Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. 11 hours ago, harveyspecter993 said:

    So is it basically a rule that you do'n't wear a red tie to an interview?

    Where have you even heard that? That’s absurd advice. 

    • Like 1

  2. 9 minutes ago, erinl2 said:

    The courses you've registered for are the ones you should list. Everyone knows that things may change with new availability, changing your mind, etc.  That isn't the same as trying to play every angle and being dishonest.

    Students aren’t registered in 3L courses by the time they’re submitting upper year course lists. Hell, for the 1L recruit there isn’t even a list of courses being offered the next year.

    And I would argue that listing a course you intend to drop is more dishonest than listing the course you intend to take, even if you’re currently registered in the first one.

    Listing a clinic is (probably) statistically unlikely to be honest, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t list them if they intend to apply and take the clinic if offered a position. 

    There are lots of “honest” answers to what courses someone intends to take a year and a half from now. Pretending there’s no degrees of honesty in the question is silly. 

  3. 28 minutes ago, erinl2 said:

    Are you seriously suggesting that you not be truthful about the courses you've registered for for 2L and 3L?  Seriously? 

    You should be honest. Do not imagine that there are degrees of honesty.

    There are degrees of honesty on this topic, though. 

    Say a student is registered in one class for 2L second semester, and first on the wait list for another that they’ll take over the one they’re registered in. Say the same student knows the wait list has historically moved 10 spots for that particular class. What’s more honest, listing the class they’re currently registered in or the one they’ll end up taking? 

    Similarly, say a student wants to take two course, crim pro and civ pro II, in 3L, but they’ll only have room for one. What should they do? Is it dishonest to put crim pro when applying to crim position and civ pro II when applying to others? What if the student will take whichever is more applicable to their articling experience? 

    And that’s before you even get into the issue of competitive seminars, clinics, and moots. 

  4. 12 hours ago, cglab said:

    Fyi most bay street firms increased salaries this summer. Most firms are now paying 1700/week with a few paying 1850/week (eg Davies) and 1900/week (eg McCarthy's).

    This is inaccurate. First, McCarthy’s is only formally confirmed to have raised salaries for their articling students, not their summers. Second, Davies hasn’t announced a salary raise yet - they’ve been at $1,850 for years. Third, Davies articling students make $1850, not their summers. When I did the recruit they were paying summers $1600 or $1650, with BJs paying $1700, I believe. 

    Also, I think Faskens bumped their articling pay to $1800. 

  5. 1 hour ago, whoknows said:

    You're going to be sending them final transcripts. Be honest. 

    No recruiter in the world is going to care if you change a few courses from the time you submit an application to the time you submit your final transcripts. Mine have changed radically, and certainly nobody at my firm gives a damn. 

    I also think @wtamow‘s story about a recruiter is dumb. Students should take what they’re interested in – if you know after 1L what you want to practice and you can fill your schedule with classes that genuinely interest you, you should. 

    That said, just be honest. If a firm isn’t going to hire you because you took Crim Pro, you probably don’t want to work at that firm. 

    And needless to say, if you’re interested in criminal law, become a criminal lawyer. I’m watching all my 2L friends that obviously want to practice something not-big-law freak out and apply to big law firms right now. It’s sad to see, and I hope they realize their mistake before it’s too late. 

  6. 4 hours ago, pzabbythesecond said:

    Feels kind of pathetic for a profession where people at the top of their class work extremely long hours to get past some training hurdle, only to end up unemployed - with job postings thereafter asking for 1-x years of employment experience.

    On a related note, I'd love to see what the statistics are in the US where there is no articling. Just to see if it really is the same, articling or not, in terms of having some general period of unemployment.

    Only ~65% of US law school graduates are employed as lawyers full time, and 11% are unemployed immediately post-grad. 

    I don’t think the Canadian outcomes are pathetic at all. Professions don’t, and shouldn’t, equal guaranteed employment. The only reason law students seem to think that is and should be true is because they constantly compare themselves to Med students (despite the radical differences in difficulty, career path, and employers between the two fields). The day law students figure out that the proper comparator group is closer to people with bachelors degrees than medical degrees, they’ll be a lot happier with their lot in life. 

    • Like 2

  7. 2 hours ago, Deadpool said:

    Little do the benchers on the stage nor the families and friends in the audience realize what we were getting ourselves into by entering the legal profession at such a time. I've never seen so many new calls around me who were unemployed and worried about Associate job prospects.

    How many of your own call to the bar ceremonies have you gone to? 

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  8. 1 hour ago, Trew said:

    I referenced the decision for it's context, rather than it's results. But if you look at the book of authorities following the preamble, you will see various secondary sources referring to access to justice, including:

    Canada. Department of Justice. “The Final Report on Early Case Consideration of the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System”, 2006

    Alberta Justice and Solicitor General. Criminal Justice Division. “Injecting a Sense of Urgency: A new approach to delivering justice in serious and violent criminal cases”, report by Greg Lepp, April 2013

    B.C. Justice Reform Initiative. A Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century: Final Report to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General Honourable Shirley Bond, report by D. Geoffrey Cowper, Q.C., Chair. Victoria: The Initiative, 2012.

    These are the sources that the Court considered, and I don't think it's inappropriate to inject access to justice considerations into a discussion regarding Jordan. That being said, I could easily compile other case law and secondary sources that more clearly address access to justice in the criminal justice system.

    And which of those sources discusses discusses the access to justice issues caused by the “certificates that [defendants] can take to hundreds of lawyers”?

    (I’ll help you, because everyone here knows you haven’t read a single one of those documents – none of them do, because there’s no access to justice issues caused by an excess supply of criminal defence lawyers) 

  9. 12 minutes ago, Trew said:

    My "observations" are based on secondary sources. If you take issue with my observations, I'll happily engage, but you're just trying to be cute.

    I’ll bite: what part of the Jordan decision or  academic commentary on it discusses the access to justice issues caused by the “certificates that [defendants] can take to hundreds of lawyers”? 

  10. 42 minutes ago, Trew said:

    Right, and everyone qualifies for a legal aid certificate. And R v Jordan was released for no reason. And personal injury lawyers accept every case that comes through their door.  

    Those aren’t the issues you identified though. You said that criminal law is hard to break into because there’s so much excess supply of lawyers taking on LA certs, and that PI law is hard to break into because there’s an excess supply of lawyers willing to work on contingency. 

    Think about what you’re saying here. You can’t simultaneously argue that it’s hard to get into an area of law because the supply of lawyers exceeds demand and that there are access to justice issues due to lack of supply of lawyers. 

    There are access to justice issues in criminal law – they’re just separate from the economics of being a solo new call. 

  11. 10 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

    Based on what?

    Because grades are at least somewhat based on non-effort factors such as intelligence, writing ability, etc, and by virtue of the curve most students will get a B or B+ (or whatever a school curves to). 

  12. 47 minutes ago, Trew said:

    The above examples are unfortunate because they engage access to justice issues. 

    Both your examples don’t engage access to justice issues. You’re literally saying that certificate clients have too many competent criminal lawyers to go to and that PI clients are able to get access to justice because of the contingency structure PI lawyers use. 

  13. 2 hours ago, Ambit said:

    If you know what you plan on doing and your future employment doesn't turn on grades, you would be nuts not to. But lots of people are in fields where grades matter for some time. Have a look at the lateral opportunities at big firms or top boutiques - grades are a factor well into your law career. 

    But what I’m saying is that a many law students (I would argue most law students) are just going to get the same grades regardless of their effort level (within reason). If I was a B student who would get a B while gunning it and would get a B while slacking, I’d slack. 

  14. 1 hour ago, easttowest said:

    Non-SCC/ONCA was after Christmas if I remember correctly.

    SCC and ONCA are post Christmas (well into January). I think AB was the only court which had applications due before Christmas, and they required applicants to send their fall grades when they became available. 

  15. 1 hour ago, pzabbythesecond said:

    Those firms were well managed and therefore did phone screenings when warranted? Did you misread what I wrote originally?

    Woah woah woah. Do you mean to tell me that it’s conceivable for some businesses to interview candidates in different ways based on their internal HR philosophy? Crazy. What a world. 

  16. 2 hours ago, erinl2 said:

    Students frequently have an inflated sense of their value to an employer. This thread is no exception. ;)

    Who is talking about value to their employer? Students are worthless. That doesn’t mean they have no leverage. 

  • Create New...