Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

150 Good People

About onepost

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1535 profile views
  1. I actually think the big concern will be funding. Law school in Canada (and living, especially in Vancouver and Toronto) is expensive. I am not sure whether international students can use the usual means of funding a JD, i.e. a professional student line of credit. Immigration seems like it will not be a serious impediment to me, but I suggest you talk with the law schools to which you are applying. Most of the time, I think your post-JD work experience will qualify you for fast-track permanent residency. You’ll have to do more research on this point, as discussed above — but I think you’ll find it’s not a showstopper. Best of luck with your undergrad!
  2. There’s no such thing as ‘call day’ for NY. Invitations for in-firms are extended on the day of OCIs for some firms; other firms take a bit longer. It’d be reasonable to think calls would go out today or tomorrow, if you did an OCI on Friday.
  3. I think this is surprisingly common, unfortunately. If you are feeling uncomfortable recommending yourself, perhaps consider writing only the ‘bones’ of the letter: who they are, who you are, how they know you, and the work you did that makes them an appropriate reference, etc. Leave blanks where they should make their own assessment. This allows room for the prof to exercise their own judgement (which they will do anyway), while saving them the bulk of the writing. For example: “In my Advanced Econometrics course, Soandso received the highest available grade. She demonstrated an [xxxx] understanding of difficult material, producing a [xxxx] paper on [whatever the topic is]. ... I am confident she’d be a [xxxx] law student.”
  4. @erinl2 is right. The technical explanation is that every American law school (worth attending, as in isn’t literally uncredited) is American Bar Association-approved. ABA-approved law schools only recognize credits from other ABA-approved schools, and no Canadian law school is ABA-approved.
  5. I’m going to take a slightly different tack here: If you are in high school, and cost is no object, and you are accepted into Oxbridge, I think there’s nothing wrong with doing an LLB (or BA) there. It’ll be a great education and a fantastic three years. And perhaps at the end of it, you go on to do something unrelated to law. But you shouldn’t see the UK as a shortcut. I would anticipate having to do a JD, if you want to be a lawyer in Canada, after your undergrad.
  6. When did 2L/3L grades become irrelevant to clerkships, in Ontario or elsewhere? Even assuming you apply ASAP, your first-semester 2L grades will be extremely important.
  7. I think @easttowest’s point was a fair one, and I don’t know why we’re jumping down their throat. Part of the frustration with the articling salary is that students have to finance 3 months without pay before starting as full-time associates. People save a significant amount of their salary, or take on debt, to do so. These are all first-world problems, as they say, but the salary over the articling ‘year’ is material.
  8. I started writing a long post addressing a number of assumptions in your post, but I don’t have the time or energy to write a treatise on international legal employment at the moment. So I’ll get right to the point. A degree from a top Canadian school (McGill, U of T, Osgoode, UBC—perhaps especially McGill) gets you access to the (incredibly rarified) field of public international law and international criminal law. Getting employment in this area is incredibly difficult, regardless of where you are educated. Going to a second-tier law school abroad on the faint hope of PIL/ICL employment would be a serious mistake. On that note, the only law schools I think have a meaningful advantage over the top Canadian schools in this area are Oxbridge and the cream-of-the-crop US schools well-know in this area (e.g. Yale, Harvard, NYU). International corporate work is another kettle of fish. Chinese companies will hire Canadian counsel to deal with Canadian legal issues; they hire Chinese counsel to deal with Chinese issues. To the best of my knowledge, no one asks a Canadian lawyer to given them advice based on a vague ‘familiarity’ with Chinese law, nor are the top Canadian firms hiring students from foreign law schools for their ‘familiarity.’ I’d add that international corporate/dispute work is more common in other jurisdictions, e.g. the UK and the US. An interest in this type of transaction might be a reason to practice in those jurisdictions, but it’s generally an area where top firms dominate — so query whether going to a second-tier US or UK school is worth it over a ‘regional’ Canadian school. So. Don’t turn down a ‘regional’ Canadian school for a ‘second-tier’ foreign school on the faint hope of practicing international law, either in Canada or abroad. An interest in international law or international transactions should only be a consideration if you’re fortunate enough to be choosing between the best law schools in Canada and the best law schools in the rest of the world. Even then, it probably shouldn’t be a major consideration.
  9. I don't know why you are so angry, and I'm baffled by the accusation that I am arguing in bad faith. (As far as I can tell, you and pzabby are arguing from the premise that Ryerson is making a bad-faith marketing pitch to the public.) Again, I'm not arguing (i) that Ryerson shouldn't happen or (ii) that it will be somehow a sub-standard legal education. Insofar as I'm arguing anything, it's only that, if we take Ryerson at their word, on the basis of the curriculum they are advertising and their proposal, that there's a reasonable chance the legal education be a significantly different from other law schools. What other law school teaches contracts, torts, property, constitutional, criminal, ethics, LRW, admin, and indigenous law in the first year? Or has one semester for electives? Or has a mandatory placement? Or has second-year in which every course involves "simulated practice"? Whether you think this is good or bad, I don't see how you can dismiss these features as irrelevant. The examples you gave of other law school's unique features--a handful of students doing DLS for credit, e.g.--seem insignificant by comparison. If I am right, I think it will be interesting. It's easy to take for granted exactly that which you are arguing: all the other common law schools are functionally identical, so Ryerson must be functionally identical to other common law schools. But I don't think that follows. I don't think we know what it would be like to have an alternative to status quo. Isn't that worth talking about? It was really not my intention for this to boil down to 'Ryerson is good/bad.'
  10. I was explicit in not arguing that Ryerson won't be properly accredited or even a bad law school, and I'm not saying the law school ought not to happen. I think that's a disingenuous reading of my post. It's Ryerson claiming to have an "innovative approach to curriculum." It's "a bold new approach to legal education," e.g. placing "an emphasis on team learning." And looking at the curriculum it is very different from any other school, even (perhaps most notably) in 1L. Again, if I'm wrong, fine. But clearly Ryerson wants us--and prospective students--to think that they are offering "something different" from any other school in Canada.
  11. I was actually thinking of McGill when I wrote that post! McGill's substantive curriculum is certainly different from anything else in Canada. But in more important respects, I think it's similar to other Canadian law schools. I'm referring to more basic things about the nature and content of legal education: the mode of assessment, the academic disposition of the courses, range of extracurriculars, expectations regarding the particular commitment law school entails, etc. I don't mean to gloss over the differences between McGill and other schools in Canada, as they are significant. But, in five years' time, I wouldn't be surprised if you and I will have more in common, with regards to our legal education, than either of us do with someone graduating from Ryerson. Which isn't to say that a person from Ryerson will be a bad lawyer or is somehow unqualified. Addendum: To put it somewhat concretely, it's almost a cliche on this website to advise prospective law students that (i) all legal education is pretty much the same in Canada as between common law schools, and that (ii) you should go to jurisdiction you want to practice in as a primary consideration (iii) with expense as another important consideration, with perhaps a caveat for particular kinds of practice areas. I can see a future in which people might be picking between law schools because they prefer a 'type' of legal education. Which would be strange!
  12. Taking Ryerson at face value, I think there's something to be lamented here -- even if there are supervening reasons to not oppose its establishment. Perhaps this is what some other people are responding to. As things stand, I think there's something nice about the shared experience of law school within the legal community. We all read the same books; we all completed a similar curriculum. More fundamentally, the norms of legal education are basically indistinct as between law schools (even as between US and Canadian law schools). Ryerson looks different, and I think it poses an implicit threat to this shared experience. I'll be sad if, in 20 years, lawyers from different schools have had radically different experiences in their training. I know this is a bad, emotive, argument against Ryerson law -- but I'm not sure I'm arguing against Ryerson Law. Perhaps legal education really does need to change along the lines proposed by Ryerson. Or, perhaps we'd be better off with greater selection of divergent curriculums among all the law schools. ("Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend," etc.) But, in that case, I think there really will be something lost in the bargain. Or, perhaps Ryerson won't be any different notwithstanding the marketing material and I'm totally out to lunch.
  13. If you have specific questions I (and others, I'm sure) can try to answer them. FYI you can see the hiring numbers for 1L students here (Faculty hiring) and here (1L Bay St. recruit). Many students finds jobs in the law outside these OCI processes. Others work in non-law related jobs, travel, etc. It's only disadvantageous to travel after first year to the extent it is advantageous to have legal experience (or just more work experience!) going into the 2L recruit.
  14. I'm not sure if this is moving on per se but, since we're discussing open court principles: What would people think of something like PACER in Canada? For those who don't know, all US federal court filings are searchable and available online for a 'nominal' fee; the same is true for many if not most state courts. I'm a big fan (and in fact I PACER should be free). In my opinion, it's crazy that we don't have such a system in Canada but I'd be interested in counterarguments. It seems like an impoverished vision of 'open courts' to erect unnecessary and borderline-anachronistic barriers to material the public has both a right and a genuine interest in accessing. I'm thinking particularly of journalists, here. Anyway, going to court is fun and the OP should do it. But it'd be more fun if you could scope out the matters properly before you show up.
  15. To be crystal clear: (i) if you went to U of T for undergrad, you keep your email but (ii) if you haven’t previously attended U of T you receive a new @mail.utoronto.ca address (which, for the super curious, is hosted by Microsoft).
  • Create New...