Clerking

I have a few friends that are currently clerking with one court or another, and have some friends that have clerked for a court. I often wish I had pursued that opportunity. I came across a nice article from University of Toronto's Ultra Vires newspaper by Jennifer Khurhana who clerked at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto. It's a fresh take on the articling experience, and may inspire you to pursue this avenue. I definitely buy into her notions about loving what you do, and having time to smell the roses. That's why I chose (it's true - I chose amongst many excellent options) to article in a smaller city centre, where my billable hour expectations are considerably lower than those expected in larger city centres. Kudos to those who take a good hard look at where they want to be post-law-school. I have time to learn, each day I can arrive at work relatively fresh, and I can feel like I have something left to give my family at the end of each day. If you would like some more input on clerking, send me an email at adam dot letourneau@gmail dot com and I will email you some content on clerking from my book. The section on clerking was written by a student who interviewed with every level of court, and ended up with a clerking position with the Court of Appeal. It's good stuff, and you may find it helpful towards making an informed decision.

The Collected Stankowski Reports

If you want some hillarious reading from the perspective of a First Year Associate, read the The Collected Stankowski Reports. I loved his perspective on working a 70 hour work week, and Ten Things Every Associate Needs to Know. The anonymous writer is brilliant, and has an uncanny ability to drive at the truths of lawyering in a big firm. He brings the reader back down to earth so that they can laugh at their situation...at least a little bit. Working in a small to mid size firm myself, I still appreciate many of Stan's reports and insights. For those of you aspiring to law school, take Stan's viewpoint with a grain of salt. Not all law firms operate in the same way as his. You do have a relative amount of control as a young student-at-law/associate. However, reading these posts by Stan may be good food for thought for those of you who are dreaming about working in a Megaopolis Law Firm. About the Author: Stan Stankowski is the pseudonym of a first-year associate working in a litigation firm somewhere in the Southern United States. Enjoy Stan.

It's ruled sleep sex

Want a small taste of the bizarre nature of the law - the crazy stuff that goes through our court system? Check out the article "It's ruled sleep sex" by Natalie Pona of the Toronto Sun. Now is that weird or what! The guy gets off on rape by claiming that he was sleeping during the whole episode. Further, he has "sleepsexed" four other girlfriends. I guess the judge bought the idea that he was just a sleep-walking raging hormone. What kills me is that he only realized his heinous crime once he went to the bathroom after waking up, and realized that he still had a condom on. I guess his only saving grace, in my mind, is that he went and confessed right away to the police. I figure, if you know that you have this kind of problem, you should have it treated. Not unlike pedophiles - if you know you have a problem, and you know that it is abhored by society, go get some medicine, go get some help. Glad to see this guy is now taking some meds and staying away from alcohol. The poor woman who complained about the rape - I don't think she's too happy about the result! I think University of Toronto law professor Hamish Stewart is right when he says "We may hear more forms of this defence from accused persons." Let's hope that is not the case. There are already too many rapists getting off the hook because the victim cannot piece together enough recollection to prove the indicident beyond reasonable doubt. I recently watched an entire sexual assault trial where the guy was acquited because the girl had been so traumatized and embarrassed by the incident that it left pretty big holes in her story, which of course could not be filled by other witnesses, as it was only her and him in the bedroom. Pretty sick!

Speaking of sick, can you imagine how Karla Homolka's victims feel right now, knowing that the killer of their children is completely free to do as she pleases and roam as she pleases? What really kills me is that she is able to freely associate with criminals, including her former husband (aka The Devil), and that she can have free access to children or teens.

The Happy Lawyer

Many colleagues, both in and out of law school have made comments to me about how they have never met a Happy Lawyer. I plan to post a number of entries to this blawg on this particular topic, as I find it of great interest. I think that it is important for a number of groups - those considering a legal career, those stuck in the middle of law school, wondering if they should stick it out, and of course those who are in the thick of things in their legal career - wondering if they are in the right place at the right time.

Check out this post from Evan Shaeffer's Legal Underground called Why are Lawyers So Unhappy. Also, check this book called "The Happy Lawyer" by Larry Schreiter and this book by Jim Canterucci that I came across recently. I think that the attorneys that wrote these books are on to something, and I would like to pursue it. Look forward to future thoughts on this subject.

Law Firm Training Redux

On November 29, 2005 I posted a diatribe called "Law Firm Training is a Sham." Having been in practice for years, I saw how associate training typically does not occur in law firms. I think this is abominable, and it is one of my missions in teaching to turn out new lawyers who, once they are in positions of authority, will better understand the need for training and mentoring of junior attorneys. (Check back with me in 20 years to see if I have succeeded.)

The funny thing is that every few years or so a series of articles appears discussing law firms' "new" dedication to associate mentoring. Apparently we're in such a cycle right now. The National Jurist magazine for law students has a piece in its November 2005 issue called "Law Firm Mentors Associates Around the Globe," which praises the many wonderful things that my former firm, Baker & McKenzie, is reportedly doing to train and mentor its associates.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that this is not a "Baker bashing" article. Baker is a fine place to work in comparison to many other firms. I enjoyed my time there and am proud to be an alumnus. But so help me, I cannot resist exercising my First Amendment rights and commenting on this article. There are several things that bother me about it, namely:

ONE: "Baker & McKenzie . . . is one of a growing number of law firms emphasizing mentoring today."

• News Flash: law firms always say they "emphasize" mentoring. No firm ever says, "we don't believe in mentoring, and we really work to de-emphasize it." So to me, this statement means nothing.

TWO: "A new program recently launched by the firm requires all Baker & McKenzie partners to mentor all associates."

• What is really interesting about this statement is not what it says, but what it doesn't say. Does it mean that partners were not previously required--and accordingly many did not--mentor associates prior to this program? As a former B&M associate, I know the answer, but my lips are sealed.

THREE: "The point [of the new mentoring program] is to establish a standard for developing [associate] careers . . . to give all employees the same skills sets so they could work in any Baker & McKenzie office."

• OK, I'll buy that. It's an aspirational statement to be sure--I really do doubt there will be identical basic skills sets for lawyers in, say, Washington, D.C. versus Baku, Azerbaijan (yes, B&M has an office there). But that's not saying it's not a worthy goal.

FOUR: "According to Nicholas Coward, a partner with Baker & McKenzie . . . 'Law school these days provides students with only the basics of legal training and a lot of aspects such as people management are not covered, but are critically important to being successful.' "

• My question is this: Exactly how is this a new problem? Law schools have never provided any more than basic legal training. Law school is only a 3-year program. In fact, law schools today do a better job than ever before of preparing lawyers for practice--through programs such as legal clinics, trial advocacy programs, required (and optional) moot court competitions, law practice management courses, negotiations courses, and the like. What has changed is that firms typically do not mentor associates anymore. Associates no longer spend their careers at one firm, so there is less incentive for firms to train people who will leave. And with many starting associate salaries in the six-figure range, law firms need quick learners and self-starters who can be thrown in head first, fend for themselves, and pay for their exorbitant salaries through high billing.
• So in other words, I agree with Nick (my former boss, by the way) that law schools only provide students with basic training. But the problem lies with firms, not schools. Who knows--maybe he agrees with me and is leading the charge to fix it. This upbeat article certainly suggests so, but we'll see. I will stay tuned to see if this latest cycle of enlightened law firm mentoring has more impact than previously ineffective cycles.

One final point: in fairness, I should point out that (according to my decidedly anecdotal evidence) Baker has better associate retention than other firms I have been exposed to. In Baker's D.C. office, for example, there is a larger percentage of lawyers who started with the firm as summer clerks and are still there--even some who are partners. Including Mr. Coward himself.

JD versus LL.B.

Most Canadian law schools award the degree of LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws), while law schools in the U.S. offer the JD (Juris Doctor) degree. Toronto decided some time ago to offer a JD degree rather than an LL.B. They also increased their tuition dramatically, nearly on par with U.S. upper-end law schools. Ottawa has followed suit somewhat by offering a combined four-year LL.B/JD degree in conjunction with either the State University College of Law in East Lansing, Michigan or the American University (Washington College of Law) in Washington D.C. The JD is a U.S. degree, which enables the graduate to practice law in both Canada and the U.S. This seems to be a great idea, allowing for much flexibility for employment, and would be a great advantage to a prospective employer who does transaction work between Canadian and U.S. corporations. However, be aware that you will pay high tuition while attending Michigan or Washington for two years of the four-year program. The University of Detroit Mercy and the University of Windsor Ontario Schools of law were the first to collaborate to create a joint American/Canadian law degree program. Students complete 104 credits in three years and successful graduates receive both their JD and their LL.B. degrees.

Many other law schools have looked at the issue of the difference between the JD and the LL.B. There are many opinions on both sides; however, the predominant view at this time is that there is nothing wrong with the LL.B. in terms of gaining employment, especially within Canada. It is apparent that the combined JD (U.S.A.)/LL.B. would be an advantage if you wanted to work in the U.S. and could not gain exclusive acceptance at a U.S. law school, or if you think you might like to return to Canada one day. There is a long-standing tradition behind the LL.B. designation, and many people are not willing to exchange it for a JD designation easily.

You can find some brief discussion of the matter here. You can find an interesting survey with resulting comments at the Queen's Law Life blawg. There are some very sound arguments made.

A recent post at lawbuzz.ca discusses the switch that Western Ontario recently made. The conversation is lively, and there seems to be a lot of opinions back and forth.

Even before reading the above commentary, I was of the opinion that I would trade in my LL.B. for a JD if the option was offered to me by my alma mater. I am not too impressed with the idea of paying $150.00 for the privilege. I wonder which schools are currently seriously considering making the switch. I also wonder if there are students pressuring their law schools to consider making the switch. It would seem that the trend is moving in this direction, and I, for one, would not want to be left in the cold. Some may think that it is trite, however, I agree with the argument made in one comment at Queen's Law Life blawg that the LL.B. is an English tradition, where law students are admitted straight out of high school. This obviously is not the way in Canada. I think that the rest of the world needs to recognize that the Law degree in Canada is at least equivalent to a Masters degree, if not more. Most people can finish out a Masters degree in two years (post undergraduate). Law school was three years, plus a gruelling year of articling, which is where the real education begins. I think that these things should be recognized, and that a JD designation would help.

If you have any on-point comments, please don't hesitate to post it in the comments section.

Blogging as Business Development

There's an interesting article in the current issue of The Lawyers Weekly (Canada) (Dec. 2, 2005) concerning blogging as a useful business development tool. The article is exactly right. In this age of easy access to information, large firms have much less structural advantage in terms of getting their names out there. A smaller firm--even a solo practitioner--can set up a webpage, and most practitioners worth their salt do that.

But a blog is in some ways even better than a traditional web page. It is a way to show how well you write and what you think about various legal developments in your area. As such, it is a perfect promotional tool. To draw an analogy, a website is like a fancy Yellow Pages ad, while a blog is like a free seminar on your areas of expertise that you give to potentially millions of people.

Giving away free information is a wonderfully effective way to bring in new business. Potential clients feel assured that you know what you are doing (since you have already discussed your expertise) and are likely more willing to pay you for your services. And while you give away a little knowledge that you might charge for at the beginning of the client relationship, you can get far more business in return. (Just make sure you include the caveat that information in your blog is not really legal advice--you know, the legal fine print language you see all the time.)

The article gives two examples of such blogs: www.morepartnerincome.com/blog, which is maintained by Tom Collins, CEO of Juris, Inc., and http://www.gerryriskin.com/, which is maintained (not surprisingly) by a guy named Gerry Riskin of Edge International. Personally, for U.S. lawyers I prefer the former. The information on that site is highly relevant to people who manage law firms (e.g., how to maintain profit margins, realize collections, etc.). Think about how detailed this site's information is: Collins is giving it away for free! Which establishes him in the minds of many as an expert in the field of law practice management.

Law firms could do quite well following this approach in their areas of expertise. Some do, but more should. A great example of a law firm blog along these lines is McGlinchey Stafford's http://www.hurricanelawblog.com/, which provides a good deal of detailed information on hurricane recovery legal issues.