Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

64 Decent People

About DalPal

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1186 profile views
  1. The Globe article suggests that BLG also had layoffs
  2. It will depend on the firm and practice area immensely. International narrows it down but doesn’t really help me answer. American giant like Paul Weiss? American associate pay scale. Small offshoot insurance practice (Cozen or Clyde & Co for example) maybe 85k for a new call.
  3. The best advice to always apply and see. That being said, if Osler or something is looking to add in the articling recruit they usually run a very limited recruit for just one student. They know they will have their pick and are selective as a result.
  4. Sutts Strosberg is an unusual case because it is based in Windsor. Any reason you would prefer them over London-based Siskinds? They are probably the largest plaintiff class action firm. Roy O’Connor, Rochon Genova or Sotos might be good Toronto based options. You will be competitive at any firm doing the articling recruit as their main source of students (but not for Bay Street looking to add one more student). Obviously apply to all you are interested in. Edited to add I think plaintiff firms are not looking for clerks as they are not marketing prestigious juniors in exchange for high hourly rates, like Palaire, for example, is.
  5. If you are in your first few years of call at a major firm you should probably not be actively trying to bring in clients. Anyone who might hire you directly is unlikely to be a valuable client. There is a ton else you can do. You can develop areas of work and referral sources within your firm, try to remain socially engaged with your law school classmates and becoming a visible and prominent member on certain client teams so you are part of the face of the firm to them. Many people do very well at large firms without a major “direct” client base, i.e. companies where they were both the initial and direct point of contact. They do so by being a go-to-person in something (like tax litigation) for partners with clients who send their existing (in this example) tax litigation work elsewhere. If you are in a satellite office this can be as easy as being the “Ottawa guy” for enough large office partners.
  6. I think the replies in this thread represent exceptions. The general rule is it is hard to transition general areas when you have worked as an associate. General areas meaning, for example, litigation broadly as opposed to sub-specialties where it can be straightforward to make a mid-career change.
  7. There are certainly more Windsor alumni at my firm than Dal
  8. On average defence lawyers make more, particularly as juniors. PI lawyers with referral networks and resources can make millions. The people applying to your firm are doing so for the systemic problems on the defence side discussed above, not for the great riches.
  9. I would not want to be a conflicts lawyer. My impression is you spend all your time arguing with partners used to getting their way.
  10. Our firm has knowledge management lawyers and conflicts lawyers (as well as a GC). Our student coordinator is also a non-practising lawyer. Is this what you are referring to? I think the answer will be very position specific. In general I think these are pretty stable, good jobs with excellent worklife balance. They do not seem to have significant career advancement opportunities. Personally I think I would prefer a position where you don’t have to answer to a biglaw partner were I to go inhouse.
  11. I think 80-85k is probably more likely. If civil litigation means plaintiff side personal injury at a small shop, then it could be more like 60 to 70k
  12. It sounds like your primary problem is you work for a nightmare partner. The hired back juniors probably know enough to avoid him or her so you are stuck to them yourself. Things were probably juggled around because no one wants to work for the partner. The thing about a-holes who have a lot of business, is while they might not be kicked out of the firm because of their business, the rest of the firm usually knows how bad they are. There should be someone whose job it is to deal with your concerns, like an associate coordinator or something. They will already know your partner's reputation. Same for other lawyers who might provide you alternate work. Getting away from an important partner is difficult. The easiest way without rocking the boat is taking on incrementally more work from elsewhere. Whether this is even possible will depend on your group and how your firm distributes work.
  13. Those are all excellent firms. Differentiating between them will be very lawyer specific. I think a recruiter would probably help with your situation. I can’t imagine negligible market perception differences could be a major factor in your choice. Davies is smaller than the other firms listed, but is clearly a peer firm for high level finance/merger work. They just don’t compete in certain practice areas. Canada is more mid-market than the UK and as such my impression is very few firms have practitioners exclusively specialising in specific types of financing. So I think broader corporate work reputation is probably more instructive than that Chambers ranking. It is not my practice area though. The elite firm most notably absent from your list is Stikemans.
  14. Even if Bond offered an objectively good education, the reaction in this thread should tell you that you will be perceived negatively by at least a decent percentage of the profession. I have known lawyers who seemed perfectly good who went to law schools in the UK and Australia that I have not heard of, and I cannot help but judge them.
  15. Agreed with Constant. No need to stay the whole time. Every year there is some guy who stays too long actually.
  • Create New...