Jump to content

artsydork

Moderators
  • Content Count

    4897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

artsydork last won the day on June 29

artsydork had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4698 Good People

3 Followers

About artsydork

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

8266 profile views
  1. ...when your CYOA writing creeps into reality! Good thing you chose pg 55 - Answer the phone instead of pg 86 - press ignore and scritch your cat.
  2. You may want to look into the transfer process. It's not the easiest to transfer from the certificate to the law program as UdM reserves a small portion of the incoming class for those students.
  3. That's just Superior Court of Justice, Family Division.
  4. With a 3.0 CGPA and a 155 LSAT? I'd jump on to a firm acceptance so long as it's the single JD and not dual. What's with the reservations about Windsor? They actually want you as opposed to the other schools ghosting you.
  5. I delayed articling by a year and don't regret it one bit! It added perspective, something that posters may truly need. *shrugs*
  6. Also, the term is routine. I regularly handle routine family law issues that are straight forward in a legal sense (though emotion may make it more complicated). Terminology.
  7. Tldr; the clinical options are largely placements at local NGOs. Some are academic, others, like the one I did, are more hands on. Quebec doesn't allow for the same opportunities that other provinces allow. You aren't taking criminal cases under a supervising lawyer, or drafting family law pleadings. It's not a clinic affiliated with the school - it's just internships with various organizations. It's not necessarily a "McGill" thing so much as a Barreau issue. LICM was also not that great of a placement, imo. It's summary legal information, as another poster pointed out. "Art 1457 says X" Actually, most of my time at LICM was spent trying to explain to people that yes, they were on the hook for that loan that they co-signed for their friend/lover/family member even though they totez promised they would pay the bill.
  8. I say this as someone who represents the homeless, mentally ill, victims of DV, etc. Mooting can be a fantastic experience. McGill has terrible clinical options. A close friend of mine mooted after a terrible placement. She learned valuable research and litigation skills, worked one on one with a coach and found her voice in pleadings (#humblebrag). She also volunteered and drew from her experience working with marginalized populations through years of volunteer work and personal circumstances in how she developed her lit strategy in her constitutional moot. It was also her combined experience that led her to the legal clinic system. Some clinics do test cases and the mooting experience added key research skills. I opted to do a mixture of volunteering, clinic,community engagement and coaching. Despite not the greatest grades, I was decently successful in gaining interviews. All places that I interviewed commented positively on the dual experience. My current practice is high client management. As we hire, we look for people with tangible skills. Mooting for us falls under academic but this can be made up with practical experiences found outside a formal clinic. I also note that many students I have viewed at the London courthouse were clearly cosplaying. Except they had a real accused pleading. Some clinical students are great. Others aren't. Some clinics are shody and don't offer either the student or the represented much. It's not a zero sum game. Both offer valuable skills. Volunteer positions can give you some experiences that you would get in a clinic. Mooting is closer to appellate level or a more trial-based practice. Clinics help develop your client management, intake, and (depending on the field) earlier stages of a file (intake, issue spotting, negotiation).
  9. . I am trying to be kind but BQ, with respect, you're clearly not a trial lawyer. And the more you speak demonstrates to any called lawyer how little exposure you have. You're also really misconstruing what utmguy said. This thread isn't fun, nor is it helping the OP. Move on.
  10. Given the contributions made by UTM over the years, I have a sneaking suspicion that he actually practices in tort/liability law. Notquiteyetalawyer arguing with a lawyer about their own field is an odd look. Not as odd as OP not understanding how people can have a negative view of PI. I mean, there are stories of ambulance chasers, American lawyers attending on sites of Canadian disasters and getting them to join in on class actions before the dust has settled, ridiculous contingency contracts that essentially take the entire settlement, shady insurance practices, etc. It's easy to understand why the general public has a negative view of the bad apples within the field (as a family lawyer, I get why people generally dislike family lawyers. I'm not blind to the process). There are also great lawyers in the field that are helping people through complex red tape
  11. McGill used to allow for 6 credits of "non-law" undergrad courses to count towards our free electives. Some people took bird courses, others took language courses, others passion classes to help them through difficult "law" semesters.
  12. My advice is dated. Also, my year we just chose language and got placed into courses. I would never have willingly taken Antaki for Constitutional Law when Leckey was my alternative! If you're aiming to stay in QC, obvs take more French-language classes. And more from the civil basket when possible. Imo, English classes (outside of the 1L blackletter courses) had less emphasis on the civil code (outside of Leckey's family law classes. We had a good mix of both systems). I agree with make - constitutional is good 1L course to take in French if you're going to take one. Contracts: Dedek! Very clear and concise. Gelinas also a good choice. Farhat wasn't teaching when I was in the fac so no clue. ECO (I remember Saumier's rant. "It's not torts!") I would opt for Khoury if your french is up for it. imo, was a very good lecturer. Ellis only taught environment and was a vice dean while I was in the fac so can't speak about her. Van Praugh is either loved and hated so it really depends on whether you mesh with her teaching style. She's been teaching the 1L eco class for a while so likely is very comfortable with the material. Criminal Justice: Whoa, McGill finally made criminal law mandatory in 1L? Neat. Klein is great. I had 2 classes with her. Enjoyed her teaching style and energy. Heard great things about Manikis. No insight to Jouet. Constitutional: Sheppard was a pretty strong lecturer. No nonsense and straight forward. I never had Narain but saw her in a guest lecture. I liked her but friends warned me she did well in smaller settings. Heard her con law class was quite all over the place. This was a few years ago so she might have tightened her teaching style. No insight on Poirier. Frowndations: I had Anker. It was OK. The class was dull and felt very Intro to Philosophy. Very basic class discussions and terrible readings. Weinstock and Muniz are the most theoretical of the bunch. Muniz is cross appointed with Poli Sci so that's his approach. Friends hated his courses but Muniz has his fans. Honestly, take whichever course that fits your schedule. Indigenous: new course so I can't offer much. This is Anker's field and wouldn't surprise me if she had a hand developing the course. I wasn't aware that her french was strong enough to teach in the language but that was also 10 years ago.
  13. I get that covid created some new challenges, but Rosen is pretty clear on what makes an urgent motion (in Ontario anyways). Urgent case conferences are a different ball game and that's jurisdictional. I can get some creative results that way! Again, it's by knowing rules and procedures, and being comfortable with the local judges, that makes this all possible. Not Ontario provinces have their own rules that will apply. Quincy or Trialprep can speak about BC. My advice is Ontario specific. But yeah, I'd rather my student be doing something tangible rather than writing a CAN.
  14. Depends. It is discretionary. You need to learn your judges. I've successfully had matters thrown out for not meeting urgency, I've had ex parte orders overturned, I've stopped some arguments in their tracks for not being properly before the court and I've also had things argued despite not being properly plead prior to, had issues heard despite short service, etc. You can play with procedure when you are comfortable with the rules. Articling students in small firms generally get to do a lot of direct work. Family law is very front line. Clerks didn't get the people aspect that family law needs. Fundamentals are important to competent advocacy.
  15. Before writing articles and the like, my advice is to learn family law. Are you in Ontario? If so, go to the Community Legal Education Ontario website and go through the steps in a family case. Learn the Rules - what constitutes an emergency? What is urgent? (And what's the difference), familiarize yourself with setting up an urgent case conference - what is the procedure in your jurisdiction? Is it all teleconference? Zoom conferences? Can you participate on the telephone too? If you're not in Ontario, do your provinces equivalents to the above. As a clerk, you didn't really interview clients. Can you step up and interview them/do the intake for the firm? I mean, that's a pretty normal thing for articling students to do. I work in a busy largely legal aid based practice. The jr lawyers that are often on the opposing sides write awful affidavits and seek really weird orders. They don't usually get the law quite right (and generally get the procedure wrong). Make sure that you have the fundamentals down before running and trying to either do business development or writing articles.
×
×
  • Create New...