Jump to content

SlightlyObsessed

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Decent People

About SlightlyObsessed

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1761 profile views
  1. Without disclosing specific information, I've heard that two Bay Street firms are raising. I haven’t heard specifics, but doubt that it is “matching” Davies. That would change the entire market.
  2. These rates are pretty well established as "market". I believe that there are some small variances at years 4/5.
  3. What a strange direction this thread has taken.
  4. I don't expect to hear anything soon - this was dropped on the firms just as year-end is coming around. That being said, it's hard to ignore the differences at the upper end of the spectrum. A 60k difference for 5th and 6th years. DWPV drives is associates hard, but I don't think it drives then any harder than, for example, McCarthy's. More importantly is the difference with in-house positions. Firms are bleeding associates partly because the pay cut just isn't that painful. This might change that.
  5. My law school was one of the largest in Canada, with some very large class sizes, so I was generally not missed when I skipped. There were certain classes that I barely attended in 3L. The reasoning, however, was not that grades were not necessary. It was that attending class was the least effective way for me to get those grades. Grades will remain important to you for years to come. And I would say that your knowledge of the subject matter is crucial to getting those grades. Attendance may or may not be crucial to your knowledge and/or grades. I attended every Evidence class, because that was important and interesting to me. I didn't attend much of Tax because I was just not interested, and found that I wasted the class on Facebook. I did the readings and prepared for the exam, and that was enough. Others might have a completely different studying method. You should figure out what works best for you.
  6. Davies is raising associates salaries effective Jan 2020. DWPV, of course, has always paid more than Bay street. For comparison, I have put the Bay street rates in brackets. Year 1: (110) 130 to 135 Year 2: (130) 150 to 155 Year 3: (150) 170 to 180 Year 4: (170) 195 to 210 Year 5: (185) 220 to 240 Year 6: (210) 250 to 270 This table does not include bonuses or other benefits that may vary at different firms. The question now is whether the gap between DWPV and the rest will widen, or if firms will match the raise.
  7. It should be noted that this is not the standard in Ontario. In Ontario, you are a "first year" for you entire stub year AND your first full year.
  8. A good tailor can make anything, out of anything. I suggest that you search out some highly rated tailors and explain your needs. I'll bet that they can come up with something that looks professional. My husband works with a tailor for all of his suits and they have a dizzying array of shirts and suits. I think that looking professional has radically evolved over the past 10-20 years. Even on Bay street, more and more male lawyers are eschewing suits and ties. They still dress professionally (usually dark colours, collars, fitted but not too tight, etc), but the head of my Department is known to wear a tshirt and jeans. Now, you aren't senior yet, I assume, but I think that you can make a case for this accommodation and still dress very professionally.
  9. Look out kids! A straw man is on the loose! Run for cover! Seriously though. Unless I'm seriously misreading Komodos point, she isn't saying anything remotely similar to enforced identical outcomes. I read it as: 1. We acknowledge that societal (not biological, yo) duties impose a heavier burden on female parents than on male parents. 2. We posit that it is a moral, social and economic good to subject men and women to equal treatment within our profession, thereby encouraging the smartest and/or most hustliest (its a word (it COULD BE a word (Shakespeare made up words, why can't I?))) to stay and excel in the highly lucrative and influential field of private practice. 3. There's anecdotal and statistical evidence supporting the fact that private practice loses women due to a culture that favours men, and one of the primary ways this occurs is through unequal treatment of parental leave and the conscious and unconscious biases that result from that. 4. This is a problem. We can discuss and argue about solutions, but step one is acknowledging that this is a problem caused by industry and societal culture. I'm also just going to lay this out there : is your argument above actually based on the idea that "science says" men and women want different things for reasons other than (1) societal expectations/conditioning and (2) lived experience with discrimination? I'm not trying to strawman you, just trying to make sure I understand.
  10. It's different in each group. Many lawyers go by the 2/3 rule - that 2/3 of your time in the office will be billed. But your mileage will vary. Are you a securities associate working at Blakes? You might turn on your clock when you get in and turn it off when you leave. Are you working in a niche litigation group? You might find that writing papers and blog articles takes up more time than you expected. Some groups also require you to take additional classes, like IP or tax, which would further increase your nonbillables. The 2/3 is a good rule. I find that most people use it as their guiding star. But like billable targets, that can mean something you aim to and are happy about hitting, or something you aim to exceed and would be worried about missing.
  11. I'm saying that at the associate level, I see male and female associates leaving in roughly equal numbers for in house positions. And the male laterals are often coming from lower tier firms - from off Bay or smaller firms - as they try to "trade up". I think much of our imbalance comes from firms taking chances with male associates who don't necessarily have the best credentials, and that this doesn't happen with women. Fair points. A law firm can work to change its own culture, and (to a lesser degree) law firm culture, by taking your steps. I just think that Canadian culture places a large barrier to that by our cultural expectations, but you are right, since that doesn't give us the option to abdicate responsibility to lead change in our firms and profession.
  12. I've had very frank conversations with associates at firms about our broken system for advancing women. I came into law thinking "hey, law schools are 50/50, so presumably law firms will be 50/50(ish) within 20 years." But no - law schools have been 50/50 for over 20 years, and law firm partners are still overwhelmingly white men. I think it goes beyond childrearing expectations. Consider this : My firm hires 50%+ female articling students every year. Attrition is as bad here as it is anywhere, but female associates are still heavily outnumbered, especially in the business law group. Why? Well, it turns out that while articling and hireback numbers are very equal, lateral hiring - at both the associate and partner level - is nearly exclusively white men. Accordingly, the firm gets maler as you get more senior because of hiring practices. This is not a cultural issue - this is well within the firms control. The issue of maternity leave has been discussed at length, so I won't rehash old ground. Women losing relative experience due to maternity leave is a cultural issue that law firms can do little about. What they can do is reintegrate women who leave on maternity leave. The issue isn't so much that these women lose a year of experience, but they even once they return, they lose the momentum in their path to partnership. Client and partner relationships have changed in that period, and firms offer little assistance for restoring them. This is also within the firms control - a true reintegration plan could restore women's path to partnership and keep them longer. Of course, we could legislate a country where men take more time off with their children. That would be nice, and probably not even that disruptive, but that's outside of our control. Hiring and reintegration - that is something that firms can do.
  13. NY BigLaw, and Bay street to a lesser degree, favours UofT way more heavily than anywhere else (except maybe McGill). To be honest, the quality of your legal education is what you make of it. At any school, you can be the student who focuses and aces on their corporate/family/criminal/etc classes and clubs and clinics. Unless you are looking at the stats of hiring in BigLaw, the differences in what you get are fairly minor, subject to the actions you take within each school.
  14. Every workplace is a mixed bag with horrible and amazing bosses/workflow/colleagues. But private practise, especially Bay street, amplifies this hugely. Let's not beat around the bush - when your health is suffering and you actively hate your job, you are in a very dangerous situation. This is not dramatic, this is not lazy, this is really important. It seems that you have a generally manageable unhappiness with the position, but a specific and acute problem with your manager. Your medium term goal should be to exit the firm for a better place, but your short term goal should be to get away from the partner. If you feel that you cannot leave the firm# I recommend that you still try to get away from the toxic partner. Many firms are desperate to keep talent and will try to keep you around if possible, especially if the partner is notorious. As a lateral, you may find that you have few people at work who you can trust. If you can develop relationships with some possible mentors - not necessarily file relationships, but just getting coffee with a senior associate or partner can give you an important ally. Junior associates you strive to have multiple mentors, including some with whom they do no work. If you've been able to see the ground with the idea that you want to do a different type of work, you might be able to save yourself from you current boss without the upheaval of leaving a firm. This doesn't fix the fact that you want to go elsewhere, which you should still strive for, but it can help you protect yourself in the near term. Please take care of yourself. Protecting yourself is hard, but really important.
  15. Many firms pay 10% if you hit target, but more and more forms are discretionary, so it is not as set in stone. A general guideline would be an additional 5% for every 100 hours above target, but that can be wildly different in different practise groups. Some firms are known to pay better bonuses - Stikes and Cassels come to mind.
×
×
  • Create New...