Jump to content

mazzystar

Members
  • Content Count

    254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mazzystar

  1. There's an option to parachute into an LLM at Columbia or NYU. Mind you its going to cost Ameridollars though. Other than that, I don't think a structured recruit is the route for this. Go unconventional and cold-email, rack up experiences, walk the untrodden path to be your own person and not the boring suits you don't want to be.
  2. So in the past I've been taking courses and doing extra-curriculars/jobs around the less human-oriented side of law, e.g. research/summer jobs/etc. where there's minimal interaction with ordinary people. I have already reached the end point and do not want a career in commercial law/injury/real-estate/etc. I currently have a part-time gig doing some of this stuff e.g. filing paperwork and drafting documents and so-on. Kinda realized it would kill me to do this type of work full-time. One of the types of people you meet in law school are dedicated, people-oriented students who serve underserved communities/people/etc. I've always respected my friends who are this way, they are the only ones actually addressing the fundamental and deep-rooted flaw in this field. I think I want to build experience here and get involved in this space. Just wanted to know what kinds of jobs are in this space and the kinds of opportunities available.
  3. Have a metric of demonstrable skill, and have a basis for recruitment other than one or two dimensions (interviews + grades). Data-driven hiring has revolutionized recruitment elsewhere and part of it is an understanding that grades or 30 min interviews do not reflect total capacity of a person. Examples I will draw from the tech sector, both showing why there are multiple problems with conventional recruitments of any kind. Friend of mine was a C student in CS who was very diligent and very good at building lateral skillsets for programming. Got hired at a big NYC tech company at age 25 starting 200K. Part of it was recognizing that school did not teach or demonstrate the total ability of a person. Another was a female CS engineer, who had stellar grades. Very smart person, but during the group interview with Google she was expected to work on a project with others. They all were subjectively dismissive of her because of obviously sexist reasons despite her contributing significantly to it. Anyways she had won a major hackathon a year later and came back to be hired at a much higher salary.
  4. Agreed with this but MBAs these days aren't necessarily regulated to just working within finance or conventional businesses. There is a rise in the idea of the social entrepreneur for example, and MBAs do teach a lot of skills which can be applied to a variety of organizations, all with different outlooks. Agreed on all these points. I am not so much in the business of needing to change the world, its going to continue rotating, indifferent to us. My interest is whether there is suitable space involved working a conventional law career for the type of work I'd like to do. There likely is, but I am getting a sense that a law career often pigeonholes one to one side of the picture. I don't often see people in the roles that I am interested have JDs but some will have an MBA. Just an example is a job I had in a company that was scaling in the past where the seniormost inhouse lawyer still did not sit on the directors table.
  5. Not many but I can see interest from an energy law perspective. This is a good idea though!
  6. I like three of my classes, but two mandatories are really just mind numbing and I was sort of at a low point at reading week. I wouldn't do so now as I like the people around me and still think the JD Advantage is still useful.
  7. Yes. I am weighing towards working within public policy, more than anything. I just wanted to keep my options open for good exit opportunities and an MBA sort of offers that.
  8. This is not what I mean at all. I am sorry you implied I did. I've worked technical jobs in the past and seen first-hand that a career route requires knowing more deeply about one area, and the tops will be the people with extensive expertise on one subject. I didn't really read into your thing about blockchains or world conquest or whatever. You seem to be just characterizing me as the typical overtly ambitious tech types, which I am not. I still really do enjoy law and don't dismiss anything I've learned, highly respect the people working in social justice and deep issues in law. I respect the people in criminal law, for the most part, and appreciate it. My complaints are focused on the private law sector mostly, just on the career progression pathways and organizational structure of legal services, and the fact that one is expected to be domain specific in their practice.
  9. I have see this in a suburb in Hamilton. My parents neighborhood transformed and had like 100 new units built. People would buy a house and live in it for that tax-free principle home purchase, then sell it 8 months later for profit.
  10. @leafs_law A gentleman of culture and fine taste! Lmao brass rail though, use to walk by it everyday to school/work, though those types of venues ain't my cup of tea. The Paint Lady is cool, nice cabaret place you can take dates to. Also bar hopping in Little Italy is a goddamn blast. @besmackin This guy gets it. Literally witnessed the whole Toronto transformation, part of it was because our banks weathered the financial crisis and our dollar became strong so you had all this capital not really mobilized. Crazy good, cheap and easy mortgages and the older millenials who bought made crazy profit from it.
  11. Hey, I get it and appreciate the feedback, honestly all of its worthwhile. I don't care for having a "dreamjob" or a perfect thing. Only something I enjoy. I have an end-goal on where I want to be, which is to be part of the economic transformation we will be forced into by climate change. It will impact every one of us in a 1-2 decades, and I am jaded about law being the appropriate route to pursue this. When I talk to my friends in finance/economics/government policy jobs and they are all deeply concerned and very driven to learn more. The few lawyers I have talked to from Toronto sort of shut-down or demonstrate a very narrow, parochial view. It sort of makes sense since the field is about knowing technical rules and the career progression pathway encourages straitjacketing into a narrow domain. Maybe not law enforcement, you are right. Just weighing my options. I think a regulatory agency is worthwhile and thought about joining a securities regulator. I have a fairly decent foundation of economics and finance and would enjoy this type of work as it encompasses a combination of policy-setting & straight work. This overlaps with the area I am intending to work towards since this area is starting to see changes around it. I also sometimes get obsessed with detective/criminal profiling/forensic psychology police procedurals so I sometimes imagine myself a hard-broiled detective catching serial killers. I enjoy criminal law courses more than any other too so that has something to do with it. Law jobs and MBA jobs are fundamentally different and you can do much more with an MBA. Part of it is motivated by how I perceive the field. Its fairly static, non-proactive and does not encourage lateral skill progression. Law has an unusually low concentration of big-thinkers outside of academia. An MBA is fundamentally skill-driven and has wider breadth and the programs I looked into seem to try to encourage multidisciplinary thinking.
  12. Wanted a career where there is opportunity to effect some kind of societal change. Thought law was pretty good for that, but increasingly I am feeling its more supposed to be "reactive" to change, not pro-active. MBA programs are still fairly good, I disagree with the paper mill characterization. The management, social organizing and other skills I saw places like Rotman UofT do was fascinating, e.g. studies and integration of behavioral science.
  13. Its not my view of defense or crown. I am fairly neutral and don't hold these extreme views of it. I have talked to prosecutors, they are fairly socially progressive and I am at odds with some of the comments I here about them. I am still considering the option for criminal law and lean heavily towards joining an enforcement agency. Out of a career though I would rather get flexible progression, non-static hierarchies and be surrounded by people who are fairly entrepreneurial, curious or both. Law has a lot of that, for sure, but I am at odds with how the system around it has developed. I agree with you on most points but the work environment millenials grew up in is more unstable and more reliant on skill development than "finding a place". We aren't going to inherit the typical stay at your firm for life world since that model is disappearing. Firms are shifting towards having less equity partners as a % of the firm, and more associates as employed lawyers, profit margins are thinning and non-lawyers are joining firms in larger numbers. Its looking more difficult for the junior who came in with an idea to make partner. This is just as every firm is trying to adapt to the legal tech shift, which is frightening because the people who will top it out are the partners still there. This isn't just true for law, e.g. a person could have made professor after a PhD in whatever two decades ago but that's no longer the case. Anyways with that said, I am still interested in working in the legal field but have talked to a lot of former lawyer friends who parachuted for a number of reasons. Some were at national firms and wanted flexibility, a family, etc or the type of work they are doing has started stagnating their skills/personal growth. I do see myself in the same situation down the line and I don't feel all that well about it.
  14. The last decade they literally quadrupled. I had friends who finished undergrad in 2010 or before and was able to finance a nice 250k condo on an entry salary. Its not even just Toronto, the house my parents own an hour away from Toronto tripled, same with everyone in the city. Are you talking about Piketty's Formula? Capital in the 21st Century is mindblowing and explains alot of the economic problems we are seeing these days.
  15. I think the issue is that the downtown core is fairly small compared to the population and economy. The city neglected the shit out of expanding the TTC despite the massive growth and so the "core" Toronto area is fairly small compared to say, NYC. The QEW gets turbo-congested too which pushes people to want to live downtown. My solution would be to expand the subway lines and permit more high-density construction in and around outlying super-low density neighborhoods. I only ever saw babies and adults, never any kids in the building when I lived in downtown Toronto. Mind you the condo was by the harbor and there aren't many schools around.
  16. Agreed on the burnt out. I am spending more of my time reading non-school books or learning unrelated material. There is more that could be done than finance, and the personalities I know working in Toronto's financial sector are fairly humble and relaxed compared to lawyers. Ideally I think a management consultant gig is something I'd rather do. MBAs also teach courses that involve organizational psychology, behavioral economics, and other fields whereas law just seems to isolate itself from everything and creates its own bubble. I contemplated going into criminal law or enforcement, not sure about the prosecutor route since they get a lot of flack (e.g. lots of lawyers/students disparaging how all they do is lock up minorities for non-violent offenses). I am interested in forensics, very technical crimes or ones with a strong psychological element though.
  17. So I am a 2L increasingly jaded by the idea of working in law and how static the field is. Don't get me wrong, I like law school and I love listening to my professors discuss realworld issues, but my courses don't fit with my generalist/flexible learning style, dislike how outdated everything feels in terms of teaching philosophy and the artificial difficulty they place (e.g. make things unnecessarily less efficient etc). I am further jaded by the career progression system, the unhealthy chronic stress-and-ego vibe from some lawyers and see the field as overtly entrenched and out of tune with how society and technology is evolving as well as the unnecessary hierarchies and non-teamwork mentality. My courses are generally going well, I am fairly active socially but considered dropping out during reading week. My motivation has disappeared this term. It was hard for me to bother studying last exam season and generally did so 2-3 days before exams, though I got mostly above average grades. This term is a lot more content for me and I am not sure I will have the energy to push through. I can envision mid-career depression at some stage continuing this track. Please feed me your lawyer parachuting stories.
  18. Its behind you, let it all be. Don't fret about outcomes you cannot change.
  19. Yeah, agreed although I may be exaggerating I have heard about off-margins losing heavy marks and have had a friend who lost all marks for footnotes being a different font. She is a great professor and a lot nicer if one made conversation/respected her. I learned a lot in that course but I am not sure if the fear conditioning approach is necessary although I kinda get that the role-playing was supposed to be exposure to some personality types in the legal field. A lot of 1Ls took it the wrong way by thinking it was personal though.
  20. At my school... its the stuff of literal legends since its for only one professor. I respect the professor for other reasons, but its the the point where you hear these subtle mocks about from other professors. I did fairly well in that course but people cried because their memo had margins that were half an inch off and lost like 10%.
  21. Agreed on this. Courts will always be behind, but technophobia of this field however won't last especially as the field shifts towards the digital natives. There are some great papers on this, but teaching emotional intelligence and technological competence as parallels to theory is a start. There are a lot of papers out there now coming out, my favorites are the Delta Competency Models and T-Model of Law. Shifting away from deep digestion of caselaw and strict pedagogy where 70% of your time is ensuring there are no typos, is a backward view which some schools still practice. At my school, literal font and font size was the difference between a C and an A for one of my courses and I hated every second I spent having to do this sort of double-checking.
  22. Its already taking the low-hanging fruit for a few years, e.g. automation of document discovery, due-diligence and so-on. There is increasing automation of contract review already exists. Machine learning for example can already automate the task of tax law and predict tax court rulings, exists to generate predictive portfolios of judge decision making and so-on. All this stuff you mentioned already exists. Machine learning being able to abstract patterns from thousands of cases at once, is not super difficult compared to its broader uses else where. E.g. with relative ease it can analyze fairly consistent disease patterns and so-on. Well no, this is wrong though. Machines can parse patterns humans cannot understand when we talk about big-data insights. Its why its fundamentally changing business operations, and I've personally seen it alter science disciplines and fields more complicated than law. Natural language processing as an offshoot does not need to understand cognitive aspects of grammar but it can replicate human understanding in its weird machine way. Neural networks as a process is beyond our understanding yes, but understanding the theory and process behind it is understandable and necessary to fully grasp it. Interpretation of insights will require humans, I do agree. Human elements from law cannot be replaced. Technological competence will be necessary, its just unavoidable in order to ensure parameters and outputs aren't faulty. Deep technical skills are not necessary but understanding underlying theory will be at some point necessary. There is strong talk that the field of law will bifurcate, there will be a rising group of technolawyers or legal tech professionals who provide auxiliary support much like how it is in other industries. The trend if anything, will just create more specializations within law, especially once predictive analytics starts getting deployed widely.
  23. Its mostly hyperbole for the pace of it part, I don't really see myself holding a tin can and a sign that reads "Will review contracts for Food". There is nothing wrong of course with teaching fundamental skills. Just borrowing a page from say, physics. They teach fundamental theories and its very important to. But its laterally supplanted with learning how to use sophisticated machinery, and now supplanted with learning how to design and program simulation models. We spend like, an hour a week learning to use Westlaw and Quicklaw which are the tools of yesterday. We learn nothing about how these tools are going to operate. But yes, case summaries have not changed. It literally went unchanged for over a decade. Not for criminal law obviously, but the summaries I looked at were virtually identical to mine in teaching ratios and so-on with the same cases used. My point wasn't that it isn't useful; but the way of teaching it has not adapted yet and this is IMO problematic. Sorry I seem very bitter and so-on, but I am just kind of frustrated with how archaic some of the curriculum for law schools generally seems to be entering my second year.
  24. Okay since I am getting laughs here. Fine, here's a fairly "primitive" model of how natural language processing algorithm can be used. Read this, its an open-source Python library designed for building legal tech software: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3192101 This is an easier to digest thing describing how AI is reshaping law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3381798
  25. Believe what you want. The kinds of things a lawyer can do or the type of thinking they engage in is not really any different from fields already going through turmoil and disruption. Its already starting to disrupt harder fields like medicine which requires a lot more skill-based learning and already started changing banks and the financial industry. Law will not be immune and the big-team hierarchy models cannot expect to survive. Dunno why so many people close their eyes to how much our economies are changing in law especially as its a service profession dependent on other industries.
×
×
  • Create New...