Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, I have a quick question and I was hoping to get other's input since I am feeling conflicted. 

I recently interviewed with a firm, and from the sound of it the interview went well. I was told the pay would be $650/week for the 10-month articling period. 

This is a small 16-lawyer civil litigation firm in Toronto. 

I cannot shake the feeling that $650 a week is too low for a firm in Toronto. Don't get me wrong, I am not expecting big-law pay. However, with the amount of hours articling students work, the $650 comes out to be less than minimum. With the cost of living in Toronto it just seems like a really low ball offer.

What are your thoughts on this? Especially considering the current market. Should I try and negotiate the pay? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds seriously low to me. Do you have any other potential options? You should assess your strengths as an applicant and be realistic about whether or not you'll get other offers.

The market is pretty poor for people entering the profession right now so I guess it is better than unpaid but not by a whole lot. At that rate you should also make sure they're paying the cost of your LSO application, bar exam material and fees, etc. otherwise that annualized ~$34,000 will be closer to ~$28,000 which is basically unlivable in the city. Negotiating salary is tricky, articling students have basically no bargaining power. That being said if you know someone who works there or who has in the past from upper years you should be able to get a better sense of things. If pay used to be higher and this is a pandemic cut I'd say you're probably SOL.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty low, but I wouldn't necessarily call it exploitative. At least they're making an effort to pay their students instead of acting like they're doing you a favour by making you work for free in exchange for experience. Do you think they're doing it purely out of stinginess or necessity? I worked for comparable firms as a student and I'll PM you my weekly pay for comparison.

You'll have to make a calculated decision based on the risk of not getting a job at all. Like you mentioned, the job market isn't looking great. Do you have other prospects? Can you financially and emotionally handle a prolonged job search? Are you prepared to do the LPP if you're out of options?

Also consider the non-monetary benefits of working for this firm (ex. collegiality, hireback prospects, relevance to your area of interest, mentorship, quality of the files, proximity to home, work-life balance) and whether the low compensation make you disgruntled and therefore affect your work performance.

Edited by BNAAct1867
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ConfusedLawStudent17 said:

Hi everyone, I have a quick question and I was hoping to get other's input since I am feeling conflicted. 

I recently interviewed with a firm, and from the sound of it the interview went well. I was told the pay would be $650/week for the 10-month articling period. 

This is a small 16-lawyer civil litigation firm in Toronto. 

I cannot shake the feeling that $650 a week is too low for a firm in Toronto. Don't get me wrong, I am not expecting big-law pay. However, with the amount of hours articling students work, the $650 comes out to be less than minimum. With the cost of living in Toronto it just seems like a really low ball offer.

What are your thoughts on this? Especially considering the current market. Should I try and negotiate the pay? 

I would want to know what the expectations are like, is this a firm that expects you to be working 55-75 hours a week? Is there good mentorship? Do they have good work that you are interested in?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of articles out there are unpaid.

There's more to exploitative than the pay. 

I raise my brow at there being 16 lawyers in the firm in Toronto, but regardless, the articling market is tough right now. If there's good mentorship and it's good experience, and if you can afford it, it's not bad.

Not sure about negotiating. But if the offer has been made, it might not be the worst thing to see if there's any room at all. Just based on rent, etc. But don't negotiate from an expectation. That would turn people off.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why articling is such a disaster. $650/week is low. Yes, it is better than no articling job, or an unpaid one, but do we really think a civil litigation firm in Toronto with 16 lawyers can't afford to pay an articling student a living wage? 

On the one hand, these are trying times for businesses and I suppose that just because a firm has more than a dozen lawyers doesn't mean it's flush with cash to hire a student.

On the other hand, come on. If you can't afford to pay a student a living wage, don't hire one.

I wish I had better advice for you. I would say if you have other options, explore them. If not, get through articling and look for greener pastures once you become a lawyer. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I would want to know what the expectations are like, is this a firm that expects you to be working 55-75 hours a week? Is there good mentorship? Do they have good work that you are interested in?

See thats the thing, I am not really interested in the area of law. I have been umbrella applying to firms in the hope of finding something. I suppose if they make an offer I can inquiry into expected hours, LSO fees, etc. and make my decision from there. 

Share this post


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

This is why articling is such a disaster. $650/week is low. Yes, it is better than no articling job, or an unpaid one, but do we really think a civil litigation firm in Toronto with 16 lawyers can't afford to pay an articling student a living wage? 

On the one hand, these are trying times for businesses and I suppose that just because a firm has more than a dozen lawyers doesn't mean it's flush with cash to hire a student.

On the other hand, come on. If you can't afford to pay a student a living wage, don't hire one.

I wish I had better advice for you. I would say if you have other options, explore them. If not, get through articling and look for greener pastures once you become a lawyer. 

Then we'd have a lot of students who never become lawyers. Think it through.

Share this post


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

This is why articling is such a disaster. $650/week is low. Yes, it is better than no articling job, or an unpaid one, but do we really think a civil litigation firm in Toronto with 16 lawyers can't afford to pay an articling student a living wage? 

On the one hand, these are trying times for businesses and I suppose that just because a firm has more than a dozen lawyers doesn't mean it's flush with cash to hire a student.

On the other hand, come on. If you can't afford to pay a student a living wage, don't hire one.

I wish I had better advice for you. I would say if you have other options, explore them. If not, get through articling and look for greener pastures once you become a lawyer. 

Yea, they are hiring 3 students. I was confused why they didn't just hire 2 and pay them both a better (more livable) wage. Thank you for the advice. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd definitely make sure that your firm is paying the articling fees given that amount of weekly compensation. The firm I am articling for implied that they would be paying the LSO fees during OCI's, which did not turn out to be true (finding that one out was a tough day). Having OSAP repayments, 100K in bank loan repayments, articling in a pandemic (only 8 months of income instead of the 10 months) and having to shell out over a month's worth of salary to the LSO's pockets has been frustrating. Keep in mind those hidden costs.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


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

Then we'd have a lot of students who never become lawyers. Think it through.

The problem is that a big chunk of the profession treats articling like a business decision when it is also meant to be a duty on members of the profession. There is a trade-off between having a monopoly on legal services and needing to act somewhat in the public interest.

I obviously don't have answers, but it is frustrating how much pressure we place on some segments of the profession (e.g. criminal defense lawyers) while allow others to exploit the situation.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ConfusedLawStudent17 said:

See thats the thing, I am not really interested in the area of law. I have been umbrella applying to firms in the hope of finding something. I suppose if they make an offer I can inquiry into expected hours, LSO fees, etc. and make my decision from there. 

How far off is their area of practice from your area of interest? Is this firm so highly specialized that it'll lock you into a weird trajectory, or do you expect it to help you develop general competencies that you can take with you if/when you choose to leave?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BNAAct1867 said:

How far off is their area of practice from your area of interest? Is this firm so highly specialized that it'll lock you into a weird trajectory, or do you expect it to help you develop general competencies that you can take with you if/when you choose to leave?

Thats actually a great point! They're an insurance litigation firm, I was leaning more towards family and estate law, but like you said, there is always things I will learn there that I can apply to my career going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ConfusedLawStudent17 said:

Thats actually a great point! They're an insurance litigation firm, I was leaning more towards family and estate law, but like you said, there is always things I will learn there that I can apply to my career going forward. 

It's potentially a good opportunity to get familiar with the Rules of Civil Procedure, how to draft motions, etc. in a supervised environment.

3 minutes ago, ConfusedLawStudent17 said:

Thank you for all the advice everyone! I love how law students and professionals can be so supportive! I really appreciate it. 

WE LOVE YOU AND WISH YOU SUCCESS ❤️

Edited by BNAAct1867
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ConfusedLawStudent17 said:

See thats the thing, I am not really interested in the area of law. I have been umbrella applying to firms in the hope of finding something. I suppose if they make an offer I can inquiry into expected hours, LSO fees, etc. and make my decision from there. 

I guess it depends on (1) how desperate you are and (2) whether you can make this work financially. Like, are you in third year or have you graduated? If you've been on the job market for months and haven't found anything, then yeah, you might get stuck with something like this. But even if that's the case, are you able to take on more debt? Because that's possible at this pay. 

10 minutes ago, ConfusedLawStudent17 said:

Yea, they are hiring 3 students. I was confused why they didn't just hire 2 and pay them both a better (more livable) wage. Thank you for the advice. 

Gross. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I guess it depends on (1) how desperate you are and (2) whether you can make this work financially. Like, are you in third year or have you graduated? If you've been on the job market for months and haven't found anything, then yeah, you might get stuck with something like this. But even if that's the case, are you able to take on more debt? Because that's possible at this pay. 

Gross. 

 

Yea, I was not planning on adding more debt to the ever-growing student line of credit, and OSAP. Im in my third year, and have been looking for a while now. I have other interviews lined up but I worry about taking the risk. Thank you for the insights! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Brooke said:

I'd definitely make sure that your firm is paying the articling fees given that amount of weekly compensation. The firm I am articling for implied that they would be paying the LSO fees during OCI's, which did not turn out to be true (finding that one out was a tough day). Having OSAP repayments, 100K in bank loan repayments, articling in a pandemic (only 8 months of income instead of the 10 months) and having to shell out over a month's worth of salary to the LSO's pockets has been frustrating. Keep in mind those hidden costs.

An OCI firm didn’t cover your licensing fees? Yikes.

Edited by easttowest
  • Like 4
  • Sad 2

Share this post


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

Then we'd have a lot of students who never become lawyers. Think it through.

Yeah, that's the problem. Law schools admit more students than there are articling positions. Many firms get away with exploiting their students because you need to article (or do the LPP in Ontario, which is a whole other can of worms) to become a lawyer. I was one of those students who just sucked it up. It was an awful 10 months and I moved to greener pastures after. Do I think everyone else should just suck it up? No. I think there are better solutions out there and that the LSO can do better... but here we are. 

 

 

  • Like 4

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

    • A few things, my man: -I don't think @JusticeLordDenning was making the sort of value judgement you read in to that. Asking how students fare outside the formal recruit is not saying that the formal recruit jobs are necessarily the best jobs out there. -Both the DOJ and provincial Crown prosecution service participate in the formal recruit, so that's a poor example to illustrate your point. "Jobs in the recruit" isn't synonymous with "BigLaw." -I highly doubt that there is a huge difference in the level of interest in the formal recruit between Canadian law schools in general, and especially between Queens and Western as a specific example. And just to be clear, I'd be the last person to boost BigLaw or claim that working at a smaller firm outside the GTA is somehow inferior.
    • Some of this is might be based on what I consider to be a false assumption:  That law students who secure jobs at big firms in an urban area have succeeded while those who do not have failed. For example, a Queens student may have the career goal of securing a foot in the door with the Crown in a rural area and a Western student may want to get into business law with a small firm in a medium sized city.
    • Having those two years working with members of Parliament is an added bonus, the significance of which is proportional to the nature of your role. You should get one or two acceptances from those law schools provided you keep your grades up. You seem like the type of person who will make the right decision about this. Good luck!
    • Probablement parce qu'ils n'ont pas reçu assez d'applications? J'espère quand même qu'ont va commencer à recevoir des réponses en mars...
    • On this site I regularly see people with LSAT scores 20-30 points lower than mine making ridiculous assertions about the amount of work that is supposedly required to get a top score. By contrast my personal experience was that the prep required to get a 99th percentile LSAT score consisted of learning basic logic game diagramming and writing a handful of practice tests. I see people with scores in the 150s knowing all the names of the different types of logical reasoning questions and discussing the logic behind them in terms I never learned and don't understand. All I know is if you put the test in front of me I intuitively understand what almost all of the answers are, but I couldn't do a good job of articulating why--the answers simply seem self-evident and to be taken for granted. Just chiming in because your statement squares with my experience (although I didn't reach 177). But by and large people with mediocre scores invariably claim that the LSAT is all about effort and just don't want to believe that innate aptitude has anything to do with it, because they tend to view it as an attack on their intelligence in general. (Just so I don't seem like a totally arrogant douche, everyone: for what it's worth I've put in serious effort trying to learn instruments and second languages and my innate aptitude in both of those areas is abysmal--I found such endeavors nearly impossible. Also the innate LSAT aptitude did not translate into innate law school aptitude, and I certainly would have preferred the latter. But yeah, the fact that I suck at other things but can effortlessly get an LSAT score in the 170s just emphasizes how much of it is innate. And the degree to which there are different kinds of intelligences that people have varying aptitudes for. The LSAT is irrelevant to me now in practical terms but I do find the subject interesting from a psychological perspective.)

×
×
  • Create New...