came out west because they either couldn't find jobs, or the jobs they wound here were better paying. I've posted about his numerous times... law school is not some one off experience - it is phase one of a life-time career. Your classmates will become your life-long colleagues. Your professors will be your references for your future jobs. Your clinic work can become your opening to your entire career. Go to school where you want to practice. If you want to explore different parts of the country (a sentiment I whole-heartedly endorse)… take a vacation. If you plan on winding up in BC in your career... start your career off in BC. Anything else is just being self-defeating.
  50. 1 point
    Hi all, With in-firm season upon us, I've been getting a few PMs asking about when it is appropriate to tell a firm that they are your top choice. The simple answer is, when it's true! That is, when they are your informed first choice. No one in their right mind should be letting that out until you've actually met the people and discussed the job. You can't really know it's true until you've been there and felt comfortable and optimistic about working there. I have also been getting some PMs about the advice going around every year to the effect that you should "tell 'em they're your first choice --- even if they're nooot", to quote the song. I broke down the potential consequences of that approach in a PM that was probably way too heavy for that student in particular, but I thought I'd share to give you some perspective from the firm-side. In this phase of your profession, as in all others, honesty and forthrightness are usually the best policy. Do what you're going to do, but be advised of the consequences. These are real people on the other end, hiring you. One day you will be one of those people hiring other students that you have gotten emotionally attached to. Think about how you'd feel if it happened to you. We feel the same. Maybe you feel it's worth it, a good trade for the job. Fine --- but let that decision be an informed one, too.
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...