Jump to content

Rashabon

Members
  • Content Count

    2625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by Rashabon

  1. The OP doesn't have issues getting interviews which is all that would help with.
  2. Sure, but broad strokes, a specific piece of litigation or transaction doesn't really get you anywhere with a big Bay Street firm. In my own personal opinion, you're better off asking your interviewer about a file they were proud of rather than bring one up out of the blue. If you're looking at firm wide transactions, you run the risk of it being something that partner or associate didn't work on, and if you bring up something specific from someone's profile, there's a variety of ways it can go, other than being a good conversation starter: (a) they have nothing to say about it because the deal is there for marketing purposes but actually wasn't interesting to talk about, (b) they can't give you any insight about it or there are confidentiality issues, (c) the profile might be out of date or the specific transaction could be ancient history, (d) you feel like you've been stalked somewhat. Maybe that's my own bias but I'd prefer if a candidate asked me what it was I did or liked about my practice or asked me about my high level bio. Asking me about a specific transaction might not get much out of me depending on the transaction, and that's the pitfall - you've now pigeon-holed yourself somewhat. I can say that when I did the interview process a long time ago, I figured out at a high level what my interviewer did, but never got granular enough to say "So I see you worked on X IPO or Y piece of litigation, tell me about that." But hey, YMMV and if you or others have gone through the recruit and thought it was a successful strategy, more power to you. I certainly wouldn't ding a candidate for asking about a specific piece of my work, it just doesn't leave as much room for conversation as a broader one might.
  3. This may be applicable to smaller firms, but for a big firm, you absolutely do not need to know recent cases or transactions worked on by the lawyers or the firm generally. I never expect it to come up from a candidate in interviews - if it comes up, it's because I (or a partner if they are interviewing) have brought it up. OP is doing fine if they are getting interviews in the 1L recruit for Bay Street. Speaking only for the formal recruit, the process is competitive. There aren't that many people hired for 1L summer (though it has been going up). I've seen plenty of candidates who interviewed in 1L summer, struck out, came back for 2L summer interviews and were hired easily. The decision-making process is quite different in 1L. For one, there's less people who have seen you (i.e. nobody who met you at OCIs can vouch for you - you're a piece of paper until your first in firm). My student recruiter goes to as many OCIs as they can, and has often spoken about the significant difference between 1L and OCIs, where in the former, everyone is picked off of paper and on the latter, you've already made somewhat of a connection with someone and might have some goodwill built up before you even come to in firms. For another, the numbers are very different. Some firms have now focused increasingly on the 1L recruit, but in the 2L recruit, they will typically hire just as many, but typically more. UV stats show 66 spots for 1Ls, with 433 spots for 2Ls. It really often does come down to numbers in the 1L recruit. Get advice from the CDO, do some mock interviews with friends, consider emailing someone you thought you connected with (or the student recruiter) for feedback and just practice and keep focusing on school.
  4. Literally every law school in Canada makes this pitch on their own offerings. You don't think Osgoode or Ottawa or McGill or UBC want prospective students or the legal community to think they are offering something different from every other school? That's absurd to the point of being stupid. You, like many others in this thread, have approached this discussion backwards. You're against Ryerson so you're nitpicking and reading their marketing in bad faith to justify your conclusion.
  5. This is the most likely. Ryerson is still teaching the basic black letter shit we learn at every law school and they've got a whack of proposed upper year offerings similar to every other law school. They've supplemented with different things, but every school does that. Is U of T vastly different from another law school because you can do DLS for credit? What about its intensive courses for credit? Is Osgoode radically different because they have, essentially, coop placements for credit? What about going on exchange to Asia? You're learning fuck all useful there from a Canadian legal point of view. Your take is really bad.
  6. Lol what? You just criticized the process of doing so! That's what my post was responding to. I guess you're now disagreeing with yourself?
  7. There's a whole forum of people called lawstudents.ca where prospective students come to ask questions of other law students and lawyers to figure things out about the operation of law school, legal practice, etc. You should check it out.
  8. Why not? Articling students are nobodies. It's perfectly fine to approach them to ask questions if they are willing to talk.
  9. At least one school has been tracking this analytically and does believe there is some predictive value in GPA and LSAT so v v
  10. WHAT KIND OF IDIOSYNCRATIC READ SUGGESTS THAT THEY ARE "MAKING IT SEEM LIKE THEY ARE SPECIAL FOR HAVING ACCESS TO THESE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL RESEARCH TOOLS"? THEY SIMPLY NOTE THAT STUDENTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THEM, THEY ALSO MENTION CLIO (NOT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE), TERANET (CERTAINLY NOT AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS REGULARLY - A GREAT RESOURCE FOR SOMEONE STARTING OUT), ETC. ANOTHER UNCHARITABLE AND BIASED READ OF THE WEBSITE.
  11. I'll say from being a lawyer at a big shop, we're constantly being pushed to work with new technologies and get better with the technology we have. A coding workshop might actually help some people, if not learning to code programs, at least be familiar with conditional statements and simple tools so they can utilize excel more effectively. I regularly have to open excel and run things - not at the level of a model my clients or the other side might produce, but smaller things, and I need to understand at some level how the models work so I can help translate to legal work. Being able to code a simple macro can help a lot with certain Word functions lawyers are asked to do for example. There's a million ways being savvy with tech can make legal services more accessible by keeping costs down and allowing lawyers to work more efficiently. There's a reason that machine learning and other AI processes have been applied to document review. It's really not unreasonable for clients to expect technology savvy lawyers as opposed to some ancient partner that still has their assistant print their emails and does everything by hand and can't work a computer, and technological proficiency is not something most law schools teach or focus on, to my knowledge. Ryerson is not wrong that they would have a jump on creating technologically savvy lawyers as compared to other law schools.
  12. Please explain what you think is off base here?
  13. So why did you come here? Someone is apparently willing to gift you $400,000 for absolutely inscrutable reasons. Just take the LSAT and apply even with your shitty grades. What's the cost of $150 at the chance for an absolute gift of $400,000?
  14. Impossible to gauge without an LSAT. Participating in an international program will not move the needle. It'll be a neat factor but unless you save the world, nobody is admitting you to law school with a bad LSAT and so-so grades just because you went away for a summer to do...whatever. Focus on doing well in your extra courses and minor and do well on the LSAT.
  15. If you're concerned about half years in upper years, I've got an even bigger target for you to set your sights on - upper year exchanges.
  16. Of course people are going to ask you about it in a recruit - they are looking for things to talk about and it was a big chunk of your life and academics that appear on your resume. That's different from people taking it seriously when you're working and doesn't support the claim that people will give it "weight" or view you as having "expertise" going forward, and having a BA in History or English or Economics or whatever will be meaningless for 99% of legal jobs. As a 3rd year lawyer, nobody is going to approach you and say "Hey wait, you have a BA in English right? That will surely come in handy on [Legal Matter X]". I honestly couldn't tell you what the undergrad degree of almost any of my colleagues is. Nobody posts it on their profile and it rarely comes up in conversation. Clients care even less. You're their lawyer, not their advisor on Chaucer or the Bay of Pigs or what have you.
  17. I think point (a) is compelling. Point (b) is not. Nobody cares what your undergrad is in and nobody will ever treat that as an authority for anything. Bachelor's degrees are incredibly general and by the time you finish law school and articling (assuming you go straight to law school after undergrad), you're 4 years removed from having done any courses in that area. To OP - another reason to complete undergrad is to make you more desirable for employment. Being too young with no experience can work against you.
  18. Also cops are often full of shit or wrong and charge people who haven't broken the law with crimes. Only stupid people would ever say "you don't need a lawyer if you don't break the law", full stop. There's no degree of truthfulness to that - it's false and dumb.
  19. Plaintiff work generally has more upside to defense work because plaintiffs are trying to get something while defendants are trying not to lose something. Clients will pay a lot (i.e. contingency fees) for something they might not otherwise have had (like proceeds from a settlement or a win at trial), whereas clients aren't going to want to pay a ton of money just to keep what they think is already theirs. It's not unique to PI work (see for example class action plaintiff side vs. defense side) but PI is a lot more accessible than class actions and more of an every day thing so its easily visible. I'm not sure how anyone can go through law school let alone a bit of practice without recognizing that PI lawyers make more money because they take big percentages rather than hourly fees. There's also many threads on this including some recent ones:
  20. If you're not good at planning, you can always go on an organized trip. Contiki has multiple organized trips around the globe that you can fit in 2.5 weeks or less.
  21. Unless they show up tied to a friend, I imagine they won't have any trouble being discrete. If they're tied up though, being discrete and discreet might be an issue.
  22. It's not really common sense though. A lot of people don't appreciate that there are significant cultural differences that impact a lot of people. My firm has regularly held sessions, particularly for students, regarding cultural competency. Nobody says "X people aren't like us because Y". They remind you that some cultures are more collectivist than individualist, which will have an impact on how they approach an issue or a problem. Same thing with saving face, honour, shame, importance of unwritten vs. written, etc. Most of the people that tend to be involved in these courses tend to be diverse folks from different cultural backgrounds than the dominant Western ones. I don't think you've ever taken one of these courses or read the materials so you're kind of just arguing against your own perception about what people are learning. Also in my example, my foreign client was the big dog, vs. a small Canadian company on the other side. The Canadians were most certainly not the dominant ones.
  23. Commercial lawyers were more likely to have been the original lawyers actually.
×
×
  • Create New...