Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    6384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. OP's billable target isn't 1800 hours. That said, OP's firm still sounds pretty crummy.
  2. I would guess that the June cohort is much larger than the May one? The number of people who start articling in July is relatively small, whereas all of the large firms and many smaller employers start their articling students in August. Additionally, not everyone will have completed their ten month articling term at the same time. May would have covered essentially everyone that started at any point in July, whereas if you started August 30th, 2019, you wouldn't be done until June 20th, assuming they used all ten days off at the end of their term.
  3. Sure, you also don't "need" to bring pants. But you probably should bring both an LSC and pants
  4. I've always taken the attitude that people who concern themselves with others academic accommodations are just too insecure in their own ability to compete and do well in the course. Even if someone is unjustly getting accommodations, I'm confident enough in my own abilities that I don't need to worry about what they're doing. @Pythia, the LSO has a member assistance program which can provide you with short-term counselling and other supports. It sounds like you could use some help dealing with these intrusive thoughts and I would encourage you to reach out to them. They offer counselling both over the phone and online (via either secure chat or email platforms), as well as in person counselling once restrictions have lifted. You're eligible if you're a law student, articling candidate, or a practicing lawyer. Best of luck
  5. [Emphasis added] Go to "Call to the Bar" Third heading: Call to the Bar Fee Go to "Fees and Forms then Fee Schedule": Right there, it says: I don't know how you can possibly say that you had no notice or expectation of fees on top of the articling fees you already paid. The above has been on the LSO website for the duration of your articles. It's quite clear and easy to see that in order to be called to the bar, you have to pay the call to the bar fee, which is $250. If you didn't know about the $250, it's entirely your own fault. So no, it's not "extra". And I'm sorry, but you realize that the reason you pay a call to the bar fee isn't to pay for the ceremony or receive the certificate, right? It's for the LSO to do the work of confirming you've satisfied all of the requirements to be called to the bar. If the $250 was burdensome on you, you could have applied for the financial supports already available to articling students. You can't say it's disgusting for them to ask for more money in exchange for their services while: (i) demanding they provide said services, and (ii) not taking advantage of the programs set up to help you if you don't have the money.
  6. $250 + HST is the usual call to the bar fee. I agree that it sucks if you happened to draw the short straw and pay the full cost, but sometimes life is like that. By all means email the LSO and see if they'll refund you the $55. The LSO already has plenty of programs available to licensees to help make the licensing process more affordable – there's no reason for them to blanket defer payments. If the $250 was a financial burden for you, you could have applied for assistance under the repayable allowance system. Nobody is being charged anything extra. I don't know where you're getting that idea.
  7. Anyways, this whole aside about whether or not the employer is in the right or not is silly. OP stated that it was clearly communicated to them that "billable", for the purposes of this firm, meant "charged and collected". That seems like a rather clear indication that the "rightful conclusion" is not, in fact, that every hour of work typically thought of as "billable" is billable – rather, only the work charged and collected. And since charged and collected has two levels of discretion – whether it's charged by the billing lawyer and whether it's paid by the client – OP hardly has any right to complain that his "employer should not be entitled rely on the fact the condition wasn’t realized in order apply a sanction on the employee". @obviousthrowaway2018, your firms billing target practices are very different from the typical bay street firm practices, but the idea of judging associate performance/compensation off of actual billed work, or even off collected work, isn't entirely outside the mainstream for smaller firms. You seem principally concerned that this will affect your performance review – have you raised the issue with anyone at your firm? If you have someone in charge of your review, or even just a formal mentor, this might be worth bringing to their attention now. If it's normal firm practice, then you're going to have to make a decision regarding whether the amount of work you'll need to do to meet target is worthwhile. But if it's not normal practice, getting out ahead of it before a potential review will make you look proactive and prevent you from looking like you're scrounging for excuses come review time.
  8. How to give negligent legal advice on the internet: a summary
  9. Things are likely a bit different when the creditor can fire the debtor
  10. Call me crazy, but $195 plus having some documents commissioned strikes me as less of a hassle than $250, having some documents commissioned, renting/buying robes, and attending the ceremony. The LSO seems to be being pretty reasonable and requesting the bare minimum here. I’m actually pretty impressed with the way they’ve handled all the licensing decisions so far.
  11. Nobody cares about your GPA, particularly because of the huge variance in GPA systems between schools. People look at the letter grades. And anyone looking at those two transcripts would assume that Student A was stronger, which is true. The better example are two students with three B+s, with student A getting two Bs, which she shows, and student B getting two Cs, which he hides. In that case, student B looks better from a GPA perspective, but any reasonable person viewing the transcript would assume, correctly, that student A is better
  12. Most people generally do, you know, something during their summers. Whether that's working, volunteering, hiking, traveling, whatever. If you're just going to sit at home and build legos or something, you'll have a hard time giving an honest and interesting answer to the question "what did you do last summer?" COVID-19 will probably result in more people doing nothing than usual, but don't be surprised if a firm likes "I worked with Conquer COVID to help frontline workers gain access to PPE and other priority items" more than "I chilled at the lakehouse with the guys and played flip cup".
  13. Agreed, that doesn't strike me as a tricky situation at all. I also disagree with @pzabbythesecond regarding whether or not employer inferences will be uniform. Optional pass/fail regimes really only lead to two reasonable inferences: (i) the pass/failed grade is lower than any grades that were shown, and (ii) the pass/failed grade is a below average grade*. Nobody is pass/failing a higher grade than one they choose to show, and essentially nobody is pass/failing an average or above average grade. Since no other reasonable inferences can really be drawn from the pass/fail option, I would expect employers to pretty uniformly make those inferences. *It is possible that students with a track record of very strong grades – say, straight As – may be treated as if the grade they've hidden is a B, since an average grade would be an aberration. However, the number of students with such a track record is quite small, and honestly if you've got straight As, even the inference that you got a C-range grade won't be harmful.
  14. That’s in line with their historical hireback rates – the last two years have been strong, but from 2012-2017 they hired back ~60%
  15. I agree with what everyone else has said regarding taking time. Unless you have another opportunity lined up and ready to go, there's no reason a decision like this needs to be made before your next tuition payment is due. That's likely to be in the fall, but as @pzabbythesecond said, many schools will also allow you to take a year off during your studies. If that's an option, I would advise taking it if you still feel like dropping out in the fall. With that said, I am a strong proponent in quitting more things. Society is obsessed with never quitting, never giving up on your dreams, and persevering though hard times to reach goals you may very well end up hating. People are worried that if they quit, they'll be branded a failure and they'll regret it forever – but that's not my experience of quitting things I'm not enjoying. Sure, some people may think I'm a failure because I decided not to go to medical school. But I didn't enjoy working in the sciences, so I quit (after a four year degree and a promising start to my career) and went to law school. Law school has been a much more enjoyable and fulfilling experience than I would have had if I went to medical school. Unlike @Diplock, I don't even think you need to compare what you would be doing instead of law school to the benefits of continuing in law. If you find you're no longer passionate about the law, then you're better off doing essentially anything else than dispassionately pursuing a difficult career and paying tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege. Diplock is right that an objective measure of whether you should quit or not depends on what you would be doing instead, but in my mind the question isn't an objective one. Objectively, you are probably financially better off completing law school, unless you have another high-paying job in mind. But to relevant considerations arise here. First, life isn't about making financially optimal decisions so that you die with the biggest stack of money (I know this isn't Diplock's philosophy, either, nor do I mean to imply that's what he was angling at). Unless you value money incredibly highly, you're not going to end up feeling fulfilled and satisfied if you stay in law when you don't care about it anymore, even if you end up financially successful. Second, sometimes you need to make space in your life before something exists to fill it. You're not passionate about law, at least not right now. You may not have another option lined up and you many not be passionate about something specific – but it's also possible that those options and passions haven't revealed themselves because law school (and, presumably, the goal of going to law school) have filled up so much of your life. Often, we need to let go of things that take up space in our lives so that other things have the opportunity to fill them. So my advice is this: take some time, consider your options, and if you find that you're just not passionate about continuing law school when it's time to make a decision, quit. I think a lot of people would be a lot happier if they had the guts to quit more.
  16. Depending on your bank, they have a lot of leeway with which documents you need to provide. A screenshot of my course registration was sufficient one year for me with Scotiabank. The application process can also be started with simply an offer of admission, or it could be three years ago. In that case, they just waited to release funds until I provided my confirmation of enrolment.
  17. It won't – lawyers do legal work, coders do coding. I know lawyers working in technical fields, ranging from pharmaceuticals to fintech and everything in between, and essentially none of them have any formal background or work experience in the field they work with. Think about it this way – you're a fintech firm looking to raise capital. Why do you go to a lawyer? To help you raise capital. Does it matter if your lawyer is able to code or analyze the code used in your software? No. What matters is whether or not your lawyer is able to facilitate you raising capital. Similarly, all of the lawyers I know working to "disrupt the legal profession" are doing one of three things: Not disrupting the legal profession, putting out mediocre software that isn't worth the cost (the majority); Leading companies hoping to disrupt the profession in an executive or advisory role that involves designing products, not coding; or Essentially serving as beta or alpha testers for the products developed (think verifying that the outputs provided by a software such as Blue J Legal are correct) None of that is to say that you shouldn't go to law school if you want to, and by all means try to disrupt the profession if you're entrepreneurial and have the drive, but realize that with exceptionally few exceptions, the idea of a lawyer who writes code, or even looks at it, as a meaningful part of their job is largely a myth. And also note that if you're a damn good programmer, you're almost certain to make less money as a lawyer than you would as a programmer.
  18. Assuming you'd be as good a coder as you would a lawyer, the smarter course is always to take a coding course rather than law school.
  19. There are plenty of reasons to risk passing the virus along, even if it can be avoided. We could have saved nearly 100,000 lives in 2017-18 by shutting down the US economy, going into lockdown, and social distancing. In Canada, we could save nearly 2,000 lives per year by banning cars, and an additional 3,000 by banning alcohol. We could have saved up to half a billion people in 2009 by shutting everything down when H1N1 started to spread. Essentially every action in life is about weighing the benefits and risks of certain activities. It's absurd to argue that no avoidable risk should be taken. The overall risk to society of reopening some schools with strict enforcement of best practices and other modifications is incredibly low. The chance of contracting COVID-19 while keeping six feet apart from others, wearing masks and goggles, and frequently washing your hands is vanishingly small. Because of that, you only need to show a small benefit in order to justify reopening with such modifications.
  20. Well no, with a vaccine this is likely much less bad than a particularly bad flu season. Without a vaccine, but with the current measures, this is only marginally worse than a bad flu season. I disagree re: models. Models account for information asymmetry, and I don't think there's any evidence that models are under-correcting for said asymmetry. If anything, models are likely to overcorrect for asymmetry because initial data suggested that we had a much higher delta between recorded and actual cases, while more recent data has suggested that data was likely inaccurate. Same deal with death rates and other factors that push models to predict more deaths. I also think you're really underestimating the information asymmetry of other diseases. Essentially the entire world and healthcare community is focused on identifying COVID-19 cases and treating them. That's not true of other diseases – nobody was freaking out about the 2009 H1N1 pandemic or the 2017-18 flu season, so there was no concerted effort to identify all cases. That's why the 2009 H1N1 pandemic may have infected more people, as a proportion of global population, than the Spanish Flu, but nobody cares or really looked into it. All of which is to say, this really shouldn't be causing people much more stress than daily life (except for the fact that mental health suffers in isolation). If you're a healthy adult, you'll likely be fine. If you're a health child, you'll probably be fine. If you have co-morbidities, you are only marginally more at risk than you are from many other events that have occurred in your lifetime. Hell, early data shows Canada recorded net-fewer deaths during January, February, and March than past years, suggesting that COVID-19 related-sutdowns caused fewer other deaths, including deaths from traffic accidents and seasonal flus, than COVID-19 caused.
  21. I would probably advise you to get a car. Kamloops is a fairly spread out city, and I understand from friends there that the transit generally kinda sucks (although I have no personal experience with it). Having a car might also open up some cheaper/nicer areas to rent, which would be a pain to get to via transit. Also, Kamloops is unlikely to have uber or lyft any time soon, so you'll be stuck with taxis if you can't transit somewhere. Caveat that this is all just from visiting Kamloops randomly over the years to see friends/ski. TRU students may have different advice.
  22. People who live at home and have parents with serious co-morbidities are always at risk of bringing home viruses to those people, and COVID-19 isn't realistically speaking any more viral than many of those diseases or any more likely to kill them. The reason COVID-19 is serious is because of how quickly it spread through our population and the risk of overwhelming the healthcare system. Assuming that risk is adequately managed, COVID-19 is, at worst, marginally worse than a particularly bad flu season. Leading models suggest the death toll in the USA will be about 50,000 more than the higher-end estimates of the 2017-18 US flu season, and much of that is due to the fact that the USA poorly reacted to the initial outbreaks. It's likely that To be honest, people with co-morbidities are probably safer at this point than they were during the 2017-18 flu season, because of all the extra precautions being taken. TL;DR: if people are stressed out about bringing home this virus to their parents with serious co-morbidities, they likely should be stressed out all the time for the rest of their parent's lives.
  23. In general, I agree with your nitpicks – my comment was aimed at addressing the overall sentiment, not specifics. I also addressed your second nitpick with an edit to my original comment, but yes, most people who have had the virus are, at this point, no longer shedding it. With that said, a nitpick to your nitpicks: The preliminary studies are far from consensus on this issue, and the level of underreporting varies significantly by country. Germany's rate, for instance, is expected to be 1 reported case for every 3 actual cases, while in the US estimates were as high as 1 reported for every 100+ actual cases. We really don't have enough data to make any conclusions.
  24. My comment was targeted at your "I don't think you appreciate just how possible it is to get the infection in Canada from people, even with these measures" comment. Your comment makes me think that you don't appreciate just how improbable it is to get COVID-19 when actively engaged in best practices.
  25. It's incredibly unlikely that you will contract COVID-19 while practicing all of the precautions advocated for by health authorities. Less than 0.2% of Canada's population has tested positive for COVID-19, and even if you're generous and say 0.3% have actually had it, you're still talking about incredibly slim odds that you contract it by just wandering the streets of Toronto. That's without even accounting for the fact that a large number of those people are no longer shedding the virus. Add in wearing a mask, washing your hands regularly, and keeping your distance from people, and the likelihood that you will contract COVID-19 is remarkably small.
×
×
  • Create New...