Jump to content

beyondsection17

Members
  • Content Count

    656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

741 Good People

About beyondsection17

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2658 profile views
  1. How did that lawyer introduce him or herself? Mirror the lawyer's own language.
  2. I work in-house as a junior lawyer. I work in a litigation office, so my workload ebbs and flows. I generally work 8:30-6:30, unless something is on fire. I work weekends when I have a trial or arbitration coming up, or when I have deadlines I need to meet. Other lawyers here of varying years of call do the same. But it varies - if it's a chill time of year and I don't have something on fire, I can often leave at like 5:30 and not work weekends at all.
  3. Oh this is the most important thing you can do, in my opinion. I blocked off a few days before each exam just to re-read through the materials and do practice questions. I bought my indexes through Ontario Law Exam so I had two full practice exams at my disposal. I went through the practice exam a day or two before the real exam and would practice looking up the answer to every single question, in a minute and a half, even if I knew the answer. Practicing finding answers in your materials is, IMO, the best thing you can do to prepare. Having practiced this way, when I took the actual bar exams I ended up having lots of time to spare.
  4. I agree with Ryn re: tabbing the chapters and having secondary material with information like timelines, rules, etc. Also make sure you have a timesheet. Unlike Ryn, however, my materials were extremely colourful. I had an elaborate system of highlighting (I think I did pink = defined terms, blue = time, orange = cases, green = statute, yellow = other). I also tried to write a word in the margin next to each paragraph (or each group of paragraphs) indicating the main topic discussed in that section. My hope was that the highlighting would help me isolate the answers I'm looking for on the exams, and my notetaking would help me find topics quickly on the page. In all honesty, the main benefit of my highlighting / note-taking system was probably that it helped me stay awake while reading the materials. In the exam, I barely noticed my highlighting. My notes in the margins came in handy a few times. My index and tabs on the chapters came in handy every single time.
  5. This is exactly what I imagine when people brag about mooting immediately in 1L - young people playing dress-up and arguing aimlessly about a topic they don't understand, against other people who also don't understand that topic, so that they can feel like they're on Suits. You've been in law school for five minutes - just learn the law. If you want to be a litigator, get a job in litigation. Junior for someone who knows what they're doing. Watch and learn from lawyers who were not in high school four years ago.
  6. I don't think the average Canadian-trained lawyer has any idea whatsoever which international schools require an LSAT and which don't, or what the admissions criteria are at any of these places. Nor do they care.
  7. TRU and Lakehead are in rural areas. These schools actually back up their mandates. It also makes sense that we could use some new law schools (and new lawyers) in northern Ontario and the BC interior. Ryerson is in Toronto. We don't need new lawyers in Toronto.
  8. Happy to. Here's my breakdown of why I think that statement on Ryerson's website is utterly ridiculous: "Ryerson’s Faculty of Law reimagines legal education to create a new kind of lawyer..." Ryerson's Faculty of Law is not re-imagining legal education. They are profiting off of the knowledge that there's a large number of people in Canada who want to be lawyers but who can't get into law school in Canada, and who would rather go to Ryerson than Bond. Additionally, from reviewing their curriculum, it looks like Ryerson's "re-imagined" legal education involves [most of] the same core classes as every other school, with fewer elective options probably because they can't find people to teach them, and with some mandatory coding workshop. Gee, I really would have benefitted from that workshop during all those times I had to code in my job. "...one who is technologically savvy..." Every young lawyer who graduates from law school in 2019 is more technologically savvy than the dinosaurs who are dictating their letters and using their assistants as typists. This has nothing to do with Ryerson and everything to do with the fact that graduates from law school (any law school) are generally in their 20s and 30s. The website brags that their students will have access to WestlawNext Canada and LexisNexis Advance. These services are available to all students at every school and Ryerson is making it seem as though they're special for having access to these fundamental legal research tools. A coding workshop does not a good lawyer make. "...equipped with diverse work experience..." The fact that Ryerson offers fewer course selections than any other school and feeds directly into the LPP are being presented as though they are positive attributes. I find this assertion to be silly. "...and driven to expand the reach of justice." I see this as being the least offensive point in this sentence because, while utterly meaningless, it's true that every law school is equally guilty of spewing this sort of meaningless garbage. If Ryerson wanted to be honest about their aim to "expand the reach of justice" or whatever, they would mandate that their students work for underprivileged populations or in rural areas for x number of years after graduation, or something to that effect. Yet how much do you want to bet that Ryerson will set up an OCI recruit at their school the minute they have 2Ls to churn through it? "The legal profession is changing and so too must law school." The best thing a law school like Ryerson can do for the future of the legal profession is not open at all. The last thing the ~changing~ legal profession needs is another 200 graduates being called to the already overcrowded Bar every year.
  9. "Ryerson’s Faculty of Law reimagines legal education to create a new kind of lawyer, one who is technologically savvy, equipped with diverse work experience and driven to expand the reach of justice. The legal profession is changing and so too must law school." Are these people serious?
  10. Richard McLaren, along with being a pretty accomplished lawyer and sports arbitrator, is the Western Law professor who was responsible for spearheading the investigation into the Russian doping scheme at Sochi 2014. He hires groups of students every year to work for him, so if you're interested in that sort of work, that's definitely a good option for you. It sounds like you're pretty set on Western, and are just considering Osgoode because you feel like you should. Western is a great school, you'll lessen your debt load and will gain exposure into the areas of law in which you're currently interested. Why not go?
  11. I work in insurance defence in one of those in-house departments everyone's always talking about. For what it's worth, I really like this area of law and I definitely appreciate the benefits of working at an in-house litigation department. From speaking to friends and co-defendant counsel at defence firms, it seems like they're definitely feeling the pressure of increasing expectations from insurance companies in exchange for what seems like less and less money. It makes sense. If you imagine for a moment that Desjardins (for example) can pay a lawyer at Defence Firm LLP $350/hour to defend a claim, or can pay an in-house lawyer $150k/year to defend 100 claims, you can see why all the insurance companies are growing their in-house departments. Additionally, since lawyers in-house are on salary and not paid by the hour, the insurer's counsel fees don't increase if they choose to take a file to trial. As a result, the lawyers can afford to take stronger positions and be more litigious. Plaintiff counsel start to understand at the getgo that it may not be worth it to issue a claim against Aviva (for example) for a file where the Plaintiff isn't going to meet the threshold, because they will actually go to trial, and win, and enforce the costs order to the extent they are able. The cycle is self-perpetuating. Re: the industry disappearing - it seems like people have been predicting the end of MVA litigation for the last 20 years, and even more adamantly every time a new version of the SABS comes out. I don't know what's going to happen, but it seems like a lot of smoke and not a lot of fire. There's also talk among the bar that OTLA is petitioning the government to help "save" AB. I don't know much about this, as I'm not a member of OTLA. Basically, the generally accepted wisdom is that if you want a job that's high-risk, high-reward, you're better off working on the plaintiff side. If you're more interested in stability and are ok with making less money, defence work is for you. Hope that helps.
  12. I think when people talk about the importance of going to school where you want to practice, they're not so much speaking to the people choosing between Osgoode and Queen's as they are speaking to the people choosing between Osgoode and UBC. Osgoode and Queen's both largely serve the Toronto market. I definitely believe that some schools have more of a community vibe than others do. I went to one of those schools known for having a good sense of community in Ontario and I am quite happy with my choice. But if I wanted to work in Vancouver, I think I would be ill-served by going to school at Queen's over UBC (for example). That's all we're saying. Lastly, I would encourage you to survey a randomly selected group of practicing lawyers and ask them what type of law they were interested in when they applied to law school. I'll bet you that less than half are doing the type of law they originally planned to do. By way of example, I did not enter law school dreaming of one day being an insurance defence lawyer. And yet, here I am. And I enjoy it! And it pays my bills. And that's great.
  13. No, I have no idea if that means your acceptance is likely. I'm not on the Admissions Committee. What I do know is that the fact you received this letter means they're considering accepting you and are waiting for your most recent grades before making a decision one way or the other.
  14. This topic comes up every year. Every year I chime in. (Hi Danielle! ) You received a letter saying they're deferring your decision because you are one of the candidates who would be considered a "splitter". You probably had a low first two years and are relying on high grades in your "last two" years to gain admission. You're probably currently in school and will be submitting your current year's grades to Western once you receive them. This letter means Western is waiting for your current year marks before making an admission decision on your file. If you have received this letter it means you have not yet been rejected, you have not been waitlisted, and if you have good grades this year, you could well be accepted. It means exactly what it says - a decision has not yet been made on your file. Just chill. Study for your exams, do what you can, then go where the wind takes you.
×
×
  • Create New...