Rashabon

They're still processing since it seems the bulk of the people Doug Ford consulted with on this are racists and alt-right members.

Of course not.

This is a silly question. How can anyone tell you the relative weight the various firms looking to hire a lateral might place on any one factor? As a year 1-3 associate (as leafs_law notes) you basically have nothing concrete to show. You don't have a book of business, you're still developing skills and forming relationships. If you lateral in that period, think of yourself as applying to a firm like it's an OCI or for an articling or first associate position - grades matter in those contexts, obviously, because it isthe only relevant thing for anyone to evaluate beyond your resume and interviews. As a year 1-3 associate, you're in that bucket. Once you get past that stage, you've got significant work experience, possibly business, some level of expertise, and nobody cares what you were like in school.

I don't have an opinion frankly. It certainly would have come in handy to end the salary freezes that came in around the time of the financial crisis that only recently lifted, but nobody at my shop at least has seriously discussed anyone unionizing. I just think the discussion should be grounded in reality rather than ignoring the reality of collective bargaining to claim its only apposite for blue collar, low skilled workers, or that associates are basically partners when you squint real hard.

Zero say. Associates don’t have any decision making authority on policy or otherwise. You can express a view but that’s no different than any employee expressing a view. Associates are unquestionably on a tier below that of an officer of a corporation.

You're just as removed from ownership as any employee. Getting admitted to a partnership isn't some sure thing where you're guaranteed to become an owner, so I don't agree that's a meaningful distinction. An associate at a firm is just an employee by another name.

The reason why people make generation-by-generation comparisons is that plenty of the issues (wage stagnation and lack of housing) are deliberate policy choices implemented largely by the boomers who benefited from policies they eviscerated when they came to power, while telling the next generations to go fuck themselves. It's not like the lack of housing affordability and lack of real wage growth are scientific mysteries. Some German dude wrote about the root causes in the 1800s. Life expectancy is a red herring, though not entirely given the same boomers down in the U.S. are driving life expectancy down as fast as they can through their policies choices.

Is there really any blurring? Management are the partners. Associates are employees. It's a pretty easy split and quite obvious. The pay plus commission model - how is that any different from any other industry where people make commission? If a foot locker employee a member of management because they earn a commission?

Lol I guess give this diatribe to athletes and actors and other professionals that aren't interchangeable, lower-skilled workers. Or maybe the Society of United Professionals/Power Workers' Union. Seems like they are all doing it wrong and unions should be reserved for bus drivers. You're not a labour lawyer and it kinda shows here - labour politics has nothing to do with "interchangeability and disposability". It's purely about pooling collective power to bargain. You also clearly don't understand CBAs or what other benefits might come from unionizing besides lockstepping salary/promotions, apparently. Edit: I didn't read jjbean's post first but basically yep. This was a big whiff of a post. Could have saved yourself 6 paragraphs.

Isn't that basically this type of firm: https://www.rktaxlaw.com/

Is this firm purporting to have trademarked the phrase "We're here to help"?

That's not what a pyramid scheme is, but go off champ.

It's on the U of T website. From the 2015-2016 admission year, the algorithm that assigns the two-thirds weighting to the Academic Record and LSAT was adjusted in a way that grants more weight to the GPA, since new data reveals that the GPA merits relatively more weight in predicting performance in first year than other factors. We encourage students with apparently less competitive LSAT scores and undergraduate records to apply, since every year we admit a significant number of students whose files when considered in proper context merit offers of admission.

Not everyone lives directly by the building. So extrapolate from that what seems logical for deposits. If you lived in Vancouver, how would you submit your deposit?

Nobody should take your perspective on law school or stress seriously. You claimed that someone working in law would not have an hour of free time a day to themselves outside of studying or working. Your worldview is entirely warped. I agree with BQ. Law school is easier than undergrad in many ways. You have much more easily defined pathways to employment, including a system in which 3-400 students a year in Ontario are given high incomes for student work followed by just about the fastest opportunity to an upper middle class income in Canada.