Jump to content

cluj

Members
  • Content Count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Decent People

1 Follower

About cluj

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

944 profile views
  1. I would go one further and suggests that if you declare expected participation in the LPP by the May deadline, then you have a cost-free option to switch out of the program until some date in August (if you find articles you prefer to the LPP). The cost of the LSO licensing program is the same, and allows for switching out of the LPP by that later deadline. Disclaimer: check dates and rules, as they may have changed somewhat for the licensing cycle starting in May 2019.
  2. I know about those two venues’ practice, but I’m dealing with a tribunal that doesn’t have vice-chairs. I’m obviously overthinking this..., ... but OWH’s will be my approach. I just know some of the Membera will have less experience adjudicating in that venue than I have litigating before (single-member Chairs) of it... Thank you both.
  3. I have dealt with many one-member panels before this decision-making committee. And it was customary to address the lone panel member as "Mr./Madam Chair." Now, "Mr./Madam Chair" remains the appropriate address for the Chair of a multi-member Panel, but how do I address the other Panel members, for example in response to Panel-member questions "from the bench"? This is a statutory committee of a professional regulatory body, and no rules or practice directions are of any assistance. For those who deal with such administrative law hearings, what would be your guess? "Mr./Ms. [Last name]" is what I am going with, if I don't know/hear better, but I will use otherwise deferential address as would be appropriate to show respect for a decision maker.
  4. Unless you applied to the licensing process in Fall 2017 with the stated intention (in the application forms) to write one or both Licensing Exams in March 2018, then your three-year licensing term started on May 1, 2018 and runs to April 30, 2021. This would be the typical scenario for most new law school grads. Anyone looking to write March 201x exams for the first time, and registering for that purpose, is effectively giving up almost a full year of the full three-year licensing term, because the March exams belong to the lincensing year that commenced on May 1, 201x minus 1. But the advice to call the Law Society for a definitive answer might be the easiest, especially if you were not a recent law school graduate, in which case you might have a bit of a different status.
  5. I fully endorse the message about reining in fixed expenses. Of course, my back-of-the-napkin calculation also suggests that you might have an easier time doing the balancing between income and reined-in fixed expenses, given that you would need a $200,000+ income for the statement about your friend's 50x eight-figure income to be accurate...
  6. I really think the consideration about taking interview spots from others should not hang in the balance. It seems unfair to suggest so to the OP, if s/he still has even a small expectation of wanting to test the market in both City A and City B. It is even less welcome from anyone who comments specifically while currently in the same process. [I recall a similar tenor of comments in the Law School Applicants forum, by others waitlisted.] After all, I don't think anyone would suggest the OP should have bombed an exam just to give others a better chance, because his grades were quite good already...--and that other student might only have that one (hypothetical) chance.
  7. Yes, I am sure the the upper end of your range applies to (virtually) no “relatively new lawyer”, whether in a rural or urban community—and however rural were defined...
  8. 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].
  9. 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.
  10. 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...
  11. 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.
  12. 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).
  13. 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
  14. cluj

    LPP

    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...
  15. 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).
×
×
  • Create New...