Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. 38 minutes ago, CarletonChonkers said:

    That's not an option unfortunately. You need to have a verifier they can contact (Email address and physical address required). 


    Should I just put my registrar's office?

    Yeah I just ignored it and put see transcript or whatever. I don’t think schools really care about the bio, and to the extent they do they’re not going to care that you didn’t figure out who at your schools bureaucracy would confirm you received an award that’s printed on your official transcript sent directly from the school.

    If you care you can go through the process of finding out who to list, but I didn’t. 

    • Thanks 1

  2. 3 minutes ago, CarletonChonkers said:

    Does anyone have any idea what would or could possibly go in the "Other" category of the ABS?

    Also, for the Awards categories, the only things I can really think of are Scholarships awarded from my school and the Dean's List. Should I put those in my ABS? They are on my academic transcript so I don't think its necessary. Moreover, who should I put as a verifier in case I did want to list these scholarships and Dean's list awards? I was thinking of contacting the undergrad supervisor at my department and maybe asking them if could verify it if that is needed.

    I would probably include them, but I would just put “transcript” as verifier or something. For stuff like that I either put “transcript” if it was on my transcript or “supporting documentation available” if I had documents I could send if they asked. 

  3. 4 minutes ago, Mal said:

    Have you considered doing a letter of permission? You could spend a semester at another law school this way.

    I did this to spend my final year of law school at UBC, partly because they had a better tax program. It is relatively uncommon so there are a few hoops to jump through and was a competitive process to apply. 

    Yeah, absent a pre-existing arrangement between the schools (such as the one osgoode and u of t have) an LOP is likely your best bet, OP. 

    Note, however, that you usually pay the receiving school’s tuition, not your home institution’s. So if you’re thinking of going to Ontario, it could be pricey. 

  4. 21 minutes ago, TheLegendof said:

    Wait til what? I finished 1L with excellent grades, a job, and an abundance of spare time.

    Ah, i thought you were going into 1L. 

    I don’t know if you noticed, but many students spend an absolutely insane amount of studying. I never understood why, but it’s absolutely true that many 1Ls couldn’t handle a job and study the amount they want to 

  5. 38 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

    I have said I worked 50ish hours most weeks, but I don't think I've said that that's not enough to become a partner. I have said that I didn't care whether it's enough to become a partner. I don't think any of the people I worked with who made partner have regularly billed 2000 hours in a year. 

    Edit to add: Obviously, I've made thousands of posts here. If I've ever said that there is a specific target that makes you "partnership material", that was wrong, and I apologize now.


    Fair enough, and re: the other posts of it’s more malleable than simply hitting an hours target.

    Would you say it’s common for people who make partner to be just hitting target, or do most people who make partner regularly exceed target?

    Adjusted of course for the fact that if you don’t want to make partner, you’re probably not working your ass off to exceed target. 

    Just trying to get a grasp on the relationship between hitting/exceeding target and making partner. 

    ETA: perhaps a better way to phrase this is how important are hitting/exceeding hourly targets as an associate for making partner, or is it purely a question of how much business you bring in/the firm hopes you bring in. 

  6. 42 minutes ago, ArmyToLaw said:

    For the few Legal Officers deployed overseas, they generally work in the HQ on the main base or at a forward operating base (FOB). In Afghanistan they occasionally went outside the wire with the commander or on an assigned task, but that seems to be the exception.

    It's not uncommon to have legal officers deploy aboard ships. At one point it was standard practice for at least one legal officer to be deployed aboard each ship during a deployment, but I'm not sure if that's still the practice. Best I could find from a quick search is that there was a five member legal officer team sent along with the five ships we sent to RIMPAC 2018. To the extent that a legal officer were to deploy aboard a ship, the experience would be pretty much the same as any other officer aboard a ship. 

    Also as a complete aside, interesting case out of the military court system today: LS CD Edwards v R, 2020 CM 3006.

    The Deputy Chief Military Judge held that the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) order appointing the Deputy Vice CDS as the commanding officer with respect to disciplinary matters of military judges violates LS Edwards' s. 11(d) right to a trial in front of an impartial tribunal. The end result was a stay of proceedings, and this decision, if upheld, would mean that any proceedings against service members pending or brought in the future should be stayed until such time as the CDS reallocates disciplinary matters relating to military judges to the Military Judges Inquiry Committee. It also calls into question all decisions handed decided since the CDS order went into effect on 2 October 2019. 

    This concludes today's episode of fun military justice facts with BQ. 

    • Like 1

  7. 5 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

    I don't think I consistently worked more than 50 hours a week when I was an associate. But I didn't often work much less than that either.

    You've said before you usually did about 50 hours a week, 35 of which were billable (1750 for the year), but that wasn't partnership material at your firm.

    Out of curiosity, what would you say is partnership material? 2000 on the year (so roughly 57 hours a week, 40 being billable)? 

  8. 20 minutes ago, prospective said:

    There’s a difference between “at work”

    and “working”. 

    I think OP was probably looking for a job where they only have to be at work for 40-50 hours, not a job where they're docketing 40-50 hours per week but at the office for 60-70. So utilization rate (which seems to be defined as hours billed/hours at work) is a really important question.

    I think it's fair to say that being "at work" for 40-50 hours per week is an unrealistic goal on Bay Street, at least for junior associates. 

  9. 23 minutes ago, prospective said:

    Ideally, you should docket 100% of the time you actually work. More time on files, less time around the water cooler ;)

    Difference is between hours docketed, hours billed, and hours recovered.

    At some firms, target is based on hours docketed. Your mileage may vary.

    Nobody is docketing 100% of the time they're at work, that's unrealistic and would be a red flag. There's just too much task switching, informal conversations, dead time, etc. for people working on Bay St to be reliably docketing that much of their time. 

    I think @conge's range of 60-80% is more realistic. Really productive (and really busy) people might be pushing up to 90% of their days billed on a regular basis. 

  10. 2 hours ago, SELIM said:

    I have this great opportunity to work up to 5 hours every Saturday on local radio (usually 2-3 hours), but I'm starting 1L next month. I can build a lot of ties in the community which will be very useful to me as a lawyer. It's not a demanding or stressful job. Does anyone have any experience holding a job while in law school ? Thoughts on managing 5 hours a week while in school...

    Yeah you can definitely do that. 3 hours on Saturday mornings is like... less time than most 1Ls spend hungover in bed on Saturdays. You’ll be fine 

    • Like 2
    • Haha 4

  11. 41 minutes ago, thebadwife said:

    Thank you! Are these things that can be found on firm websites, or more things I should be contacting them to ask about? Is it even appropriate for a student applying for OCI's to ask questions like this? I feel like I can't exactly be picky about a firm's work allocation system etc. as a student desperate to get a job...

    Rotation system are usually on the firms website under the student section, work allocation generally isn’t. 

    During interviews, the interviewers will generally ask if you have any questions towards the end of the interview. It would be appropriate to ask then. 

    That said, I think you should disuade yourself of the notion that you’re desperate to get a job and can’t be picky. Being picky is important – you don’t want to end up working somewhere you’re miserable. I was fortunate to have a lot of options as a student, but I think that even students with more limited options should be more willing to figure out where they would be happy and turn down offers from places where they wouldn’t be happy. But I know that’s easier said than done. 

    • Like 1

  12. 28 minutes ago, halloitskiko said:

    Hey everyone, 

    I'm in a very similar position as @Audicious, but was wondering if it would be best to write the October AND November LSAT? 
    Most schools take either the higher score or the average, so would that be the best way to go? 
    And then, worst case if those still aren't satisfactory, take the January one as well? 


    If money is no object, then possibly. Your two concerns would be burnout and the LSAT retake limits (3 per year, 5 in a 5 year period, 7 overall). 

  13. 20 minutes ago, canuckfanatic said:

    It is, but it's more nuanced than that. I'm a POC but it would have been silly for me to have applied under "special considerations" for that reason alone, because I grew up in an upper-middle class family with a lot of privileges. As an individual you need to evaluate your own life's circumstances and decide whether you need special consideration.

    It’s quite common for bipoc individuals from upper class or upper-middle class families to apply via the special considerations or similar categories, just for other readers. 

    Thank you for the information re: first generation immigrants 

  14. 5 minutes ago, Tagger said:

    I used to enjoy reading your posts, but something's gotten into you lately. Why pick fights with people every time anyone brings up a remotely debatable point? 

    I’m not picking a fight, I’m honestly confused. I read OPs post and thought they were surely eligible for the special considerations category, but the advice they’ve gotten is that they’re not. 

    I’m not even sure what you think is the debatable point here. OP seems to me to clearly qualify, so if the advice is that they don’t I’m either missing something (and thus I’m wrong) or the advice is wrong (and if the advice is wrong, that’s important information that OP should know).

  15. 2 minutes ago, Mydream123 said:

    POC = person of colour, not an immigrant. 

    Immigrant - a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

    POC being the POC part of biPOC

    First generation Canadian being an immigrant, contrasted with second generation Canadians, who are the children of immigrants. 

    Am I going crazy? What’s going on in this thread? 

  16. Just now, Mydream123 said:

    If your an immigrant and bipoc, then yes. 

    OP said she is, didn’t she:

    On 8/15/2020 at 11:08 PM, ms123 said:

    I was wondering If I can I apply as a special consideration applicant if I meet all the requirements but am a POC/First Generation Canadian

    Am I missing something? 

  17. 8 minutes ago, TheGazeboEffect said:

    Curious as to what those in big firms are expecting regarding bonuses this year?

    Starting to get to that point in the year (for myself at least) where you decide whether or not to push to try and qualify for or increase your bonus. I'm at a firm that did not decrease salaries, and work is still busy (in certain practice areas at least), but there's lots of speculation as to what will happen with bonuses - but it's just that, speculation. Has anyone heard anything more official from their firm?

    (PS I recognize and apologize for the juxtaposition of this being asked right below a post detailing someone who has been working the same hours as they did pre-COVID but at a 50% pay cut, which I think is horrible).

    I know that one big firm has indicated to its associates that total compensation is expected to be in line with last years figures. This is a firm that didn’t cut salaries, had good hire back numbers, and is by all accounts still quite busy. 

    • Like 1

  18. The two most important things for me were rotation system and work allocation system.

    Some firms have strict rotations that force you to change practice areas with x frequency, which can be nice if you want to try different things but a pain in the ass if you’re not interested in the area you rotate into. Other firms don’t make you rotate at all. Some are in between. 

    Work allocation systems can vary a lot, too. Some have work go out on “the wire”, and whoever has priority has the right of first refusal on it. Some have emails go out to all the students and it’s first-come-first-served. Lawyer utilization of the system is also important. Some firms make all work go out to all the students, while others are happy to let you build an internal referral network. 

    After that, I considered things like firm structure (I’m rather outspoken against the verein structure), partnership track, group structure, type of client, etc. 

  19. Context is important here. OP has essentially done corporate document review for their entire career. They’ve been out of school for five years and called for two of them. My comment was made in response to advice to set up shop in criminal law, immigration law, family law, or similar. We have essentially no indication that OP has any competence in any of those fields, and I would argue we have some evidence that OP is not competent in those fields. That’s not an indictment of OP, who may very well become competent (and I’ll note, Diplock’s early advice was essentially to find a job as an associate so that OP could become competent in a marketable area like estates or RE). 

    To the extent my comments can be read (or have been reinterpreted to be) an argument that inexperienced counsel are bad, I retract them. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of my comments, but oh well. I do not and never have thought that the existence of inexperienced counsel is a significant problem in the legal system. 

    I do think that incompetent counsel serving vulnerable individuals is a major problem in our legal system, and I’m not really interested in debating it. If Mal or others want to argue that incompetent counsel are better than self reps, they can do so. I disagree, but I don’t think it’s a debate worth having. 

    • Like 2

  20. 3 minutes ago, msea said:

    Let me be clear, I’m not questioning the truth of your comment. Someone who isn’t ready yet shouldn’t become solely responsible for files they aren’t equipped for until they either gain more experience and have some guidance.

    What I’m questioning is the necessity of your comment. Even if what you said was true, there’s really no need to come in here, provide no real advice, and kick someone while they’re down. I don’t think your comment had any intention of actually trying to help the OP whatsoever. I sincerely hope that if you ever find yourself needing help or advice, that whoever you turn to for help is actually interested in helping you rather than taking the opportunity to feel better about themselves for not being in an unfortunate position at that time.

    You’re right. The point of my post was not to provide advice to OP. It was to flag the problem that other users had glossed over while telling OP to hang their own shingle – while that might be good career advice, it’s not necessarily a responsible suggestion when you consider factors other than OP’s own personal wellbeing.

    Two observations, and then I’m done defending myself and you can call me all the mean words you want to. First, I think you’re projecting a bit, and you may want to reflect on that. Second, I think your moral outrage is misplaced. You’re mad at me for suggesting that incompetent people probably shouldn’t hang their own shingle. What you should be mad at is the suggestion that incompetent people should hang their own shingle.

    Because my post, at worst, hurts OPs feelings for a little bit. The alternate suggestion, though, ruins people’s lives. 

    • Like 1

  21. I never canned my policy answers (nor did I ever really prepare for them), and I did well. I think they might be useful if you find yourself routinely failing to finish exams in the allotted time or if you suffer from test anxiety, but otherwise I think they’re largely a waste of time. 

    • Like 2
  • Create New...