Jump to content

Ryn

Moderators
  • Content Count

    2853
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    21

Ryn last won the day on December 23 2020

Ryn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2786 Good People

About Ryn

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

8683 profile views
  1. You can share these experiences if you wish in order to add some context to your application. I would note that without some documentation or evidence (e.g., by a physician) of your situation that explains your poor performance (e.g., dealing with anxiety, depression, or the like as a result of the traumatic experiences you experienced), the committee will not generally be able to set aside poor marks. I don't want to say that this is always going to be the case, but generally speaking adcom members like to see documentation of a person's claims. However, even without documentation, an explanation will add some context and may, perhaps, assist someone who was borderline. With respect to how it will affect your application: I think the only concern would be if this sort of problem is on-going. This is also one of the reasons the adcom members like to see documentation. If there is proof that the situation is resolved or is being managed, then that is a positive. If the issue is ongoing, I think the committee would want to hear that it's being managed successfully and your performance will not be significantly affected. The reality is that adcom members are interested in your ability to be a good law student, not whether you will be a good lawyer. So factors like the profession suffering from high rates of depression are not really an issue to admitting someone to law school. The committee wants to be convinced that you will succeed in law school (with success being minimally defined as you being able to graduate on time, though certainly the adcom will want people who will also get exceptional grades, be contributing members of their class, represent the school positively as an alumn, and so on). If your circumstances don't show your ability to succeed, for example because your grades are poor due to an ongoing situation that has no evidence of being resolved or managed, then you likely will not be admitted. So, in summary, certainly if you want to add these experiences to your personal statement, you should, so long as you are comfortable with talking about it. It will probably add context to your grades, which is probably a good thing. To the extent that it will help, that is up to a lot of different factors. But I don't think it will hurt your application any more than your grades may already do.
  2. It's up to the reviewers to request that you be interviewed. Interviews are not very common and they would only happen where additional context is needed to make a decision. In my time on the committee, I never participated in an interview. No. Generally speaking, all degrees are looked at identically. What matters are grades. I believe this is the case at every university except, allegedly, U of T (and I'm not even sure how U of T looks at this; I just don't believe that they would have a strong enough statistical sample to be able reasonably gauge grade inflation based on schools and majors vs. success in their law school). There are countless discussions about this topic on the boards and you are welcome to search them to see people's thoughts. I don't want to get into that discussion in this thread and I won't entertain any more comments about it here. That said, I will say that it likely all averages out with a large enough sample size, so it really doesn't make sense that a law school would discriminate based on majors/schools like that in Canada. The US, on the other hand, has quite the varied field of educational institutions and corresponding majors, so some of that analysis may be necessary there. The quality of education in Canada at any post-secondary institution is quite good in general. I don't know if other schools do it, but Osgoode does not (at least, not when I was on the committee, but I don't see why that would change). The admissions office will know if you provisionally accepted but as far as I know this will not affect their decision. I certainly never took it into consideration. I don't even think that the committee members have this information readily available; they would have to ask the admissions officers for it.
  3. I've hid a bunch of posts that were just arguing. There is nothing wrong with posting questions that already have been discussed. And please leave the moderating (i.e., "we've discussed this before, search the forums") to the moderators. Edit to add: I left the post linking another thread on this topic because it is helpful to reference.
  4. It's a process to transfer jurisdictions after being called so I agree that you should at least figure out what province you want to live in, and that's where you probably should do articling. That said, I have plenty of friends who articled here in Ontario and left the province when they were done (to go back to their home province or whatever). So it's not a hard and fast rule. If you are truly torn (i.e., don't mind having to leave the province after you've articled), then take the job you think you'll like and is in an area of law that's connected with your interests. If you like criminal law, the good news is that it's federal so anywhere you go after you article will be able to make use of your experience. You may have to learn some local civ pro but that should not be difficult to figure out.
  5. You can always call and ask if you can amend your personal statement or complete a Part B, but I suspect their answer will be no. I did not hear of someone being able to do that when I was on the committee.
  6. Thanks. That’s what I get for not checking!
  7. OP should confirm that's even possible. I was under the impression that only a couple of states will accept a Canadian degree without anything additional (NY and somewhere else I can't be bothered to check right now) and California is not one of them. This page seems to suggest that not only do you need you have a JD, but if you have a foreign law degree, you have to get a California-based LLM.
  8. This is actually a really great idea. Probably wouldn't work with this client, but I can see it working with others. Thanks!
  9. Along these lines, I also want to plug Osgoode's financial aid programs. They not only have an option for an income contingent loan program (note, there are only so many slots each year but it's still better than nothing!), but their bursaries are fantastic. In my final year, bursaries effectively paid half my tuition fees. Bursaries are granted based on need, up to as much as $10k if you meet certain criteria. In 3L you can qualify for even more money. Even the lowest amount people get is pretty generous. On top of this, there are many scholarship programs, awards, and many other ways to get financial assistance. That is a crazy sum. I can't believe it's that much now. When I started 1L back in 2016, U of T was closer to $30k!
  10. At least you didn't write a letter to the Sturgeon General.
  11. I don’t know if that’s the general term for it, but that’s what a few colleagues and I have been using. I think it makes sense, since if you look up its use you’ll find tons of articles and YouTube videos targeted at the layperson with ledes like “Think Like A Lawyer!” where the author/presenter is trying to explain some legal situation and the layperson’s suggested approach. Often there’ll be a suggestion that if you’re smart enough to understand the explanation, you might be able to outwit an actual lawyer! Golly!
  12. I got a warning from a partner that this person is very sensitive about being called out and was asked to be careful about it. So, I've held my tongue. To give an example of what kind of "legal eagle" behaviour I'm talking about, here is a completely different scenario but identically frustrating: Cue a couple of weeks of radio silence. Then:
  13. I have a client who fancies themselves quite the legal eagle, despite the fact that they're very not. The client is smart in other ways, so it's basically a front-row seat to the Dunning-Kruger effect. We're on the nth round of what should have been a simple review-and-comment on some documents, and the other side is getting understandably testy. I keep thinking to myself that it shouldn't matter, because every time they try to "helpfully" propose new wording for my drafts, it's several hundred dollars in fees they have to pay me. But it's still so irritating. My strategy so far has been to ride it out. The client pays their fees, so whatever. But I'm curious if there are any effective strategies to combat the urge of some clients to play lawyer, particularly when they're just wasting my time, but there is not, in principle, anything necessarily legally problematic with their proposals (they just have ultimately no effect on anything).
×
×
  • Create New...