Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Ruthenium

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. If it's one thing I know about rich people with lots of stuff, it's that they're a happy lot.
  2. While I hear this sort of line of reasoning quite a bit, if clients were as sophisticated as the "efficient biglaw client model" would have us believe, I suspect I'd spend a lot less of my time replying to frivolous motions with no prospect of success. Not to mention spending less time talking down my own clients from trying to have me engage in the same.
  3. What's your problem, man? I don't think I've ever met a lawyer this dense, yet you assume one out of whole cloth for -- what purpose exactly?
  4. I've seen this ratio used before but I'm curious how accurate it is with respect to overhead. Is an Associate's overheard really that close to their take home pay in the normal course of things? Is it practice area dependent? My firm's salary structure can be roughly approximated by a formula but Associate pay is closer to half of billings.
  5. My impression from people I know who've done it is that it's easier to move back if you're headed to law from policy after first having had some legal work under your belt (prior to the move to policy). If you're a June 2020 call + 10 months unemployed, you may find it quite a bit more difficult , for obvious reasons. Another big factor is how long you stay in policy and the reasons you can give for returning to law if you choose to do so. I take your point on acquiring transferable skills but senior professionals also don't slide easily into junior associate roles, often due to hesitancy about hiring someone who may not want to perform the grunt work that is part and parcel of being a junior associate. Regardless, a federal policy job, and especially a senior policy position, beats unemployment. I'd take it over my law job at the moment.
  6. #3 sounds like crazy talk drummed up by anxious young lawyers. I haven't seen it or heard of it, and I would suspect it would kill a firm's reputation if they were to engage in those kinds of antics. Are there known firms, or is this just a vague rumour?
  7. Ok. OP, I know of a few instances of associates and senior associates at firms working 60% or 80% the time as someone at regular rate, mostly at boutiques or small/medium firms. Their schedule, for instance, is 9-6/6:30 on workdays and then overtime hours here and there on urgent matters as they arise, usually with some flex on workdays versus days off to accommodate clients or hearing dates. I'm not certain but I believe they took a pay hit on base pay to make it work. It isn't the typical part-time job, but it also pays substantially more than the typical part-time job. On a more general note, law's a big profession. It isn't all big firms and the massive, around-the-clock clients associated with those firms. If you have a private practice area in mind, try looking at firms and reaching out to associates or soles etc. In most cases, part-time status isn't listed on a firm site or similar, but knowing your practice area and the culture of the various firms in it will help you locate workplaces that are more amenable to a reduced hours structure. If you want a rigid half time and then turn off completely, that doesn't square with most of the legal profession, including most (but not all) of the examples with which I'm familiar. But if you're looking for part-time as reduced hours, there are headwinds (see above), but it's out there.
  8. They're working 60% or 80% of the hours they'd normally work, as reflected in their billings. Is that the same as a full-time position? No.
  9. I'm currently full-time but I know of similar arrangements, particularly for parents, and surprised by the above comments. For instance, do 0.8 of full-time bills, but be on call and available to clients. It isn't too difficult to manage. It does affect the overhead to productivity ratio, so base pay may also not be a pure 0.8, etc., but it's a workable model.
  10. Agree with the above -- figure out what you actually want to practice and then specialize in that field. I'll add: try publishing at least one piece in that field. A good, published writing sample demonstrates/solidifies interest and alleviates a lot of concerns about "academics".
  11. A large part of the answer to this question is personal. I wrote with about one and a half weeks per exam and felt very confident. But I knew going in that I typically do well in standardized testing scenarios. If you struggle with these kinds of formats, yes, it is a rush. If you tend to do well in these kinds of formats, it is more than enough time. There is no one size fits all answer. A good indicator of whether or not you'll be well suited for the exam is your LSAT score. In the U.S., where they track these sorts of things pretty rigorously, there is a very strong correlation between LSAT scores & exam passage rates. I suspect similar in Ontario. It makes sense -- these are exams that test very similar things (e.g., quickness in recall or reasoning), even if the content of the questions is different.
  12. As others have said, make sure you have your client(s) "present" as you need settlement authority in the room. It's a problem that crops up quite a bit at small claims. Otherwise it's pretty low stakes and every conference is a little different. Some are a bit off the walls. Don't be shy about asking for time with your client alone if you need it, the point is to facilitate settlements and a private aside often assists with that purpose. Expect pressure to settle no matter how frivolous the arguments on the other side.
  • Create New...