Jump to content

epeeist

Members
  • Content Count

    10361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

epeeist last won the day on August 14

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3962 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Often people who get into law school were top-tier in whatever program they were in. Now they're average. That's a hit to their egos. I say this not to excuse, but to analyze. I don't know if it's humility per se that's a plus, but just not being too boastful, being normal. I socialized with my non-law housemates, joined sports with non-law people and did some socializing ( ) with them also, and it was a lot more relaxed than many parties with law students... One student I knew clerked at the SCC. They weren't boastful about their marks before they got the clerkship, they weren't boastful about the clerkship after, many students didn't even know at graduation because they didn't see any need to make a big deal of it with, or even mention it to, other students. I only knew because we were friendly enough for them to tell me and for me to be genuinely happy for them. It might even have been their spouse who told me, not them. That might have been overly humble, but it was refreshing.
  2. Warning: my experience is years ago, not recent! There were some people who knew more, some less, coming into law school, about the law. Knowing more wasn't necessarily an advantage, because I've looked at some materials from people I know who took university law courses as non-law students (much more recently than when I was in law school) and it was very much black-letter law, telling them what the law is at the time they took the course, not teaching them, as law school does, how to understand and analyze the law. So even if someone has already studied, they may have to unlearn some seeming certainties to think about why, not just what. So if they aren't bothering doing the readings or paying attention because they think they know what they need to, I think that's a significant problem that will hit them eventually, final exams if not midterms.
  3. I saw a banner ad (not on this site) and was curious so I clicked and looked a bit. Scholarships so far are listed here: https://www.ryerson.ca/law/admissions/tuition-financial-assistance/ I'm glad that there are scholarships for (or with it taken into account) Indigenous, disabled, minority, first-generation, etc. students. Though I'd prefer economic considerations be more important (e.g. should a minority millionaire be eligible?). But could there not be some, even just one, that's based solely on academics?
  4. I agree but would phrase it somewhat differently. If someone already has a law degree, that's a sunk cost (time and money), so sure, there are lots of fields it could be useful in. Lots of people leave the practice of law for something else (or never practice law, but I agree that having been called improves marketability significantly). But prospectively, no-one should go to law school unless they intend to practice law (or become an academic, with practising law an alternative if they can't break in). Maybe some exceptions for the independently wealthy etc.
  5. Fewer! You -- Oh wait, you're a mod now...
  6. Just on a very specific point, intramural versus varsity. You both know much more about admissions generally, and presently, but at least at the time and place I went there was a big difference between intramural sports and varsity sports in terms of required time commitment to practices and workouts (and not drinking before competitions only after ), etc.
  7. Just like it's wrong (in the sense of logic and persuasiveness) for some posters to say something like, "here's an anecdote about one person who went to a foreign law school and was successful, therefore going to a foreign law school is a wonderful idea", it's also problematic to conclude that merely because a person with particular grades or LSAT scores was admitted in Canada, that anyone with such grades or LSAT could.
  8. [emphasis added] Even if you're not posting more, others might read this thread and have a false impression. Whether or not you agree with the opinions of others regarding relative student quality (or later quality as a lawyer) on an objective basis is irrelevant. They are attempting to make clear what potential legal employers and articling principals will think subjectively about foreign law school grads. In other discussions I've disagreed in certain respects with e.g. Ryn or Diplock about various aspects of Canadian law school admission etc. But I think we're in 100% agreement about the perception of the typical Canadian lawyer about the foreign-educated (and, if anything, they have a lot better handle on it since I only practice PT and most of my discussions with recent grads, domestic or foreign, are with those I tutor as a volunteer for the bar ads).
  9. Useful, but still, not universities with law schools providing general info. And, I was focusing on, not information for people with a legal issue per se, but general information about the law.
  10. I think many law schools take the approach, hey, for people who are in historically disadvantaged groups, and those with severe fiscal constraints, we have substantial scholarships and bursaries. That's nice, it's better than nothing, and it does help somewhat. A small number of people. And there are some specific groups who still face significant impediments. While there are certainly people with families who go to law school, it's significantly more difficult, financially and practically (I base this on discussions with those who've done it much more recently than those I went to law school with). So except to the extent part-time studies are available and a realistic option, there's a built-in effective (but not intentional) discrimination based on family status in conjunction with economic means, is there not? One might make the analogy to the legal system and legal aid (even before cuts). Access to justice is improved only marginally by improving the legal services that those who qualify for legal aid get and decreasing their costs (analogous to scholarships and bursaries for the needy). It is improved much more significantly by increasing the numbers who get legal aid (analogous to increasing # of spots in law schools) or by making the legal system more affordable for those who don't qualify for legal aid (analogous to making law school tuition more affordable). I agree with your general points. Going on a bit of a tangent (but I mention Ryerson a few times...), I'm familiar with lots of free or low-cost things at the U of T and to a lesser extent Ryerson (and to a still lesser extent, York/Osgoode - it's been years and I'm still annoyed at being invited to a wine and cheese fundraiser for a modest cost for Osgoode, there was no wine and crappy cheese...). Lectures, talks, receptions - one accredited LSO professionalism program at Newman (a Catholic facility at the U of T) that had a religious component was free, and even provided free decent wine and cheese. I've gone to some free movie series, engineering and science talks, art exhibits, and so forth at the U of T and Ryerson. So I know there are lots of free or very low cost talks in the sciences and engineering, and I assume there are also in relation to the arts, social sciences including social work, international development issues, etc. As well as art exhibits generally. I've even been to or invited to ( I mean, sent an email but advertised on the web to the public also) free talks about medical matters and ongoing research including tours of lab facilities and professors answering questions about their research. A layperson who's interested can easily learn some general interest basics about a variety of subjects at a university from public talks, exhibits, and occasional open houses without having to spend much or anything. But in law, not so much. There are some free or low-cost programs in law especially IP at the U of T, but they're focused on those in the field, and tend to be during the day, as opposed to an evening talk. Not so practical for a layperson with a typical job. To me, the ideal of access to justice is not just who or how many people one admits to law school or how much it costs them or how long it takes, but also how well or poorly the lay public is given access to information and expertise in a general interest, know the basics sort of way. While I think that's more properly the scope of law societies (or to some extent the education system, students in high school should be taught something), given universities' engagement with the community in other areas, public funding, and stated commitment to learning, it's something I think they do a terrible job with in the area of law. Sure, there may be lectures on a specific topic that's in the news, but not much, and not a broader diversity. Or, maybe there's lots of free stuff advertised and aimed at the general public about law that I've missed seeing, I'm happy to be corrected. If - that's a big if - Ryerson engages with the non-legal public in a general information sort of way, that alone would improve access to justice regardless of what their tuition fees are. I'm not aware of any plans of theirs to do so, but one can hope!
  11. Exactly. One is (or should be) in law school to learn, and to get good marks (which will increase the chances of obtaining employment). Even if someone disagrees with learning - it's all about the marks - improved understanding, even of non-testable material, may improve one's understanding and comprehension of the testable material, or reduce distractions when studying. A long-ago example (given when I went to law school...) one prof briefly explained in one of the first lectures what the house of lords was in the legal context. Some people already knew from watching Rumpole or whatever, but for many it was helpful, even though not testable, because then they weren't always wondering what was going on with these UK decisions in the casebook. And more efficient for the prof to explain once to the class, than for each person looking up and starting with stuff about the house of lords generally, and the lords temporal and spiritual, before getting to the creation of a supreme court, etc. and maybe not understanding the role of the law lords. Or for a Canadian connection, the JCPC - appeals eliminated in the 1940s (earlier for criminal), but still worth explaining what it is even if not testable, just so law students understand when they come across an older case (when articling, I once had to diplomatically suggest to an associate that the casebook should perhaps include the JCPC decision upholding one of the SCC decisions they were relying upon...).
  12. [portion only quoted, emphasis added] I generally agree with your practical bent and I am also concerned that OP seems to have had problems elsewhere. I do think you're being a bit too understanding towards the boss/husband here though. Since you're asking what one should do - assuming all is as OP put it and no missing side to the story etc. - the boss should apologize to mistreated employees on behalf of his wife, in addition to giving workarounds. Also, as I think others have commented on, both as an employer and as a lawyer, the boss has some responsibilities that aren't overridden by being a spouse. Or forget that, let's say there was no relationship and the boss was just sympathetic to an employee who'd suffered a head injury and long-term or permanent consequences as a result. They would still have to consider the consequences of the person's behaviour and how to mitigate the effects on other employees or clients visiting the office. I also wonder - in a general sense, not asking for a legal opinion - if an employer chooses to tolerate behaviour from one employee because of a family relationship or friendship, does that affect their ability to discipline or fire other employees for cause if they do the same or similar things? Like, let's say one family member who's a paid employee steals sometimes, yells at other employees and clients, is chronically late or has unexplained absences, etc. Does that mean that another employee fired for alleged cause for similar reasons would have grounds to protest that what they did wasn't so bad and they could be fired with appropriate notice, but not for cause? Or, if it's argued to be accommodation for an employee (who happens to be a family member...) with a head injury and consequences, does accommodating one such employee set the precedent as to what's reasonable to accommodate, so that the employer is effectively estopped from arguing that accommodation of other employees is unreasonable, so long as they're slightly less troublesome?
  13. See, that sounds good. And again, haven't watched these yet. But, there's a huge difference between, what should lawyers know as lawyers to serve people as lawyers, versus what should woke humans know as woke humans to relate to people. I'll see when I watch. Like, not that I do wills, but if I did, I would want to reject a client who wanted to punish (with less or no money) one of their children for being LGBT. But, ethically, would I be permitted to do so (if not in a jurisdiction like BC that I think precludes such discriminatory bequests as has been discussed on this board)? To what extent, ethically, may a lawyer give legal advice that includes moral considerations like not being discriminatory (when that discrimination is legal), e.g. to a client that is an employer or refuse to act, withdraw services, can you still bill for wasted work or do you have to absorb the costs of what you did before you found out the client motivation (that is not illegal, just as a person you don't like it)? Etc. Those are the sort of real-world things I'd like to see addressed, just like the programs about clients with disabilities addressed some practicalities of dealing with some clients with mental illness etc. If the programs don't address practicalities, they should.
  14. I get where you're coming from, essentially you had a better view of the value of an assistant to a firm than I think some firms do... While not recent (given I'm PT!), I saw several instances of partners changing firms and taking their assistants with them, but that's merely anecdotal. Not that I'm a competition lawyer, or that familiar with non-competes, but anything that effectively precludes or at least reduces the chances for associates to move, concerns me. That is, assume partners are sophisticated and important enough that restrictions on their leaving would be upheld. If so, it should be about them, the partners, not third parties like associates. If there's no restriction on the associate in their contract, but the partnership agreement precludes guaranteed offers to associates when a partner leaves, that's like the opposite of a third-party beneficiary to a contract, it's like a third-party anti-beneficiary (detrimentiary?) to the partnership agreement. And likewise for assistants. It strikes me as the sort of thing that, even if the law allows, law societies should, ethically, prohibit lawyers and law firms from doing indirectly (discouraging movement) from what they can't do directly (i.e. I assume restrictive non-competes on most associates would not be upheld). Not entirely but somewhat analogous, a partner shouldn't steal clients; but it's not stealing if the client chooses to go with the lawyer they like instead of the firm.
  15. These programs are free and count towards professionalism, so good. I haven't yet watched these so can't criticize them, positively or negatively though some of the titles leave me wondering how useful they will be to lawyers as lawyers becoming less discriminatory and more welcoming? Some of the professionalism hours I've watched in the past have to do with e.g. dealing with clients with a physical or mental disability, which seemed to me both educational and important for lawyers to consider even if they don't currently have any such clients. Are these archived programs focused on e.g. how to be less discriminatory, how lawyers should and can be welcoming to diverse people (as colleagues, employees, clients, etc.), that is focused on EDI for lawyers, or are they more focused on, here's information about EDI generally? Because the former would be better, and more focused. Also, and thinking of some (non-law) online courses I've taken, ideally there should be online testing to help make sure the viewer has actually viewed and paid attention. But that's about all webinars, not EDI specifically.
×
×
  • Create New...