Jump to content

barelylegal

Members
  • Content Count

    980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

barelylegal last won the day on August 18 2018

barelylegal had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1028 Good People

1 Follower

About barelylegal

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3561 profile views
  1. Possibly for a solicitor practice involving securities work. But not litigation, which is what OP identified an interest in.
  2. I think OP has a lot of misguided perspectives about what a commercial litigation practice in a large firm actually looks like, and the nature of the clients overall. I won't try to unpack that. But I do want to caution OP not to presume they will get any particular job based on their prior experience - for example, it is by no means a given that private equity experience before law school would necessarily land you a legal job at the OSC. Those jobs available to law students are given out primarily based on law school grades and law school experience, just like any other position. Prior industry experience could be considered an asset, but would not outweigh the other considerations.
  3. Yes. Particularly within the formal recruitment processes, but also likely outside of it to some extent, employers frequently request law school and undergraduate transcripts. No distinction is made for mature vs. non-mature students. If you do not supply undergraduate transcripts, you have not complied with the application requirements/instructions. If you supply some, but not all, undergraduate transcripts, that is misleading.
  4. +1 - not a solicitor, but when I'm negotiating contracts as part of my litigation practice, this is how I approach this situation.
  5. They may not have hired you on, but it doesn't mean you weren't a good candidate, and it doesn't mean you necessarily did a bad job in the interview. Every year, we have way more good people than spots to fill. In my office, we frequently get applications from students who applied/interviewed for, but weren't hired in, another city's office, but the other office was impressed enough by them that they recommend the student to us. I know of at least one occasion where we hired a student for articling who had previously interviewed for another office and didn't get hired there, but made a good impression. If you have the sense that you did well, but just didn't quite make the cut - why not reach out to the partner you spoke with, say you really enjoyed getting to know the firm and were sorry not to have received an offer, but recall him/her mentioning that a different office had practice areas of particular interest to you? You could say you're interested in learning more about that office and ask if there's a particular person they'd recommend you reach out to. Worst case they say no - best case, you get a referral to someone in the other office, which can only help you get your foot in the door.
  6. Lots of people request feedback. Best bet is to reach out to a student coordinator / main contact point rather than an interviewing lawyer (at our firm, when feedback is requested, the student coordinator will canvass the interviewing lawyers for comment so we don't all have to respond to individual requests), and maybe give it until next week to let everyone catch their breath.
  7. Sorry for the long response time - was respecting the blackout period, then focused on some actual billable work after all this time spent on articling interviews! Yes, my situation was a case where the firm gave an offer to a candidate that did not consider them to be a first choice. I disagree that it's shady. Wouldn't you rather have more information than less? I'd want to know if I was still a serious contender for my first choice firm, as opposed to accepting a lower-choice firm and then kicking myself on later receiving an offer I would have preferred. No one can require you to do anything - in my case, when the firm asked me to hold off on accepting another offer (which I actually think was because they were trying to open up an additional articling student spot), the choice as to whether to do so or not was still mine, weighing the information I had available. Plus, the "first choice" words can be important, but they aren't the be all and end all. At my firm, we base offers on how much we like a candidate - saying we're your "first choice" can help, but if we're impressed enough by you, failing to say those words won't keep you from getting an offer. You never know what's going to happen - students try to hedge their bets in the interview process, and so do firms.
  8. This is true. When my first choice firm told me I was next on their list in the event one other person rejected, and they knew I had another offer outstanding, I had the student coordinator and one of the lawyers calling me and asking me to hold off on accepting another offer.
  9. If your first choice firm calls you at 5pm - great, accept right away. If your second choice (or further down) firm calls you at 5pm - ask for time to consider and say you'll get back to them as soon as you can. Then reach out to your first choice firm (if you haven't heard from them otherwise) and try to find out where you stand / if you'll be receiving an offer. You can try this with any firm ranked higher than the firm whose offer you're waiting on. If you accept your second choice, and then later get an offer from your first choice - you've already accepted an offer and can't accept a different one now. Basically, the rules generally mean that offers must be permitted to remain open for acceptance until 5pm the next day, BUT you should act in good faith and not sit on offers for no reason. Take the blackout period to really consider your options and make your preference rankings, then just do the best you can with whatever comes at 5. I had this experience when I did the articling recruit years ago. My second choice employer (which happened to be my current summer employer) called me right at 5, and I said I needed time to consider, which they understood. Then I heard from my first choice firm, which told me I was next on their list if one person they had extended an offer to opted not to accept. I then had to wait, sitting on my first offer, for about two hours until my first choice firm could actually give me an answer. You just do the best you can.
  10. I wouldn't recommend making posts about how "the second interview calls have gone out" for any particular firm. Firms do first interviews on Monday and Tuesday, meaning second interview calls may go out on both Monday and Tuesday. If you interview on Monday and don't get a second interview call on Monday... you could still get a second interview call on Tuesday. At least some firms reserve some second interview slots for people who interview on Tuesday, but depending on how the Tuesday interviews go, some of those reserved slots could end up going to people who interviewed on Monday.
  11. I think this will probably be something that no one can answer universally. You could get an interviewer who thinks the lack of eye contact is awkward or something, I don't know. But personally, I'd never dock a candidate for that - I fail at making camera eye contact constantly and would never hold that against someone, it's really difficult if your camera isn't perfectly placed (I work on a huge monitor so my camera is unnaturally high for me to make eye contact, I can't both look at the camera and what's on my screen). I can't really see others docking points for this, but also can't speak for everyone.
  12. It's less about that than it is about capacity/resources. A small firm will probably interview fewer people because they have fewer lawyers who can be doing interviews, so can only fit so many interviews into the interview period. Large firms have more interviewer resources and have the capacity to have numerous interviews going on at once, plus they want to have the best odds of getting the best candidates, so they typically interview more people.
  13. This is really really important and it's nothing you should take personally. Sure, they might have some substantive comments on review, but the most important reason the firm needs to review is for business considerations - firms can't have their lawyers writing pieces with opinions/views that are contrary to the interests of their significant clients, could have negative business implications. Also important that you not be writing on matters that the firm is involved in and are before the court.
  14. I know because my firm hires articling students and I participate in interviews, so I receive information. Our firm is hiring the same number of articling students as we usually do, but I know we have substantially more applications than we typically receive. As others have noted, there are a number of reasons, but also - we're seeing applications from people whose articling positions fell apart due to COVID, and are now applying for the next cycle.
  15. I understand that there are significantly more applications this year than usual, so ITC/PFO turnaround times may be longer.
×
×
  • Create New...