Jump to content

hefeweizen

Members
  • Content Count

    481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

hefeweizen last won the day on February 3 2013

hefeweizen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

243 Good People

1 Follower

About hefeweizen

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3237 profile views
  1. My understanding is that this is not uncommon. I don't know percentages or anything, but I've definitely heard of firms (large ones, in some cases) supporting their students through the process of having to re-do one of the PLTC tasks/exams. If your firm has hired you back, I'd definitely just wait to see what happens -- I think everyone who has gone through PLTC knows that many elements of it are not representative of how things actually work in practice, and failing may be totally unrelated to your potential as a lawyer, so there may be no stigma at all.
  2. This is my approach, as well, but I do sometimes wonder if I'm being old-fashioned and going without would be fine all the time? One of the reasons I do wear them sometimes is because shoes are more comfortable with them on, but a lot of the time the real reason I'm wearing them is I worry I'm too informal without. (This is a tangent from the original thread, and maybe I should take it to the women's workwear thread, instead, but I would be curious to hear the opinions of others on this board who wear skirt suits as to their feelings on nylons/tights.)
  3. I think some firms may ask, yes, although I don't know that for sure (or may know, if it's a national firm and you've applied to both). I've never heard of anyone immediately writing a candidate off if they've applied in both places (caveat that I haven't been that involved in the recruiting process -- I've never done the process of whittling OCI candidates down to in-firm offers). It didn't come up in Calgary because Vancouver doesn't do a 1L recruit, so there was no "competition," as it were.
  4. At a Vancouver firm here, and this point has been discussed during the recruits I've taken part in. I don't recall that it was ever determinative, but we have discussed whether candidates seemed interested in Vancouver long-term, and on what basis. Mostly came up where the candidates were from schools outside BC or the candidate was originally from another part of the country. Sometimes it's quite obvious that someone isn't really interested in Vancouver. For context, I work for a regional, not national, firm, where the question of whether you want to (a) work in BC or (b) would be happy outside of the 'national firm' setting is perhaps more pertinent. And, also, sure it's easy to say "most beautiful city in Canada, etc etc" but Vancouver has an extremely high cost-of-living and firms here pay less than the firms in Toronto (and, let's be honest, there's less 'big' work out here), so if we think you're mostly interested in going to work in big law and make bank, there's a legitimate concern that you might turn us down for Toronto if we extend an offer. All that being said, I'd still apply in Vancouver if I were you, because if you get to the in-firm stage in Vancouver and you find a firm where things really click, you'll have the opportunity to make the case that you want to come to Vancouver and do the work they do. (I don't know what the timing is this year, but I believe the recruits are usually staggered, so you might have to decide whether to take a job in one city before you've had an opportunity to check out the opportunities in the other one.) I did the 1L recruit in Calgary and I got asked a lot "why Calgary". As a life-long Vancouverite, it was perhaps more difficult to convince them that I wanted to go that way, I don't know, but I didn't get any offers. Worked out for the best, because on reflection I wouldn't have wanted to live in Calgary. 😄
  5. Ah, I'd missed this update. Well, I alter my point, then, to say that it will not be a detriment to your application that you are already scheduled to clerk. (I agree with erinl2 that the requirement, if they chose to put it in, would be silly; but it's always been the case that about half of the clerks had either clerked once before or articled and been called by the time they got to the SCC.)
  6. I wore black nylons, I think. But skin-tone (whatever that means for you) would also be fine. I wouldn't wear knee-high socks -- that would look off, to me. What do you picture someone in court in a skirt suit wearing with it? Do that.
  7. Agree that there's nothing in your stats that would mean an automatic "no," and the fact that you have another clerkship already lined up is a good thing because they now require either a clerkship or articling completed before you arrive. So, put together your application package -- you've got lots of time! -- and apply, and see what happens.
  8. I also made this transition, with the same timing -- transferred immediately after my call in Ontario. Be aware that it takes a bit of time for the paperwork to be processed at the BC end; I was called in Ontario in September and it took ~2 months for LSBC to deal with all the things and get me officially called out here. (The good news, as Chuckles64 says, is that you don't have to write the exam. And you also don't have to do PLTC.)
  9. I'm sorry to hear you have PPD -- I hope you have the supports you need to help you through it, and wish you best of luck on the journey back to feeling like yourself.
  10. Did 'em both in March, was working full-time during the study period, passed, and I also didn't go to an Ontario school. It's certainly doable (and most people I know did it that way too.) Agree with utmguy that there's a broad swathe of overlap in the material, too.
  11. Yes, this. (I had really, really easy pregnancies though.) Other than saying that, I'll PM you.
  12. In my experience undergrad grades do sometimes come up during the discussion of in-firm interview candidates -- we might note something like a failed class, or an overall trend among the undergrad grades (very high overall, very low overall, an upward trend etc) but I've never seen it be a determinative thing, and in all those cases the candidates had already been selected for in-firms so even an F on a transcript doesn't seem to have been a problem in getting past the on-campus interview stage. Law school grades are much more important.
  13. I'm off on mat leave right now for a year and my partner's also off, full-time; we have a toddler and the new baby, but we don't have any additional child care, paid or otherwise, so there's no question that we both have plenty to do. Even though you have other resources I'd still say at least a month for him, if you can swing it financially, for a couple reasons: first, the PPD thing -- the more support systems you have around you in those early days, the better - even just more people to keep a close eye on you, and someone who knows you really well to know when you seem *off* from your usual self; and, second (and this is a systemic issue, not something particular to you), I would like to see men in general taking more parental leave when they can, because the more that do, the easier it becomes for the next one to do so, and so on. That idea that "the men at his firm take a day or two, a week at most" is something that becomes a mental barrier to men taking the time to be at home with their families and places the burden on women, who often take a year (or sometimes stop out of the workforce for a while). I've seen something similar at my firm but lately there have been some male associates and partners who have taken up to two months of leave after the birth of a child and I think that example will have a trickle-down effect. Just my two cents and of course if you decide for financial reasons or whatever that it's not doable, that's a whole different thing. As for you and the future, what's the longest you've taken off before with the kids? Did you enjoy it or did you want to go back to work? I think it varies from person to person whether they'll miss work or if taking a longer time out makes sense. Would part-time be a possibility on your return to your firm? I know lots of women who did 60-80% for a number of years when their kids were younger and that seems to have been a good balance.
  14. I made this mistake, too, and it was a pain to deal with, but if I recall correctly I'd made some other mistake as well that meant I had to apply for an abridgement of my articles. PM me if you like and I can tell you how things went down for me, but as your first step you'll want to call the Law Society ASAP and explain what's happening.
  15. So, I have this that I have worn on some occasions in court (and during my call to the bar in BC) instead of a shirt. (I also have the shirt; I've needed to wear the winged collar shirtfront thingy because I've been pregnant for most of my career as a lawyer, including during my call ceremony, and the shirt didn't fit over the bump or combine well with maternity pants. However, I know some lawyers wear it instead of the shirt because it cuts down on the heat, which can really ramp up with the robes, waistcoat, and full shirt.) That's the only way that you could get away with not having the shirt, because when everything's done up it looks like you are wearing the proper shirt with tabs. If the employee was suggesting that you could go without entirely, then that would be incorrect in both BC and Ontario so far as I know.
×
×
  • Create New...