Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by realpseudonym

  1. Asking whether someone would be allowed to undertake a course of action within a regulated context is a request for an opinion, based upon legal considerations, and with possible, foreseeable legal implications. That's legal advice. The requester's subjective reason for asking -- i.e., that this is "an intellectual and philosophical discussion--" does not necessarily determine whether the forthcoming response will constitute legal advice.
  2. Grammatically speaking, this sentence is a real adventure.
  3. True. Although a mortgage is kinda like having several law degrees, none of which allow you to bill $300.00 per hour.
  4. I try to just focus on the things in my control. You can't achieve a certain GPA/LSAT through sheer force of will (or at least, I never could). But you can control lots of other things. For instance, are you studying enough for your tests? You can do that. Are you going to class? You can do that. Are you spending enough time on your essays? You can control that. Do you understand how to study for an exam? You can figure that out. Do you know how to write a decent essay? You can talk to your profs, improve your writing style, get better at research, etc. So I mean, you can spend as much time as you want gaming out where you'll get in with GPA X or LSAT score Y. And it's fine to think about that. But at the end of the day, you can control your study habits and work ethic. Otherwise, let the chips will fall as they may.
  5. I needed to study for the LSAT. I wrote my first practice test, and my score was so bad that it wouldn't have gotten me into any Canadian law school. I tried another few and got similar scores. I was consistently bombing the logic games section. They were completely unintuitive to me and I couldn't get them done in time. I read the Powerscore Logic Games Bible (i.e., studying), did a bunch more practice tests (i.e., more studying), and my score went up pretty dramatically, because I understood how to do the logic games. So I don't know whether studying was strictly "required," but I feel pretty confident that if I hadn't studied, I wouldn't have been able to go to law school. Point being, if there's something future readers don't understand on the LSAT that's holding them back, don't be afraid to study.
  6. I don't know what the purpose of this question is, but I'll answer anyway. Profs and lawyers, who I know and respect. And friends from law school, with more weight given to those who seem to know what they're talking about. There's a small-ish group of posters who have had a pretty outsized impact on my values and choices. There are some threads that have caused me to rethink certain things or think about other things for the first time. There's also a certain amount of pretty bad advice floating around. But I guess that's to be expected on an online forum. And I wouldn't say that it's any worse than the advice that was floating around campus at law school, or than was coming out of the career office.
  7. Definitely not. That's not how proportionality works.
  8. CARL Media Release: Legal Aid to refugees and immigrants to end Tuesday morning Well, this fucking sucks.
  9. True. Although an eviction application in the middle of winter, for a person with severe mental health issues is pretty close to being life or death. Especially when a lot of the shelters were full.
  10. I know that it's exam season. But really. Must we always do this?
  11. Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, SO 1998, c 26 , General, O Reg 107/99 , & Administration of System for Providing Legal aid Services, O Reg 106/99.
  12. No, it isn't. But if you live in Ontario and care about the rights of accused, of parents and children involved with CAS, and of persons facing removal / deportation, please contact your MPP and tell them that you oppose cuts to LAO's certificate programs. If you live in Ontario and think homelessness is bad, that renovictions are bad, that victims of violent crime should get compensation, and that those with mental disabilities might need help at SBT hearings, please contact your MPP and tell them that you oppose deep cuts to your local Community Legal Clinic. If you think that the justice system works better when litigants are informed and represented, please call your MPP and tell them that you oppose the cuts to LAO. These cuts aren't going anywhere. But most of the people coming to this site are advocates or advocates in training. So advocate. Don't duck and wait for electoral salvation. There are a lot of cases on the docket between now and 2022.
  13. This is a great thing to do, and can be a really good learning opportunity. Just remember to be respectful and discrete when observing. This is probably obvious, but I’ve seen observers (including students and journalists) laugh when a witness is struggling to answer a question, throw their hands up in disgust when they hear a decision that they think is wrong, talk during proceedings, etc. Do the basics. If someone is having a hard time (either on the stand or not) try not to stare. Because while this is a learning opportunity for you, someone else’s life might be changing pretty drastically.
  14. If memory serves, @Bure10 went to TRU in one of the earlier years. Maybe he has some insight?
  15. I feel like I'm working really hard to derail this thread, and since this is a perfectly fine topic, I should stop. But man, I've had the exact opposite thought about family so many times. I was just talking to a supervising lawyer about this time a bunch of immigration lawyers sat around and completely misapprehended basic concepts like paternity, custody, and access. Not only did that make them poorer advocates for their clients in the context of the immigration issue they were discussing, it meant that they couldn't spot family issues and advise their clients that they might want to speak to family counsel. Family law touches so many people's lives, and on touches lots of other areas of practice. I haven't done any actual family during my articles, but it's still been kinda essential on a number of occasions. I think I've used it more than torts, civil procedure, and criminal -- all of which were mandatory. Edit: I agree about wills and estates. I don't care about wills 😊
  16. Sure, there's nothing wrong with any of that. I wasn't trying to pick on you for using the word desperate. I just mean that after reading the applicants / schools forums for several years, I almost want to go around and put a post in every single one saying: THIS PROCESS DOES NOT DEFINE YOU. YOU CAN ALL (probably) GO ON TO LEAD MEANINGFUL FULFILLING LIVES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU OBTAIN A LICENCE TO PRACTICE LAW.
  17. Ottawa. Maybe even Dal -- I bet some of my classmates would've gone to a Toronto school over Dal. Yeah, I can't say I was that desperate. I wanted to go to law school. But I understood that I was probably going to get in somewhere. And I never felt like my life would be over if I didn't get a legal education. There are lots of great ways to earn a living and if I didn't get into law school, I would've just done something else. If you feel desperate, then sure, that's your reality. But not everyone feels that way and I'm not sure it's a particularly healthy mindset.
  18. I have no idea whether the Toronto location will be sufficient to lure a stronger applicant pool. But I suspect that the end result will be that more people who would've gone the foreign route or done something else will end up in Ontario law schools. Which is great for them while they're in law school. It's less great for people looking to article in southern Ontario in 2023 - 2024.
  19. Aren't all the black letter law courses half-year? I don't know if they're doing more classtime per semester, but I'm not sure I would be comfortable learning 50% less contract and criminal law than every other Canadian grad.
  20. There’s a delightful symmetry between the username “Hopeful10101” and the statement “could be any day now”.
  21. If I were king of confessions law for a day, I would create some sort of rule that investigators must allow counsel (or maybe someone else) to be present throughout questioning, where investigators know or reasonably ought to know that the accused has a disability or mental illness, which may impair their ability to understand the nature of the questioning or produce a false confession. I understand that where the markers of reliability are absent, judges can exclude the evidence after the fact. But I think that the justice system should do more to protect the rights of the most vulnerable throughout the process. We already afford the protection to youth. I don't see why we shouldn't extend the same right to other individuals, who, as noted by the SCC in Hart, are at similarly elevated risks for giving false confessions. Alas, despite my continual monitoring, I haven't seen a single posting for a king of confessions law position (w/ requirements: not called to the bar yet, minimal experience valued).
  • Create New...