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
    I'm looking to canvass opinions regarding this program. There's not much discussion of it on this forum or on the Internet generally. Understandably, U of T is criticized for its high tuition. And yet it, unlike other Canadian law schools, it does have an LRAP of sorts. The terms seem very generous for graduates who make less than 60k (the program's "basic income level"): U of T offers forgivable loans to cover a participant's entire annual loan obligation. Participants who make somewhat more than the basic income are also eligible for partial benefits (though they have to contribute a percentage of the "excess" income to their loan payments). Details and the policy booklet are here: https://www.law.utoronto.ca/academic-programs/jd-program/financial-aid-and-fees/back-end-debt-relief-program So, is the program too good to be true? Has anyone had experience with it?
  14. 1 point
    OP I was in a similar position years ago. I left a well paying (low six figure) FT job to rack up debt in law school. Sure I could have continued on in my former position for the next 40 years but I felt stagnant and miserable. There was no where for me to grow, nothing for me to aspire towards, no new challenges. I knew I had to do something else and law seemed like a good option Does it make sense financial? Yes and no. My previous job paid well but I had already hit my ceiling. the ceiling is higher in law but it depends on where you end up practicing. Keep in mind that many lawyers do start their careers at less than 80k. Would you be okay if you were one of them? Do you have savings? How will you pay for this? How long will it take to service your debt? How will 3 years of FT studies impact your family life? There are so many things to weigh. Tldr; I have no regrets but a reasonable person might also: If you hate it you can just go back to HR. Having a safety net/back up source of employment actually made the decision easier for me.
  15. 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.
  16. 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!
  17. 1 point
    Some soles take many years, if ever, to get above that.....
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 1 point
    I play all sorts of games. My current favourite is to go on dates and pretend I'm a sympathetic, caring individual instead of a soul-dead narcissist.
  21. 1 point
    I think this is stretching the definition of being a splitter.
  22. 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.
  23. 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)
  24. 1 point
    Admissions are still going on, so until you get a rejection - have hope!
  25. 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.
  26. 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?
  27. 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.
  28. 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?"
  29. 1 point
    Mr. Commander, Ristiisa's advice is on point. However, I do know many law students who live in houses with four or five other law students. These tend to be cheaper arrangements, but they are also typically less comfortable. Wealthier students tend to live in the fancier buildings downtown. Also, if you are from Toronto or Vancouver, you may be surprised how many buildings in Windsor are absolute trash. While you may be legally entitled to certain living conditions, you should try to avoid getting yourself into a situation where you will be forced to take your landlord to the LTB to get them to fix a hole in your wall. If you can, come to Windsor and see apartments soon before other students snatch up all the good leases! Also, know that rent prices have gone up in the past few years, so $800 might be low for your cap. If I were you, I would avoid 1616 Ouellette. My boyfriend partied there recently and he said that the building is an absolute shit hole. But another building on Ouellette would be good! The bus goes straight down Ouellette and to the law school. UWindsor includes the cost of a discounted bus pass in your Fall semester fees, and you can pick it up in September. Love, BlueberryTimbit @ForensicAnthropology when are you coming to Windsor?
  30. 1 point
    To put things into perspective... for most courses I literally read the assigned cases and readings twice. Once before class and then once again while preparing my own summaries. I was at the library from 12-9 yesterday with 2 hours of class in between. During this time I read approximately 25% of readings for one course for the entire semester in 7ish hours all while creating detailed summaries. Yes it was the second time reading them so I was drastically quicker, but this is all to say that anyone spending 12+ hours in the library likely isn't approaching law school or studying correctly. I can count the amount of 12 hour days I've had doing only school work on one hand and I'm aware I likely do much more reading than the average student. 1L was fun, 2L after the recruit was even better, and if I land articling this summer 3LOL will be a breeze.
  31. 1 point
    In my experience, these jobs are almost always at some small or medium sized family firm/business and aren't exactly sought after positions. The best/more desirable jobs will always be open to competition.
  32. 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.
  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
    Pretty sure everyone in this thread is responding to a bot.
  39. 1 point
    I'm replaying the Dragon Age series. I'm reliving the glory days from before BioWare burst into flames.
  40. 1 point
    I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate. I already accepted my offer but I had until April 7th I believe
  41. 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).
  42. 1 point
    I'd highly recommend working your way through Stratas J.A.'s writing exercises: http://www.davidstratas.com/writing/exercises.htm Also, it's worth checking out his bibliography: http://www.davidstratas.com/writing/online.htm And of course, he has example factums: http://www.davidstratas.com/writing/precedents.htm Finally, you should consider approaching a colleague or classmate whose writing you admire. Ask them to edit and critique a short essay, memo or factum that you've written. Make sure it's your best effort. Take their recommendations seriously. Rinse and repeat. The goals of legal writing include concision, precision, readability and clarity. The words you use should not distract the reader from the strength of your ideas. First, you need to figure out the exact point you want to make! I like to chat with a colleague to grasp the conclusion that I'm inviting and the intermediary points that I need to establish. Then I can edit my writing from a point-first perspective, eliminating excess words and ensuring the first sentence of each paragraph conveys that paragraph's purpose. Beware these pitfalls: Nominalization -- the use of nouns instead of verbs lengthens sentences and introduces unnecessary prepositions: "The trial judge provided an analysis of the application record and wrote a comprehensive decision" versus "The trial judge analyzed the application record and wrote a comprehensive decision." Passivity -- the possessive and active voice eliminates bulky prepositions: "The reasons of the trial judge emphasized that a charging decision ought to have been made earlier in the agency's investigation with respect to Mr. X" versus "The trial judge's reasons emphasized that the agency ought to have decided whether to charge Mr. X earlier in the investigation" or even better "The trial judge concluded that the investigating agency ought to have charged Mr. X sooner." Legalisms -- phrases like "in relation to same", "ex post facto" or "inter alia" sound fancy but they are distracting. Instead, use plain language that your average 9th grader would understand. Over-explanation -- if you are citing a case for a bedrock principle of law, simply state the principle and include the case in brackets. Nothing more is required. "McLachlin C.J. and Charron J., writing for five-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, articulated three factors governing the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2): (1) the seriousness of the Charter‑infringing state conduct, (2) the impact of the breach on the Charter‑protected interests of the accused, and (3) society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits (at paras. 93-97)" versus "Three factors govern the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2): (1) the seriousness of the Charter‑infringing state conduct, (2) the impact of the breach on the Charter‑protected interests of the accused, and (3) society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits (R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, at paras. 93-97)."
  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
    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.
  45. 1 point
    go to a textbook first. 100% best advice which I discovered learning the hard way although the legal research team at my firm would always tell us this. Seriously. Find a textbook on the topic of law you are looking at and you will be able to pinpoint exact issues and cases are directly referenced. If not, you will get a great idea of the area of law and where you should be focusing your search. Finding the area of law in a text does not take as long as one might think. since I have learned this i have probably cut my research time in half
  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
    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.
  50. 1 point
    1) I don't think bare legs with skirts are appropriate in an office/court, and definitely not open shoes that show your painted toes, so yes, nylons. Take your cues from the senior female lawyers around you. If they have bare legs, fine, but I'd be surprised. 2) I don't think you need a slip unless you are wearing a dress of a lighter/thinner fabric under a jacket (which would be a very casual look.) Re: undergarments - a properly fitting and supportive bra in a neutral colour with no straps showing is important. If you are wearing pants, no VPL (visible panty lines) - investigate good thongs. 3) Capri pants? It's a more casual look but for a casual day, if the other lawyers are wearing them, I think they're OK. Wear them with flats or slingbacks - no open-toed shoes - and you get to skip the pantyhose. 4) Common blunders... oh boy. Jackets that are too tight (can't button or strain across the front when buttoned.) Even if you prefer to wear your jackets open, they need to button comfortably. Skirts that are too short and/or tight (see Hegdis' comment.) Clothes that are generally too small (for some reason a lot of students seem to prefer to squeeze into size small rather than just buy medium. Or maybe they gained weight in school and haven't realized or updated their wardrobes.) Tops or dresses that are too low-cut and show the top of your cleavage, which is not appropriate in an office/court. Colours that are inappropriate - you can wear pastels and colours, but in a more conservative setting, you shouldn't, say, wear a hot pink pantsuit head to toe. You can wear a hot pink blouse as an accent, or maybe even a jacket, but the full suit is too much. Dresses that are too casual under jackets - just because there is a jacket on top doesn't mean any dress is ok to wear. A dress shouldn't be clingy, shiny, flimsy etc. Underwear lines showing and see-through clothing. Mismatching blacks (don't wear black together unless it came as an ensemble.) Skin showing between the end of your jacket and your pants (you can't wear low-rise pants unless you have a long fitted jacket that you are sure covers everything even when you raise your hands above your head.) Wearing clothes cut for another body shape - ie. generally, don't wear a sleek, fitted sheath dress if you are an apple shape - try a fit and flare style or something with pleats or more fullness. Wearing an expensive, fashion-forward outfit but with no attention to hair, makeup etc so it looks mismatched. Wearing shoes that aren't comfortable to work in. Wearing dark skinny jeans in place of work pants when it's not an official casual day. Wearing outfits that are too fussy/princessy, like lots of lace at work (a lace shell top is ok, but a pink lace skirt or dress?) Being more edgy than the rest of the office ie. visible tattoos, piercings etc when no one else has those and you haven't proven yourself yet. Messy buns and ponytails at the office/court. Using things that are ok as an accessory/accent but wearing them completely overtly ie. a little punk accent, like leather patches on a jacket, is cute, but leather jacket, skirt and boots? Too much. Give me a minute to think of some more!
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...