TKNumber3

If revenue is down overall, further reducing projected revenue by lowering targets doesn’t really make much sense.

There is also a fallacy in comparing "big firms" generally vs "small firms" generally. It's easier to look at a big firm as a collection of specialized medium sized firms. The work I do, and training/experience/exposure I get, at a big firm can be quite different from an equal year of call in a different area/group/department. Likewise, smaller firms are highly driven by clientele and individual partner managing strategies. Law is very much an apprenticeship profession, even if we don't necessarily structure it that way entirely. So it will naturally vary not only between firms of the same size, but within a firm as well.

#details

A lot of firms handle the "billable" vs "billed" hours differently. Personally, I think all should be billable and then written down before being billed (including student time) so there is an accurate capture of what went into the file. Otherwise time is "lost" and things look like they can be done quickly or there is greater capacity than there really is. Is your target significantly below the impossible 1800 you mentioned? If so, it's less clear cut of a distinction. If you looked at it as an "hours worked on a file", would it line up more closely with 1800? Also, is the non billable still being tracked on the file? That helps you distinguish worked but unbilled hours from true non billable like BD. Ultimately there's no clear cut approach, and it can even vary by lawyer/client within a firm. It may be worth raising if it's egregious, or if your compensation is going to be greatly affected.

Of they are offering you a job, covid is likely less of a concern. It's very unlikely there would be approval to hire followed closely by layoffs. At least that would be my gut reaction on it.

Yea it’s the law society/insurance I’d worry about, not clients.

Gotta love the mindset of lawyers some time. Should a short term disruption just mean you lay off the slow groups? Sounds great until your group has a slow month.

Problem is, that’s rarely the question. Instead, people want to know if A is better than B, full stop, making the exercise rather pointless.

I guess I don't really understand what people hope to get out of these type of discussions. "Rankings" are only as useful as the metric, and impacted by the practice area. Even "practice area" is probably too broad. Do people want 100 subjective comments that will somehow be pushed through an algorithm to determine the best? Factor in that most people only work for a small number of forms at most, it's not like ranking the best wing night in town. Firms are full of people, and people interact differently with one another. Practice groups can also rise and fall over time. There is no magic ranking. Students go in fairly blind, but they can then drive based on their interests. Stay or move elsewhere. There's not much else to it. Oh, and re questions about how a firm is "doing" is respect of cutting or not cutting salaries, what do you want a review of the balance sheet?

Interesting dilemma. Should they hire fewer students, given they apparently don't have room for the whole cohort, thereby reducing articling opportunities? Is it good or bad that a firm over leverages articling spaces?

I haven't looked into it cause I'm still a ways out from buying, but is the "variable always better" still holding true over the last 5-7 years? Seems like the gap between fixed and variable has shrunk significantly, with only a small uptick on variable negating any advantage.

Yes, you'd forfeit your deposit if you later accepted UofC. For transfers, it's been a number of years but transfers were very low. UofC runs (or at least used to) a small class, so not many openings. However, UofA places well in Calgary for work if that is your plan. For prep, don't do anything. You've got no issues with science background, you'll learn the specific styles required the same as everyone else.

Cause there's definitely no incentive for a financial planner to get you to load up on mutual funds... This is one of those debates with no "correct" answer and so many different opinions I'm not sure there's really somewhere you can look for a truly independent opinion.

Could be a difficult one to tiptoe into if your firm doesn’t practice. It’s kind of like real estate to some extent, practices are built upon high volume filings with lots of work done by clerks/assistants to keep costs down and volumes up.

There’s also the constructive dismissal risk to cutting salaries, plus general associate grumbling, so makes sense to avoid if possible. I don’t think that it’s off the table if not done yet. If anything, it gives insight into a firms cash holdings for how long they can delay.