Jump to content

realpseudonym

Members
  • Content Count

    650
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by realpseudonym


  1. 1 hour ago, steversteves said:

    Lots of interesting feedback! 

    To answer the second part of your question, the "real world" application of law, bearing in mind that i have only completed 1L thus far, I would say law has done the following: 

    1. Greatly improved my confidence! While I literally was shaking at my knees in my first mock courtroom submission in front of a pretend judge, after doing a couple of these things during my first year, I find that I am SUPER confident in practical situations. Very little intimidates me now and I have learned to realize the only thing that I found intimidating in the past, were people who would give me these false arguments that actually did not make logical sense! (I think the LSAT helped with this a lot too). 

    2. Issue spot. And no, I don't mean in legal cases, I mean issue spotting in day-to-day life. I never really realized how much BS people throw out at you in everyday life before going to law school. I find myself following the logical flow of people's arguments (whether the argument be what they had for dinner, or what their mother's best friend thinks about Celine Dion) and poking holes in it. Before, I would take a person's unsolicited advice and contemplate it, now I am able to poke holes in it and stop them in their tracks with the realization that their advice is completely illogical. 

    3. Embrace conflict. I am a natural introvert. I would flee at the first sight of conflict. Now, I take conflict head on. If someone wants to be adversarial with me, I use the facts I know about the situation, poke holes in their argument where it is weak and generally cause people to think twice about challenging me on things they have no real idea about. 

    4. Has reduced my threshold for mediocrity and ridiculousness. Over the summer, I am working in a leadership role. Part of my role includes managing people and disciplining when needed. When someone is clearly in the wrong and they try to back peddle with ridiculous arguments and justifications, while I used to be empathetic and understanding, I find now I have very little patience for it. I have been called Judge Judy by some (I am not sure if this is a compliment or offensive, still deciding haha) because I have been as crass as to tell people "tell it to your therapist, this is completely irrelevant to me". While this arguably is not a great trait, I never realized how much time I wasted in the past listening to people's nonsense. I find it actually exhilarating and refreshing that I have been able to filter the necessary interactions with people in a professional setting to things that are relevant and pertinent. Before, I was weighing myself down with other people's baggage, and in reality, this isn't fair. We all have our own problems and we all work through them. If I am your friend, I will listen, but as a professional, I don't care. 

    5. Has changed my world view. I definitely see things differently now that I have some legal experience. If someone threatens to sue me, I simply say "Whats your cause of action? Because I don't see any here". I also spot negligence, carelessness and understand the legalese of my phone contract. My world view has opened up and I feel like I have a better understanding of how things function in a legal context. 

    I'm interested to hear how law has changed other people's personal lives, aside from the obvious how it has impacted their legal careers. 

    I'm honestly not trying to be snarky here. But if you're really acting the way you describe here (poking holes in what your mom's friend thinks about Celine Dion, saying "tell it to your therapist, this is completely irrelevant to me"), then you are going to do a lot of damage to your personal and professional reputation. If I heard a 1L talking like that, I wouldn't think they're confident and analytical. I'd think they're an arrogant prick. I'd avoid them. And if given the choice to work with them, I'd be concerned that they lack the basic social skills to function in an office environment and navigate a client relationship. 

    • Like 12

  2. 4 hours ago, LegalArmada said:

    Isn't the Vuze the old Fenwick Tower? If it is, (and I'm pretty sure it is), it has been under construction for well over a year (since before September when I started 1L), and it doesn't look like that construction is nearing its end. 

    For what it's worth,  I scoped out FT before I moved to Halifax and most reviews of it were not good.

    Those reviews do not appear to have changed in the past year. See, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/b51oms/the_vuze_fenwick_tower/

    And: https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/8ymvv8/the_vuze_formerly_fenwick_tower_is_it_as_nice_as/

     

    That's a recent review of the place, plus the thread that threw me off last year. If I were you, I'd think twice about this place. 

    It's been a while for me now, but Fenwick Tower had a pretty bad reputation while I was in Halifax. Lots of infestation issues. And, contrary to the NS RTA, they had a habit of taking three months worth of security deposit, typically from foreign students who didn't speak much, if any, English.

    They were doing extensive renovations when I left. I heard that the renovated units were relatively nice. But, at least when I lived in Halifax, I heard that the renovations were structural, and that there was significant noise and debris. I don't know if that's still the case. 


  3. I guess to answer the question more directly, grades are a commonly used metric to evaluate the quality of a student's work. In second and third year law school, grades serve to measure the quality of a student's work in second or third year law school courses. They are recorded on a transcript, which can be given to third-parties, who want a documentary record of that student's performance in second and third year law courses. 

    • Like 5

  4. 23 hours ago, Durga said:

    I mean if you're a good candidate for a job they're not gonna throw out your app because god forbid you have three great recommendations instead of two. And if they do.. Then they've got other issues.

    As several people have pointed out, the problem is that the employers want you to follow the instructions. Following instructions is very important. A lawyer needs an articling student to follow instructions, because, if the student missed the instructions or ignored them, then there's a good chance they're going to fuck something up. Fucking up is bad. Lawyers don't want students who will fuck up. If you don't want to look like you'll fuck up a lot, follow the instructions. 

    Also, it's one more letter from an applicant's perspective. Lots of articling posts get hundreds of applications. If everyone sent an extra letter, then the lawyers would have hundreds of extra letters in front of them. They don't want that. 


  5. 1 hour ago, utmguy said:

    I was making 30-40k less than my current salary about 18 months ago... can confirm my life is virtually identical. 

    At some point while I was busy being a child, one of my grandparents died and my family inherited a bunch of money. Over the next few years, my parents were both treated for depression. They got divorced, and were generally miserable to be around. After they spent all the money (I think the separation was expensive), they both found more fulfilling work and started stable, supportive relationships. They both seem happy now.

    Money is good. People need money. I like having it.  But unless all that ails you is poverty, money isn't much of a cure. 

    • Like 3

  6. On 6/28/2019 at 8:51 AM, Pete said:

    Why do you assume that a person who gives a shit about the program will be more conscientious than the person being offered the position? If the PWGAS showed the greatest potential, then they would have been offered the position in the first place, no?

    While I have no idea what a PWGAS is, I'll say this. If we're talking about poverty law, then that's different than other fields. And that's because poverty law is different than other fields.

    Many impoverished clients have serious mental illnesses. Most are in crisis. The fact that a student was really good at spotting issues on their torts exam won't help anybody, if he/she can't get through the client interview. Sometimes those interviews are with semi-intoxicated individuals who won't answer your questions about their charges or their eviction, because they're busy yelling about the landlord is in a conspiracy with the police, their worker, and possibly the premier's office.

    Dedication matters here. When you're dealing with very high needs clients over and over, the dedicated student will get the information that the supervising lawyer needs, and will seek to build a working client relationship, even when that seems impossible. The one who's mostly hoping that this will impress OCI recruiters? Maybe, but I'm not so sure. 

    • Like 1

  7. 1 hour ago, Law Girl26 said:

    Let's all stop feeding the trolls. 💁‍♀️

    Back to the point of this thread. 

    I am getting increasingly frustrated by not being able to move up in my current position - there is nowhere for me to go within the organization except to be my boss. Pay is good, work-life balance is (normally okay).

    I share your dismissive attitude towards mycousinsteve’s post. But I think that issues of race and privilege could be quite relevant to the question of career satisfaction. Just not in the sense of: “how dare you acknowledge that others may have faced barriers — I built myself in a log cabin without the benefit of human contact!”

    • Like 2

  8.  

    4 hours ago, Alias said:

    but thankfully our clients' liberty doesn't depend on us writing a substantive 7-hour exam covering topics we aren't familiar with

    [36]      I have considered the sentencing objectives under section 718 of the Criminal Code. I have had the benefit of hearing submissions over the course of the afternoon. However, I was not persuaded by the Crown's arguments that general deterrence and denunciation militate towards the higher range of sentencing here. I was moved by the testimony of several witnesses regarding Mr. Vandertramp's significant rehabilitative efforts. I was therefore inclined to impose the sentence of six months less a day penalty proposed by the defence. 

    [37]      Yet, after seeing defence counsel take 102 seconds to flip from his table of contents to the indoor management rule, I find that the maximum penalty is the only proportional outcome here. 

    Sentence

    [38]      For the reasons above, I sentence Mr. Vandertramp to twelve years and eighty one days custody, after giving credit for pre-trial time served.

    Released: June 19, 2019

    _________________

    Signed: Proctor J.
    Bar Exam Court of Ontario

    • Like 7
    • Haha 2

  9. 29 minutes ago, CoffeeandLaw said:

    I do get that, and I blame Ford and not her. But at the end of the day she's not only Minister of Justice but also the AG who is supposed to be non-partisan and uphold the rule of law. 

    I blame Ford. I blame her. I blame chief of staff, Michael Wilson. I blame Joseph Hillier. I blame everyone who works at the AGO, who, rather than trying to modernize the administration of justice in Ontario, managed to erode justice for the most vulnerable, while realizing an absolutely minuscule amount of savings. 

    • Like 6

  10. I use coffees mostly as informational interviews.

    I ask lawyers for coffee when I'm interested in their practice, and want to ask them questions about it. If they agree, then yes, sometimes in the course of conversation, we develop a rapport. That might lead us to keep in touch. And who knows. Maybe that will provide me with some nebulous benefit down the line. However, that's a side benefit of the main purpose -- learning about their practice. 

    I agree that a face-to-face meeting can create a positive impression. I just don't expect a lawyer (partner or associate) to fall in love and tie the knot after our first date -- merely allowing someone to buy me coffee will likely not accord me  preferential treatment in a future hiring process. Maybe it does for other people. But if you're going into those meetings with the expectation that it's going to directly get you a job, you're probably going to be disappointed.

    • Like 1

  11. 7 minutes ago, harveyspecter993 said:

    Would it not be advantageous if you managed to impress the partner over coffee? I admit that it would be pretty hard for a law student to impress a partner but at the very least if you clicked with them over conversation then would that give you a powerful advocate on the inside?

    If you can convince someone to become your powerful advocate on the inside by chatting over a cup of coffee, then I must insist you share your secrets. 


  12. The rumblings are that even after today's announcement, it should still be around next winter. Where and in what form? I have no idea. 

    Hopefully Osgoode will pitch in more than they've offered so far. Sign the student petition / alumni, if you haven't already. 

    • Like 2

  13. 34 minutes ago, Born2Law said:

    Believe it or not, we're likely not going to get a marriage contract either. My partner is a hopeless romantic and doesn't believe in trying to apportion our future estate based on financial considerations. 

    So was my cousin’s first partner. Funny how beliefs change when it’s time to divide the matrimonial assets. 

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
    • Sad 1

  14. Yeah, my experience was that small firms and soles were hiring in March 2018, not June 2017, for a June 2018 start date. It's not a bad idea to start reaching out. But you'll probably be doing informational interviews, rather than job interviews right now. The reality is that these practices can't project across an entire fiscal year.

    • Like 1

  15. On 6/3/2019 at 12:27 PM, Smorr53 said:

    I disagree with @Deadpool. If you are trying to work in Ontario and you attend Dal there is no way it is not going to come up why you went to Dal over an Ontario Law School. That is one of the first questions almost every interviewer will ask to out of province students, not to mention one of the top questions asked at any professional networking event.

    I work in Ontario and attended Dal. No Ontario lawyer asked why I went to Dal over an Ontario law school.


  16. 3 minutes ago, healthlaw said:

    To OP, neither of these schools is “better/harder/more prestigious” than the other. It boils down to personal preference. No employer is going to say “Omg Queens” and toss a Western job application in the garbage 

    And if an employer did, then the candidate from Western dodged a bullet. 

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...