Jump to content
needhelp11

5+ year solo practice lawyer, Bond graduate - my experience

Recommended Posts

I am a Bond Unversity graduate and have had my own law practice for approximately five years now. I was also a mature age student when I went to Bond University. I have now had my law practice for 5 years. I wanted to share my thoughts to this Message Board: 

 

1. Competition/ work ethic - In undergrad and after a brief career in IT, I can say I did not have good work ethic or motivation. I had low marks in both undergrad and LSAT.  But the experience of going to law school at Bond allowed me to shift into much higher gear. The education was of high quality. All of my classmates were in law school, paying a lot of money to be there and had high drive and motivation. The grades were marked on a curve and thus there was some healthy competition from your classmates. This competition allowed me to develop the work ethic and organization that has been ingrained in me. So, the law school experience really challenges oneself to improve dramatically, regardless of law school. 

 

2. The name of the law school might matter a little at the beginning, but matters less and less as one's career progresses.  What law school you went to matters a bit, but it's just one factor out of so many others. What is your personality like? Will you fit in? Do you know how to articulate your valie? Do you offer any unique competitive advantages? What's your life experience like? etc. etc. 

Also,  after you gain some work experience, that might be more valuable to a firm than someone with lawschool and no work experience. 

 

3. I started my own solo law firm. Currently, it would make no difference if I went to Harvard or Bond whatsoever.  

 

4. Studying in Australia - The experience of studing law in the Gold Coast was the best experience of my life.Yes it was expensive, but now looking back, it was worth every penny. Gold Coast has the ideal climate (with 290+ days of sun/year) and it's effectively studying in paradise. Student loans and debts have long been paid off and the return on investment has paid off.  

 

5. Finding articles - I did not have have difficulty in finding articles. In fact, I secured my articles first for an in house firm, beating out many other competititors from Canadian law schools. I did not secure the position because of my law school background, but because I also had an IT background and this was a unique and competitive differentiator amongst others, that was required specifically for the company. This is an example that one should try to find personal differentiators against the other competitiors, other than just the law background. From my experience, there are so many other factors that go into a hiriing decision, including whether you would fit into the company culture that are more important than the law school. 

Due to some dirty politics at the company, I was terminated from my articling position half way through! However, this was a blessing in disguise. It allowed for me to look fort another articling position and if I remained to finish my articles in-house, my life would be so different today. 

 

One would think that being terminated from an articling position, may make it challenging to find another articling position. However, I took matters in my own hands and targetted various firms through presenting them with a unique value proposition. Quickly I found another articling positionfor a general law practice,  leveraging some language abiilities that I had and they also liked my proactive approach in reaching out to the firm.  

6. Starting solo practice -After completing my articles and being called to the bar, I started my own law practice. I started by focusing on a niche area where there was a demand for my services. I then continued to expand my practice throughout the years. 

 

These are some preliminary thoughts, but if anyone has any questions or comments, I would be happy to respond. 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate you writing about your experience! I'm also glad you were able to overcome all the hurdles associated with having a foreign degree. As a recent LL.B. graduate that's currently going through the NCA process, your post definitely serves as an inspiration that it can be possible to find success in the Canadian legal market regardless of your legal education background. I do have a number of questions that I would be curious to hear your unique input on. 

I am curious to know if you have any advice on how recent graduates with no undergraduate background can differentiate themselves in the articling market?

Also, having practiced in a few firms and having started your own solo practice, what markets/areas of the law do you think foreign graduates should target in order to have the best opportunity to gain employment/articling in? 

Finally, I'm curious to hear what your NCA equivalency experience was like. I understand that at one point Bond did not have NCA requirements. Did you have to do equivalency exams at all? 

Thanks for sharing your experience! 

Edited by Shady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the obvious downsides to pursuing a foreign law degree, I'm skeptical of anyone who went that route and can't find even a single negative thing to say about it. I mean, I'm not opposed to a balanced view, but if you're going to offer one I'd expect you would at least be able to acknowledge the challenges and issues associated with that. Also, it tweaks me at least a little that something extraordinarily rare happened to the OP (getting fired from articles) but somehow this has nothing to do with the OP (it was just "dirty politics") or their route through law school. I mean, even if it really was just a terrible, unscrupulous employer, you don't think coming into the legal profession through a route offering fewer options might have contributed to ending up with a terrible, unscrupulous employer?

Anyway, I have no issue with sharing success stories. Certainly they exist, and I'm aware of them. I've worked with lawyers in my field who are foreign graduates and are "successful" as entrepreneurs despite being, quite honestly, shitty lawyers And I've worked with foreign-trained lawyers in my field who are success in the sense that they are genuinely good lawyers. Though as I've observed elsewhere, the correlation between being successful in sole practice as an entrepreneur, and being successful in sole practice in the sense of being good at lawyering, is shockingly weak.

Not much else to add. I have no reason to believe this successful story is less than genuine. But it also isn't an example I'd advise any law school applicant to base their decisions on.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, needhelp11 said:

Do you know how to articulate your valie?

This is a funny typo. 

Edited by Tagger
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shady said:

I appreciate you writing about your experience! I'm also glad you were able to overcome all the hurdles associated with having a foreign degree. As a recent LL.B. graduate that's currently going through the NCA process, your post definitely serves as an inspiration that it can be possible to find success in the Canadian legal market regardless of your legal education background. I do have a number of questions that I would be curious to hear your unique input on. 

I am curious to know if you have any advice on how recent graduates with no undergraduate background can differentiate themselves in the articling market?

Also, having practiced in a few firms and having started your own solo practice, what markets/areas of the law do you think foreign graduates should target in order to have the best opportunity to gain employment/articling in? 

Finally, I'm curious to hear what your NCA equivalency experience was like. I understand that at one point Bond did not have NCA requirements. Did you have to do equivalency exams at all? 

Thanks for sharing your experience! 

--->I am curious to know if you have any advice on how recent graduates with no undergraduate background can differentiate themselves in the articling market?

You have to look within and see what value, outside of legal, that you can offer to a firm. For example, I am trilingual and one of the languages that I speak is a rare one and offers me a tremendous competitive advantage. Also, as indicated, I had an IT background before, which I was able to leverage. It depends on your unique backround, experiences and interests. Without knowing anything about you, I can not give you specific advice. For me, the things I could have built on are 1)foreign language; 2)IT background 3)previous business background 4)real estate investing background. I am sure you can find a few unique things about you and build on those. Also, the key is to be able to take these things and proactively target potential employers. If you are being reactive to articling postings, you are going to encounter tremendous competition. If you are proactively targetting a potential employer, you will likely have much less competition. 

--->Also, having practiced in a few firms and having started your own solo practice, what markets/areas of the law do you think foreign graduates should target in order to have the best opportunity to gain employment/articling in?  

There are a lot of areas out there which have an access to justice issues. Those areas where there is demand for lawyers. I would think smaller firms care less about the degree and more about you and your attitude. 

--->Finally, I'm curious to hear what your NCA equivalency experience was like. I understand that at one point Bond did not have NCA requirements. Did you have to do equivalency exams at all? 

Correct, my NCA process was a breeze. 3 months after returning from Australia, I was already beginning my articling process. All in all, as Bond Law was also only 2 years long, I was able to complete law school andcommence articles faster than if I remained in Canada. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, needhelp11 said:

Correct, my NCA process was a breeze. 3 months after returning from Australia, I was already beginning my articling process. All in all, as Bond Law was also only 2 years long, I was able to complete law school andcommence articles faster than if I remained in Canada. 

Based on the OP's timeline this makes sense, but be aware it's dated information. Bond had an exemption with the NCA worked out for a while, if applicants completed all the Canadian requirements within their program. That's been over with for some years now. Just FYI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Diplock said:

Considering the obvious downsides to pursuing a foreign law degree, I'm skeptical of anyone who went that route and can't find even a single negative thing to say about it. I mean, I'm not opposed to a balanced view, but if you're going to offer one I'd expect you would at least be able to acknowledge the challenges and issues associated with that. Also, it tweaks me at least a little that something extraordinarily rare happened to the OP (getting fired from articles) but somehow this has nothing to do with the OP (it was just "dirty politics") or their route through law school. I mean, even if it really was just a terrible, unscrupulous employer, you don't think coming into the legal profession through a route offering fewer options might have contributed to ending up with a terrible, unscrupulous employer?

Anyway, I have no issue with sharing success stories. Certainly they exist, and I'm aware of them. I've worked with lawyers in my field who are foreign graduates and are "successful" as entrepreneurs despite being, quite honestly, shitty lawyers And I've worked with foreign-trained lawyers in my field who are success in the sense that they are genuinely good lawyers. Though as I've observed elsewhere, the correlation between being successful in sole practice as an entrepreneur, and being successful in sole practice in the sense of being good at lawyering, is shockingly weak.

Not much else to add. I have no reason to believe this successful story is less than genuine. But it also isn't an example I'd advise any law school applicant to base their decisions on.

So I don't know what the obvious downsides of a foreign degree are. 

Overall, my choice to go to Bond was the best choice I ever made. 

It sounds like you want me to offer some negative sides of going to Bond. For me, there was no NCA equivalency examinations to complete and I was already articling within 3 months of returning from Australia. I heard that this is no longer the case, thus one downside is certainly the additional time of going through the NCA process. Other downsides could be the discrimination that one faces from some potential employers. Sure there is some discrimination, but there is so much discrimination in the world, that a person can overcome it with the right attidue and approach. For example, don't focus on the discrimination and focus instead on what you can control. 

As far the getting fired from articles, I did not provide sufficient details for you to jump to your conclusion, so I will provide additional context. The in-house employer that I started articling for posted on a Law society portal the articling position. Naturally, there was a lot of inquiries. 3 students were hired, including me. The other students went to Canadian law schools. One articling principal can only take on 2 articling students at once and thus the 3rd student had to wait the entire ten months, until they can commence their articles. At first, this student said that was not a problem. However, shortly after, there were political games and alliances that was created by this third student to attempt to get the other student fired, and at first I was an unwitting ally. After a while, I did not want to participate in this conduct and became politically neutral between these students. Then, the two enemy students, who hated each other during the entire preceeding time - they all of a sudden became allies and I became the enemy! Then, within two weeks, I was terminated. The 3rd student achieved her goal - she can now commence her articles. Thus, these things had nothing to do with my law school or background and more about these political games and perhaps my decision not to play these games. Hopefully this cleared it up for you. 

 

You also raised the point that having a foreign law degree offers less choices for employment. Look, if you are looking at working for a large law firm, then I would certainly concede that you will get discriminated based on your law degree there. If you are looking to start your own degree, you are your own boss and thus this boss would not care about where your law degree came from. Also, as I indicated, once you gain experience and results with a foreign law degree, then you have a competitive advantage over someone who has a Canadian law degree, but no work experience and results. 

I do not believe that smaller firms care too much about where you got your law degree from. First, your law school experience is simpy one factor to consider. If you do not have any other value or things you can differentiate yourself with, then it will also be more difficult for you. Second, smaller law firms may be more weary of someone applying from a reputable law school as they may assume you have a high ego. 

I am a small law firm and I can tell you what I look for in hiring decisions. I value the personal attitude and approach that a potential candidate has. If I see that they are acting like they know it all/ high ego, then that is a very negative factor for me. Cultural fit is a very important consideration that can not be overlooked. 

Now, as far your comment about correlation between entrepreneurs and good lawyers. Even before law, I had a very strong business and IT skillset. My dad was an entrepreneur and I always wanted to have my own business. I did notice that a lot of the senior lawyers struggle with knowing the ins and outs of IT and business.   Running my own practice, I am in charge of all the departments - Sales, Human Resources, IT, compliance, Accounting, and of course the Legal Department. I consider myself a good lawyer as well and have tons of track record to prove that. Bond University has given me the work ethic, organization skills and ability to think like a lawyer. However, it was more to do with me, and the approach, efforts and strategy that I took, then the law school itself. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, needhelp11 said:

I do not believe that smaller firms care too much about where you got your law degree from.

Just an FYI for those who may be considering a foreign law school, please know that this is not a universal truth. Many smaller/small firms would, and do, care. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, needhelp11 said:

So I don't know what the obvious downsides of a foreign degree are. 

Overall, my choice to go to Bond was the best choice I ever made. 

It sounds like you want me to offer some negative sides of going to Bond. For me, there was no NCA equivalency examinations to complete and I was already articling within 3 months of returning from Australia. I heard that this is no longer the case, thus one downside is certainly the additional time of going through the NCA process. Other downsides could be the discrimination that one faces from some potential employers. Sure there is some discrimination, but there is so much discrimination in the world, that a person can overcome it with the right attidue and approach. For example, don't focus on the discrimination and focus instead on what you can control. 

As far the getting fired from articles, I did not provide sufficient details for you to jump to your conclusion, so I will provide additional context. The in-house employer that I started articling for posted on a Law society portal the articling position. Naturally, there was a lot of inquiries. 3 students were hired, including me. The other students went to Canadian law schools. One articling principal can only take on 2 articling students at once and thus the 3rd student had to wait the entire ten months, until they can commence their articles. At first, this student said that was not a problem. However, shortly after, there were political games and alliances that was created by this third student to attempt to get the other student fired, and at first I was an unwitting ally. After a while, I did not want to participate in this conduct and became politically neutral between these students. Then, the two enemy students, who hated each other during the entire preceeding time - they all of a sudden became allies and I became the enemy! Then, within two weeks, I was terminated. The 3rd student achieved her goal - she can now commence her articles. Thus, these things had nothing to do with my law school or background and more about these political games and perhaps my decision not to play these games. Hopefully this cleared it up for you. 

 

You also raised the point that having a foreign law degree offers less choices for employment. Look, if you are looking at working for a large law firm, then I would certainly concede that you will get discriminated based on your law degree there. If you are looking to start your own degree, you are your own boss and thus this boss would not care about where your law degree came from. Also, as I indicated, once you gain experience and results with a foreign law degree, then you have a competitive advantage over someone who has a Canadian law degree, but no work experience and results. 

I do not believe that smaller firms care too much about where you got your law degree from. First, your law school experience is simpy one factor to consider. If you do not have any other value or things you can differentiate yourself with, then it will also be more difficult for you. Second, smaller law firms may be more weary of someone applying from a reputable law school as they may assume you have a high ego. 

I am a small law firm and I can tell you what I look for in hiring decisions. I value the personal attitude and approach that a potential candidate has. If I see that they are acting like they know it all/ high ego, then that is a very negative factor for me. Cultural fit is a very important consideration that can not be overlooked. 

Now, as far your comment about correlation between entrepreneurs and good lawyers. Even before law, I had a very strong business and IT skillset. My dad was an entrepreneur and I always wanted to have my own business. I did notice that a lot of the senior lawyers struggle with knowing the ins and outs of IT and business.   Running my own practice, I am in charge of all the departments - Sales, Human Resources, IT, compliance, Accounting, and of course the Legal Department. I consider myself a good lawyer as well and have tons of track record to prove that. Bond University has given me the work ethic, organization skills and ability to think like a lawyer. However, it was more to do with me, and the approach, efforts and strategy that I took, then the law school itself. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, erinl2 said:

Just an FYI for those who may be considering a foreign law school, please know that this is not a universal truth. Many smaller/small firms would, and do, care. 

I am going to try to make an analogy to online dating. 

Let's say a male applicant is writing messages to females on an online dating website. Say that this male applicant is on the shorter side. Thus, in this case, the analogy is that the taller male is the more reputable, Canadian law schol grad....the shorter male is the foreign grad. 

If all that this male has on his online dating profile is his height, then of course he will be overlooked by many potential females. The most popular females on the online dating website (the large law firms) may not even give this man a chance. 

However, if the male also demonstrates a good career, humour, values, communication skill or other things that differentiate him from the rest of the men - here we are not narrowing the issue down to short man vs tall man, but to this man vs that man. And in this case, this man has a better package overall than the taller man. 

Also, with respect to the smaller law firms. This would be akin to some of the less popular females on the dating website. Some females might not "trust" the best looking, tallest man on the website. Some of them may not isolate the issue to the singular factor of height and value other considerationin their potential partner.  Some might also for whatever their personal reason, prefer the shorter man. Others might have a preference for the taller height (Canadian law degree) in their mate, but it is not the most important consideration for them. Others might not have a strong preference one way or another. 

Also, what if the shorter man has a great personality and can connect with the female in the exact way that she wants/needs. 

And what if the shorter man, instead of trying his luck on an online dating website (which has too much competition), took a different approach in meeting women and then having them get to know him, instead of just his height?

Point is that while short men do get discriminated in the dating context, they can still succeed. Foreign law graduates may face some discrimination as well.  The key is not to isolate and narrow the issue to height and do not isolate the issue and narrow the issue to foreign law school vs. Canadian law school!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a small firm wouldn't you care more about someone's credentials because you receive a lot of applicants for one or two spots and the person you hire is expected to take on a lot more duties and responsibilities right from the outset? Before you invite a candidate in for an interview (where you can then test for behaviour, personality, ego, short vs. tall, etc.), how would the foreign trained student or lawyer differentiate themselves? I'm curious to know what you look for on a resume because most new calls are not mature students with a ton of prior work experience; many, if not most, foreign trained candidates go abroad right out of high school or undergrad. 

My next question would be the costs associated with a foreign legal education and starting your own practice as a new call - a position you seem to be advocating for here. I imagine if you're starting your own practice, you won't see the revenue coming in for a while, so if you have prior debt and are going into more debt to open your practice, what does this look for a new call? How would mentorship work? Would a new call with a lot of debt and limited options that starts their own practice with limited practice experience be able to provide good client service and responsible lawyering? Or will they be seeking out shortcuts and taking on clients and issues that they are not experienced to handle and half-assing their way through - almost like a trial and error? These are all concerns I would have as someone deciding to open my own practice and I think anyone - whether they are a Canadian or foreign trained lawyer - needs to be asking themselves before they open up their own practice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@needhelp11 - It's nice that you were successful and all as a Bond grad, but please stop using the term "discrimination" so liberally. I guess what you describe is "discrimination" in the technical sense of something being differentiated from something else based on perceived differences, but of course the more colloquial use of the term implies this differentiation is unjust/unfair/prejudicial/irrational/etc. And look, there are rational reasons for an employer to look more favorably upon a Canadian law degree, which implies a certain baseline level of competence, work ethic, etc, than a degree from a pretty much open-access school like Bond (which not only is anyone with a pulse capable of getting, but which to most Canadian-trained legal professionals is indicative of questionable judgement in most cases). To call that "discrimination" is just an insult to anyone who has faced real discrimination.

Edited by CleanHands
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, needhelp11 said:

 there is so much discrimination in the world, that a person can overcome it with the right attidue and approach. For example, don't focus on the discrimination and focus instead on what you can control. 

If someone can (a) be licensed to practice law in Canada and (b) think that this is how discrimination works, then our licensing standards are not rigorous enough.   

Edited by realpseudonym
Didn't see post above
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Deadpool said:

At a small firm wouldn't you care more about someone's credentials because you receive a lot of applicants for one or two spots and the person you hire is expected to take on a lot more duties and responsibilities right from the outset? Before you invite a candidate in for an interview (where you can then test for behaviour, personality, ego, short vs. tall, etc.), how would the foreign trained student or lawyer differentiate themselves? I'm curious to know what you look for on a resume because most new calls are not mature students with a ton of prior work experience; many, if not most, foreign trained candidates go abroad right out of high school or undergrad. 

My next question would be the costs associated with a foreign legal education and starting your own practice as a new call - a position you seem to be advocating for here. I imagine if you're starting your own practice, you won't see the revenue coming in for a while, so if you have prior debt and are going into more debt to open your practice, what does this look for a new call? How would mentorship work? Would a new call with a lot of debt and limited options that starts their own practice with limited practice experience be able to provide good client service and responsible lawyering? Or will they be seeking out shortcuts and taking on clients and issues that they are not experienced to handle and half-assing their way through - almost like a trial and error? These are all concerns I would have as someone deciding to open my own practice and I think anyone - whether they are a Canadian or foreign trained lawyer - needs to be asking themselves before they open up their own practice. 

It is harder for me to relate to someone finishing high school/under grad and then going straight to foreign law school. My situation was different. I did differentiate myself from these sorts of younger, inexperienced candidates. 

The less you have to differentiate yourself, the harder your situation. Some things could be: Do you speak another language? Do you have any volunteer experience? Do you have any work experience? Any transferable skillls? Do you have any unique interests? What's your story on why you went to law school? What kind of existing network do you have? Can you look at leveraging your network for opportunities? Are there any specific lawyers or firms that you are interested in? Reach out to them. 

These are some things to think about. 

If I had no prior experience skills, etc., and was a foreign law grad, here is what I would do: Offer my services for a limited period of time for free. This allows anyou to get your foot in the door, gain experience and  prove yourself. Make it no obligation/low risk for the potential employer and show as much value as you can in the limited time. Have a specific plan to present of exactly how you will be working and articulate exactly how you will be saving them time. This is an example. If a student approached with me this sort of proposal, I would consider speaking to them further. 

So now that I thought about this topic further - YES going to a foreign law school will subject you to some discrimination in Canada. Larger firms will likely discriminate more than smaller ones. Try to differentiate yourself from the competition. Don't approach with a what's in it for me mindset - approach the situation from a what's in it for the potential employemindset and focus on that. Be creative. Don't give up, but know that you will have some setbacks. Focus on gaining experience and then leveraging that in the future. Once your career starts and you have more and more legal experience, the law school that you went to will start meaning less and less. 

Regarding the last sentence - I will add another thing to consider. I remember when I was in law school, I was stressed out about getting the highest marks possible. One bad mark on an assignment or an exam left me distraught. However, now that I look back at that - how much does that specific assignment or exam mark matter now? It doesn't matter now at all. Thus, your difficulty in finding an articling position at first may be challenging and stressful - one just need to keep an open mind and project into the future - how much will the foreign law school discrimination, challenge in finding articles matter in five, ten,twenty years? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, needhelp11 said:

-

Companies preferring to hire from one school vs. another is not discrimination ... this is some strange victim mentality 

Edited by RUIQ
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

@needhelp11 - It's nice that you were successful and all as a Bond grad, but please stop using the term "discrimination" so liberally. I guess what you describe is "discrimination" in the technical sense of something being differentiated from something else based on perceived differences, but of course the more colloquial use of the term implies this differentiation is unjust/unfair/prejudicial/irrational/etc. And look, there are rational reasons for an employer to look more favorably upon a Canadian law degree, which implies a certain baseline level of competence, work ethic, etc, than a degree from a pretty much open-access school like Bond (which not only is anyone with a pulse capable of getting, but which to most Canadian-trained legal professionals is indicative of questionable judgement in most cases). To call that "discrimination" is just an insult to anyone who has faced real discrimination.

You dont't like use of the word discrimination, but you are effectively discriminating against Bond students  as you generalized them as: 1)anyone with a pulse 2)don't meed the baseline of competence 3)don't have good work ethic 4)they may have questionable judgment. You are saying that if one is a Canadian law grad, we can imply that they have competence, work ethic and if they are a Bondie, they may have "questionable judgment, etc.

These are all incorrect value judgments, based on your own internal biases and assumptions. And you are a good example of what your thoughts are on Bondies. Similarly, we can project this sort of internal biases/assumptions onto potential employers, who are really not fully informed and thus they will be discriminating the same way. 

By the way, it's possible that someone with a pulse (or the necessary monetary investment) can get into Bond. However, you will not succeed without having the necessary competence and work ethic. For me, I was unmotivated in undergrad and even for the LSAT. However, things changed and the law school experience flipped a switch within where I became extremely motivated and hard working. I developed new skills, competence and work ethic. I started to think like a lawyer. 

Lastly, your point about it being questionable judgment to go to Bond University. There could be many reasons why someone doesn't want to study in Canada. For example, I was able to get my law degree faster than if I remained in Canada (although now the NCA process is not as seamless). Further, someone can get the once in a lifetime experience of living abroad, which on its own (without law school) were the best years of my life and something that I will remember forever. If I stayed in Canada, I would not have the amazing experiences and memories of the Gold Coast. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, needhelp11 said:

Lastly, your point about it being questionable judgment to go to Bond University. There could be many reasons why someone doesn't want to study in Canada. For example, I was able to get my law degree faster than if I remained in Canada (although now the NCA process is not as seamless). Further, someone can get the once in a lifetime experience of living abroad, which on its own (without law school) were the best years of my life and something that I will remember forever. If I stayed in Canada, I would not have the amazing experiences and memories of the Gold Coast. 

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.

Edited by CleanHands

Share this post


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

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. Even when it was, the difference was a matter of months.

-Wanting to enjoy a nice vacation abroad is a terrible reason to choose where to go to law school.

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. 

 

Share this post


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

This is a good topic for @driedupwaterparks to comment on, if they are so inclined.

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, needhelp11 said:

It's A consideration, not the primary factor. 

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).

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

    • Your grades are quite good so I would apply broadly and cross my fingers. The only Canadian law school I've seen that accepts a lot of US transfers from bottom tier schools is U of T. But your grades have to be really good. I'm not sure how they will view your B's. Good luck. 
    • yeah it was a mistake. I posted this in law students when I meant to post in articling students and lawyers and I couldn't delete it after it had been posted. I think I mentioned it in this thread or the one that you linked. 
    • There's been a lot of focus here on IQ but one of the things that makes a good lawyer is a heavy measure of EQ and our friend here McGillicutty has demonstrated why many of my former STEM colleagues lack even a smidgen of EQ.
    • The only thing that matters is that you can get funding at a good interest rate. Scotia has the best offerings, but that doesn't mean that you're out of options if they decline you. In my experience, the bank that you have the longest history with is the one that usually helps you out in situations where your credit isn't up to snuff. 
    • I think you are slightly confused maybemaybe, so I can clear this up for you:  2 year applicants are those that are in their second year of their undergrad degree (will have 60-89 completed credits) by the time they enter law school and they are the ones who require exceptional stats (3.7 and 90th percentile); see excerpt from https://apps.admissions.ualberta.ca/programs/la/la020 ("There is no direct entry from high school into the Juris Doctor program (JD). Exceptional students may be admitted to the program after completing two years of university study with a minimum GPA of 3.7 and 90th percentile Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score. All other students must have completed at least the first three years of a degree before being admitted to the JD."). This applies when you apply in your second year of undergrad.  3rd year applicants are those that are in their 3rd year of university and who will have 90 or more credits by the time they enter law school and they are treated the same as those with degrees. Excerpt from same website " All other students must have completed at least the first three years of a degree before being admitted to the JD." This applies when you apply in your third year of undergrad.  Hope this clears everything up! 

×
×
  • Create New...