Jump to content

realpseudonym

Members
  • Content Count

    716
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by realpseudonym

  1. Yeah, I wasn’t casting judgment either When our receptionist tells me that so-and-so is on the phone, half the time I say “who?” because it’s someone I talked to for twenty minutes eight months ago and we didn’t get retained. Our receptionist probably thinks I’m an idiot, but luckily only she knows that I need to look up almost every name in our filing system before I can say anything useful.
  2. I mean, not maybe. Definitely. Look, I'm glad to hear that prosecutors are taking their job seriously. It's a serious job, and the public, victims of crime, and accused persons all deserve Crowns who approach their work with a sense of purpose and integrity. So kudos to you on that. But like, holy shit. Uncontrollable weeping? Constant dread? 18 hours a day at the Crown's office? That's no way to live. I'll defer to MP, krazykanuck etc, too. And, of course, also to everyone far more senior than me. Which is absolutely everyone. But, as someone learning to manage expectations (both my own and those of others), I'm finding that I do need to make my own wellbeing a priority. I'm pretty new at my stuff too. And sometimes that means feeling like I'm staring down a bottomless well of ignorance on every file, which can only be filled with long hours of independent research and familiarizing myself with every case. The reality is that I'm learning that it's okay to be disappointing sometimes. And that's fine. It doesn't mean being incompetent. It just means setting expectations, including for me. Like, when there isn't a deadline, I'll tell the client I don't have time, and I'll put off writing and filing an application for a couple of days. Sure, the client is stressed and wants it done ASAP, but sometimes I want go home at 8:30 pm instead of 10:00 pm, so that I have time to make a healthy dinner. Or I'll rely on someone else's memo for a certain point of law, rather than doing all my own research. The latter would probably make me more comfortable in my understanding, but in the end, the memo gives me the leading cases and that's all I end up really needing. That's worth it to me, if I get time to exercise. And like others are saying, honestly, no one is perfect. And specific to Crowns, none of them are being held to a standard of perfection. Especially in the early stages of a proceeding, when I approached Crowns to ask about resolution or disclosure etc before some routine appearance, I'd say my client's name and be met with a completely blank look. I'd summarize the charges, and the Crown would rummage through a large stack of folders, find my client's, and read it (obviously, for the first time, given the facial expressions) before they could tell me anything. And even though they obviously weren't perfectly prepared, things turned out fine for them once they were on their feet before the judge. No one has time to do everything. Seriously, set boundaries. Do things for yourself. Exercise. See a doctor. Eat lunch, even if you're a little less ready for the afternoon. Go home earlier. Because, while maybe you're managing to hold it together now, God help both of us if I end up doing a case in your jurisdiction three years from now and I have to deal with some dead-eyed husk of a lawyer. You won't be helping anyone at that point.
  3. Anyone who dares soil the great name of Pseudonym and Hat LLP with their shitty HRTO diaper claim will find themselves in deep shit. I mean, shit will hit the fan. They'll be up shit creek without a paddle. Or a job. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that they won't see jack shit from me. Because, I mean, I know that shit happens, but I was just shooting the shit over here. Also, English. A breathtakingly beautiful language.
  4. Lol I’m hardly an expert in big law hiring, but if a candidate smells like they have a full diaper, I’m not sure they’re the right fit for my office.
  5. Some people say that an owl shape in the bottom of teacup portends sickness, while a triangle means that you should somehow expect unexpected good luck. And while trying to extract meaning from compost is good fun up to a point, I'd be a little bit concerned if I knew my future lawyer was spending too much time on the matter. I feel the same way about your question. You're trying to read the tea leaves. You're free to do so. But it's a waste of time.
  6. People are saying that the very bad and morally corrupt firms on bay “street” are refusing to understand non disclosure agreements. So pathetic to expect the elite Toronto lawyers to play by the rules. Total scam! Make agreements non-disclosed again!
  7. Political science students also make a lot of noise, so pretty sure the analogy holds.
  8. Lol, no, they don't have a leg up. Initially, they might be more familiar with terminology. It's true that in an abstract way, you'd kinda know the parts of government and the names for the different offices, if you studied poli sci (and I did). And yeah, knowing more of the words makes the readings easier on the first pass. But that's really a very small advantage. Those poli sci grads will still have to learn the section 15 Kapp framework. They'll still need to learn the Zellerbach test for POGG and Meiorin for the human rights stuff, or whatever it is now (I assume that I'm not already completely out of date on this stuff). Law school is largely about being able to learn the law, so that you can quickly apply the rules and principles to the fact-set on your exams. Just because they had a seminar where they talked about cabinet confidence or whatever, it doesn't mean that they're any better positioned than you are. Despite whatever they say, you're all more or less starting fresh. Don't worry about them right now. This is , to put this in terms you might be familiar with at the moment, mere puffery.
  9. Caveat that I'm not exactly an expert on OCIs, never having worked at a big firm. But I think it's fair to say that you want to sound like you understand the job you're interviewing for. If you're asking about practice areas that aren't a focus for them, then that's not great. But it probably also depends on what you can be reasonably expected to know. If they're still advertising a practice area or something and you ask about it, then maybe it might make your interest seem a little less credible, but hopefully it won't get held too strongly against you otherwise. If your question reveals that you haven't done your homework on a firm, then I would expect that you're going to have problems.
  10. I studied for slightly over four weeks and was very rushed. That said, I was working full time and still passed, despite not being an amazing test taker. I see four weeks FT as doable, if you’re someone who can read for long periods of time and still sorta process boring summaries on estate administration taxes, limitation periods, and the history of subdivision under section 50 of the planning act. But like the posters above, I think that’s gonna depend on you.
  11. What areas of law do you have experience in? In what areas of law are the jobs that you're applying for? Edit: also, how many interviews are we talking about? Five interviews with no offers could very well mean that there were five more qualified candidates than you. Thirty interviews with no offers could suggest an interviewing problem.
  12. Wasn't my intention (I meant middle school in the sense of seeming cliquish and exclusive, not that the posters here belong in middle school), but it was written that way. I deleted it, but I apologize to anyone who read it and felt like I was mocking them.
  13. I'd agree that it's messed up that there isn't more accountability for firms that subject their employees -- particularly articling students, whose vulnerability can be heightened by the need to article vis-a-vis a regular employee -- to abuse. I don't see anyone disagreeing with you on that. And, while it's not totally the same, the Doroshenko case highlighted that abusive work environments exist in this profession, especially for women. I think people here (being lawyers) are sorta just doing the analysis in their heads, and wondering what the practical resolution to your problem will be, if you escalate the issue further. Setting boundaries that allow you to finish articling with your sanity intact would probably be best. But, that doesn't seemed to have happened. Escalating internally? Maybe, but given that you've mentioned that your principal treats you poorly, it's hard to say that's going to work. Beyond that, you're into a full blown complaint/application scenario, where you'd need to undertake all the usual legal questions, like forum choice, merit assessment, and consideration of what remedies you'd be seeking. Remedies are possible. Ms. Ojanen's counterclaim ensured some consequences for Mr. Doroshenko. But the damages were pretty low. And, at the end of the day, he's a lawyer and she still hasn't satisfied the experiential requirement of the licensing process. I wouldn't agree that your expectations are too high -- at least not in a normative sense. No employee should be yelled at. It's just that my thought, and I'm just echoing others, is that if you're serious about getting called, leaving this position without a new position or blowing it up through complaints, is unlikely to further your goal of becoming a lawyer. I think you know that: you've said you're looking for something else, and seem to be taking the decision of whether to stay or go seriously. I think it's more just what I have to tell my clients a lot: I can't think of a perfect solution for you. If I could, I would've suggested it by now. Your situation is shitty. So all I can really offer is my sympathies that your entry into the profession has been so rocky, and my best wishes in finding a new articling position / grinding it out where you are.
  14. I'd recommend reaching out to family lawyers, rather than upper year law students about this. Upper years tend to have about the same knowledge of legal practice as you do: almost none (give or take a summer of doing whatever at somewhere, plus or minus some anecdotal evidence, and a handful of networking events and interviews). It's true that family doesn't usually pay as well as someone doing commercial transactions -- institutional or individual clients doing commercial transactions typically have far more money to pay for legal services than those engaged in custody battles, divorce, division of property, etc. And certain kinds of files, e.g., child protection, where there's a lot of disclosure for a small-ish legal aid certificate, don't pay well. However, I don't think it's true that there's no opportunity in family. @artsydork?
  15. This isn’t a defence of the assistant’s behaviour. But post-concussion syndrome (provided it was a concussion) can produce a lot of mood changes, including the kind of irritability and depression that can produce kinda extreme outbursts. I had a very serious concussion 10+ years ago, and didn’t have the luxury of stopping work and school while I recovered. I don’t think I actually yelled or called people names, but I was definitely unpleasant to be around for the weeks after I was discharged from hospital, and I remain grateful to the people who were supporting and accommodating to me. I’m not trying to say you should have to tolerate abuse. You shouldn’t. But it’s possible that this is more of a one-off situation where everyone is navigating a difficult health issue while she recovers than it is reflective of a generally shitty workplace. Maybe she’s just an abusive asshole. However, if she had what I had, your boss, presumably being the one going home with her every night, is the one taking the brunt of her behaviour. Not you. If that’s the case, I do question whether storming into his office and demanding change is going to be well-received.
  16. Awkward introverts can fit in too . I speak from personal experience: 28 years as a card-carrying awkward introvert. And counting. I formed most of my close law school friends in second and third year. Give it time. First semester of first year of law school is not really a good gauge of anything. A lot of people are finding their footing. A lot of people are putting on a bit of a performance. In my class, things calmed down after the first set of exams, as people figured out what works and what doesn't. Everyone relaxed a little and became a bit easier to be around. The neurosis will be in full gear again around OCIs, though. Watching the second year recruit is really a spectacle -- it's like watching some Amazonian bird mating dance on a Planet Earth documentary.
  17. If OP (a) graduates with a JD from a recognized Canadian institution or an NCA equivalent and (b) can work in Ontario, then the LPP is an option.
  18. I always unbutton my jacket when seated. So unless I had to stand during the interview, then I imagine unbuttoned.
  19. I did a bunch of PBSC in first and second year. Honestly, none of them were great. But I picked ones that gave me practice doing some basic things (research, client interviewing, SLA, etc). That practice was invaluable in my other, better extracurriculars later on -- I think I had a bit of a headstart on when I got to clinics in upper year, insofar as having a few basic skills to really dive in on files and end up with a lot of substantive experience and responsibilities.
  20. Without sounding like a fortune cookie writer dropping acid in a second year philosophy seminar, good advice often answers an unasked question. It happens here and it happens with clients: someone submits a request for information or opinions, and others, who (hopefully) have more expertise or experience comply by providing the advice sought. But in many cases, the question doesn't accurately capture the root of the problem. For example, "what LSAT score do I need to get into Queens" is really an issue of if and how the candidate will be competitive at his/her desired school. "Which UK law school is best for practicing corporate law in Canada" often calls into question the reasonableness of OPs expectations and the viability of the proposed plan. "How do I sue the complainant for defamation" might reasonably lead you to ask whether the proceedings in question have been resolved, and if not, how they should be defending themself first. That's why Diplock collects "likes" like gym selfie featuring yoga pants on instagram: where the framing of the question seeks to elicit temporary comfort or short-term indulgence rather than a critical look at the underlying issue, he's good at letting everyone know that's what is happening (although I suppose that's the opposite of a gym selfie). Well that, and a brashly entertaining writing style. Also, while I wasn't going to belabour my point, I do love to belabour a point. I always find the "that's not what I/OP asked!!" response odd on a public forum. While there should be some effort to be responsive and on-topic (unlike what I'm writing), our answers aren't just read by the OP, but sometimes hundreds of others. So the OPs own wishes aren't necessarily the determinative: our responses are better when we aid other readers, rather than just the one who got around to asking the question. Anyway, if anyone wanted to read my defence of derails, I'm glad I've been able to satisfy your very specific desire.
  21. Fuck the TTC? Wait until you move to Port Credit or something and you're ready to fuck the GO train.
  22. You probably could. But, as you might be implying in the second half of your paragraph, it's not about ease or your ability, it's about licensees' compliance with their professional obligations. Legal work by a non-licensee must be reviewed by a lawyer or paralegal. Review takes time. Corrections take time. With less resources, lawyers have less time. And so there are fewer volunteer positions.
×
×
  • Create New...