Jump to content

beyondsection17

Members
  • Content Count

    689
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

825 Good People

About beyondsection17

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3106 profile views
  1. As "senior counsel" is a job title and not an official status, I would imagine it depends on the employer.
  2. Is usage of this word a problem? Plz advise re: same.
  3. Should you do the readings? Yes, probably. Do you need to do the readings to do well in the course? Not necessarily.
  4. I believe the City of Toronto pays their students an annualized salary of 67k. I didn't article there, but that's my understanding.
  5. If I'm being honest, from what you've said in this thread it sounds like you're interested in plaintiff-side personal injury litigation because you like torts and you like helping people. And those are both perfectly fine reasons to go into plaintiff-side PI. I would just caution that, while you think today that you'll enjoy that kind of work, you may feel differently when you get into the trenches and deal with actual clients. I work in insurance defence (declaring my bias off the top here) and when asked why I don't want to do plaintiff-side work, my answer generally is that plaintiffs are either genuinely injured or they are not - and while I cannot imagine making a living writing sob stories for liars, I also cannot imagine taking a 33% cut off the top of a genuinely injured person's settlement to buy a new car or re-line my pool. Therefore, to defence work I go. I understand Diplock's position when he says that he can't imagine a less personal area of law than insurance defence, but I disagree. In my job, I get to deploy resources. If I see a person who's genuinely injured, and we're liable (or are likely to be found mostly liable), I can recommend that we settle the file, and I can recommend the amount that we settle it for. I can genuinely help that person. If I see a file where the person is clearly a fraud, I can recommend that we go balls-to-the-wall defending it and I can personally take that person to trial to defend what my client and I feel is right. There's a lot of fulfillment in that for me, and much more than I would feel simply running a Plaintiff-side quantity practice and settling files for whatever I can get, as fast as I can. Hope that helps.
  6. Anyone who would choose to go to a school that has literally zero alumni practicing law at all, just so that they could live in Toronto for three years, deserves whatever they get re: job prospects.
  7. I appreciate that you're just trying to give people hope and make them feel better, but your post is somewhat dangerous. Your personal experience is necessarily limited to those employers who gave you an interview after seeing that you went to Bond. It makes sense that those employers worried more about personality and fit - you already got across their first threshold. I disagree that this is "most" employers. You have no idea how many firms immediately threw out your application, because they didn't respond to you. My experience - as a lawyer who does not work at a Bay Street firm - is that people absolutely do harbor prejudices, rightly or wrongly, against people who went to law school abroad. This obviously isn't the case across the board - someone immigrating from Australia to Canada who lived and worked as a lawyer in Australia is going to be looked at differently than someone who graduated from York and then went to Bond. But it's there. And you're right that small plaintiff-side personal injury firms or other less-selective areas of law (sorry, OTLA!) are less picky about where you went to school. This, as I'm sure you've realized, is because they cannot afford to be picky. I'm sure there are many firms that regularly hire NCA candidates - but I'm not sure that people who pay through the nose and go into six-figure debt to go to law school abroad dream of one day working in a Brampton strip mall. The problem here is that almost all lawyers who are in the position to potentially employ you were once law students at those same Canadian law schools. This is not good advice. Even the most successful foreign-trained lawyers on this forum tend to encourage candidates to exhaust their Canadian options first before taking the plunge abroad. Yes, spots in law school are limited in Ontario. Jobs for lawyers in Ontario are also limited. Merely graduating with a law degree and passing the bar does not a lawyer make. There are already too many Ontario law students relative to the number of articling and junior lawyer positions available, and the problem is not getting any better as Ontario law schools get greedier and greedier and keep increasing their class sizes. You do not want to start out this rat race far behind everyone else by having a foreign law school on your resume if you don't have to. I don't think performance in law school - Canadian or otherwise - speaks to one's ability as a lawyer either. As the old saying goes - "A" students make good legal academics, "B" students make good lawyers, and "C" students make good judges. And I may be in the minority on this, but I think the LSAT actually tests skills extremely relevant to the practice of law (logical reasoning, issue spotting, ability to read, focus on and comprehend boring passages of text in a time crunch, etc). Quality of education at international schools is not the point - it has never been the point. Nobody cares how your school is ranked internationally. Literally no one. What they care about is that they went to Osgoode, their partner went to Western, their favourite junior is a Queen's grad, etc. Nobody cares that your exams were closed-book, that your profs were good, etc. What they care about is that other candidates in their pile of 1000 resumes got into Canadian law schools, by having good grades and a strong LSAT, and you didn't. Sorry. I hope I'm not coming across as a hater. That is not my intention. I'm not trying to beat down those people who have already made the decision to go abroad. But your post was going to give future unsuspecting undergrads the impression that going abroad for law school is not as bad for your career as people say, and that's a dangerous (and expensive) suggestion to make.
  8. September is always weird. Particularly for the articling students, who have to watch the summer students go back to school and continue their school-year routine, while they stay at work - and for whom this is often their first september ever where they're NOT in school. The realization that "oh, this is just my life now" really sets in at this time of year. It's weird. Undoubtedly.
  9. Careful - the thought of self-driving cars makes many MVA-reliant insurance lawyers want to vomit.
  10. Haha. I didn't make that argument - someone else did. But you may feel differently about your position on this issue if you saw what 90% of plaintiffs' claims actually look like.
  11. Recent cases? Sabadash. El-Khodr. Cobb. Oldies but goodies? - Heath & Economical. Henry & Gore Mutual. Smith & Cooperators. Insurance law has cases too, believe it or not! However I wouldn't recommend this strategy (which, to clarify, was originally suggested as a joke) if you want to come across as a cool cat at a cocktail party.
  12. A lot of people say they were "yelled at" in articling when what they really mean is that they were given negative feedback, sometimes with less tact than they would like, and it was a blow to their ego. This will probably happen to you, and it is not inherently a bad thing. Criticism makes you better.
×
×
  • Create New...