Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/18/20 in all areas

  1. 13 points
    Yikes, this post was arrogant enough for me to go dig up my login so that I could respond to it. ”Yeah, I guess your best option since you suck at getting jobs and failed at that would be to try and set up your own shop. You’re probably going to fail at that though and fuck up people’s lives so good luck with that” I’m sure the OP, who came here looking for help with something they’re struggling with, was really helped by your comment... I hope it made you feel better about yourself though in whatever position you currently find yourself in that makes you feel like you can smugly condescend to people you appear to see as beneath you.
  2. 9 points
    My own humble experience with incompetent counsel has been either very very new Calls who are clueless, or very very senior calls who checked out long ago. Fear is the best friend to a sole. Arrogance is the real devil.
  3. 8 points
    You know, since my attention was drawn back to this topic, I've actually been thinking about how the OP isn't at all the worst case, in terms of potentially inexperienced soles. The really bad cases that I've seen - and I'm sure everyone on this topic will agree - are those lawyers who really think they're great and don't have the first clue they actually are incompetent. Or those who can't even be bothered caring about that topic, one way or another, just as long as they are getting paid. Those two kinds are closely related, but I guess there's a slight difference. Point is, the OP clearly appreciates his or her deficiencies and is troubled by them and their implications to clients. So that anxiety is good and already suggests the OP has the right attitude. Honestly, if you are sufficiently fueled by concern that you could screw up your client's life, and motivated to do whatever it takes to avoid doing that, that's about all you can ask from an inexperienced lawyer. I know it may not be the ideal. But if the marketplace was served only by lawyers who received ideal training, we'd have so few lawyers the whole thing would fall apart. I'll take someone inexperienced and anxious about it over someone more experienced and complacent any day of the week. Now, all that said, BQ wasn't wrong. And if Msea wants to hang around this place in the future, advising confused peers and students and would-be students in a sunny and positive way, I'll welcome that contribution to the forum. But speaking as the designated forum asshole here (and seriously, BQ, Cleanhands - I was designated long before you showed up here and I haven't given up my spot) if the worst you can say about someone is they hang around here giving free and correct advice but you don't like the tone in which they do it, but all you can be bothered anteing up in turn is the occasional post bitching about how they give free advice while contributing nothing useful of your own...pretty much just fuck off again and come back when you feel like being useful.
  4. 7 points
    I find it ironic that BQ took issue with reading his comments for what they said: I don't think it is fair to argue about competence here, all we know about the OP is that they haven't had a great experience so far in the law and they are concerned over their competency. Neither of these things are really all that determinative of them producing actually incompetent work, as Hegdis alluded to the best guard against incompetency is fear. As such, I am closing the thread.
  5. 7 points
    I'm inexperienced myself, but based on what I've been exposed to I disagree with this. Or at least, I'd disagree that an incompetent lawyer is "vastly superior" to a self-rep. You sort of reframed a discussion of incompetence to one of inexperience (see earlier BQ and I emphasized a lack of training, mentorship etc, not just inexperience alone). With self-reps, of course a judge is obliged to assist them to a degree at least. The same doesn't happen when someone has incompetent legal representation. Self-reps also are incentivized to pursue their own interests, while sadly fee structures and workloads for lawyers do not tend to align their incentives the same way (so the lawyer actually needs to be ethical and motivated to help their client, for their interest to align). And I have been privy to situations where incompetent lawyers actively sabotaged clients (sometimes even cash clients; this is not unique to legal aid--so the client ended up out thousands of dollars as well). There are lawyers who are terrified to run trials and push clients to resolve even when it's not in their interest. There are lawyers who do the bare minimum required of them on every file because they want to maximize income and minimize work, whereas self-reps are at least incentivized to act in their own interests (granted that they often don't know how to). I could go on, but suffice to say these issues are endemic in certain practice areas and it's not uncommon for representation from bad lawyers to be actively detrimental to their clients.
  6. 7 points
    There is a difference in this world between being nice and being kind. Someone who is nice avoids stepping on toes, but does so at the cost of avoiding the truth. Diplock is not nice, and that is a compliment. But he is very wise and kind with spreading his wisdom. I try to keep my posts pretty short on here because otherwise, I know nobody would read them. But if Diplock posts a wall of text you can guarantee I will read every word -- and I suspect everyone else does as well.
  7. 5 points
    The moderator team doesn't appreciate your tone. And I will dispute the truth of your comment. Inexperienced new calls is not one of the biggest problems with our legal system, it frankly doesn't even register as a problem. There are a staggering - and rising - amount of unrepresented litigants. An inexperienced lawyer is vastly superior to this alternative. I'm surprised with your vast amount of experience with the legal system you didn't know this. If I were giving advice to the OP it would be this, there is nothing stopping you from learning. Spend your Saturdays at the law library and use your access to CLE's that will help shore up knowledge shortfalls. Volunteer at a legal clinic. This is your career, you don't need to wait to get good work to improve.
  8. 5 points
    Let me be clear, I’m not questioning the truth of your comment. Someone who isn’t ready yet shouldn’t become solely responsible for files they aren’t equipped for until they either gain more experience or have some guidance. What I’m questioning is the necessity of your comment. Even though what you said was true, there’s really no need to come in here, provide no real advice, and kick someone while they’re down. I don’t think your comment had any intention of actually trying to help the OP whatsoever. I sincerely hope that if you ever find yourself needing help or advice, that whoever you turn to for help is actually interested in helping you rather than taking the opportunity to feel better about themselves for not being in an unfortunate position at that time.
  9. 4 points
    149 --> 151 --> 152 ---> 159 --> 163 Aftermy first three attempts coupled with a lower CGPA 3.34 I thought I was doomed. After applying in 2019 and being subsequently rejected for the 19-20 school year, I decided to work for the year in a legal related position. While working I dug deep - did a lot of introspection regarding analyzing my own weaknesses, and went in with the mentality to kick the Lsat's proverbial ass. I worked really hard on analyzing my weaknesses obsessing over what I was missing, and gridning through the rigours that come along with working full time and studying for a stnadardized test - meanwhile gearing up to resubmit my application my November 2019 for consideration for the 20-21 cycle. I scored a 159 on my November exam - just shy of the 160 I wanted, and perhaps needed. Took the January exam in 2020 and scored a 163. It's funny how this works. When initially began my lsat journey, a 163 was the score I aimed and hoped for. In between my initial 149-163 were three years of painstaking anxiety, bouts with depression and self-doubt. People say that the lsat dies after you start law school - and this is very true. However, the amount of self-awareness this test has taught me with respect to being honest with myself and my weaknesses, along with the notion of building resilience, are skills that extend beyond being admitted. I was accepted to every Ontario school I applied to (I applied to all of them with the exception of UofT).
  10. 3 points
    The changes are as of the Fall 2021 application cycle. We updated our website as soon as we had the final go-ahead, and I posted the news here as soon as the new info was live on our website. (My last post really was hot off the presses! ) We were very fortunate that the supporting document deadline for the Fall 2020 application cycle was two weeks before we started working remotely in March. The Fall 2021 cycle will be a whole different ballgame. We will not be using references for any first-year applicants, which includes Indigenous applicants. It was a difficult decision, and not made lightly; however, it ultimately became clear that it was the best thing we could do in support of our applicants with so many unknowns in the coming year, including when we will return to the office. To help lessen the burden on your referees, please ensure that you let them know not to send a reference to UCalgary, especially if you have already spoken with them. They are the ones who will likely be frustrated by learning they spent time on a reference that can't be used after sending it to us. If anything, I am willing to bet that you'll discover your referees will be somewhat relieved to find out that they have one less reference form to fill out, since they probably have more on their plate than normal this year. Cheers! Malina
  11. 3 points
    I've seen a lot of recent calls/articling students openly talk about articling being a "chore" and how they can't wait to be past the "last hurdle" so they can open up their own shop and "start actually lawyering". The quotes are paraphrased, but definitely not very far from what was said. You can't tell me you have faith in individuals who treat learning (articling) as a chore to put in the hours needed to practice competently and to have the self awareness to not take files beyond their competence. Yes obviously some fresh calls are and will be excellent and competent. Some will be good and competent. And some will absolutely treat articling as a final hurdle and jump straight into whatever file they can get that makes them the most money in the fastest way possible. It absolutely is a problem in our industry - especially where you can set up a sole practice in an area of law you didn't article in or have any experience in whasoever. What do you call the lawyer who articles in real estate and opens up a solo shop in criminal defence? The guy who's going to screw over many lives.
  12. 3 points
    That's genuinely one of the nicest things anyone has said to me in a long while. Take this in context, of course. I'm mainly stuck at home right now with my wife all the time, and other than that most of my interactions are with criminally accused or convicted clients. So perhaps the bar isn't too high. But still, one of the nicest things I've heard in a while. Thanks!
  13. 3 points
    I don't know if this observation will be a lot of help or not, but here goes. A big part of the issue you seem to be having - both in practice and in terms of how you perceive your skills - is that you keep needing to teach yourself things that you don't know on the fly. And you believe this proves both that your knowledge is deficient and also that you've screwed yourself (and to a degree, been screwed) in terms of the jobs you've had to date, since you've never learned how to do all these things. Here's the good news. This is a big part of what every lawyer does. To a greater or lesser degree, every job in law involves learning how to do things you've never done before - or haven't done for so long you've effectively forgotten how - on the fly. It starts to feel more comfortable when you have days when you're at least familiar with most of what you need to do. But there's always going to be new stuff. Always stuff that's changed. Always some new twist even on otherwise familiar scenarios. The skill in law isn't knowing how to do everything. The skill is in knowing more-or-less where you need to go and what you need to do in order to learn or re-learn what you need as you need it. So the good news is, the fact that you find yourself in this position a lot isn't unusual or any clear indication that you can't do it. Here's the bad news. You seem to not deal well with situations where you're not being explicitly taught how to do something, and as noted above that's a big part of what lawyering is. I'm really not in a position to deconstruct why you struggled with your job search, never managed to find anything better than where you were, etc. But from observational experience, this is one of the critical failings that can definitely hobble a lawyer's career and I've certainly seen it before. There are some students, graduates, and yes some qualified lawyers who are only comfortable performing more-or-less mechanical tasks that have been taught to them in a step-by-step way. And if that's what you expected in your career, let me just say that this approach to learning a job is great if you aspire to be a prep cook, but terrible if you aspire to be a lawyer. I'm trying not to be too mean as I say this, but yeah, it's a terrible problem to have in this job. The only relevant advice I can give you is two-fold. First, stretch yourself as much towards learning what you need to learn (and learning to learn, if that makes sense) as you possibly can. It seems like you've been doing that already, and your initiative to volunteer was very smart. I'm really surprised to hear that in your volunteer position they are keeping you so busy you have no opportunity to learn. Reading between the lines, I honestly think your issue here isn't that there's a lack of time (seriously - what are they going to do - complain you are volunteering too slowly?) but rather that you haven't got the hand-holding you hoped for. You're not going to get it. Get over that. Learn properly, get some guidance to help, but take the time you need to actually learn. And get used to it. See above. Second, once you've stretched yourself as much as you can, take honest stock of where you're at and what you can handle. Because quite honestly, I doubt you'll ever be great at this. By "this" I mean learn-as-you-go lawyering. What many lawyers do regularly. But there are jobs in law that are more repetitive than others, and you can absolutely do better than proof-reading contracts for minimum wage and calling yourself a lawyer for doing so. If you're applying to large firms and hoping that someone is going to teach you how to be a "real" lawyer at this point and hand-hold you through it, get over it. But you should seriously consider applying to Axcess Law. You can learn to do wills and simple divorces, etc. Considering being an associate in a real estate practice. That's nice and repetitive. If you find you need to stick mainly to a small number of things you know how to do well, that's hardly the worst sin in the world. Look for postings and practice areas where that is at a premium. Jobs along these lines may not generally be considered "great" law jobs, but they're a hell of a lot better than what you're doing now. Anyway, none of that is a perfect solution, but hopefully some of that helps. I agree, it's a tough spot. Anyway, good luck.
  14. 2 points
    It's confusing for sure! Let me try to help: 1. Yes, you will be. 2. It will--it's a browser extension of sorts--and LSAC has included Macs in the approved devices. 3. Safari has had some issues, so I'd use Chrome 4. This is correct, and is a newly approved use from just this week. Pens are now also ok! 5. You are correct--no bathroom breaks. some proctors have allowed it, but don't count on it. You do have a 1 minute break at the end of each section though, to mentally reset. 6. Yes. 7. You end up calling ProctorU, and for many people, this is where they run into issues. We've talked about this multiple times on our podcast, but one tip is don't close the program or disconnect if you can help it while there's an issue. 8. There is now a pausing feature in the software if there's an issue like this to avoid lost time. But, you likely lose some time when this occurs. 9. They really don't want to see things like this on the desk, and I know that some proctors will force you to remove all those items. Better to do it beforehand! 10. three sections, back-to-back-to-back, one section of each type, 35 minutes for each section. Hopefully that covers it but let me know if anything above isn't clear. Thanks!
  15. 2 points
    Context is important here. OP has essentially done corporate document review for their entire career. They’ve been out of school for five years and called for two of them. My comment was made in response to advice to set up shop in criminal law, immigration law, family law, or similar. We have essentially no indication that OP has any competence in any of those fields, and I would argue we have some evidence that OP is not competent in those fields. That’s not an indictment of OP, who may very well become competent (and I’ll note, Diplock’s early advice was essentially to find a job as an associate so that OP could become competent in a marketable area like estates or RE). To the extent my comments can be read (or have been reinterpreted to be) an argument that inexperienced counsel are bad, I retract them. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of my comments, but oh well. I do not and never have thought that the existence of inexperienced counsel is a significant problem in the legal system. I do think that incompetent counsel serving vulnerable individuals is a major problem in our legal system, and I’m not really interested in debating it. If Mal or others want to argue that incompetent counsel are better than self reps, they can do so. I disagree, but I don’t think it’s a debate worth having.
  16. 2 points
    I hate to break it to you, but while you may be the OG you've still been unseated for the championship title. Your assholery is tempered by humour, empathy, wisdom borne through life experience, etc, which is more than can be said for our mutual friend there. And I'm not trying to compete for the title; I guess it just comes naturally to me.
  17. 2 points
    I never canned my policy answers (nor did I ever really prepare for them), and I did well. I think they might be useful if you find yourself routinely failing to finish exams in the allotted time or if you suffer from test anxiety, but otherwise I think they’re largely a waste of time.
  18. 2 points
    OK but what if you (1) go to UofT and then (2) write your resume using a font that makes "A" and "O" hard to distinguish But seriously, OP, the audience you need for this question is lawyers in Italy. This is really a question about the Italian legal job market and accreditation/licensing process, which is not really our expertise here.
  19. 2 points
    Italy has a continental civil law system. Canada is largely common law. Italy also has pretty high youth unemployment. It's certainly not impossible, but with zero connections and a foreign degree, you're not going to have the easiest time. You probably want to look up how you can get a foreign law degree recognized. I recall various firms in Milan had summer opportunities for law students. I never applied as my Italian is at a toddler's level (sorry Nonna), so unsure how competitive the internships were. Your future CDO may have some insight to offer, though how realistic it might be travelling to Italy is a whole different story.
  20. 2 points
    Like when I tell myself that my robes don't need dry-cleaning -- that what I'm smelling is the stench of Court experience, and is a warning to opposing counsel that I am not to be trifled with.
  21. 2 points
    Oh my sweet summer’s child
  22. 2 points
    Here's what I did in law school and it may not work for you. I tend to be a very scientific writer who doesn't wax much poetic, so I never really ran out of time on an exam. I'm sure had I spent a bit of time outlining a response to the question, as @Jaggers suggested, I could have done better. Normally I would read a question once and start typing. If an issue popped into my head I would type out the general gist of the issue, hit Enter a few times to move it down the screen and away from my current analysis, and continue with the issue I was working on. Looking back now it was a bit chaotic. 1) Go through the exam and identify all the easy issues and those you were able to pick-up on first glance, and deal with them. Don't over analyze. Get the low hanging fruit. Don't miss any of the obvious or fundamental issues. Most, if not all, profs that I've had will have a marking rubric that benefits those who actually complete the exam rather than really nail a few questions (at least they've said as much). This would normally get me a B- to a B. 2) Once you've gone through the whole exam, circle back and look for the more discrete issues. A good way to do this (if it's an open book exam) is to look through the syllabus at all the major topics covered in the course with the hypo in mind. If you make a link, start going through each case within the heading and see what tool from your ratio tool box can be used as the "R" in your IRAC analysis. This is where I would move into the B+ to A- territory. 3) Any spare time is used to fine tune analysis. For example, I'd make sure I argue both sides of the issue and pick what I think the likely answer would be based on my analysis, make sure I've come to a conclusion on all of my answers, correctly organized my analysis and the order of issues etc. Now I'd be in the A- to A territory. ...I never got an A+. I'd normally A- territory with a fair bit of B+ sprinkled in.
  23. 1 point
    LSAC has just announced that the October LSAT will be a Flex exam, both in the US and worldwide! Most test takers will test on Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday, or Thursday during the week of October 3rd. If anyone has any questions about the test format, just let me know.
  24. 1 point
    Got in off the waitlist!
  25. 1 point
    It's an unusual setup for the Flex, and it's three total sections back to back, not four. So, no Experimental section and only one LR instead of two. The score is still on the 120-180 scale, but the conversion scale is adjusted down to account for the roughly 75 total questions in each Flex test (instead of the usual 1001 or so). Closest idea of scales would be from this webinar, at the 1:22:53 mark: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/crystal-ball-webinar-the-lsat-flex-tests/. Because they have to adjust for difficulty, each Flex scale will look a bit different, so we show some examples there.
  26. 1 point
    It's at https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/. And it's on Spotify, Youtube, iTunes, etc
  27. 1 point
    You know, my apologies. I did get a BCL/JD. I honestly always confused them. And substantively it doesn't matter that I didn't get that choice. But it only seems fair that I be given the chance to get the degree I paid 17500 dollars for, in its offered form. Especially since people who had recieved theirs already (I.e people in my incoming year who finished in 3 years, and any person before them) got a choice. But that's just McGill (and I assume and university) admin for you.
  28. 1 point
    You'd likely run into an issue with another computer in the room. However, I've seen many people have TVs in the room and not have an issue. Their big fear here is cheating, and having devices that can listen or view your screen is what they are trying to stop. And, to be honest, the proctors really vary in rule enforcement, so one person might get away with something that another person is stopped for doing!
  29. 1 point
    No CTF membership yet, though will likely get one once I start working. I'll certainly look through TaxFind then. I should also have access to TaxNet Pro. I did some research on the in-depth tax course and got some mixed reviews on its benefit for lawyers. But it might be something I look into next year assuming my firm supports it and I get pushed to develop my own practice a bit more. I picked up Krishna's books (both the personal tax and corporate tax books) as they seem to be most what I am looking for right now. I will keep the rest in mind once I have had a chance to figure out what I need more knowledge in/where my practice takes me. Will probably pick up Duff's book though as a research resource (especially with the added commentary - thanks, @Mal!). I also bought Ted Cook's "Canadian Tax Research: A Practical Guide" (from another recommendation) as it seems like a good resource to guide my research.
  30. 1 point
    This is pure conjectural nonsense. If you talk to the kinds of people who would know this stuff, incompetence of counsel tends to arise most frequently, where practitioners have very high caseloads or where established practitioners dabble outside their area of focus. In the first instance, errors tend to arise from lawyers spending inadequate amounts of time on each individual file due to their overall volume. In the second, errors do arise from inexperience from a lack of knowledge around the nuances of the relevant procedure and subject matter. But that doesn't necessarily track with the lawyers being too junior. Those are often lawyers who are spread too thin in other areas, who are reckless with regards to their own shortcomings, and who shouldn't branching out until they can spend the time learning the law and finding appropriate mentorship. I thought your original comment was helpful, insofar as it outlined the stakes and potential perils of starting a solo practice. I think that this quoted post has no place on a forum where facts and truth are at all important in the provision of advice. Basically, it seems like you were motivated to post this comment as part of defence on your own posting history, and in doing so, you made what I believe to inaccurate and misleading commentary about the state of the legal profession, which was also degrading to the many recent calls striving to provide responsible and high-quality legal services in practice areas where small and solo practices are the norm.
  31. 1 point
    You’re right. The point of my post was not to provide advice to OP. It was to flag the problem that other users had glossed over while telling OP to hang their own shingle – while that might be good career advice, it’s not necessarily a responsible suggestion when you consider factors other than OP’s own personal wellbeing. Two observations, and then I’m done defending myself and you can call me all the mean words you want to. First, I think you’re projecting a bit, and you may want to reflect on that. Second, I think your moral outrage is misplaced. You’re mad at me for suggesting that incompetent people probably shouldn’t hang their own shingle. What you should be mad at is the suggestion that incompetent people should hang their own shingle. Because my post, at worst, hurts OPs feelings for a little bit. The alternate suggestion, though, ruins people’s lives.
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
    I find that poster absolutely insufferable in general and that post was delivered with their typical utter lack of tact or social awareness. However, they actual do have a valid underlying point there (that, again, could have been delivered better). I'm not really qualified to speak about anything but criminal law, but the importance of good mentorship really can't be overemphasized. Criminal defence attracts a lot of passionate, highly motivated, principled lawyers, but also as a practice area conducive to sole practitioners it sadly also attracts a number of lawyers who simply are taking whatever work they can get, and an extreme and disturbing lack of competence is very common those type of lawyers. Hell, I went to law school exclusively interested in criminal law, I went to a good Canadian school and did reasonably well there, I tailored my course selections and clinics to it, and I will put up my hand and say that I would be an incompetent criminal practitioner if not for the fantastic mentorship I received from a variety of great lawyers in a variety of contexts. And the issues involved in this workare hugely important to the individuals concerned. The competence of their lawyer can affect their liberty in a variety of ways. It can impact whether they receive a conviction, whether they receive a criminal record, what sentence they get, etc. Now, the OP themselves explicitly wrote: "I feel overwhelmed that I'm harming my clients with my inexperience." So this is an issue that the OP is tuned into and that weighs on them. They seem like a good person and one that wants to ensure that their clients are competently and diligently represented. So I suspect that not only would opening their own crim shop be damaging to their clients (in the absence of good mentorship), but would also be extraordinarily stressful for the OP because they would recognize that their responsibilities outweigh their competence (which, again, is not a knock on them--it's basically inevitable for someone in their position). I'm afraid I'm not sure what to tell the OP (and I'd love to be able to give them some positive and helpful advice), but I do think "you can always set up your own shop" is sort of trite advice and there are legitimate concerns here that need to be thought about and addressed before anyone does that.
  34. 1 point
    You can call me arrogant all you want. That doesn’t change the truth of my comment. Like it or not, it’s a very real concern and honestly one of the biggest problems with our legal system.
  35. 1 point
    Yes, they're generally answers you prepare ahead of time, but it can be more elaborate in that you might try to predict what the exam question might be. However, many professors advise against this because you might not predict correctly and subsequently try to force your prepared answer without addressing the question. Personally, I like to prepare canned ways of eloquently framing an answer instead of trying to guess what the substance will be. This saves a lot of time and saves you the trouble of trying to write well under exam constraints.
  36. 1 point
    I think 5-7 hours is doable and would provide a nice break from law school. With good time management, you should be able to have a good balance. I would not do more than 7 hours a week though. Also realize that during exam period, you may not be able to work as many hours. I would give it a try with the knowledge that if I felt overwhelmed and felt that it negatively impacted my academics, I would quit.
  37. 1 point
    I treasure my LL.B. because it’s become a sign of my seniority relative to others. This may be a small and petty plus in my life but these days I will take what I can.
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    I generally agree with the maxim that you should go after what you know you want, as soon as you know. But there is one caveat there, which would seem to lend some notion of good will to any individual or institution pushing "big law" to students. A lot of people don't know what area of law interests them. I have a general idea now, but I did a lot of exploration during law school, and because McGill was 3.5 years I had an extra summer with which to explore. That helped a lot. But after 1L I only had very broad notions of what I wanted out of my career. The specifics came after a lot of soul searching and trial and error, which is near impossible to do after only one year - especially if you're a K-JD. Big law exposes you to different practice areas (and importantly, both litigation and solicitors work). It's otherwise difficult to find an employer who exposes you to both. Now, litigation itself is so damn varied that to say "oh you know you want to litigate" can be pretty meaningless. But if you don't know anything else, that's at least a helpful distinction that big law can make, that other employers generally can't.
  40. 1 point
    Do you think many of these same people would be drawn to Biglaw in the first place if there wasn't such a push in that direction in law school by the CDO, their peers, and the event sponsors? This concept of OCIs, which is predominantly made up for corporate law employers, is shoved into students' faces throughout law school, and even prior to law school. It is the path of least resistance and naturally many students apply and end up working at one of these firms. While it is perfectly fine to not have clear idea of what practice area you want to go into, there is a pretty clear distinction between Biglaw, and other practice areas like criminal, labour, family, wills and estates, immigration, etc. Most law students by that point in time should know themselves well enough to: a) know what their values are, b) know their lifestyle choices and the environment they want to work in, and c) know the clientele they want to represent — government, lower income, HNWI, corporations, etc. I know a few people who transitioned out of Biglaw into other practice areas that have nothing to do with Biglaw, and almost all of them have told me that they came to law school to "do human rights work", "practice refugee law or criminal law", or "help ordinary people." People are not so unsure of themselves to flip-flop between very different practice areas within the span of a year or two. People's personalities do not change all that much during law school and in adulthood. The general point being made in this thread is that you should know your own values well enough to know where those values would be best represented. It doesn't really make sense that someone wants to do M&A or corporate securities work for large corporations for a year or two because they are unsure of practice areas, then make the jump into family, criminal, or refugee law. A lot of the work you do in these fields, the clients you represent, and the skills you need, are very different from Biglaw. Some practice areas are more closely intertwined than others. If more law students had the confidence to take a leap of faith and respect their own value systems like the OP, we would see this being less of a problem, and fewer unhappy law students and lawyers out there. In fact, the attrition rate in Biglaw would not even be as high as it is now, because the people who last long-term in that setting generally want to be there, and that is where their values, personalities, and interests are best represented.
  41. 1 point
    I mean, welcome to the club. I just googled "where are the maldives" during a client call that was pretty Maldives-oriented. Also sounds like there could be an expectations management issue. Not a lot of clinic work needs to be done on the spot, it just feels that way sometimes. I mean, some clinics like NLS sound like a bit of a zoo. But really, most client issues can either wait until you have a chance to look something up or ask a colleague, or it's so late that you can't do much anyway (I have a hearing this afternoon that I've known about for five months and really need representation!). So if you need time to look into something, say that you'll look into it and get back to them. And then look into it and get back to them in a reasonable time. Other than that, I don't know. I mean, you have to specialize more. Unless you're going to hang a shingle in Parry Sound or something, you're probably not going to have a general practice. Start picking a specific area of law. Read the law in that area. Keep up with it, if new cases are coming out. Reach out to other lawyers in that area. Express interest. If there are associations/list-servs, join those.
  42. 1 point
    Here's my post for reference: Hunting for jobs is a numbers game. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Wayne Gretzky - Michael Scott
  43. 1 point
    I believe this category is more geared towards applicants who have a low GPA, low LSAT, or no ECs as a way to explain why that is, e.g. low GPA due to being a full-time single mom raising two kids while still pursuing a degree, had bad grades and had to drop out 2 years in due to mental health but picked it back up and got great grades, etc. If your GPA or LSAT is low, but you think you have a valid reason why and can explain how you will still be able to succeed in law school in spite of your below average grades, then you may qualify for "Special Consideration." From what I've seen, the special consideration categories are more for explaining academic discrepancies (though anyone, feel free to chime in and correct me). I think your circumstances would be better spoken about in the regular Personal Statement for whatever the standard category is.
  44. 1 point
    What? Did your email somehow give the impression that you were confused about which cycle you were applying for? This response makes no sense to me.
  45. 1 point
    Do you excel at RC and games? It’s my understanding that they are weighed a bit more in the 3 section flex than they would be on the standard LSAT due to the omission of the second LR section. As far as I know, LR on the flex is worth 33.3% as opposed to 50%, it’s weight on the standard LSAT. My strongest section by far is LR (reading comp is my nemesis 😤 ) so I’m actually a bit worried my flex score will be lower than my PTs.
  46. 1 point
    Not getting into law school last year was the best thing that happened to me ironically. I took a year off, rounded out my application with a sick legal related job, (which im sure will help down the road for future employer prospects), completed my masters, and took the LSAT to score higher. All's this to say that you dont necessarily need to check all these boxes for it to be worthwhile not to be admitted. Rather it could be a blessing in disguise especially if you are a younger candidate to work on yourself in the year you are not admitted, learn more about what yourself in that time and mature. Good luck
  47. 1 point
    Are these schools you've been accepted to or schools you're considering? If it's the latter, I'd say Osgoode is a better competitor to UVic, and you should consider that over Ryerson. Ryerson is brand spanking new and has no alumni network. It may someday be a great school, but it's not going to be close to UVic by the time you're graduating. So, beyond annoying travel costs and the high cost of rent in B.C., some of which is offset by the really more expensive tuition you'd be paying in Ryerson anyway, UVic is more advantageous in just about every other way that matters. Personally, I'd be buying a ticket to B.C. ... as soon as we're allowed to fly again that is.
  48. 1 point
    I’ve seen this advice multiple times, and having only scraped the surface of this big, broad field they call “law”, I’ve realized that the advice was right: Figure out what you mean by “human rights law”. Do you want to practice in a provincial Human Rights Commission? Do you want to promote human rights abroad as part of the UN or provide HR-related legal advice to a deployed mission (very difficult areas to get in to)? Or maybe it’s not really about human rights per se and more about defending people who are facing the weight of the Crown in a criminal trial? Or about labour law? Or maybe immigration law? Or maybe you just don’t know yet - and that’s ok! The beauty of first year is that you dabble in a breadth of subjects, meet a lot of interesting practitioners, and get a feel for what “human rights” really means in this field. Then you can tailor your upper year courses according to your interests. With that said, TO might not be the “human rights hub” you think it is. If I were in your shoes I’d choose UVic because (1) it’s less expensive, (2) the school offers a lot of interesting classes and opportunities that have to do with social justice more broadly, and (3) (I believe) they have a Human Rights Clinic where you can test-drive what it means to work in that area. I see that you also posted “Ryerson vs TRU”, which doesn’t change my advice: I’d pick UVic over TRU for the same reasons. Congrats on your acceptances, enjoy the ride!
  49. 1 point
    Is Ryerson the only school you got accepted to in Ontario? I would think that if you had the stats for UVic you would get multiple Ontario acceptances
  50. 1 point
    Generally speaking the prevailing opinion on this site is go to school where you want to practice, but the fact that Ryerson is brand new with no alumni base may change things. It seems to me like you would have a better experience at UVic and are only considering Ryerson because you want to work in Ontario. Why not go into the UVic thread and ask if any students from Ontario managed to go back home and what the experience like? I'm sure that they will give you much better advice than the average person on this site. Also if you're not a city girl why go to school to school in downtown Toronto? Did you consider applying to schools like Windsor? Goodluck!
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...