Jump to content

celli660

Members
  • Content Count

    591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

celli660 last won the day on January 8 2016

celli660 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

337 Good People

About celli660

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1795 profile views
  1. I just opened a site for our firm. We use godaddy hosting, email, and the website builder. it''s easy and intuitive.
  2. Even if I took everything you said on face value, that's still not the profession. The original and most damning comment that I replied to was " Insofar as people are complaining to the law society because they think their working hours are "unreasonable" or they are too stressed out, I'd suggest they quit right now because the practice of law is not for them. " That's not the same as 'biglaw might not be for you' and that shouldn't be the metric that we put everyone to in any event. Law is flexible and demanding at the same time, so that yes people can and will self-select into or out of those kinds of roles or workloads. My point remains that lawyers should not tell people that they should give up on their chosen career because they and their colleagues like to work ridiculous hours every year week in and week out.
  3. I wasn't responding to the article in my original reply above, I was responding to goodlaw as quoted. Fair point all round.
  4. Any time I don't understand a topic discussed in class, my go to is blacks, or the CED. I find those resources consistently clarify everything my professors and textbook authors muddle.
  5. I'm not saying firms need to be asinine with their human capital deployment. The problem, as I see it, is that when you have literally hundreds of lawyers in an office, it's hard to imagine that the firm couldn't employ a hundred more to lessen the burden on the existing staff instead of demanding 'more'. As a thought experiment, consider how your firm would operate if instead of setting an expectation that associates or partners bill 1800 hours a year or more, that they were not allowed to bill more than 1800 hours per year. The mere fact that "document review" is a career trajectory for any lawyer is proof that these opportunities exist and the bare assertion that "if you can't hack working 3100 hours per year, then choose a different profession dum-dum" is at best an endorsement of a broken system and at worst an excuse to belittle people who have a view of life that isn't focused on money, workaholism, or really any feeling of entitlement to actually live the life you work so hard to finance. With respect to sole practitioners, but nodding especially to the criminal trial lawyers, I can appreciate that the financial aspect of your career is certainly less prominent and the expectation that you work a certain number of hours is more reflective of your desire to be effective counsel than a desire to use your occupation to thrust you into the upper middle class. That being said, you are not target of the "if you can't hack consistently 60 hour weeks, you're not suited to the profession" lines that are flouted at people exiting law school and being subjected to abusive articling environments or 'up-or-out' firm structures.
  6. Yeah, see, but that is in fact toxic. You have drunk the koolaid and are now shilling it around. The fact is, law firms, especially the kind to expect associates to work consistently 60 hour weeks, are massively profitable. The margins are staggering and the business is pretty much dead simple. Not only is it not necessary that those employees work 60-70 hours per week, every week, but it's not necessary that most lawyers even work 2000 hours per year. If law firms wanted to, they could have everyone work 30 or 40 hours per week on average ( sometimes those hours would still be bad) and pay them literally 1/2 of the salary that they pay their current associates and come out only slightly behind. The reality here is that law firms want to maximize the amount of revenue per chair or per licensing fee, or whatever the hell metric you decide to use, but the important part is that the only reason this is the expectation is because "the partners aren't going to be hiring any more associates than we already budgeted for" coupled with "the partners get paid according to how much they bill, plus some bonuses for how much work they bring in to the firm". And let's all stop this shit about law not being for anyone who isn't willing to work those kinds of bullshit hours. Yes, sometimes you will have to work harder, you will have a long trial with dailies and harsh deadlines, briefs due at 9 am in a trial where you just finished at 5:30 pm. Or you might have to put together a deal, or what have you, but in law there's a lot more opportunity to structure your life positively with lots of down time instead of running from tire fire to tire fire dabbing it out with your clients' hundred-dollar bills.
  7. Greater competition doesn't cause greater expectations? I would assume downtown lawyers are more competent than an outskirts lawyers on average because of the competition factor. If you want to start talking about microcosms, that's cool too. That's certainly a great way to approach life, but it's mentally taxing and inefficient.
  8. My boss suggested that you always have your assistants swear your client's oaths for affidavits. that way if the lawyer goes down to court with the client as a witness and they get crossed on the affidavit, they can't just say "I dunno, my lawyer wrote it and made me sign it". The assistants are gung-ho to make sure they don't get in shit for taking untrue affidavits and the lawyer can say that the client swore to an independent person that it was true.
  9. As someone who worked for a law firm before law school, knowing how to read the important parts of cases is really handy and you don't really know how to do that until you have read lots of cases. A good way to learn how that works is to look at case law on Canlii and to read a case where they summarize a rule from another case. Here's an example from an Ontario Court of Appeal case: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2019/2019onca112/2019onca112.html That link will take you to the case, and in paragraph 7-10, they cite Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), Then they go on to discuss the legal test. So if you read borowski, it's quite a bit longer than what they take from the case. If you really, really wanted to practice reading cases in advance of law school, my exclusive advice would be to read cases, then find citations where they mention a "legal test." Then stop reading and go to the cited case and see if you can figure out what the legal test is, then go back to the case and see if you came to the same conclusion as the judge/justices. If you can do that reliably, then you have mastered a skill that people struggle with throughout law school and it will save you a lot of time in reading.
  10. You guys are silly. As a person with a maxed out LOC, I can tell you that the spectre of looming BoC prime rate hikes keep me up at night, but that didn't stop me from borrowing the money. The difference in cost of borrowing between 4% and 6% is about 1200 a year over the ten years of the loan. I can guarantee you're making more than 1200 a year more with your law degree than saving for it without, so you're probably still coming out ahead if you're dead set on completing the degree. We could see quite a few rate hikes over the period and not be that badly off. BoC is aiming for their overnight rate to hit about 3% over the next year or two (currently it's at 1.75%) leading to a prime rate in the neighborhood of about 5-6% and that's pretty much what I looked at for cost of capital. It's still a screaming hot deal when you factor in the CPI inflation rate is at about 1.9% and the debt is entirely unsecured.
  11. From a student's perspective, a decent amount of the third year class have jobs lined up. Big problem is in the middle of the road and higher level where work is getting competitive as shit (as I understand it) for big law firms.
  12. You're right, sleepwalking through undergrad and getting As is the same as sleepwalking through law school and getting Bs.
  13. Yeah, mmkay, except that I had classes within the same institution where I literally had to get a 98% to get an A and 100% to get an A+ while other classes the A range was anything over 82%. It really very much depends on the program and school. I had to struggle to get B+ average in my undergrad and have literally no problem maintaining the same average in law school. Although, I was working 30+ hours per week throughout undergrad and I only work 15 - 20 hours per week during law school.
  14. Yeah, you're going to likely have a harder time getting in than doing average at law school, but only because the LSAT is a hurdle you have to jump through. Otherwise, there's nothing harder about getting b+ average in undergrad than getting a B average in law school. Depends on your undergraduate program I guess.
  15. I usually tape halved garlic cloves to the bottom of my feet. My grandma told me that cures everything.
×
×
  • Create New...