Chance me (2026 admission cycle): Mature student, formerly incarcerated, cGPA 3.5/4.3, LSAT 178

[aegon]

My background is pretty different from the rest of you, so I would love some opinions on my chances.

My undergrad is a B.Eng from 11 years ago. I don't remember my exact GPA, but I graduated "with distinction" so it is at least 3.5. I'll update this once the transcript that I ordered comes in.

I worked in finance after graduation instead of pursuing an engineering career. I started in NYC before moving back to Toronto to work on Bay Street.

4 years ago, I pled guilty to a non-violent financial crime. I was sentenced to serve 9 years in the penitentiary. Earlier this year, I was granted full parole.

While in Joyceville, I studied for the LSAT using one practice test (official test 141) that was gifted to me by another inmate. To keep it fresh, I had other inmates re-write the same questions using different subjects while maintaining the general premises. After a few months, I had the entire test memorized. I could recite all of the questions and correct answers.

In September of last year, I was granted an escorted temporary absence to write the LSAT in Kingston. I scored a 178.

Now that I've been granted parole, I plan to apply to every Ontario law school when applications open in the fall.

Am I cooked?

Edited May 15 by aegon

[whereverjustice]

I think you need to get professional advice on the "Good Character" requirement before you invest any more time/money into a legal career.

Law schools don't screen people for past criminal records - that happens when you apply to be licensed, after law school. So if the Law Society isn't willing to admit you to the bar, you don't get that time and tuition back.

I'm not qualified to provide an opinion here. You may have heard that people have committed serious violent offences and still be admitted to the bar. That said, the fact that your sentence was (1) relatively recent in your life, (2) nine years, and (3) for a financial crime all make me suspect this will not be a rubber-stamp. Law Societies are really concerned about fraud/dishonesty, so sometimes a crime that looks "not as bad" in general can look especially bad when you're seeking a position of trust.

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

Nothing to add here OP aside from the fact that I hope things work out for you. You’re clearly talented and hardworking. You’ll land on your feet somewhere if law doesn’t pan out.

[Mal]

1 hour ago, MyWifesBoyfriend said:

Nothing to add here OP aside from the fact that I hope things work out for you. You’re clearly talented and hardworking. You’ll land on your feet somewhere if law doesn’t pan out.

I find this sentiment incredibly strange. My reaction to someone pursuing law based on the OP's description is skepticism bordering on disgust. Being a lawyer is a privilege and a position of respect. An individual with talent and work ethic committing crimes when in a position of privilege amplifies the moral turpitude. These qualities aren't to be lauded, the issue is one of integrity not talent.  

To add to whereverjustice, in addition to the issues of being able to get licensed, law firms will also be very skeptical about hiring an individual with such a background. It simply isn't worth the reputation hit. So employment options are also likely to be limited. 

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

2 minutes ago, Mal said:

My reaction to someone pursuing law based on the OP's description is skepticism bordering on disgust.

Ah well, they paid their debt to society. My point wasn’t that they should be a lawyer. I think it’s fine to want the best for OP, even if law isn’t in the picture.

[aegon]

2 hours ago, Mal said:

I find this sentiment incredibly strange. My reaction to someone pursuing law based on the OP's description is skepticism bordering on disgust. Being a lawyer is a privilege and a position of respect. An individual with talent and work ethic committing crimes when in a position of privilege amplifies the moral turpitude. These qualities aren't to be lauded, the issue is one of integrity not talent.  

To add to whereverjustice, in addition to the issues of being able to get licensed, law firms will also be very skeptical about hiring an individual with such a background. It simply isn't worth the reputation hit. So employment options are also likely to be limited. 

And I would retort by stating that, in the eyes of the law, as set out by parliament, I have been corrected and reformed.

I waived my right to a prelim and trial and pled guilty. I've fulfilled my restitution duties to all complainants. I served my sentence (and am on parole). I publicly apologized and denounced my actions.

The original indictment had 20 charges. I pled guilty to 35 charges, including many that I wasn't even accused of. The main purpose of sentencing is denunciation and deterrence. I believe that justice has been served.

I hope to start a new life on the right side of the law. My goal is to be a duty counsel attorney and protect the worthy.

Whether or not public defence is in my future, I believe that my overall impact on society will be positive.

Edited May 16 by aegon

[jimmy991]

I agree with @whereverjustice. Issue is not with law school, but with law society. Seek professional advice. 

[CleanHands]

4 hours ago, Mal said:

I find this sentiment incredibly strange. My reaction to someone pursuing law based on the OP's description is skepticism bordering on disgust. Being a lawyer is a privilege and a position of respect. An individual with talent and work ethic committing crimes when in a position of privilege amplifies the moral turpitude. These qualities aren't to be lauded, the issue is one of integrity not talent.  

To add to whereverjustice, in addition to the issues of being able to get licensed, law firms will also be very skeptical about hiring an individual with such a background. It simply isn't worth the reputation hit. So employment options are also likely to be limited. 

Sorry to contribute to derailing the thread, but I appreciate you saying this first because I felt the same.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and inevitably end up in the criminal justice system because they were set up to fail from an early age. From the OP's own characterization, they are an intelligent person (178 LSAT), and were educated (engineering degree) and privileged (NYC and Bay Street finance career) when they engaged in criminality.

I was denied the ability to pursue certain career paths before I became a lawyer, for reasons that had nothing to do with my ethics or conduct. People with poor eyesight, people with physical disabilities, people with mental disorders, etc., are barred from various paths. I don't understand why very often the same people who find this acceptable seem to think it's somehow an injustice for people with demonstrated ethical issues (past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour) to be denied the ability to become lawyers, as if it's a right to be a lawyer.

The OP is clearly an intelligent and capable person. This makes them more morally blameworthy for clearly calculated financial crimes of significant seriousness (given the sentence) and makes them someone who should be held to higher standards than the typical low-functioning person who becomes involved in our criminal justice system and who sadly, so often, nobody cares about.

(@aegon - I appreciate that you didn't post this to be insulted so I'll leave it at that, but know that for every lawyer to comment this way here, a lot more of your professional colleagues are going to think this if you pursue this path, even if you manage to get called. I wish you the best of luck living a pro-social and fulfilling life but I'd be lying if I said that I hoped it was as a lawyer.)

Edited May 16 by CleanHands

[Pathos]

18 hours ago, whereverjustice said:

I think you need to get professional advice on the "Good Character" requirement before you invest any more time/money into a legal career.

Law schools don't screen people for past criminal records - that happens when you apply to be licensed, after law school. So if the Law Society isn't willing to admit you to the bar, you don't get that time and tuition back.

I'm not qualified to provide an opinion here. You may have heard that people have committed serious violent offences and still be admitted to the bar. That said, the fact that your sentence was (1) relatively recent in your life, (2) nine years, and (3) for a financial crime all make me suspect this will not be a rubber-stamp. Law Societies are really concerned about fraud/dishonesty, so sometimes a crime that looks "not as bad" in general can look especially bad when you're seeking a position of trust.

This is a really good post.

I will just add that you will likely be called to the LSO for a Character Hearing to determine your eligibility. You can check past Hearing outcomes re: criminal records on the LSO Tribunal website and filtering results through "Licensing".  I wouldn't recommend self-repping tbh. If it comes to this, as above, a lawyer is highly recommended. For your consideration: Representation/advice would be a huge additional expense on top of your law school debt; articling (in firm and potentially through the Law Practice Program) would also most likely be unavailable until resolution. 

Here's a relatively recent decision from the Tribunal that you might want to read through. I would focus on the "Good Character" factors from paras 57-63 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlst/doc/2024/2024onlsth122/2024onlsth122.html 

A bright spot from later in the decision: 

[114]     The criminal conviction does not automatically disqualify the applicant from obtaining a licence. The law recognizes that people can change and improve themselves. Past actions are not necessarily indicative of current or future behaviour. We must decide whether the applicant is currently [LSO emphasis] of good character. It is emphasis on the present which is central to our task.

 

[CleanHands]

@Pathos - It's not exactly a secret that the Law Societies are happy to collect fees from people who committed crimes against humanity 5 minutes ago by framing it as them being of good character now.

[Pathos]

10 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

@Pathos - It's not exactly a secret that the Law Societies are happy to collect fees from people who committed crimes against humanity 5 minutes ago by framing it as them being of good character now.

I do not generally disagree with the cynical sentiment; but if you look at the decisions of the Tribunal, a good chunk are "current character" denials for contexts and reasons very relevant to OP. 

It would not be wise to proceed without recognizing that there may be a big (more like gigantic) pain in the ass at the end of law school. OP should be aware and prepare themselves accordingly.

[SNAILS]

@aegon You have an inspiring and compelling life story. Studying for the LSAT the way you did, and achieving much amazing results shows intelligence, dedication, and courage.  I'll accept everything you said at face value, because I have no basis for disbelieving you. You committed a crime, and you have done your time and repented. 

Some people may continue to distrust you. Firms you may work for in the future (assuming you get past the good character requirement) would likely be hesitant to give you access to trust accounts and have control over complex financial dealings. This might be based more on erring on the side of caution and maintaining a good reputation as a firm than actually believing you will reoffend.

I also want to throw the idea out there that there is such a think as a licence restriction with the LSO. In essence, you may be permitted to practice law generally, but not do certain financial things. I'll leave further explanation of this concept to someone that has more knowledge!

I like the idea that you want to be a Duty Counsel. Your experience on the "wrong side of the plexi glass" will be invaluable. Too many of the criminal defence bar sit on a high horse and treat the accused people like a file number with waiting patiently in or out of custody until the lawyer can collect their bill rather than as a person.  I hope you'll be different because you've been in the client's shoes.

This brings me to the points made by @Mal (and supported by @CleanHands and others). I suppose if a person who has committed a financial crime with intent to become a lawyer to commit further financial crimes I would also be upset and disgusted. However, I don't feel it is fair to presume that people cannot be rehabilitated. I also don't feel that lawyers are some kind of upper class of morally superior beings. Lawyers have strict ethical regulations, yes. But I think the high level of ethical regulations speaks to the tendency of many lawyers do unethical things and find fancy ways to get around the rules.  It does not speak to some kind of innate moral superiority.

One example of this unethical tendency is tax lawyers who smugly talk about "tax avoidance" rather than "tax evasion." (Essentially, how to bend rather than break rules to achieve the same purpose). Another example is overbilling clients. Another example is letti8ng clients rot in jail because they are seen as a pay cheque ready to to be cashed in on a guilty plea. Another is egging civil/family clients on to  fruitless litigation no matter the consequences upon the children.

TL;DR: Lawyers should not sit on a "high horse."

 

Edited May 17 by SNAILS

[CleanHands]

@SNAILS Another comment of yours that's too dumb to warrant a serious, in-depth response. If anyone reading can't figure out the straw man there, it's not worth the effort to try to spell it out for them.

I'll just add that it says it all that you've made disparaging comments about criminally accused and other marginalized people before on this forum and its predecessor, but now that we're discussing an educated, intelligent, white collar financial criminal who can achieve a 178 LSAT, you find their story "inspirational." That really says it all about our different reactions to this. This is not someone who has to overcome serious obstacles they didn't create for themselves (and you've been much less sympathetic to such people despite now working for Legal Aid). I had expressly differentiated OP from the kid who grows up in poverty whose parents introduced him to meth when he was 12 and whose first "job" was stealing catalytic converters because that's how he was taught to live.

Edited May 17 by CleanHands

[BHC1]

11 hours ago, SNAILS said:

@aegon You have an inspiring and compelling life story. Studying for the LSAT the way you did, and achieving much amazing results shows intelligence, dedication, and courage.  I'll accept everything you said at face value, because I have no basis for disbelieving you. You committed a crime, and you have done your time and repented. 

Some people may continue to distrust you. Firms you may work for in the future (assuming you get past the good character requirement) would likely be hesitant to give you access to trust accounts and have control over complex financial dealings. This might be based more on erring on the side of caution and maintaining a good reputation as a firm than actually believing you will reoffend.

I also want to throw the idea out there that there is such a think as a licence restriction with the LSO. In essence, you may be permitted to practice law generally, but not do certain financial things. I'll leave further explanation of this concept to someone that has more knowledge!

I like the idea that you want to be a Duty Counsel. Your experience on the "wrong side of the plexi glass" will be invaluable. Too many of the criminal defence bar sit on a high horse and treat the accused people like a file number with waiting patiently in or out of custody until the lawyer can collect their bill rather than as a person.  I hope you'll be different because you've been in the client's shoes.

This brings me to the points made by @Mal (and supported by @CleanHands and others). I suppose if a person who has committed a financial crime with intent to become a lawyer to commit further financial crimes I would also be upset and disgusted. However, I don't feel it is fair to presume that people cannot be rehabilitated. I also don't feel that lawyers are some kind of upper class of morally superior beings. Lawyers have strict ethical regulations, yes. But I think the high level of ethical regulations speaks to the tendency of many lawyers do unethical things and find fancy ways to get around the rules.  It does not speak to some kind of innate moral superiority.

One example of this unethical tendency is tax lawyers who smugly talk about "tax avoidance" rather than "tax evasion." (Essentially, how to bend rather than break rules to achieve the same purpose). Another example is overbilling clients. Another example is letti8ng clients rot in jail because they are seen as a pay cheque ready to to be cashed in on a guilty plea. Another is egging civil/family clients on to  fruitless litigation no matter the consequences upon the children.

TL;DR: Lawyers should not sit on a "high horse."

 

I’ve been impressed by your growth as reflected in your posts since you started law school, but on this one I think you’re more than a bit off base. 

A 9 year sentence on a guilty plea for financial offences would suggest OP participated in a sophisticated multi-million dollar fraud. Respectfully, your suggestion that OP would be well-suited for duty counsel work is absurd. This is not the type of person society should want with any control over vulnerable people. 

[CleanHands]

13 minutes ago, BHC1 said:

I’ve been impressed by your growth as reflected in your posts since you started law school, but on this one I think you’re more than a bit off base. 

A 9 year sentence on a guilty plea for financial offences would suggest OP participated in a sophisticated multi-million dollar fraud. Respectfully, your suggestion that OP would be well-suited for duty counsel work is absurd. This is not the type of person society should want with any control over vulnerable people. 

I think it's ironically a product of privilege that some people here are unable to distinguish between the OP and the average criminally accused person/offender.

[pastmidnight]

I'm going to bite my tongue and just say that I agree with @CleanHands. OP, speak with a professional about the uphill battle you will likely face getting called, so that you are fully aware of what you're getting yourself into before taking on debt, and so that you are aware of the limitations that would almost certainly be put on your practice were you to be called.

[aegon]

19 hours ago, SNAILS said:

@aegon You have an inspiring and compelling life story. Studying for the LSAT the way you did, and achieving much amazing results shows intelligence, dedication, and courage.  I'll accept everything you said at face value, because I have no basis for disbelieving you. You committed a crime, and you have done your time and repented. 

Some people may continue to distrust you. Firms you may work for in the future (assuming you get past the good character requirement) would likely be hesitant to give you access to trust accounts and have control over complex financial dealings. This might be based more on erring on the side of caution and maintaining a good reputation as a firm than actually believing you will reoffend.

I also want to throw the idea out there that there is such a think as a licence restriction with the LSO. In essence, you may be permitted to practice law generally, but not do certain financial things. I'll leave further explanation of this concept to someone that has more knowledge!

I like the idea that you want to be a Duty Counsel. Your experience on the "wrong side of the plexi glass" will be invaluable. Too many of the criminal defence bar sit on a high horse and treat the accused people like a file number with waiting patiently in or out of custody until the lawyer can collect their bill rather than as a person.  I hope you'll be different because you've been in the client's shoes.

This brings me to the points made by @Mal (and supported by @CleanHands and others). I suppose if a person who has committed a financial crime with intent to become a lawyer to commit further financial crimes I would also be upset and disgusted. However, I don't feel it is fair to presume that people cannot be rehabilitated. I also don't feel that lawyers are some kind of upper class of morally superior beings. Lawyers have strict ethical regulations, yes. But I think the high level of ethical regulations speaks to the tendency of many lawyers do unethical things and find fancy ways to get around the rules.  It does not speak to some kind of innate moral superiority.

One example of this unethical tendency is tax lawyers who smugly talk about "tax avoidance" rather than "tax evasion." (Essentially, how to bend rather than break rules to achieve the same purpose). Another example is overbilling clients. Another example is letti8ng clients rot in jail because they are seen as a pay cheque ready to to be cashed in on a guilty plea. Another is egging civil/family clients on to  fruitless litigation no matter the consequences upon the children.

TL;DR: Lawyers should not sit on a "high horse."

 

I appreciate the kind words.

What I did was terrible. Everyone has the right to judge me and is entitled to their opinions.

This thread made me reconsider law school entirely. I'm tussling with a few conflicting thoughts:

1. If I realistically have no chance of being found to be "of good character" by any law society, it is likely wrong for me to claim one of the limited enrolment spots in a law school. Doing so would directly deny admission to a more deserving person.
2. I hope to be a force of good in Canada. I have plenty of paths forward, and a future as a public defender may not be the best way for me to positively impact society. The pursuit of a legal career and my monetary goals are completely disjunctive. I'm in a privileged financial position. I needn't work a day in my life.
3. I've seen first-hand the damage that can be done to one's life by an uncaring Duty Counsel attorney. I've met dozens of real people who (in my opinion) have had the justice system weaponized against them. I can even add to this with my personal experience. Before I retained counsel, the Duty Counsel attorney's advice to me was to "get comfortable, because you won't be seeing the sun for a long time."
4. I have deep and unique experience with the criminal justice system. I believe that I can approach being an attorney with a deeply compassionate and understanding perspective that is rare among public defenders.

I have some introspection to do.

[CroffleKing]

@aegon I have a thought for you that might end up taking you to the place you want to go: have you considered either doing a social work program and becoming a social worker, or perhaps becoming an academic? I realize I may get blasted on this forum for suggesting these two paths, and you also didn't ask about or suggest anything to warrant me bringing them up but your last post drew me into wanting to mention this to you.

My previous experience includes a fair bit of interaction and observation of people in both roles in one form or another. I think you might be better positioned to engage with the types of things you want to be doing for people who are in the criminal justice system through those routes. Particularly from a social worker focused on justice issues lens if you are sincere about wanting to help people who are caught up in the system from less privileged backgrounds than yourself, and I think most social workers would be much more open to valuing your personal experiences and be welcoming of you in the profession if they were aware of that background. I'm making an assumption since I'm about to enter law school, but I don't imagine it would be comfortable to be open about that history in the legal profession.

As for entering academia, I think if you wanted to engage with the criminal justice system to critique it and perhaps advocate for macro-level change... criminology, and particularly studying criminology through one of the departments in Canada that leans into critical criminology might be a worthwhile thing to look into if you'd like to flex your intellectual muscles and also be able to draw on your personal experiences in a way that would be welcomed by colleagues. Saint Mary's University in Halifax has a good critical crim focused department, and SFU in Vancouver does as well. 

If you're still wanting to do law after putting some time between you and your current situation, probably doing something like the above suggestions would help paint a picture of having become someone of good character. I do agree with other posters that it'll be a hard time for you with the good character piece, and based on what you've said it sounds like while you are no longer in the custodial portion, you might still be serving your sentence or would have just concluded it by the time you graduate.

In any case, you'd still have some questions to answer for registering as a social worker but I think it wouldn't be as likely to be a closed door if you applied in a couple of years, and you could end up doing the sort of work you want and if money isn't an option that eliminates one major deterrent for people considering that field. Most people stay away from that path because of the low earning potential - at least for the most interesting and seemingly rewarding jobs in that profession, since they tend to be non-profit based (gov social workers can make decent money but it seems very boring) - but it can be really rewarding and there is a lot of work to be done in the criminal justice system. Academia could be an interesting go as well and there are opportunities to position yourself as an advocate coming from that background too depending on the communities you focus on, theoretical approach you take on, and how you do the work.

Good luck.

[SNAILS]

On 5/17/2025 at 12:02 PM, CleanHands said:

I'll just add that it says it all that you've made disparaging comments about criminally accused and other marginalized people before on this forum and its predecessor, but now that we're discussing an educated, intelligent, white collar financial criminal who can achieve a 178 LSAT, you find their story "inspirational." That really says it all about our different reactions to this. This is not someone who has to overcome serious obstacles they didn't create for themselves (and you've been much less sympathetic to such people despite now working for Legal Aid). I had expressly differentiated OP from the kid who grows up in poverty whose parents introduced him to meth when he was 12 and whose first "job" was stealing catalytic converters because that's how he was taught to live.

This is an interesting view, and apparently your view if largely accepted judging from the amount of likes you got. I'll try to summarize your view without a strawman:

• If someone overcomes "obstacles" then they deserve to be forgiven and assumed rehabilitated
• If someone comes from "privilege" then they have no excuse for wrong behavior and do not deserve to be forgiven

I straight up disagree with the above view (as popular as it may be). For one thing, it is hard to gauge what kids of social pressures might cause a person to act one way or another. I think we can all agree that poverty, broken families and race may correlate with anti social behavior, but it is by no means determinative. Modern social options of people with "privilege" vs "obstacles" in many ways is discriminatory against people from certain backgrounds.

Even more importantly, logic and realism need to dominate over sympathy for people facing "obstacles."

I could take your example of the meth using 12 year old to it's likely conclusion. Imagine he has grown to be 24 years old, has 20 prior convictions for theft, drug dealing , assault, etc. I would make the very logical inference that he is going to continue stealing and using meth. This does not mean I do not value him as a human being. It does not mean that I'm not sad or sympathetic for him. And it does not mean that I think there is no hope for him to get clean and live a law abiding life.

*** SIDE NOTE: I thought  that the most controversial part of my earlier posts was implying that there are a lot of crooks in the legal profession already! (And when I say that, take it with a grain of salt, but there are definitely some bad apples and a lot of people bending the rules).

 

[CleanHands]

4 hours ago, SNAILS said:

Modern social options of people with "privilege" vs "obstacles" in many ways is discriminatory against people from certain backgrounds.

I find it legitimately disturbing that you are a Legal Aid staff lawyer and expressing these views (and it also highlights the basis of the disagreement about whether the OP's life experience makes them suitable for duty counsel work). It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how intergenerational trauma, Gladue considerations such as the legacy of residential schools, normalization of violence and criminality at a young age, exposure to drugs and alcohol at a young age, etc., contribute to people ending up engaged with the criminal justice system, and how this is relevant to their criminality and moral culpability.

This isn't about "likes" (if anything your perspective is more popular among the general public than mine). There is a reason why the principles I'm expressing are commonly accepted by experts in our criminal justice system who have extensively studied these issues, and why they are embedded extensively throughout our sentencing jurisprudence (this isn't to say that the law is always right, but we've come to an understanding about how peoples' backgrounds impact them based on exposure to countless offenders and their antecedents).

Quote

*** SIDE NOTE: I thought  that the most controversial part of my earlier posts was implying that there are a lot of crooks in the legal profession already! (And when I say that, take it with a grain of salt, but there are definitely some bad apples and a lot of people bending the rules).

This isn't controversial to me, and it's also the argument of a moron that because there are tons of crooks in our professional already that somehow means that we should be fine with accepting more crooks.

Edited May 28 by CleanHands

[Naj]

There is no shortage of privileged people who are morally bankrupt. And even though we have systemic functions giving special consideration to lives having unfolded amidst intergenerational trauma and/or other disadvantageous circumstance (and the use of this point as a proxy for drawing more general inferences), that doesn’t negate, for a lack of better words, that the devil doesn’t discriminate.

That being said, there is something particularly egregious about having success in finance, insofar as it perhaps represents the most lucrative sort of success, and being so greedy and spineless that you are compelled to commit some further wrong serious enough to land you in person for 9 years.   

Nevertheless there is also something impressive about coming out of the above with the preparation, aptitude, and willingness to do better and achieve something great, and maybe spending the rest of your life truly in service of others – though for that last part, and for good reason, I think you’ll have a very difficult time convincing others.  

Edited May 28 by Naj

[SNAILS]

The following post has very little to do with the OP in particular, but more so about general principles of advantage/disadvantage in the criminal justice system.

@CleanHands Regarding the first part of your post, of course I understand about Gladue principles and disadvantaged backgrounds, etc. The points you are missing are (1) people from all demographic backgrounds can get caught up in the criminal justice system. The pressures on a particular rich guy could be just as real as those on a particular poor guy. (2) It's important not to get blinded by class bias. It's great that you want to cut the person with the long term meth addiction and history for theft and drug trafficking a break. I trust you, as a Crown, still see their potential for reoffending, the need to protect the public and so on. 

You mention "sentencing jurisprudence" but focus only on moral blameworthiness. You fail to consider the gravity of the offence (here, a presumably a non-violent financial crime), rehabilitation, and specific and general deterrence (the person has served a significant time in custody; has a high likelihood of future pro-social behavior). If I can bring in the LSO's "good character" requirement, keep in mind it is about the individual as they stand now, not at some point in the past. 

18 hours ago, CleanHands said:

This isn't controversial to me, and it's also the argument of a moron that because there are tons of crooks in our professional already that somehow means that we should be fine with accepting more crooks.

I don't want more crooks in the profession. I was merely countering an earlier point implying that lawyers as a  group are morally superior to the rest of the population. In other words, if we disbarred lawyers (or screened out law students) for their past mistakes we'd easily lose half of them.

On 5/17/2025 at 1:10 PM, CleanHands said:

I think it's ironically a product of privilege ...

I take it you consider yourself not to have been privileged. And you believe you have enough information about other people on these forums to gauge whether they are or are not privileged. 

 

18 hours ago, CleanHands said:

... moron ...

You really need to stop that kind of language. Especially in the context of a thread touching on issues of legal professionalism. I think we've all noticed that the number of people posting on these forums is much less than in the old days of LS.ca. Part of that is due to veteran posters being unnecessarily hostile. 

[CleanHands]

@SNAILS There's just no point engaging with this long, boring post of yours too deeply. You are incapable of staying on topic and making logically relevant connections between one post and another.

Nobody was talking about "gravity of the offence" (and I STRONGLY disagree with your implication that "presumably a non-violent financial crime" is necessary on the lower end of gravity, particularly with the information provided by the OP) because the point in the conversation up to now was to compare like with like and then account for circumstances of the offender.

Nobody made an "earlier point implying that lawyers as a group are morally superior to the rest of the population," which is why I interpreted what you had written the way I did because it was the only logical interpretation in the context of the discussion.

I could go on but I won't. There is just no point in having a discussion where you're going to move the goalposts every post because you can't follow the conversation.

Edited May 29 by CleanHands

[Scrantonicity2]

To bring things back to the OP - I'm not actually convinced that a desire to be duty counsel or to be in some other relatively low paid, public-service-oriented legal role actually convinces me that you've come to terms with the dynamics/motives that drove you to do *whatever it is you did.* Those roles (and I'd actually add Social Work roles, as suggested in a comment above) still put you in positions of power over people (often very vulnerable people). I'm sure the LSO wouldn't apply this kind of analysis, but imo, if you want to show that you've changed, don't look for positions of power or leadership - especially given that you apparently do not need to work to earn a living.