According to the article, if you were to ask (almost) any practitioner what the purpose of law school is, you will hear words such as “practical”, “business”, “project management”, etc in the answer; but ask (almost) any professor, and you will hear words like “nature of justice”, “jurisprudence”, “legal thinking”, etc. It’s not that one way is better than another, it’s that the answer are different that is concerning.

As a law student, I don’t think that I can fairly comment on this debate. I can only say this: law schools are getting increasingly better at offering programs which expose students to the practical side of the legal profession. For example, working at the Business Law Clinic, I had experience with real clients doing real work in an office environment. Yes, the experience was somewhat simulated due to all the checks and balances and restrictions on what I could and could not do, but such is the reality of any training.

The point is the opportunities to pick up some practical skills are there, and it is up to the students to find them. For anyone who is considering law school, remember this: classes will teach you to think like a lawyer, but they won’t teach you to be one. The only way you can learn how to be a lawyer is through the practical programs offered by clinics (offered by the university) and internships (offered by the profession). This means some of the onus is on the profession as well: internships should be provided and accessible if the next generation of lawyers is to be as good (or better!) than the previous.

There is one important thing any prospective Canadian law student must realize: most blogs that publish these articles have domains names that end in .com. Look at my domain name: see a difference? These articles bring up excellent points about problems in the American system of legal education, but don’t forget that the system is exactly that: American. To be even clearer: this is NOT a law school problem, this is a U.S. law school problem.

Nobody argues that law school is not expensive, but Canadian law graduates do not typically have a six figure debt load after graduation. My law school tuition $45,000 for all three years ($15,000 per year, give or take). Compare that to a law school in the U.S., where $45,000 per year sounds like a bargain, and you start to get a different picture of the debt load that is carried by young lawyers. I would probably not be doing law school if I had to pay U.S. tuition rates because it’s just not worth it. However, the U.S. schools are much more forthcoming with financial aid and it would be interesting to look at what students are actually paying out of pocket. Many schools increase tuition fees to get a boost in the rankings, but then offer financial aid to offset the increases.

Here is Canada, there are no law school tiers or hierarchies, as much as Mclean’s Magazine would love for you to believe that there are. Most law school graduates still gets jobs in the legal profession. The hire rate is not 100%, but it’s not 54% either like some of these blogs would have you believe. The hire rates for large corporate law firms are available (you have to leaf through the paper to find the charts) and the hireback rates at those firms stand close to 80%. Of course not everyone is in a large corporate law firm, but this should give you an idea of the state of the legal market in Canada. It’s a little more difficult to track people who are not going into the large firms, but before the recession, according to the Law Society of Upper Canada, 56 out of 1,318 students could not secure work in the legal profession (hint: that’s 4.2%). The recession changed this somewhat, but I can make two observations: from anecdotal evidence (there isn’t much else publicly available yet), the rate did not all of sudden jump from 4% to 54%; and the U.S. had many more unemployed or underemployed lawyers than Canada even when the economy was doing incredibly well.

All this is not to say that the Canadian legal market and law school market don’t have problems. However, if someone is deciding whether or not to go to law school, it would help if that person makes a decision based on real information, not irrelevant stuff that comes up in a google search. Take the time to look at Canadian sources, but more importantly, talk to the people who are in the system, whether law school or practice. Don’t make a decision based on U.S.-centric advice of some website.

In terms of results, without giving up too much detail, I am happy (and relieved) to say that I finished quite well and am proud of my achievements in first year law. This summer I am working at the Western Business Law Clinic, so if someone is starting up a business in Ontario and needs bargain-basement priced legal advice, send an email my way.  You can check out what we do on our website.

I wanted to share some of my thoughts on 1L before I write the finals. Exams have a way of changing a person’s outlook, and I think what I have to say needs to be put out there before I forget it.

Law

I learned a lot this year. I mean A LOT. I don’t think I have ever learned this much before in such a short time. To get a grasp of how much you learn in 1L, take six 500 page textbooks and read them cover to cover. That’s essentially how much you learn in 1L. I think I may have read that much in my four years of undergrad…maybe.

Also, law is incredibly interesting. People who never studied it are simply not able to appreciate the complexity and intrigue that is the modern day common law system. The downside is that you have to love it. If you don’t, it kills you (see below under “stress”).

People

This may be a UWO thing, but the people are very decent and helpful. Forget the stuff you read on pre-law forums. Nobody rips pages out of library books. Nobody sabotages computers or printers. People won’t delete your notes if you leave your laptop on your desk. Nor will they steal your laptop.

On the contrary, I haven’t met a single person whom I don’t like or don’t respect for one reason or another. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and working together ensures that strengths are maintained and weaknesses are overcome.

Stress

For me personally, stress hit in the middle of March. Before that, I was wondering why everyone who went through 1L was talking about how horrible the stress is. It’s pretty bad, but if it lasts a short time, it may even be a good thing. I just feel sorry for people who started feeling it back in October. That must have sucked.

1L Jobs

Don’t count on it unless you have connections or are totally amazing in your first semester of law school (i.e. you have to do better than 4 A’s and 2B’s. Oh, and you need a personality and work experience. Have fun.). Even then, your connections will probably only get you into a small firm because large firms have systems to prevent nepotism.

Volunteering

It’s good to get involved in some law-related volunteer activities. Not only does it do wonders for your resume, it also gives you a chance to apply all that stuff that you’re learning and see how it works in the real world.

What I’ll miss most

Definitely my small group. We had some great times. I’ll also miss absorbing that much information. Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed it.

What I’ll miss least

Having to write six exams in two weeks. I hope I never have to go through that again, six is way too many.

Would I do it all over again?

Absolutely!

Next Plans

After my last exam, go to a huge party and then go to Toronto and hibernate for a week. Then, spend the summer working at the Business Law Clinic and get ready for the job search process that starts in the first week of 2L.

Congratulations to the runner up team as well as the honourable mentions. You were all great competitors and I hope to face off with you again in a future moot.

To take an extreme example, say someone has been accused of murder. Arguing about the law means that you’re arguing over whether or not there is a law against murder. Arguing that about the application of the law means you’re arguing that what the accused did is not murder. Big difference because by arguing the latter, you are implicitly acknowledging the existence of the law against murder.

Of course nobody would seriously argue that there’s no law against murder. One only has to look at section 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada to confirm the law’s existence and see it spelled out in black and white. This is not as easy in other cases, particularly when it comes to the common law.

The case I ran into a few days ago concerned compensation for nervous shock induced by negligence (Mustapha v. Culligan, the “fly in a waterbottle” case). The courts struggled with whether or not there was even any law in Ontario that would entitle Mr. Mustapha to recover for his psychiatric illness. To add to the confusion, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada came to completely different conclusions on this very question. The arguments did not center on whether the laws regarding to nervous shock applied to this case, the arguments centered on whether or not those law existed. Once again, big difference.

One of my professors says that everything is arguable. If this is true, how are individuals supposed to structure their affairs so as to not run afoul of the law that may or may not exist? If everything is indeed arguable, it’s great for lawyers (cha-ching!) and judges who have a very wide role in setting social policy. I’m not so sure that it’s so great for everyone else. On the other hand, it’s this uncertainty that gives the law flexibility to evolve through judicial decisions. So the choice is between uncertainty and rigidity. Pick your poison, I guess…

I learned a number of things. I actually got nervous (which has not happened to me in public speaking in over six years). In my first 10-20 seconds, I was incredibly jittery and this did not come off well. I also learned that I need to have better control of my facial expressions. It’s bad to look pissed off when a judge asks you a question (even if you are, in fact, pissed off).

The exercise was generally a lot of fun and is something I would certainly do again. There’s a competition (not for marks) coming up in a about a month which I’m looking forward to participating in. This one’s not for marks, so there’s a bit less pressure.

A career in litigation? We shall see…

Also, I am done two of my six exams. So far, so good (I think…I hope).

In preparation for exams (which start next week!), I have created a summary of what I learned in every course. These summaries range from 30 to 50 pages per course and there are six courses. I don’t think I have ever dealt with this much information that was not cannot be dumped into a spreadsheet or database. And yet I have to have all this information in mind when I write the exam.

I’ve been told that law school (especially first year) would be hard. I believe I was misinformed. Law school is not hard. The material is relatively simple to anyone who can make a reasonable argument and then see its counterargument. What makes law school “hard” is that volume of material can be overwhelming. The trick is to stay on top of it and organize it in a way that makes sense.

That and to make your own summaries.