Jump to content
pele24

Articling -sole practitioner - salary range

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, thegoodlaw said:

I'm not sure about that.

There is a shortage of articling positions in Ontario and soles are critically important in creating more positions. They may not be very well paying, but at least the student gets some valuable experience out of it (hopefully). Setting a minimum wage can potentially take out a lot of positions.

I will also point out that as a sole you're also paying for rent, legal assistants, supplies, internet/phone, etc etc before you even get to the student's wage. So let's be careful about pronouncing what an appropriate wage might be without fully knowing about the circumstances of a particular lawyer.

I'm well aware of the overhead involved in running a practice. 

TBH, I'm  not concerned in the slightest about a shortage of articling positions. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, QuincyWagstaff said:

I'm well aware of the overhead involved in running a practice. 

TBH, I'm  not concerned in the slightest about a shortage of articling positions. 

Interesting.

 

In that case, I would say the LSOERS should abolish articling, and impose labour standards for lawyers (who obviously aren't business owners running their own firm). Then if what the society consider a competent law grads want, they can enter the market as a sole and try to make it on their own, without being constricted from it by articling. Let the market decide, once you've determined competence.

 

Before anyone screams bloody murder about poor representation, it seems our cousins down south are doing just fine without imposing the additional hurdle. If there really are concerns, put the elements of that hurdle as an imposition with the bar exam and/or law school curricula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh, are we going to debate articling and the articling crisis again? That’s my favourite topic! 

In all seriousness, I’m probably with @QuincyWagstaff for the most part. I certainly wouldn’t article for less than ~$2500 (maybe I’d go down to $2,000), but I’m also in the position to be able to say that. 

The “crisis” doesn’t bother me much. Law students are supposedly smart people. They went to law school of their own volition, and any failure to adequately research job prospects is their own fault. I have little sympathy for “smart” people who act dumb and then ask society to bail them out. 

But I’m also cynical and have a fair bit of disdain for law students, so I’m a bit biased. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Ooh, are we going to debate articling and the articling crisis again? That’s my favourite topic! 

[...]

I certainly wouldn’t article for less than ~$2500 (maybe I’d go down to $2,000), but I’m also in the position to be able to say that. 

[...]

The “crisis” doesn’t bother me much. Law students are supposedly smart people.

.....Didn't you just finish 1L?

Edited by beyondsection17
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, QuincyWagstaff said:

If they are a successful defence lawyer doing legal aid by choice, I think they should be able to cherry pick the more lucrative major trials, and still pay 2500 plus mileage. 

That's a floor I would set for articling wages. 

a) most defence lawyers, even successful ones, don't do legal aid by "choice" and turn down fee paying clients for it. The reality is that most clients available to most defence lawyers have only legal aid as an option and then there are the many clients who don't qualify for legal aid and have limited cash

b) it is not that easy to "cherry pick" more lucrative trials, even for successful lawyers. Those clients still have to request you out of all the counsel out there

c) $2,500 a month consistently is a lot for a lot of soles - it is very doable for a small practice - 3 or 4 lawyers with good practices should be able to swing that and an assistant - we do - but for one lawyer, there could be some slow months when that is tough to do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, providence said:

a) most defence lawyers, even successful ones, don't do legal aid by "choice" and turn down fee paying clients for it. The reality is that most clients available to most defence lawyers have only legal aid as an option and then there are the many clients who don't qualify for legal aid and have limited cash

b) it is not that easy to "cherry pick" more lucrative trials, even for successful lawyers. Those clients still have to request you out of all the counsel out there

c) $2,500 a month consistently is a lot for a lot of soles - it is very doable for a small practice - 3 or 4 lawyers with good practices should be able to swing that and an assistant - we do - but for one lawyer, there could be some slow months when that is tough to do.

I was basing it on the hypo in the comment I was responding to. 

Those lawyers should either share a student or provide split articles. 

I'm not intersted in creating articling positions for poverty wages under broke sole practitioners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, beyondsection17 said:

.....Didn't you just finish 1L?

That's enough time to have both a job and a poor view of law students. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, QuincyWagstaff said:

That's enough time to have both a job and a poor view of law students. 

Maybe section17 was suggesting I’ll like law students by the end of 3L? 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Maybe section17 was suggesting I’ll like law students by the end of 3L? 

Well, you'll probably see a lot less of them, so that may attenuate your dislike. 

But I wouldn't go further than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Maybe section17 was suggesting I’ll like law students by the end of 3L? 

I think it was fairly clear what I was suggesting.  If I had a dime for every 1L I met who "wasn't bothered by the articling crisis" (either because of their delusions of grandeur about their odds at the 2L recruit, or their inflated egos from having secured a 1L job at Blakes or SK),  I'd have paid off my student loans by now.

Edited by beyondsection17
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, beyondsection17 said:

I think it was fairly clear what I was suggesting.  If I had a dime for every 1L I met who "wasn't bothered by the articling crisis" (either because of their delusions of grandeur about their odds at the 2L recruit, or their inflated egos from having secured a 1L job at Blakes or SK),  I'd have paid off my student loans by now.

I haven’t been bothered by the articling crisis since before I started law school. I have neither the time nor the energy to sit around fretting about supposedly smart people who regret their choices because they failed to adequately research them. Nor do I have the patience for the level of entitlement necessary to label fairly typical post-grad employment rates a "crisis". 

It’s the same reason I have no patience for the graduate students and post-docs who whine endlessly about the fact that they’ll never get tenure. They knew schools were shifting to contract faculty. They knew graduate students are a dime a dozen these days. If they ignored those signs and went for it anyways, that’s on them. 

It all boils down to the same thing: I have little sympathy for “smart” people who act dumb, fail to research their career path, and then ask society to bail them out. There are a billion things in this world that are more concerning than "smart" people making dumb choices.

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is entirely reasonable to recognize something dissonant in a system where the education of law is separated from the licensing and practice of law. 

That this system more or less worked for a very long time does not mean that it is the right one. 

To say that you have "no time" for this discussion strikes me as rather callous.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, easttowest said:

I think it is entirely reasonable to recognize something dissonant in a system where the education of law is separated from the licensing and practice of law. 

That this system more or less worked for a very long time does not mean that it is the right one. 

To say that you have "no time" for this discussion strikes me as rather callous.  

 

I'm more than happy to discuss changes to the system. If there are strong reasons for abolishing articling and setting up some alternate form of licensing, I'm happy to listen to them. 

What I don't have time for is all the hand-wringing on the articling "crisis". The fact that "smart" people failed to do their research and now want society (or their peers, in the case of the LPP) to bail them out is not a compelling reason to change the articling system. 

It is callous, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, easttowest said:

I think it is entirely reasonable to recognize something dissonant in a system where the education of law is separated from the licensing and practice of law. 

That this system more or less worked for a very long time does not mean that it is the right one. 

To say that you have "no time" for this discussion strikes me as rather callous.  

 

Even if an argument could be made that the education and licencing of law should be done hand in hand, you are just kicking the problem down the road. 

What is now termed an "articling crisis" will just become a "jobs crisis" 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OWH said:

Even if an argument could be made that the education and licencing of law should be done hand in hand, you are just kicking the problem down the road. 

What is now termed an "articling crisis" will just become a "jobs crisis" 

 

Not if you restrict the seats. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, easttowest said:

Not if you restrict the seats. 

Ok comrade.

Who is going to be the one that decides how many law students to admit to law school? Or maybe the LSO should restrict the number of L1 licences they issue each year? 

It is not the law schools' responsibility to ensure you have a job after you graduate. Nor is not the regulator's responsibility to ensure you make a living from your licence. Bear in mind that the Law Society's mandate is protection of the public. 
 

No one else in the world gets a guaranteed job for life just because they have passed a course of study or been issued a licence, why should lawyers? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OWH said:

No one else in the world gets a guaranteed job for life just because they have passed a course of study or been issued a licence, why should lawyers? 

This is an extreme version of my position, and not anything that I suggested. 

Allowing law schools to charge, essentially, whatever the market will bear to however many students they can reasonably fit in the building for a law degree and then punting the licensing requirement to mostly private bodies who may not be hiring doesn't strike me as particularly well thought-out. 

Add to that the influx of foreign-trained graduates and you have our articling "crisis." 

If all of this strikes you as perfectly fine and normal and good, then we'll never agree. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, OWH said:

Ok comrade.

"when professionals form strict cartels thats commulism"

hmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, easttowest said:

Not if you restrict the seats. 

The only reasons to restrict seats in law school are: (i) protectionism; and (ii) paternalism. The legal profession and society are already protected from incompetence by the licensing process, so further protectionism at the admissions stage is redundant. That leaves paternalism. 

Now maybe I'm crazy here, but I don't think we should be paternalistic towards law students. These are people who likely graduated top of their class in high school, graduated near the top of their class in undergraduate and scored reasonably well on a standardized test that is a decent proxy for intelligence. They, of all people, should be the people that don't need society paternalistically guiding them through their 20s. 

If we accept that law students need to have their freedom and responsibilities restricted so that the government can guide them through their tender mid-20s, we may as well bump the age of majority to 30. Because if the supposedly smart class of people who make it to law school can't be expected to do their research and look out for their own best interests, we're all fucked. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Hello, I'm in my 4th year at UofL in Calgary and currently have the following stats: CGPA: 3.21 L2: 3.53 B3: 3.32 I'm practicing the LSAT test and lowest I've had is 163. Highest I've had is 167. Work Experience: I've been working in Business Development full-time now for about 3+ years. Before that worked at a bank full-time and before that retail jobs. Always worked 30+ hours a week to support family. Reason for low CGPA is one BAD year dealing with a lot of personal problems. I know I won't get into Osgoode and UofT. But my goal is Queens. My list includes Dal, UofC, USask, Western, Ottawa and UBC. What are my chances in these schools? What about the other schools? I'm open to go to any school that takes me but would LOVE to go to Queens. and If not, then one from my list.
    • Definitely hard to say but I think I've done some considerable volunteering and leadership stuff that I really hope helps my case, but again it's really hard to know what other people applying to a holistic school look like.    I did a lil calculation and my CGPA is only like 2.9, I have some serious regrets about how I used my time in my first few years of university but not much can be done now. I am taking 4 more classes currently to bump myself but as I'm sure you know, its insanely hard to see a lot of movement. I took 4 spring/summer classes and got 4 As, it only moved my L2 GPA by 0.015. Sigh. I'm also signed up for 4 more in Winter but those aren't considered. So if all goes as planned i'll be more in the 3.6L2/3.0 CGPA range going into the 2020 cycle but obviously that doesn't help me for 2019. 

      Anyways, just trying to be as strategic as possible. Again, my expectations are not high and I'm not banking on getting in for 2019- obviously it would be a nice surprise though if I managed to claw my way in somewhere 


       
    • Sorry guys, this is probably a really stupid question but I've been working on applications all day and my brain is sufficiently fried. I'm not seeing a supporting documents deadline on the OLSAS website or the Windsor Law site. Does this mean my actual references have to be complete by November 1st, or is there an actual document deadline I'm just not seeing? Also, does anyone know what the outline for these reference letters look like? I'm trying to advise my referees on what is required but I'm having a hell of time finding out more details. 

      Thanks
    • I called OLSAS today with the same question. The asked me to get the college to send OLSAS a letter saying that they can not provide transcripts. And they said the deadline for "these sort of documents" is later than November 1st. so I shouldn't worry if it doesn't get there by November 1st.
    • Yeah, it forces you to make choices.  ie. who do you choose between: -your dream firm where you sense you did not wow them but they are lukewarm on it (can you turn things around and wow them at the dinner?) -a firm you sense was wowed by you but you are lukewarm on it (if you have a good experience at the dinner will you like it more?) -the most "prestigious" firm you interviewed for as you see it -the firm you threw in on a whim that you weren't expecting to like but find intriguing
×