How many Hours a Week Required in Law School?

[SecondCareerLaw]

Hi All,

I am a mid-career professional currently earning $150,000 a year and self employed. I have flexible hours, but, with family commitments must work at least 20-30 hours a week. Can anyone suggest a range of hours needed to dedicate to law school?

Of course, we all work at different paces, which can change based on many personal factors anyway such as productivity under pressure and amount of sleep. Hence, my request for a suggested range of hours. Also would love to hear personal experiences. 

Given grades to matter to employers, is it possible to explain to them that for reasons above lower grades were justified and not reflective of legal potential? My first career involves many transferable skills. 

Thanks

[CleanHands]

18 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

I am a mid-career professional currently earning $150,000 a year and self employed. I have flexible hours, but, with family commitments must work at least 20-30 hours a week. Can anyone suggest a range of hours needed to dedicate to law school?

Of course, we all work at different paces, which can change based on many personal factors anyway such as productivity under pressure and amount of sleep. Hence, my request for a suggested range of hours. Also would love to hear personal experiences. 

This has been discussed ad nauseaum and different people have such different experiences with law school (literally ranging from just picking up a CAN a few days before exams and doing fine to spending 60-80 hours a week on school to get by, at the extreme ends) that no estimate that any individual writes will be helpful to you (the opposite, in fact). Will very much depend on you.

18 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Given grades to matter to employers, is it possible to explain to them that for reasons above lower grades were justified and not reflective of legal potential? My first career involves many transferable skills.

Almost all employers will be very unsympathetic to this and not credit you for it at least, if not react actively negatively to this being used as an excuse/justification for poor grades.

Edited November 30, 2021 by CleanHands

[BlockedQuebecois]

To add, the assertion that your grades are not demonstrative of your legal potential is very weak when absolutely nothing shows you have more legal potential than your grades have demonstrated.

It's one thing if you had a track record of good grades, had something terrible happen, then got average grades for a semester before rebounding. Even then, most employers won't be sympathetic. But no employer is going to react well to "if I had spent more time on law school stuff I would have done better, trust me". 

[Rashabon]

Perhaps you can take the contrarian approach and tell the legal employers to fuck off when trying to assess you as compared to all your peers, because you're a secret legal genius, with no supporting evidence to back that up.

[99problems]

2 hours ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Hi All,

I am a mid-career professional currently earning $150,000 a year and self employed. I have flexible hours, but, with family commitments must work at least 20-30 hours a week. Can anyone suggest a range of hours needed to dedicate to law school?

Of course, we all work at different paces, which can change based on many personal factors anyway such as productivity under pressure and amount of sleep. Hence, my request for a suggested range of hours. Also would love to hear personal experiences. 

Given grades to matter to employers, is it possible to explain to them that for reasons above lower grades were justified and not reflective of legal potential? My first career involves many transferable skills. 

Thanks

Studying law takes as much as time as you allow it. There are many students that outwork the rest, but some of them cannot get a grade higher than B.

As already mentioned, it varies from a person to another. In one semester, I read all the assigned materials, made my own summaries from the scratch, and basically did nothing but studying. However, my grades ended up similar to those semesters that I just used other people's summaries. To be fair, my retention/comprehension is much better when I used the former method. And I felt much better throughout the semester.

In the past semester, I had a lot going on in my life. And as a result, I was never able to focus and study, or even attend online classes. I have never seen my Real Estate professor, and merely read a summary for five days before my exam, hoping to just pass. I got an A. At the same time, I got a B+ in a course that I felt I knew it in and out.

Your grade is the product of a three-hour exam (since most courses are %100 final). There are ways to perform – relatively – well in the exams (for example, using CANNED answers will likely get you a B). I'm not suggesting you should do so, it is a choice that YOU have to make.

[SecondCareerLaw]

Some of these replies really are quite dumb and show a lot of character weakness. I can only assume small people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag so use the anonymity of online postings to finally feel like they have a pair. Total weeny cowards not worth respect. Attack all you want--shows how weak you are.

To those with intelligent responses, thank you, and I will get back to you 🙂 

[SlytherinLLP]

29 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Some of these replies really are quite dumb and show a lot of character weakness. I can only assume small people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag so use the anonymity of online postings to finally feel like they have a pair. Total weeny cowards not worth respect. Attack all you want--shows how weak you are.

To those with intelligent responses, thank you, and I will get back to you 🙂 

Your question is stupid. 

Is it possible to convince an employer that they should hire you despite your poor performance in law school? It's "possible", but I'm sure you can apply some common sense and realize no one can give you comfort for placing yourself in a suboptimal situation.

Is your question about the relative weight given to grades in law school? 

If so, to answer your question, grades and involvement in law school activities is the most important factor law firms will consider when making hiring decisions.

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by SlytherinLLP

[easttowest]

55 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Some of these replies really are quite dumb and show a lot of character weakness. I can only assume small people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag so use the anonymity of online postings to finally feel like they have a pair. Total weeny cowards not worth respect. Attack all you want--shows how weak you are.

To those with intelligent responses, thank you, and I will get back to you 🙂 

Three of four replies to this point spoke to the notion that you would not likely be able to explain away low grades. To the extent you are concerned only about employers who would pay you a starting income near what you are already making, that is true. 

The vast majority of firms paying that kind of money (and probably all) use your grades as the first screening mechanism. If you’re not above the line, your materials are in the trash. 

That is the reality.

If, however, you plan to continue doing whatever it is you’re doing to make the money you’re making, but also be a lawyer, then ymmv about how much an employer will care about your grades compared to your transferable skills. That is not something anyone here can answer really.

Edited November 30, 2021 by easttowest

[HoggPower]

Your prior experience will likely be a strength, but the grades you get will determine whether you get in the door to talk about your transferable skills. It also depends on what you want to practice. Employers in some practice areas don't put as much weight on grades as the typical OCI recruiters do. I would not bring up average or below average grades unless they bring it up at the interview. Even then, you should proceed with caution as to how you answer any questions about mediocre grades. The things you say could backfire. Expressing your love of law school and enjoyment of the work you have been doing along with a lively demeanour will help to mitigate any issues that have resulted from receiving lower grades. 

Why don't you attend law school as a part-time student? It sounds like 20-30 hours a week at work + family life would be tough to handle, especially with the adjustments students go through in their first year of law school. 

 

[PePeHalpert]

39 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Some of these replies really are quite dumb and show a lot of character weakness. I can only assume small people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag so use the anonymity of online postings to finally feel like they have a pair. Total weeny cowards not worth respect. Attack all you want--shows how weak you are.

To those with intelligent responses, thank you, and I will get back to you 🙂 

The thing is, you're also going to be competing for jobs with people who had similar family or outside commitments and managed to outperform you in law school.  One of my law school classmates was a parent to three young children, trained for marathons and did an ungodly amount of volunteering, and still managed to rank top of the class and land a job at a seven sisters firm.  So when compared to students like that, your (untested) excuse that you would have done better if you'd had more time to commit isn't going to hold up to much scrutiny.  

[SecondCareerLaw]

37 minutes ago, Gnu said:

Your prior experience will likely be a strength, but the grades you get will determine whether you get in the door to talk about your transferable skills. It also depends on what you want to practice. Employers in some practice areas don't put as much weight on grades as the typical OCI recruiters do. I would not bring up average or below average grades unless they bring it up at the interview. Even then, you should proceed with caution as to how you answer any questions about mediocre grades. The things you say could backfire. Expressing your love of law school and enjoyment of the work you have been doing along with a lively demeanour will help to mitigate any issues that have resulted from receiving lower grades. 

Why don't you attend law school as a part-time student? It sounds like 20-30 hours a week at work + family life would be tough to handle, especially with the adjustments students go through in their first year of law school. 

 

Thanks for your response. I can definitely see how it would depend on the employer. In my field, grades are largely irrelevant and people who are overly "academic" rarely do well. It would be much easier if I had the kinds of experience needed to make a good judgement on which area of law to pursue, but think a more open stance is better at this stage.  

Your suggestion of attending part-time is an excellent one. Especially since quite frankly I don't the money from law practice. My motivation is purely for other reasons. Do you know if it generally difficult to be admitted into a part-time stream? My understanding is that the first year has to be full-time and the second two years have some limits placed on the number of part-time students. 

[easttowest]

1 minute ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Thanks for your response. I can definitely see how it would depend on the employer. In my field, grades are largely irrelevant and people who are overly "academic" rarely do well. It would be much easier if I had the kinds of experience needed to make a good judgement on which area of law to pursue, but think a more open stance is better at this stage.  

Your suggestion of attending part-time is an excellent one. Especially since quite frankly I don't the money from law practice. My motivation is purely for other reasons. Do you know if it generally difficult to be admitted into a part-time stream? My understanding is that the first year has to be full-time and the second two years have some limits placed on the number of part-time students. 

At my school, it was relatively common to see part time students attend first year over two years and then the upper years “normally” because there is much more flexibility for scheduling, replacing courses with papers, etc. in the upper years. 

[easttowest]

4 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Thanks for your response. I can definitely see how it would depend on the employer. In my field, grades are largely irrelevant and people who are overly "academic" rarely do well. It would be much easier if I had the kinds of experience needed to make a good judgement on which area of law to pursue, but think a more open stance is better at this stage.  

 

This is a strange generalization. Lots of different kinds of people do well in school, including ones you might not consider “academic”. This is true in law school too, from my experience. All kinds of people are on the Dean’s list. 

In the practice of law, grades are also largely irrelevant. Where they are relevant is at the starting point of one’s career, when potential employers are looking at them. As has been beaten to death above, how much weight they will carry will depend on the employer. 

[SecondCareerLaw]

10 minutes ago, easttowest said:

At my school, it was relatively common to see part time students attend first year over two years and then the upper years “normally” because there is much more flexibility for scheduling, replacing courses with papers, etc. in the upper years. 

Interesting, which law school are you at?  I hope Uvic offers something similar. 

[easttowest]

2 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Interesting, which law school are you at?  I hope Uvic offers something similar. 

Ottawa.

[SecondCareerLaw]

20 minutes ago, easttowest said:

This is a strange generalization. Lots of different kinds of people do well in school, including ones you might not consider “academic”. This is true in law school too, from my experience. All kinds of people are on the Dean’s list. 

In the practice of law, grades are also largely irrelevant. Where they are relevant is at the starting point of one’s career, when potential employers are looking at them. As has been beaten to death above, how much weight they will carry will depend on the employer. 

The issue is that "overly academic" is harmful in my field, Dean's List or not. Grades are also considered a poor metric for deciding suitability or competence. In short, no one asks for them. Having said that, quite agree that being on the Dean's List does not preclude a wide variety of people with varied talents suitable for many fields, I am sure. 

[CleanHands]

Just now, SecondCareerLaw said:

The issue is that "overly academic" is harmful in my field, Dean's List or not. Grades are also considered a poor metric for deciding suitability or competence. In short, no one asks for them.

Congratulations. The legal field generally works differently, with JD grades being literally the first screening method for the most competitive jobs. You're certainly entitled to disagree with this approach but don't expect the whole industry to change just because you don't like this.

I'm not sure what your point about "your field" operating differently is, when you came here asking how legal employers will view mediocre grades combined with the "justification" that law school was low on your priorities list. The consensus answer everyone provided isn't wrong just because you don't like it.

[Rashabon]

Not the first person we've had here claiming to make a ton of money in an mysterious field in which academics don't apply with vague reasons for wanting to go to law school that don't make any sense. How contrarian.

[User456]

Why don't you try and apply for a part time program? Often both family commitments and career obligations are reasons the schools consider for admission to part time. If the school does not think it constitutes a part time spot, I don't think an employer will care. 

 

Best of luck!

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, Meek19 said:

Often both family commitments and career obligations are reasons the schools consider for admission to part time. [Emphasis added]

This is not true. Canadian law schools are generally not amenable to permitting students to pursue part-time studies in order to maintain full-time jobs while doing so.

[User456]

11 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

This is not true. Canadian law schools are generally not amenable to permitting students to pursue part-time studies in order to maintain full-time jobs while doing so.

The U of A, for example:

 

 

U of C :

 

 

I'm not going to look up any other schools, but this is the point I was making. Sounds like OP has a business as well as family circumstances, not just because they have full time employment, it seems like the circumstances are a bit different. It's worth applying. 

Just now, Meek19 said:

The U of A, for example:

 

 

U of C :

 

 

I'm not going to look up any other schools, but this is the point I was making. Sounds like OP has a business as well as family circumstances, not just because they have full time employment, it seems like the circumstances are a bit different. It's worth applying. 

They also said they would be working 20-30 hours a week, 20 hours is not full time employment. 

[CleanHands]

16 minutes ago, Meek19 said:

-Snip-

As far as I'm concerned, a close reading of the screenshots you provided illustrates rather than refutes my point. And I hate to pull the "I've actually attended and graduated from law school" card, as of course that doesn't by any means automatically make someone correct about these things, but I would say that through exposure I have had the opportunity to get a sense of the circumstances of JD students and the reasons some of them (rarely) have been permitted to study part-time. "I have a job and I have a spouse and kids" tends not to cut it, especially when anyone with half-decent credit will get a six figure LOC thrown at them by every bank out there as soon as they have a JD program admission letter in hand. Note that the descriptions of family situations that would warrant exceptions are...exceptional, and it's explicitly stated that work and financial considerations without additional extenuating circumstances aren't good enough.

But (unless anyone with admissions experience wants to weigh in) I'll let readers of the thread draw their own conclusions from those screenshots, and anyone who is interested in pursuing this (generally bad idea) can inquire with admissions if they really want to find out how viable it is.

Recent, relevant thread: 

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by CleanHands

[Goblin King]

10 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

As far as I'm concerned, a close reading of the screenshots you provided illustrates rather than refutes my point. And I hate to pull the "I've actually attended and graduated from law school" card, as of course that doesn't by any means automatically make someone correct about these things, but I would say that through exposure I have had the opportunity to get a sense of the circumstances of JD students and the reasons some of them (rarely) have been permitted to study part-time. "I have a job and I have a spouse and kids" tends not to cut it, especially when anyone with half-decent credit will get a six figure LOC thrown at them by every bank out there as soon as they have a JD program admission letter in hand. Note that the descriptions of family situations that would warrant exceptions are...exceptional, and it's explicitly stated that work and financial considerations without additional extenuating circumstances aren't good enough.

But (unless anyone with admissions experience wants to weigh in) I'll let readers of the thread draw their own conclusions from those screenshots, and anyone who is interested in pursuing this (generally bad idea) can inquire with admissions if they really want to find out how viable it is.

Recent, relevant thread: 

 

This is generally true of most law schools in Canada. However, Dalhousie is more amenable to part-time studies for reasons such as a full-time career or financial strain. The couple of folks I've talked to in the part-time program were generally not in exceptionally difficult situations. I'm also part-time and think my excuses wouldn't cut it at Osgoode or UBC. 

[User456]

31 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

As far as I'm concerned, a close reading of the screenshots you provided illustrates rather than refutes my point. And I hate to pull the "I've actually attended and graduated from law school" card, as of course that doesn't by any means automatically make someone correct about these things, but I would say that through exposure I have had the opportunity to get a sense of the circumstances of JD students and the reasons some of them (rarely) have been permitted to study part-time. "I have a job and I have a spouse and kids" tends not to cut it, especially when anyone with half-decent credit will get a six figure LOC thrown at them by every bank out there as soon as they have a JD program admission letter in hand. Note that the descriptions of family situations that would warrant exceptions are...exceptional, and it's explicitly stated that work and financial considerations without additional extenuating circumstances aren't good enough.

But (unless anyone with admissions experience wants to weigh in) I'll let readers of the thread draw their own conclusions from those screenshots, and anyone who is interested in pursuing this (generally bad idea) can inquire with admissions if they really want to find out how viable it is.

Recent, relevant thread: 

 

I was simply offering an alternative to the other comments. Only the OP and the schools would know whether this person fits the criteria for part time programs or not so I was suggesting they look into it. We truly have no idea if this person meets "exceptional circumstances" based on this post nor what that criteria even means to whatever school they are applying to.  U of A for instance (I have not looked anywhere else) allows you to apply to this program after acceptance and is due two months before starting so I don't see a harm in applying, if they feel they warrant it. The screen shots were just there to demonstrate it is possible. Again, I have no idea what their circumstances are. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Meek19
Sounded rude

[SNAILS]

On 11/30/2021 at 12:10 PM, Rashabon said:

Perhaps you can take the contrarian approach and tell the legal employers to fuck off when trying to assess you as compared to all your peers, because you're a secret legal genius, with no supporting evidence to back that up.

When I posted in another thread that I study very hard in law school, you said that you didn't work hard in law school and still got high grades. Then, after claiming that working hard should not be necessary for anyone with an aptitude for law school, you discredited anyone who works hard as not having an "aptitude for law school." You didn't want me to have the dignity of saying that I'm just a middle of the pack law student, and instead implied that I must be stupid if I feel I need to study hard in law school. This advice resulted in any readers of the forum who are not yet in law school to have a false impression of law school.

You always take the low road I your posts. You could have easily encouraged the OP and told him, "Hey, if you are really smart, you'll get straight A's and still be able to work your side job." But you did not do that. You instead took the opportunity to insult someone and put them down.