I have been seeing an increasing number of articles titled ” facts law schools don’t want you to know”. It came to a head when a fellow blogger emailed me with a link to an article he just wrote called “15 facts law schools don’t want you to know“. There are a lot of similar posts on other blogs as well. The arguments are familiar: law school is expensive, job prospects are uncertain (especially for visible minorities), law school is hard, competitive, etc.

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.

I am coming to the conclusion that everything is arguable, including the law. Don’t get me wrong, I know that the art of being a lawyer is the art of coming up with and applying crafty and persuasive arguments. Before coming to law school though, I would have never thought that those arguments would be about the law. I expected the arguments to be about its interpretation (what does this law mean?) or application (does this law apply?).

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…

My colleague Eric Grigg, a fellow UWO Law student, has recently written about what he feels are courses that will “mitigate…unfamiliarity of the first term in first year”. He recommends courses in British History, Canadian Government, basic Business, and some basic philosophy (particularly logic). Read his blog post for more information.

I more or less agree with Eric’s suggestions, with one caveat: don’t rely too much on what you learn in undergrad. I have a minor in political science and my knowledge of the workings of Canadian government took me through to the end of first week of law school. My business knowledge (business was my specialization in undergrad) has so far taken me nowhere. This is not because I wasn’t paying attention in class but because law school is different from anything you have ever done in undergrad.

Does it help to have a basic understanding of how our political and business systems work before coming to law school? Most likely. Is it a requirement? I would say no. A person coming from the physical sciences can do just as well as someone who majored in legal studies in undergrad. In fact, a science major will likely come in with no preconceived notions about law, a blank slate if you will, which may well work in her favour.

My opinions are biased however. Outside of English history and philosophy, I studied what Eric is recommending in quite a bit of detail. I’d like to hear an opinion from someone who didn’t. If you are such a person, leave me and/or Eric a comment.

First of all, a congratulations is in order to the law classes of 2012: we survived the first two weeks of law school. It wasn’t easy. It involved a boatload of new terminology, a new way of thinking, an immersion into the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, a little bit of Latin, and a dose of downright wacky concepts (“qualified pre-possessory interest”, anyone?).

But we survived. And we shall survive again. I just looked at the calendar, and we are 15% of the way through the semester (scary thought, huh?).

P.S. I am still looking for contributors for this blog. Drop me an email if you are interested.