Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone, 

I want to hear about young associates’ experience and observations as females navigating Bay St.

How are you feeling within the current culture on the street? What would you change about it? 

How do you get ahead? How do you balance busting your ass to get on partner track and wanting to start a family (in 3-5  years). 

Have you noticed yourself code switching in the board / court room? 

Thanks

Share this post


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

Hi Everyone, 

I want to hear about young associates’ experience and observations as females navigating Bay St.

How are you feeling within the current culture on the street? What would you change about it? 

How do you get ahead? How do you balance busting your ass to get on partner track and wanting to start a family (in 3-5  years). 

Have you noticed yourself code switching in the board / court room? 

Thanks

What makes you assume that women want to start a family in 3-5 years? Why 3-5 years? And how do you know they want to be “on partner track” in 3-5 years?

Edited by providence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you assume women are on Bay St. or would want to change it? What makes you assume that women would have an opinion? 🙄🙄

Those are fair questions and those who are within that mindset should be free to answer. Not sure why OP is getting attacked here.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MT696 said:

What makes you assume women are on Bay St. or would want to change it? What makes you assume that women would have an opinion? 🙄🙄

Those are fair questions and those who are within that mindset should be free to answer. Not sure why OP is getting attacked here.

I really did think these were fair questions + wanted to have an open discussion for my benefit and perhaps for others. 

It is sad when some regular posters’ intentions seem to always be attacking as opposed to offering genuine insight - which is what i though the point behind this anon forum was. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lillyeliana said:

I really did think these were fair questions + wanted to have an open discussion for my benefit and perhaps for others. 

It is sad when some regular posters’ intentions seem to always be attacking as opposed to offering genuine insight - which is what i though the point behind this anon forum was. 

Perhaps hedgis was asking for context? The response you give a wide-eyed applicant with romanticized notions of working on Bay would be different from those given to someone with lived experience 

but yea. I thought your questions were valid and certainly an important discussion to have 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Perhaps hedgis was asking for context? The response you give a wide-eyed applicant with romanticized notions of working on Bay would be different from those given to someone with lived experience 

but yea. I thought your questions were valid and certainly an important discussion to have 

I get providing context - that is totally fair. I do think though that perhaps wide-eyed applicants are most in need of hearing real on the ground experiences. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assure you that Hegdis wasn’t trying to be malicious or whatever, but I think context for your question would be helpful. It’s one thing to say, “I’m a male sole practitioner in Kitchener but I’m curious what it’s like for women on Bay Street” versus “I’m a female associate at a Bay firm and wondering what my long term outlook is like compared to my male colleagues.”

The facts relayed in the answers may be the same, but this way the responses you’ll get will (hopefully) be more informative, since they’ll be tailored to your situation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I just wanted to be sure you weren’t writing an article for publication and posters wouldn’t find themselves being quoted elsewhere. We get a lot of people posting for a lot of different reasons.

No offence was intended. 

I think Komodo had a good thread going a while back on a similar topic. I will try to find it. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hegdis said:

Honestly I just wanted to be sure you weren’t writing an article for publication and posters wouldn’t find themselves being quoted elsewhere. We get a lot of people posting for a lot of different reasons.

No offence was intended. 

I think Komodo had a good thread going a while back on a similar topic. I will try to find it. 

You mean like this article? For some reason it's been making the rounds on Bay street again. At first I was like - phew - that was almost ten years ago "we" (i.e Bay street culture in general) have made sooooo much progress. But, upon reflection, I don't know if that's actually true. 

Unfortunately we still hire/promote people who look like "us" (because we "like" those types of people - they just "fit") - turns out a lot of "us" are still white men.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I did not know I needed to explicitly state reasons to post on this forum - I ask because I am a young associate myself and I want to hear more from women who’ve been doing it longer.

Side note though (I’ve been reading your comments on the forum for a while) I dont believe you’re on Bay St + I am certainly not interested in your male partner’s experience, so I don’t understand why you’re commenting in a manner clearly intending to undermine the purpose of my post.

Love it. That was well-deserved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hegdis said:

Honestly I just wanted to be sure you weren’t writing an article for publication and posters wouldn’t find themselves being quoted elsewhere. We get a lot of people posting for a lot of different reasons.

No offence was intended. 

I think Komodo had a good thread going a while back on a similar topic. I will try to find it. 

That is totally fair - I get that. I did not think of that possibility and thus thought obviously I am asking re: my own experience 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so this thread doesn’t get derailed, for OP’s sake - we’ve had a private discussion and I think we are all good. I did not mean to come across as unhelpful, I am sorry for that, and I hope OP can get some meaningful answers from those able to give them, and not just bickering about who said what to whom. I think these are important questions that deserve serious responses and did not mean to suggest otherwise. Sorry again. 😊

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TheScientist101 said:

You mean like this article? For some reason it's been making the rounds on Bay street again. At first I was like - phew - that was almost ten years ago "we" (i.e Bay street culture in general) have made sooooo much progress. But, upon reflection, I don't know if that's actually true. 

Unfortunately we still hire/promote people who look like "us" (because we "like" those types of people - they just "fit") - turns out a lot of "us" are still white men.  

I hadn't seen the article at the time, I assume the matter eventually settled with an NDA. Don't know about that, but I was intrigued enough to just find a years-ago blog post with copies of the pleadings etc. if anyone is interested (since as you say the story's making the rounds again):

http://lawofwork.ca/?p=1278

Of course I don't know the merits or eventual result, but I'm disposed to sympathize with her because it sounds like she was treated unfairly entirely aside from gender discrimination allegations (usual disclaimers one side of the story etc.).

It sounds like rainmaker schmoozers and litigators who liked being in court not the research etc., wanted to hire someone to actually do the work, actively recruited her to do so, made all sorts of promises, and then refused to compensate her for doing the work that made them look good to clients or to permit her to do the sort of regulatory work she wanted and which she'd been told she could. And from their behaviour with others (e.g. lateral hires directly to partner and cross-appointments) things they'd told her they couldn't do, they did anyway with others (who were male).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, epeeist said:

I hadn't seen the article at the time, I assume the matter eventually settled with an NDA. Don't know about that, but I was intrigued enough to just find a years-ago blog post with copies of the pleadings etc. if anyone is interested (since as you say the story's making the rounds again):

http://lawofwork.ca/?p=1278

Of course I don't know the merits or eventual result, but I'm disposed to sympathize with her because it sounds like she was treated unfairly entirely aside from gender discrimination allegations (usual disclaimers one side of the story etc.).

It sounds like rainmaker schmoozers and litigators who liked being in court not the research etc., wanted to hire someone to actually do the work, actively recruited her to do so, made all sorts of promises, and then refused to compensate her for doing the work that made them look good to clients or to permit her to do the sort of regulatory work she wanted and which she'd been told she could. And from their behaviour with others (e.g. lateral hires directly to partner and cross-appointments) things they'd told her they couldn't do, they did anyway with others (who were male).

I sympathize with her as well (of course I also don’t know any of the details though I did look). I also curiously looked up what happened to her... depressing 

Share this post


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

I sympathize with her as well (of course I also don’t know any of the details though I did look). I also curiously looked up what happened to her... depressing 

And @TheScientist101 I was curious and checked where she is now, but didn't dig too deeply (that's not a criticism of you for doing so!).

I skimmed the pleadings, as well as what the firm wrote when they hired her (granting that law firm pieces when they hire someone aren't sworn under oath and new hire contributes to them), seems to contradict or at least makes me skeptical about some of what McCarthy's later pleaded about her and what they say as compared to what she said:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040811112759/http://www.mccarthy.ca/en/mediaroom/mainstory_template.asp?headline_id=92

I'm also reminded, by analogy with real estate purchases (usual disclaimers plus no real estate practice endorsement so really don't rely!) and no reps and warranties clauses (essentially anything that you're told or promised, unless it's in the written agreement, means nothing unless it's so serious as to constitute fraud - if they promise they'll repaint, leave the appliances, whatever, unless it's in writing in the agreement tough shit for the purchaser, should've put it in writing). Something might not be legally enforceable, but I still sympathize with the person who's screwed out of what the other side was morally, even if not legally, obliged to deliver.

EDIT: which is a specific example re pre-contractual representations, there are employment law examples also about someone leaving a job based on promises etc.

Edited by epeeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, epeeist said:

And @TheScientist101 I was curious and checked where she is now, but didn't dig too deeply (that's not a criticism of you for doing so!).

I skimmed the pleadings, as well as what the firm wrote when they hired her (granting that law firm pieces when they hire someone aren't sworn under oath and new hire contributes to them), seems to contradict or at least makes me skeptical about some of what McCarthy's later pleaded about her and what they say as compared to what she said:

https://web.archive.org/web/20040811112759/http://www.mccarthy.ca/en/mediaroom/mainstory_template.asp?headline_id=92

I'm also reminded, by analogy with real estate purchases (usual disclaimers plus no real estate practice endorsement so really don't rely!) and no reps and warranties clauses (essentially anything that you're told or promised, unless it's in the written agreement, means nothing unless it's so serious as to constitute fraud - if they promise they'll repaint, leave the appliances, whatever, unless it's in writing in the agreement tough shit for the purchaser, should've put it in writing). Something might not be legally enforceable, but I still sympathize with the person who's screwed out of what the other side was morally, even if not legally, obliged to deliver.

Yeah I’m fairly certain much of what was promised to her didn’t make it into the four corners of her employment contract. I’m glad she pushed back - many in her position likely wouldn’t

Share this post


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

I also curiously looked up what happened to her... depressing 

Why is it depressing? In-house counsel at a major research institute doesn't sound like a depressing outcome for an IP lawyer (except insofar as she obviously wanted to make partner at a firm). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I'd cancel if I were you, especially because of your GPA. I have a GPA that is on the lower side as well and I basically think anything below 165 is useless to me. I'm aiming for 169+. But if you have a school that you think will accept a 3.0 and 156 then of course don't cancel. But if you don't know of any school that will accept that (I don't know if there are any), then just cancel it and get the free retake. Why waste money on keeping a score that's worthless?
    • Got an invitation to a cocktail reception today from a Van firm. Confirmed an OCI in the same email.
    • You drink while studying?
    • I think I once passed through Saskatchewan by train, and I've flown over it a number of times. But seeing comment excerpts in the sidebar attracted me to this thread. I was just wondering why OP is so against a lunch break. If she doesn't want to eat lunch okay, but why should other people be denied the opportunity?! Eating in class is problematic for multiple reasons (sound, smell, sight, spring to mind). And what's wrong with having a day off in the middle of the week, in which she could study all day at home, sipping old fashioneds?
    • I scored a 156 on the July LSAT and I'm seriously considering canceling my score. My poor GPA doesn't help my situation either. I consistently scored between 152-162 on PT's. My list of schools I'd like to get into goes something like this; McGill, Calgary, Queens, Dalhousie, Windsor and then Western. Any input, advice or general help would be amazing for me as I'm struggling with this decision.
×
×
  • Create New...