Jump to content

setto

Members
  • Content Count

    997
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

setto last won the day on May 22

setto had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

659 Good People

1 Follower

About setto

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1753 profile views
  1. I'm at a small office of a larger firm - so it has a midsize vibe. I would say the 10 hours reflects my experience as well.
  2. You should be drafting memos, statement of claims, etc. It's understandable that there will be more administrative tasks when you don't have assistants or staff, but the majority of your time should be spent learning how to practice law - memos, pleadings, research, negotiations, etc. It's pretty much the whole point of articling.
  3. And don't forget the oh so important abstract. Or as it's known in law, a "headnote".
  4. This. In law school, I had a lot of trouble with reading vast quantities of material and distilling it down to ratios. Science textbooks are basically the opposite - no real "obiter", just straight facts where, generally, every line of information is crucial. My writing skills were (and still are in practice...) basically garbage because all I ever knew was lab reports. Embarrassingly enough, I didn't even know federalism was a thing when I started law school and had no idea how basic government worked. Interestingly enough, I did very well on law school exams. A science background gives you a great foundation in technical reasoning and analysis. You are trained to look at all the tools (ratios) in your arsenal in order to solve a problem (like a hypo on an exam) using outside the box analysis, logic, and reasoning. Maybe you won't be able to wax-poetic on exams (which some profs despise, btw), but you as @BringBackCrunchBerries said, you will have a great foundation that law exams test. Once you survive midterms, everybody basically is on the same footing.
  5. Note: the bolded does not really hold true for Edmonton (and to some extent Calgary) networking functions.
  6. New call here as well. I would say about 75% of my practice is tax related. Things I worked on while articling: Corporate reorganizations and rollovers; pipeline transactions; Amalgamations and windups using certain parts of the Act; Nearing the end of my articles, I moved more towards researching and writing about substantive tax issues and their application to a transaction an accountant is proposing (does GST apply in XYZ, will a loan to a shareholder result in application of subsection blah blah). I also started moving away from discrete issues into planning transactions (what's the best way to move X shares into the shareholder's of Y corps hands in the most tax effective and least costly manner). Chances are that unless you're a tax litigator, you're going to feel like you are doing accounting work in some sense. CPAs apparently practice a good bit of tax law and people just sorta turn a blind eye to it. They will often direct me on how to setup a transaction and what sections to use (or at least try to).
  7. Recent call here. I'm still finding my feet so I'm not the most efficient biller. But in a 10 hour work day, I bill about 7 hours. I'm too junior to know what something should be worth so I don't really value-bill (per @pineapple21's comment). I will say this, though, short of running a trial, I get the impression that it is much easier to bill time in solicitor work than litigation. I tend to sit down for a task, flip on the timer, and bill away without interruptions. But there are some caveats. For example, I practice a lot in tax and am seeking to specialize in it. At least an hour of my day is spent catching up on various tax publications which can have a meaningful impact on some of the transactions I'm working on.
  8. Who is feeding you this nonsense? It's not a bad sign. Get in there and be confident and kick some ass.
  9. If you've been offered an interview then I wouldn't bring another resume. If it's something really important or will separate you from the pack, try to bring it up organically during the interview if the correct opportunity presents its. Ex: Dusty old partner: "Well Almondbutter, I see from your list of academic awards that you won the provincial pie eating contest, can you tell me more about that?" Almondbutter: "Oof, there was so much pie. And that's not even that half of it! I recently won the national pie eating contest." I think it would be a bit weird to hand out new CV's in an interview or send revised ones in before.
  10. Maybe for large institutional clients but I don't think this applies to all corporate transactions. Often times it's just a corporation with one person, or a family running the whole show. I will represent Joe's Coffee House that only has Joe Owner as an employee. Sure, I represent that employer, but I assure you that what happens to Joe's Coffee House is very personal to Joe Owner. This is especially true for juniors who get assigned the smaller transactions.
  11. The salary is considerably higher in NYC compared to TO. NYC you're bringing home ~130k after taxes (USD), TO you're looking at ~77k (assuming 110k 1st year). Having said that here are some other considerations: No articling (or articling salary) in NYC. You write the New York bar and make associate salary in 1st year. Cost of living in NYC is insane. Lifestyles will vary considerably. You may end up more comfortable in Toronto at 110k then NYC at 130k (but NYC is a much more fun city). Health insurance - premiums for an individual in the US will be $500 US/mo. Generally easier to support a family in TO than NYC (your insurance premiums will go up to about $1,200.00/mo, the school system is fucked and you basically need to win a lottery, and housing is significantly less complicated for a single individual or a couple).
  12. When an employer preaches about "making sure this is the area of law that [you] really want", it's a prime opportunity to talk about yourself and why you're a good candidate. Just tie in the information about yourself with why you want to practice in the particular area.
  13. Banks want your debt as it generates income. They aren't doing your favours by extending a line of credit to you, it's a service they offer. So if you find a bank with a better rate, use it to purchase your debt. Ex: You owe Bank1 $X at 3%. Borrow $X at 2.5% from Bank2 on the condition that you will be using it to pay off Bank1. Use borrowed $X from Bank2 to pay Bank1. Now you owe Bank2 $X at 2.5%. There are nuances to the arrangement, but basically you are consolidating your debt...but with one debt.
×
×
  • Create New...