For a more realistic answer (and maybe not as glamorous as you'd be hoping for), as a junior big law associate doing solicitor work:
Read/respond to emails - 50% of my time
Review corporate searches and various other diligence documents - 20%
Draft contracts and other tasks requiring direct legal analysis - 15%
Miscellaneous grunt work - remainder
Okay, serious questions, then: would you recommend going to Bond over Canadian law schools? If so, what would be the "primary factor" or factors underpinning that choice? Given that it's no longer faster and the location is only a consideration (and those were literally the two reasons you gave that people would go to Bond aside from having no other options).
I've given him a hard time at times but his takes on the subject are refreshingly level-headed and balanced in comparison with choice-supportive bias threads like this (which tend to be more typical from Bond grads).
Wanting to enjoy a nice vacation abroad is a terrible reason to choose where to go to law school. = Straw man logical fallacy.
1. Going to a country many thousands of kilometers from home all alone + living in the Gold Coast for two 2 years and adapting to the country is not a "nice vacation".
2. It's also not as you strawman the reason to go to law school. It's A consideration, not the primary factor.
Ironically your examples prove my point about questionable judgement rather than refuting it.
-As you concede, it's no longer a faster route to get a Bond degree.
-Wanting to enjoy a nice vacation abroad is a terrible reason to choose where to go to law school.