Jump to content

Uriel

Moderators
  • Content Count

    6136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    229

Uriel last won the day on November 6

Uriel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7744 Good People

8 Followers

About Uriel

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

13854 profile views
  1. Firms generally have targets at 1700, 1750 or 1800. The rule of thumb is that you generally bill two hours for every three you physically spend in the office.
  2. In very, very, very broad strokes, the market rate is about 10% of your salary for hitting target, and another 5% for every 100 hours above that up to 2000. That being said, only a couple of firms formally cleave to that structure and the rest dance around that market reality with a more holistic (or ostensibly holistic) assessment process, based in part on associate performance and firm performance.
  3. Ah! But also, I have not thought any of this out. (Minor caveat.)
  4. I think we can all agree that it is Good To Give Students Money. Whether we should design our recruiting process around trying to ensure certain students have more of it is another issue. I'm not sure the solution to an absurd tax is a stipend to pay the absurd tax with. Nor am I sure that the solution to exorbitant tuition fees is a stipend to pay the exorbitant tuition with. We don't need to enumerate the ways Giving Students Money is good. It is good in many ways because money can buy lots of things. Does the availability of extra money to a narrow proportion of the primarily business-oriented students in the class justify putting the entire class through this process? I'm hearing "yes", so maybe yes. I'm still dubious. Something can be good for me personally without being a good idea generally. I'll bake my reply to @Rashabon down rather than quote-tweeting or this is going to get absurdly recursive. You hit the nail on the head - I'm amalgamating the 2L and articling recruit. I'm not sure I agree with your points as to why this is a bad idea -- if the firms are barred from taking more than 80% of their eventual complement through the OCI process, then they can't "just hire more", they'll have to hire more out-of-process candidates in that case. And sure, the firms could opt out like Blaney and WeirFoulds and re-establish the summer program --- you're absolutely right that's the smart thing to do --- but they could opt out of the current process as well. We're talking about a system established on consent; Goodmans could go the way of Blaney and WeirFoulds right now if they wanted to. There are problems with this idea, though. There would be a secondary market of gamesmanship and nerves, and probably most people picked up would be those that just went through the process. It might not be realistic to think that the firms would reach outside of the OCI pool for talent, especially if, under this process, they would have to go through the work of interviewing people already fixed without articles, whereas they could just call unsuccessful candidates they interviewed and liked. On further reflection, I think I agree this idea wouldn't work. It should continue to be a 100% recruit. Lawyers survived with an articling recruit only for decades and decades. I agree that eliminating summers reduces exposure to different practices and agree that's a drawback, but I also think the idea that they will suffer for having "zero exposure to an office environment" is a little silly. You really don't think you could have survived as an articling student without the rigors of your summer program? I'm not putting junior associates on student work 10 months into their careers. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here: it's due diligence and discovery work. You can give a first-year associate a research memo and it won't be "student work", so we're talking about who is going to review documents between June and July, bearing in mind that virtually no one is reviewing documents in June anyway because the students are still being oriented. Clerks? Third party services? Literally anyone with a law degree that could use a contract gig, especially now that the main articling recruit is over? If you're not going to credit NCA students or students with anxiety or other health issues as a large enough population to warrant special consideration in this process, I have significantly less sympathy for the handful of Bay Street hires that decide they'd prefer Cassels over MacMillan after two months of cocktail parties, tax CLEs and inflatable sumo wrestling.
  5. Exactly. I mean, surely it's easier all around just to cut the Law Society a $1,750 cheque and hit the pub, no?
  6. If we're taking the view that the system sucks and we want to start de novo, it's not taking $50,000 out of anyone's pocket. You have to make the case that on balance that the juice of $50,000 to successful candidates is worth the squeeze of the pitfalls inherent in the entire process. On the other side of the ledger, there are tons of benefits to punting the recruit to articles only (and drawbacks as well) that also need to be factored in. We're probably talking about $50,000 out of the pockets of the people coming into law school with the most resources, the most impressive and business-focused resumes, the people with enough familiarity with the law to perform well in the first eight months. Killing the 1L and 2L recruit will also have the effect of reducing the insane pressure on new students and allow them time to make mistakes, to acclimatize to and (God forbid) enjoy the study of law for a while, and allow the headstart enjoyed by some to be mitigated over time. On the other hand, we could hand out $50,000 to some of these kids up front. Also good. These are very good points. First, in terms of the money, see above. If we're starting fresh then we have to make the case that the money to students is a necessary and sufficient reason for summer student positions; otherwise it's just a factor to be weighed with the rest. (It's your latter points that I find more compelling.) In terms of scheduling the Bar, yes, of course I agree. Moving the Bar exam is part of the system in this thought experiment. If we don't like the system, then there's no need to move the Bar exam. Some of your points on the 20% are easier than others. No, they're not people who "just failed the process". First of all, you don't fail this process; you just don't get selected. There are great candidates every year that fall through the cracks. If someone got hosed playing Stikes against Blakes and ended up with nothing, Torys might still want them at the end of the day and now they can make that offer. This also extends the field of participation to NCA students, to out-of-province students, to students who graduated out of the usual time, to students who were sick during OCIs and underperformed, etc. It gives everyone that did not get a job through that process, or that did not have the opportunity to participate in the process, an opportunity to get one of those jobs. Part of the reason why I eliminated cover letters, etc. is that there will be no need to "claw back in". The firms that like you already have your application, and if there are other firms that might be interested, there is no more work required on your part. Who is restricted from hiring? Let's say that you can either be a participating firm in the process, or not. That would be interesting -- I wonder if some of the big firms would just beg out. That might be an issue. Your last point's a really strong one. While I don't agree that we need summer students in order to survive the summer -- there are countless ways of dealing with that work -- I agree that we're significantly reducing the students' exposure to different practices. That's a real flaw to consider, especially since participants are generally full-service firms where that kind of exposure is particularly desirable and available. The simple answer is to eliminate the useless Bar exam. I was going to write more, but why?
  7. A little radical, but here goes. Interested to hear what I'm overlooking: Ban 1L and 2L recruiting. Applications consist strictly of CV, transcripts and an essay sample, eliminating the need for customization between firms. Students are not eligible to write the Bar until they have completed their articles or LPP. OCIs and clerkship interviews begin on the Reading Week prior to law school graduation and conclude one week prior to the exam period. Clerkship offers are made no later than the week of law school graduation. In-firm interviews commence two weeks after law school graduation. Communications between applicants and firms at the in-firm stage are restricted to three designated recruiters only. In-firm interviews commence at 8:00 AM and conclude at 5:00 PM. There are no dinners or cocktails. Once in-firm interviewing has begun, offers may be made, accepted or rescinded at any time. Firms are permitted to recruit a maximum of three, or 80% of their articling students, whichever is greater, through this process. Note: this creates a strategic advantage for New York firms.
  8. A very good friend of mine was in exactly your shoes after our recruit back in the day. He bounced around between some good smaller boutiques for about three years before landing at one of the brand-name union-side shops that turned him down at OCIs, and then almost immediately got hired on in-house at a household-name union. He's still there --- it's an extremely sweet gig, lots of responsibility for collective bargaining and grievance arbitration and mind-boggling benefits. Recently turned down an offer to turn management-side at one of the big four Bay Street firms. Unless my info is extremely bad, there are lots of great union-side shops that haven't recruited yet. Just get yourself in the ecosystem and see what happens.
  9. Just going to throw this out there: looks like I didn't get my top two picks this cycle. Somewhere out there I'm afraid there are two students that didn't get the call, beating themselves up for blowing the interviews, when I thought they were the very best candidates we had. Goes back to that whole thing from 20 pages ago and how this is a matter of personal preference -- if I was running the place it would have been a different roster getting calls today. There's nothing objective about your success or lack thereof at this stage.
  10. So glad to have people posting here that are the kind of success stories that I've been alluding to for years second-hand. I'm just thinking through the roster of my friends that did not get a job after in-firms, and it can be significantly more glamorous and amazing than practice on Bay Street, which is great, but arguably not special. We've got a bank deputy VP; senior counsel for a Minister; in-house counsel at a giant cannabis company; hip-hop agent; in-house at a fashion label; elected official; head investigator of a specialized law enforcement agency; bargaining agent for federal employees; handfuls that ended up on Bay Street anyway; handfuls more that set up their own weird or unique practices -- animal rights, digital privacy, child protection, eDiscovery -- working for themselves and designing everything from the office space to the letterhead. It's such a massive profession, and Bay Street is such a small sliver of it. And even then, the door's never closed. And hey, after a few years of seeing what else is out there, you might well come to the same conclusion as most Bay Street associates do: that you're just not that interested in it anymore.
  11. You are also delightful and fantastic, and yes - thanks for clarifying. I was drastically oversimplifying in an attempt to be comforting. As always, many of the top students (and certainly a lot of the most passionate students) didn't go to law school to go to Bay Street, and are angling towards other pursuits such as criminal defence, government work, policy or academics. If I was more concerned about accuracy, I should have said that a significant proportion of the top quartile of your class will not work as hard from this point forward, which will have an upward effect on the grades of those who maintain previous levels of performance. I'll go on repeating my refrain that Bay Street is a 1-3 year gig for most people, and after that point they're often beating down the doors trying to get the kind of jobs other people took when they skipped out on, or did not land a job during, the OCI process. You're right - not getting a Bay Street job isn't a mistake. For some people, like me, it's a great career choice. But for a lot of lawyers in private practice, even ten years out, it's completely unclear who might have had that experience and who did not.
  12. Yes, let's move on to this poster and the adorable kitten therein:
  13. Students can hold things open to decide for 24 hours, but for us, if the entire process isn't wrapped up in five minutes, something's gone wrong. Some firms are a little less efficient than mine and the process can be expected to drag on for an hour. Really glad to hear this. You're obviously very conscientious and dedicated, and you're undoubtedly a good candidate for a big commercial firm. But long-term success is the goal, not just landing an articling gig and then going down in flames. In your present state of mind an articling position could have a drastically negative effect on your health and your odds of hireback. Getting yourself into a more centered place will go a long way to building the kind of career you're targeting. This setback might be a blessing in disguise if it helps you navigate the stresses and uncertainties of firm politics in the future with a toolkit for managing anxiety. They won't be. The top students are completely checked out now. Your grades are going to go up. It's those of you that do land a job that are going to be asking me later whether you need to disclose your "D" to your firm. An extra eleventy bajillion dollars in student debt will do that to you.
×
×
  • Create New...