Jump to content

Otter248

Members
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Otter248 last won the day on December 24 2019

Otter248 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

198 Good People

About Otter248

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2210 profile views
  1. "So say for instance that I kill someone, and then I tell my wife, and then she tells her priest, who just happens to also be a lawyer..."
  2. I may be wrong but I think the deadline for applications has passed
  3. I lived with one law student and a masters student for 2 years, and then in the final year the masters student moved out and another law student moved in. The additional law student was also heavily involved in an extracurricular with me. All of them are some of my best friends. I even met the first law student on here 😜
  4. To push back on the "law school too theoretical" point--I don't think that anyone argues that law schools should be all theory totally divorced from the real world. That isn't a good way to train people for practice or academic work, because even the academics suffer if they don't know what its like on the ground. At the same time: the people who think that we should radically shift to a heavily practice oriented framework seem to ignore the strengths of having a strong theoretical foundation in the law. Knowing the first principles, the deeper meanings behind these things allows you to make more creative arguments and move the body of law forward. I think the debate can be analogized to the broader idea that a university should more or less be a vocational training school- an idea that is often levied against the utility of subjects other than STEM. In that case, the contention is wrong: a university is a place to move the body of knowledge forward, and the education and soft skills (research, critical thinking, writing) that one receives at a university will be useful in many different fields. With law, it is different, seeing as it is a professional program where the vast majority of students want to practice for at least some period of time. I think that the people who just want to teach us how to practice, with the idea that every grad should be ready to go out and hang a shingle after their call, miss that the theory is actually a useful professional tool. Further, understanding the power structures and theory behind these decisions also goes to producing ethical and conscientious lawyers: do we really want a generation of Crowns that simply see themselves as technicians of criminal and evidence law, with the aim of imprisoning those whose files cross their desk?
  5. Yoon's multiple choice questions were just nonsensical, and after studying past exams the "right" answer was wrong based on the law at the time. I never really had another multiple choice exam in law school, probably because its simply not a very good way of assessing legal knowledge. With that being said the mere fact of multiple choice wouldn't make me balk, as much as a given prof's reputation for writing wild multiple choice questions.
  6. So what you're saying is that you had Yoon for legal process?
  7. Nobody knows. That's the worst part.
  8. To anyone reading this in the future- an A- is not a bad grade. It is also not an uncompetitive grade, save for the obvious fact that an A or A+ is better. Source: got into UT with a 3.7 GPA, which included a number of A-s, and- *gasp* even some B+s and a B.
  9. To relay some hearsay from a partner at Davies- "The only reason we have that nickname is because nothing rhymes with McCarthy Tetrault".
  10. I've seen lawyers walking around with rubber covers on their dress shoes. I can also say from experience that you can get away with wearing winter Blundstones and a suit... in set date court. I would still probably switch from the blundstones to proper shoes around the office though. On the coat topic- I think I may invest in an overcoat in the near-ish future, which I can then wear on most days, and whip out the full on parka if necessary.
  11. So much this. The Poli-Sci students might have a small jump in. con and admin, you're right, but that's because they might know the ins and outs of federalism and the administrative state a little bit more- though notably, in a completely different venue. I would be very surprised if there were many political science classes that delved into the doctrinal implications of the Margarine Reference or the Persons Case as opposed to their political implications. You got in. That decision was made by a lot of people who are supposedly good at this. Trust that, do your best, and you can't go wrong.
  12. Best advice with these sorts of questions (phony though they may be): -don't ask anything that you can find out on the website -get lawyers talking about themselves If for instance there is something more technical about the firm that you want answered that you cannot find out from the website (i.e. I want to work in this particular area of litigation, but I understand that Firm X only gives their students a general litigation rotation- what opportunities would I have to work in this particular area) then by all means ask that. With respect to getting them talking about themselves, my favourites were "What one factor brought you to the firm, and with the benefit of hindsight would that factor still be the most important?" and "What do you think is a problem facing the profession, and how do you expect Firm X to rise to the occasion?"
  13. FYI, for U of T students, I have it on good authority that at least some employers have posted on UTLC.
  14. The litigation boutiques also don't send out PFOs/ITCs. (Or at least they didn't last year, if I recall correctly).
  15. My understanding of the whole inSource deal is that it's gruntwork outside of the partnership track. I've also heard that the firm is supportive of people finding a job after their time with the inSource dept.
×
×
  • Create New...