Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Decent People

1 Follower

About cluj

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

765 profile views
  1. This puts it into the right perspective for me (unlike the human rights (yours)/torture (mine) analogies): reciprocity or lack thereof is irrelevant in regards to allowing permanent residents/citizens whose nexus is with Canada now to utilize their legal education as long as the NCA baseline knowledge criteria are achieved. Baseline competence is than for the law societies to ascertain [though how well they do that is a whole different, unending discussion].
  2. Isn't that analogy beyond the pale of law practice? Can we equate it to: your country tortures (some) Canadians, so Canada will torture (some) of that country's citizens? There is reciprocity in other realms. Canada requires visas of Brazilian travelers; so Brazil requires visas of Canadians, with a fee to exactly match what CIC charges to process visas. I'm not saying it's a good approach, but it is meant to force another country's hand about unfair practices (perceived or otherwise) or to at least send a message.
  3. Well, if you do that, no one will be able to accuse you that you are paying the Statement only lip service, as you will have had to engage with the material... No direct copy-pasting possible...
  4. cluj

    Third Retake?

    In case it helps those who have more up-to-date knowledge of LSAT prep perseverance, I note that OP is clearly determined given (s)he is considering one of the International October LSAT administrations (Oct. 6 in Europe/Middle East/Africa or Oct. 14 in Asia/Australia/NZ). My comment is that, unless OP is already on location well in advance, I would anticipate significant additional challenges for a jet-legged test-taker who considers flying across time zones to a far-away test location within the few days prior to the test. Slightly off-topic: these international administrations (& the Puerto Rico off-schedule ones) do allow for additional kicks at the can for those who can afford it, especially now that the 3-test limit has been eliminated.
  5. I count six posters (i.e. a majority in this thread) who have used or seen (evidence of) the use of typewriters in their respective offices. They are clearly not as ubiquitous as the OP's linked article suggests, but they are out there... While I share surprise that such "relics" are still in use and I haven't used one in two decades myself, I see no reason for acrimony and definitely see no validation (even on a good day...) for @Constant's impression that they couldn't possibly be put to any reasonable use in a law practice (possibly outside @ericontario's practice area).
  6. cluj

    Chances of Getting in?

    OP might wish to review this post about (not creating) multiple "chances" threads... Three threads with identical stats are not what the board has in mind
  7. cluj


    And the first x years of practice shouldn't be considered labour either, because why draw an arbitrary line at 10 months? It should first and foremost be considered a learning opportunity that is part of (continuing-but-steep-learning-curve-for-new-calls) legal education. [sarcasm byproduct intended] Heck, I feel I learned so much conducting the hearing today (which I couldn't have done without what I learned in the trial last week... etc.) that I feel I'm taking advantage of my employer. Only that my employer had someone see what I did today, and kinda felt I provided some value. And that same employer kinda felt I provided some (albeit different) value during articling also. I agree just as long as x is always kept at x-1 than my year of call to the bar. And I actually don't mind if x is zero or a negative value. Even as a very junior lawyer, I still had lots of value relying on the summer law student we had in the office this year. She did learn a lot, though. I am sure my employer could have charged tuition...
  8. cluj

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    I think the OP's post contains so many tidbits of good advice and insight, that it would be a pity to have it "age out" so quickly. While I don't necessarily agree with some of the (implicitly subjective) points, having reviewed applications myself I would say that the "opus" overall is definitely eye-opening for anyone who is considering how their application could be looked at/perceived by smaller legal employers (and not only).
  9. cluj

    My mom failed her barristers 4 times

    Here is an additional (potentially relevant*) subsection in By-law 4, made by Convocation pursuant to the Law Society Act. s. 8.(1.2) If an application for a licence is deemed to have been abandoned by the applicant under clause (4) (b), another application for a licence may not be submitted until after one year after the date on which the previous application was deemed to have been abandoned and may only be submitted if a material change in circumstances is demonstrated to the Society. * Disclaimer: relevance to be determined by the reader, on the basis of the reader's own circumstances.
  10. cluj

    liability, third party, contractors

    I thought: TL;DR. Automated legal-advice-request detection bot thought: TL;DR
  11. cluj

    UK Law School Graduates

    What exactly is the perceived value-add/advantage of these two programs? [This question assumes a well-informed marketplace, which is an invalid assumption] You need six years for Hon. B.A. + LL.B at Trent/Swansea and Laurier/Sussex. You can alternatively complete 3 years of undergraduate study (B.A.) in Canada and attend law school here for a 3-year J.D. Even assuming you need the full 4 years of undergraduate study + 3 years of Canadian law school, you are about even for time if you need 1 year for the NCA Certificate. Admission criteria for Swansea and Sussex Law are not high enough for a high school graduate to value a guarantee of direct admission to those two law schools as part of these joint programs. I don't get it. Is this simply relying on ill-informed applicants?
  12. cluj

    Law School Debt

    Okay, okay, let me ask something that has been bugging me ever since I started practicing law (just a couple of years back). And I preface it by saying that I count over 55+ countries/territories from my pre-law practice days, and many of those are not just "bucket list" pit stops, but in some cases 15-30+ days spent in one country, including two 3-to-4-month stints in each of South America and SE Asia, all on a stingy but more-than-hostel budget. How do those of you who are practicing find the energy to plan and execute such non-all-inclusive trips to drool-inducing destinations? I mean, I am a clear supporter of "do-not-go-to-all-inclusive-if-you-have-more-than-one-week-and-even-then", but now I feel like I need to get away to recover just to be able to come back and put in more sweat and (few) tears into my work. I love working as a lawyer, don't get me wrong; and I have enough travel experience to be able to plan and execute with ease, even economically--but I cannot easily envision a time in the near future where "all inclusive or similar" won't be the first thing I think of for going on a 1-2 week vacation. NB: I recognize I am contributing to taking this thread way off topic. So mods can feel free to move to an "off topic" thread, like that started by @lioness a while back. To keep it somewhat on topic, I will address @healthlaw's travelling ambivalence: I would certainly choose to travel in the hiatus before articling, because it's not just an issue of finances and finding the time, but also an issue of finding the energy to dedicate to active and itinerant travel.
  13. cluj

    Will Robots Take My Job?

    But is this a criticism of/thinking about Canada "poaching" talent; or of individuals being given a chance to seek better opportunities according to their judgement, and potentially finding that they overestimated said opportunities? I see @Coolname's point on legitimately worrying about the brain drain of foreign countries whose needs for that brain power is arguably higher than Canada's. However, it may be a tad patronizing to further conclude that worry alone justifies saying to those individuals that they should be denied the free arbiter to pursue whatever opportunities they saw fit to pursue (within the confines of whatever immigration system), however (mis)guided the pursuit. If we stipulate to taking international boundaries out of the equation for just a moment, one would not argue that a highly-skilled Newfie should be restricted/prohibited from pursuing a higher quality job in Alberta, because she would have some patriotic obligation towards Newfoundland and/or because Alberta should take a high-minded approach to protecting the caliber of the workforce in Newfoundland, equalization and all... And someone might even empathize on a personal level if the Newfie in that example makes a potentially bad call because of not fully understanding the context in Alberta, but still... [feel free to interchange provinces, swap others, make up names; or blame it on the immigrant lacking context].
  14. cluj

    Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    You should remember you'd have to transfer to Hong Kong and Singapore to attend (some classes at) that basement law school..., which might require going through the NCA to become licensed back in Canada