Rashabon

That works for California. It doesn't work for a large number of states which only admit lawyers that are educated at an ABA-approved school. I don't agree with you on constitutional interpretation. Canada has developed its own approach and most cases will look to existing Canadian jurisprudence, not whatever the Americans are doing.

Are you saying in terms of what a paralegal is permitted to do, or in general?

Your entire last paragraph is so wrong. The fundamental theory of Canadian constitutional law is diametrically opposed to the entire conservative judicial project's animating theory, which has dominated discourse in the U.S. for years, so that alone is reason enough to ignore it. But the existence of Section 1 of the Charter and nothing comparable in the U.S. is again such a fundamental difference as to again be so very wrong. Also there are a number of states that will only admit lawyers that have a degree from an ABA-approved school. It is not so easy to work in the states with a Canadian law degree, outside certain states like New York or California (which has an extra hurdle to New York but not that bad). EDIT: Found the old article I was looking for. Not only do Canadians not really look to the U.S. for constitutional matters, Canadian constitutional law is among the most influential in the world, if not the most: http://www.slaw.ca/2012/04/15/canada-is-the-worlds-constitutional-superpower/

He wasn't talking about the $1900/wk being paid by McCarthys, he's talking about how the survey suggests most lawyers were purported to be earning more than $98K annualized in 2007 (which works out to $1900/wk).

https://www.lawdepot.ca/terms.php?loc=CA

So hire a lawyer, what are you wasting time here for?

If the application doesn't request any you shouldn't send any. It's quite simple.

This is bad advice. Why even include a mediocre or generic letter of reference at all? If the application asks for two, pick and send two. Then at least you control the process. If you send more, you run the risk of a recruiter ignoring the application because it failed to follow instructions, or deciding to read two of the three. Then you've lost control over your own application. This debate is academic anyway because the people that could conceivably have three game-changing LORs are not going to struggle looking for a job to begin with. Much like ECs, people constantly overrate the value of LORs, and a ton of firms don't even accept or consider them for good reason.

I'm going to be honest, that doesn't work in a private practice cover letter either, and private practice is just as focused on "skills and experience" as the government. Every decent cover letter I've seen is just as "substantive" as one you'd see for a government application, because you're trying to show you're a skilled individual. I'm not really sure where anyone gets the idea that cover letters for private practice are filled with more nonsense than government ones. The only major difference between government and private practice is that you don't need a personality for the former, as evidenced by the majority of junior government lawyers :).

Yeah I don't think that's true.

I think there's a lot of misconceptions about "holistic" on these forums, and people have flipped around the meaning of it. Holistic means that people with less than stellar stats might get in if they have a compelling application package that the admissions committee otherwise likes, and they think the candidate will succeed in law school. It does not mean that stats are suddenly less meaningful or that you need amazing ECs, etc. to get in. A candidate with a 3.9 GPA and a mid-160s LSAT is getting into Osgoode without fail, even if they do not have a single meaningful EC. Stats are always, always the most important factor in getting into law school. To OP: Come back and ask this question after you see your score. It's meaningless to "shoot" for a score - you should always be aiming for the best possible score regardless of situation. However, once you have a score, people here can more credibly advise you on whether to cancel or just run with it.

Chances are they aren't renting space above a Second Cup in a strip plaza. Also, point still stands that Crowns have the easiest business case of any lawyer in practice. They literally just have to do their jobs and that's it. No need to sell themselves to clients, hustle up business, etc. It's easy pickings. Also in 10-15-20 years Netflix can make a documentary about how you railroaded someone into prison on flimsy evidence. Makes for good TV.

Crowns don't have to be business people on the side either. They show up, try to throw someone in jail and collect a good salary. Also sure, Marie Heinen is pulling in a ton. The guy doing DUI law with an office above a Second Cup in a strip plaza is not outearning the Crowns.

No, they do not look down on switching majors or institutions, or in taking 5 years to graduate.

Sweet potato fries, vegetables that aren't boring, cookies, cakes, homemade bread (better than anything you can get at a bakery), banana bread, keeping your pancakes and waffles warm while you finish cooking the rest, properly making a steak in a cast iron pan if you aren't bbq'ing it, making a good chicken, garlic bread, all the frozen food items which I never buy anymore, lasagna, french toast casserole, baked mac and cheese, pie, pizza (homemade or otherwise). If you don't have an oven I hope you earn enough that not having an oven is a silly decision, or you're prepared to live a miserable, empty life of eating ash and dust.