Jump to content

SadJaysFan

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Decent People

About SadJaysFan

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

524 profile views
  1. I doubt there is any large firm in Toronto where all the equity partners clear 500k. I know when the gender gap report from Cassels broke it said the lowest earning partners were in the low to mid 300s. I suspect that's pretty normal, though perhaps firms with shorter partner tracks or more mid-market firms have partners earning less. The Cassels report said the highest earner there was over 3-million, which I suspect would be about right for rainmakers at most firms. But I would speculate that there's a lot more partners making under 400k than over 2 million.
  2. I'm gonna sound like a gunner here, but mooting was by far my favourite part of law school. Doing casual internal moots in 1L, a huge competitive moot for credit in 2L, then judging some moots in 3L, all of it was a blast. My closest friends from law school I made through mooting and I felt like I got a lot out of every one of them, both in terms of learning and just enjoying the experience/meeting cool people. If you have no interest in litigation/oral advocacy then it's probably not for you, but I strongly suggest trying one moot early on just to get a sense of the experience. You'll also probably have a mandatory moot in 1L that's graded, so getting one under your belt before that is a great experience if possible.
  3. Yeah you can guess which moot I did. Most are much less intense than that by design. I had friends doing some other moots where I think they did less than 10 practices total
  4. Some of my closest friends in law school are my moot team. With that said, it is a sense of going through the ringer together and coming out the other side that bonded us. My experience was much more intense than @Adrian. We had weekly meetings throughout first semester while researching and writing drafts of our factums, then during crunch time for our factums it was about 10 days of 12-15 hour days in a row together working on it, then 10 practices a week for a month and a bit. Definitely stressful, but we had a great relationship throughout and had a lot of fun despite the suffering together, and we still talk regularly.
  5. I don't know about every school, but at least at Western, there are internal moots and external moots. Internal moots are not for credit and are usually one-off events. You sign up (normally in pairs) and get the problem a couple weeks before the actual competition. Usually you have to do a bit of research (but not a crazy amount) and prepare submissions, then it's judged by lawyers from whatever law firm is sponsoring that one. The best teams from pre-lims go to the finals, and in normal times there's usually a reception or banquet. Internal moots (again, at least at Western) are generally open to 1Ls, and some are only for 1Ls. A few internal moots and competitions that aren't for credit do have external rounds so the winning team moves on and faces other schools. Specifically I'm thinking of the BLG Client Counselling Competition and the Hicks Morley Labour Moot. For credit moots are generally restricted to upper years and are much more intensive. Usually there is an application/qualifying process (involving a qualifying moot or audition depending on the school from what I understand). There's lots of options here in different subject matter, and the moot runs as a course. You have to do lots of research, write a factum, and prepare submissions, generally over the course of a few months. The intensity varies between moots and schools, so your experience will depend a lot on which moot you do. I did pretty much every internal moot in 1L and loved it, but it was very clear from my first one that I really enjoyed it. I recommend doing one early and seeing if you like it, and if you don't, there's no harm. I then did one of the most intensive external moots in 2L which is probably the highlight of my law school experience.
  6. Depends on the course, the prof, and what's happened recently in that area of the law. I suspect my corporate summary from a couple years ago would still be good based on the type of questions the prof asked and the lack of statutory reform in area in the last couple years. A few things might have changed but not much. Conversely, my admin summary was pre-Vavilov so if you relied on that for a current exam you would almost certainly fail. Most 1L courses haven't seen any huge changes recently. Constitutional has a few big cases a year, there's been a few big negligence cases recently but nothing drastic for torts. Contracts would be pretty similar but with some recent changes to good faith and unconscionability. I don't follow crim closely enough to comment properly but I suspect it would be pretty similar over the last few years. Property is virtually unchanged in the last 100 years, so you're good there (except aboriginal title claims).
  7. Everybody I've talked to has said that the burnout and lack of motivation is worse this year than ever before, so at least the curve should be down for everyone! The only thing I have found that helps me focus is shame. I use a timer like I would if I was working to show myself how much time I'm wasting on other stuff and guilt myself into working more. Is this healthy? Probably not. But it's getting me through the last two weeks of exams.
  8. Most schools' law reviews will often publish papers by practising lawyers. It's quite common for lawyers to notice something odd in their area of practice, write up an article on it and submit it for publication with a law review. Their standards will vary widely across the country, but generally speaking many of them are easier to get published in than more specialized journals that focus on only one area and are mostly filled with papers by full time academics. That doesn't help with the actual process of writing, if that's what you were asking about, but if you're looking to publish and you don't have a spot to do that at work, those are a good option.
  9. Having been in the building following a Nicholls corporate exam, I can tell you that most of the chatter afterwards is people freaking out about how much of the exam they didn't even answer. Would it be better to answer all of the questions? Generally, yes. Do many people miss large portions of the exam and still do perfectly fine? Absolutely. Anecdotally, I know someone who just didn't notice a question worth a significant portion of an exam so didn't answer it and still got an A. Law school curves are wild. Just put it to the back of your mind and start getting ready for your next exam.
  10. Hours will vary a lot between firms and frankly between students. Summers are very dependent on which lawyers you end up working with and how busy they happen to be for those few months. My experience is generally that summer students work less than articling students. I would say most work roughly 50-60 hours a week, but again, there's a lot of variation there.
  11. As a summer student I wrote a factum for an application we were responding to. It was for a sizeable client on an interesting (but not complex) area, so naturally I was quite excited. There was a partner and an associate on the file, but they gave me pretty significant autonomy over carriage of it. When I prepared the actual application materials I used a precedent from another application I had worked on to make sure all the styles were correct. However, the precedent was for an application where we were the applicants. I changed all the references to "Applicant's Factum" to "Respondent's Factum" but failed to notice that I had the two lawyers on the file listed as lawyers for the applicant, not lawyers for the respondent. The associate and I finalized everything and we served and filed it all on a Friday afternoon. Monday morning I get a call from the partner to come into his office. He hands me a copy of the factum and asks if I see anything wrong with it. This partner enjoys messing with me, so I just thought he was joking. Then he circles my mistake and made it clear he was not joking. Fortunately, he's a nice enough guy and said the judge probably wouldn't notice but to be more careful next time. Fast forward a month and the application is being heard. Our case was a slam dunk so we weren't too worried. Judge comes in, asks a few pointed questions at the applicant making it clear things weren't going his way. Then immediately turns to the partner and says "Mr. Partner, you're here on behalf of the Respondent?" "Yes, your honour" "Then why on earth does your factum say you're here for the applicant? You are aware you cannot represent both sides in a matter". Thankfully the partner didn't throw me under the bus and said it was a typo and apologized for his carelessness. We won the application (and the judge actually commented that my factum was well written!) but I don't think the partner was too thrilled about looking that sloppy in front of a judge.
  12. They mostly just want to make sure that you passed, according to the student director at my firm at least
  13. This is very true. I used to always walk home after class (25 minutes or so) and use that time to think over the material and how I felt about each case. I think that really gave me an advantage, especially in 1L, since that walking time kept the material in my head in a non-superficial way.
  14. Always make your own summaries/outlines. Use other people's only to check your own and make sure you didn't miss anything after you're done yours, but always make your own first. That's my #1 rule and I think is a big difference maker between a B/B+ and an A. As for during the exam, try to compare facts from the exam to facts of cases you have studied. As an example I was thinking about the other day, I could see a prof using the cinnamon toast crunch shrimp situation (look it up if you're unfamiliar) as an exam question for negligence. A B answer would look at that, apply the standard tests and ask whether psychological shock was reasonably foreseeable as a result of finding shrimp in cereal. It might look at Mustapha and say that finding a fly in water wasn't enough for psychological shock, so neither would finding shrimp in cereal. An A answer might notice that the shrimp guy ate a bowl of the cereal first, unlike Mustapha who never drank the water. Is it more foreseeable that someone who ate cereal and then noticed stuff in it would suffer psychological shock? Maybe. That might change the analysis or might not, but discussing that and how it applies would make a big difference. Those little things in exams where you can take that next step rather than just looking at the general tests tend to bump you up
  15. Hard to say what the initial cause is, but the fact that so many students want to go into that sort of work means the school is well set up to get you jobs in that field.
×
×
  • Create New...