Jump to content
sotiredofyork

Western vs Queens when you have no interest in corporate law

Recommended Posts

Are their any key differences between the two schools? Im still deciding and I'm so lost... I like both so much. 

I am not interested at all in corporate law, but I am very interested in the city of london, the school of western, and just like London life better than kingston. But I am not interested in corporate law, and I know its a required course you have to eventually take in 2L if not 1L.

 

Can anyone share their input on this? If I have no interest in corporate law, should I still go to western? 

I like family and crim 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every law school in Ontario (heck Canada) does a creditable job teaching criminal and family law.  So you take a corporate law course, it won’t hurt you.   If you like London, go to Western. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, sotiredofyork said:

Are their any key differences between the two schools? Im still deciding and I'm so lost... I like both so much. 

I am not interested at all in corporate law, but I am very interested in the city of london, the school of western, and just like London life better than kingston. But I am not interested in corporate law, and I know its a required course you have to eventually take in 2L if not 1L.

 

Can anyone share their input on this? If I have no interest in corporate law, should I still go to western? 

I like family and crim 

 

Taking tax law was useful for my first white-collar crim case. One corporate course is no big deal. I know good crim lawyers who went to Western.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sotiredofyork said:

Are their any key differences between the two schools? Im still deciding and I'm so lost... I like both so much. 

I am not interested at all in corporate law, but I am very interested in the city of london, the school of western, and just like London life better than kingston. But I am not interested in corporate law, and I know its a required course you have to eventually take in 2L if not 1L.

 

Can anyone share their input on this? If I have no interest in corporate law, should I still go to western? 

I like family and crim 

 

Is this for next cycle? 

To my knowledge Queen’s is known more as a family/crim school, with a larger portion of their student body interested in these areas. But the difference is marginal.

I agree with Bob, what matters much more is the location/school atmosphere you like best; and if that’s Western/London than in my opinion that is where you should go. 

Share this post


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

corporate law, and I know its a required course

Well, what is the "corporate law" course? If it's similar to what Osgoode calls Business Associations, then it's going to be applicable to pretty much every field of law. Including family law (business owners can get divorced) and criminal law (sometimes people commit crimes through corporations). Like administrative law, it should probably be mandatory everywhere!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Wait, how are you still deciding? The acceptance deadline was a while ago, wasn’t it? 

This is what I was trying to get at. They must either be asking for next cycle or... Have just realized they no longer have a choice. And based on the OP not replying since it’s been questioned, I’m guessing it’s the latter rather than the former. Whoops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very very high stats and was working under the assumption I'd get into both schools , which has now happened lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sotiredofyork said:

I have very very high stats and was working under the assumption I'd get into both schools , which has now happened lol 

1

But don't accepted students have to choose by 1 April, or has that changed this year? Or were you not offered a spot at one of the schools until after 1 April? 

Share this post


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

But don't accepted students have to choose by 1 April, or has that changed this year? Or were you not offered a spot at one of the schools until after 1 April? 

april 10th/24th were my deadlines! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But don't accepted students have to choose by 1 April, or has that changed this year? Or were you not offered a spot at one of the schools until after 1 April? 

april 10th/24th were my deadlines! 

Yes, offers that were given mid-late March had an extended decision deadline! My offers had an April 9th deadline!   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to Western and had no interest in corporate law. Took the mandatory course, survived. I focused on family and criminal law and got lots of exposure to both -- clinic exposure especially -- and my articling job is in criminal and family law. If you pick Western, feel free to PM me for more details.

Share this post


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

I went to Western and had no interest in corporate law. Took the mandatory course, survived. I focused on family and criminal law and got lots of exposure to both -- clinic exposure especially -- and my articling job is in criminal and family law. If you pick Western, feel free to PM me for more details.

i actually just did officially accept western!! You're just like me!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wait what is all this about extended acceptance dates if you got accepted in late March? I got accepted mid/late March (March 22) but still had to decide by April 1st. Can anyone please provide me with more information about this?

Edited by GoLeafsGo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sotiredofyork said:

Are their any key differences between the two schools? Im still deciding and I'm so lost... I like both so much. 

I am not interested at all in corporate law, but I am very interested in the city of london, the school of western, and just like London life better than kingston. But I am not interested in corporate law, and I know its a required course you have to eventually take in 2L if not 1L.

Can anyone share their input on this? If I have no interest in corporate law, should I still go to western? 

I like family and crim 

I know you've already made your choice (congrats!) but just for readers' future reference: as a former Western corporate-focused student, I wished I was a non-corporate student at Western because there were so many cool courses and extracurriculars in other areas of law (the criminal ones always interested me the most, but also family, constitutional/public law, and international law). I actually did get involved in a fair number of those things and they were some of my favourite parts of law school (perhaps that says I've gone down the wrong career path but...that's another discussion!).

Also, everyone at every law school should take corporate law (or whatever it's called at each school - as a poster above noted, it's called Business Associations at Osgoode). There's no balance sheets or anything - it's just about corporations (as a legal person)  function in the world, particularly when interacting with other persons. This is something that is likely to come up in about every lawyer's practice at some point (and at the very least is something you probably should know in order to really understand a lot of the news out there).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TheGazeboEffect said:

Also, everyone at every law school should take corporate law (or whatever it's called at each school - as a poster above noted, it's called Business Associations at Osgoode). There's no balance sheets or anything - it's just about corporations (as a legal person)  function in the world, particularly when interacting with other persons. This is something that is likely to come up in about every lawyer's practice at some point (and at the very least is something you probably should know in order to really understand a lot of the news out there).

 There are a bunch of areas of law - corporate, tax, evidence, admin, trusts, there are probably others - that lawyers should take because that base knowledge will make them more valuable to their clients (and themselves). Heck, in some cases, you need to those courts just to be a competent lawyers. That sort of stuff is on the bar exam for a reason.

Trusts is my favorite example.  Most people who go to law school don't plan on becoming wills and estates lawyers or trust lawyers.  But, as a lawyer, how do you manage a trust account if you don't really know what a trust is.  There was a case a few years ago where a Toronto area real estate lawyer got into trouble because her client, a building developer, went bust, but she had paid the buyer's deposits over to him before he was entitled to them.  Her defense was that the trust funds were her client's money (which they would be AFTER the building was build and the deposits released), so she didn't think there was anything wrong with that.  Sure, maybe she was in on the scam (I can't remember if it was a scam or just bad business luck), but taken at face value, her defense was that she didn't understand what trust funds were.  That's not an acceptable defense when the LSUC comes knocking.   I've been involved in files where lawyers - good, smart, highly regarded lawyers - didn't realize that the settlement agreement they were drafting gave rise to a trust.  That's a problem when the CRA comes knocking a few years later and starts asking why no one has been paying tax on the income on the assets covered by the agreement. 

But there's a host of others.  If you're a solicitor, you're never going to be cross-examining a witness, but you damned well better understand rules around privilege, to ensure that your correspondence with your client remains privileged (in the event of a tax audit, or commercial dispute, or shareholder litigation) - how many times do people potentially screw-up privilege by sending legal advice and copying the client's accountant?  Probably happens much more often then they'd like to admit.  Shoulda taken evidence.  

Corporate law.   As someone mentioned, how can you practice family law - at least if you want to have clients who are reasonably wealth who can pay your bills in full (like the owners of small businesses) - if you don't understand corporate and tax law.  Certainly if you're in private practice, you should know a thing or two about tax law - it will be relevant to you. You should also know a thing or two about partnerships, that might be relevant to you too. White collar crime? Environmental law?  Real estate?  You need to understand corporate structures to practice in those areas. 

And, by "understand" any of these areas of law, I'm not suggesting you need deep expertise, you just need to know enough to be able to say  "shit, this is something I need to worry about, I should get an expert involved" when the issue arises.  Law school is a great opportunity to get the high level, 30,000 foot, understanding that you need to to be a useful lawyer.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Corporate law/Bus associations isn't mandatory at some schools? Seriously..?

It wasn't at UofT when I was there.   

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

    • I am more of an ambivert - I can be either introverted or extroverted, depending on the situation. For job interviews, I would generally be on the extroverted side of the spectrum. I also had the maximum number of interviews, and I was cautioned against it by people who thought it would be too much. This was some years ago, but from what I remember, it was unnecessary to do that many. It wasn't very exhausting for me, but I realize that the law school view of what is "hard" or "too much" or "tiring" is completely different from my experience. I had been through things in life much more intense and difficult than making small talk at a bunch of interviews and dinners, so it was fine. Some people found it hard to be "on" for so long, but that's where the extroverted tendencies help - that part was kind of fun when it wasn't terrifying or alienating. It does get complicated when you start getting into second and third interviews and dinners and so on because you can't do all of those and have to pick and choose.  So my issue wasn't so much the pace of the interviews, but just that it became apparent that there were only a few firms I had an interest in and a bunch of them where I really could not see myself working at all, but then I felt committed to keep selling myself to them having gone that far in the process. And of course you get caught up in everyone else's anxiety, so while it wasn't too demanding physically, it was emotionally - the extroverted side of you likely has lots of friends from law school going through the process and lots of 3L friends rooting for you and so my phone was constantly going off with people wanting to know how it was going, offering advice, complaining about their situation, etc.  As it turned out, I was able to predict which offers I would and wouldn't get and they lined up more or less with the firms where I had more of an interest, so there were a bunch of useless interviews where it was obvious I wasn't interested in them or them in me.  I would think 10 or 12 interviews are plenty and you should be able to narrow them down, but 20 will not be impossible, it's just silly.  I assume if you got 20, you have very good grades and an interesting resume, and if you're saying you're more of an extrovert, you're likely decent in interviews. I wouldn't think you have to worry about 20 interviews to maximize your chances of getting hired - that seems overly cautious to me. 
    • Just an FYI for whomever may be reading this, more than one account isn't allowed. If you have a reason for setting up a throwaway, it should be cleared with the mod team first. We can't be having every student who goes through the OCI process having duplicate accounts.  To the OP: you can continue this thread with the new account but for this thread only.  Once you receive answers to your questions, the second account will be suspended.
    • 1. I was referring to the difficulty of going from, say, Osgoode to a job in New York. Every year some students are hired by firms down south. (At U of T it can be as much as 10% of the class.) But these positions are highly competitive and firms are very grade selective. With respect to American law schools, conventional wisdom is that NY Big Law is the easiest market to get to. No one cares about ‘local ties’ in NY—and, more importantly, there are a ton of jobs. (The most competitive market is probably Washington, DC.) However! It’s still hard in the sense that you can quite easily go to a T14 law school and fail to secure a position.  2. It doesn’t really matter. You will have one year of work experience baked in to your student visa. Then, once you have a job, you apply for an H1-B through your prospective employer. If that doesn’t work out, you can fall back on NAFTAs TN status (knock on wood). You may be at a disadvantage with smaller firms, but the big shops hire foreign nationals all the time.
    • Thanks for the reply. 

      The two main issues you identify are cost and not being able to work in the public sector. I'm 99% sure that I want to work in the private sector, so the unavailability of public sector work isn't a problem for me. However, the cost is definitely something I'll have to consider; 300 grand (or more) is a hell of a thing to go through life with. I'd like to clarify a couple things:

      When you say "You can go to the NY from U of T, Osgoode, or McGill—but, that said, if your overriding concern is working in the US, you should know that it’s hard to pull off" are you saying that it would be difficult to pull off if I went to a Canadian law school, or difficult to pull off even if I went to school in the US?

      Would not being a permanent resident, as opposed to just not being a citizen, significantly impact my ability to find work in the private sector?

       
×