What was the best and worst day of your articling or summer position.

[GGrievous]

Some of us 1L’s are going to be starting our first law related jobs in a few months, so I thought it would be fun to hear stories from those that have been through it already. What happened on both your best and worst day on the job. What did you get to do? How did you screw up? How did you impress the boss? Etc. I guess your first job post-articling could count too. 

[Rusty Iron Ring]

I think my best and worst day might have been the same day.

My first contested motion.  It was a sure bet. We had the facts on our side. We had the law on our side. I prepared like crazy. I knew the case and the law inside-out. All was great.

I got there, and the other party was a self rep. And I crashed and burned.  Self-rep had her kids with her in the courtroom, and they were crying because they were hungry. And the self-rep was crying. And the Master spent the whole time either glaring at me or yelling at me. Nothing I said seemed to matter. Complete and total loss, with costs against. Felt like absolute crap. 

Got back to the office and principal asked how it went.  When I said I lost her exact words were "How the fuck did you lose that one???".  And for a few seconds I was convinced that I was the worst law student ever and it was time to go look for another career.

And then I filled her in on what had happened in detail and she said "Oh, that's not your fault. There was no way to win that." And gave me some tips on how to write the report to the client.  And told me the story of her first courtroom loss and how it affected her. And everyone was super understanding. Felt pretty great to have that kind of support.

And now I think back to that any time I lose one, and I tell my juniors the story any time they lose one. 

[Hegdis]

Worst Day: inadvertently crossed the Very Senior Paralegal and got a dressing-down from my principle lawyer. Now I can look back on my behaviour and cringe at what was obviously a bad call. But then I just thought I was taking initiative and being proactive or ...something.

Best Day: actually ran over a couple weeks. Principle lawyer let me sit at counsel table during jury murder trial. Made me want to be a defence lawyer. Actually taught me quite a few things that only became useful recently since I had to level up a bit. This is why I am a HUGE proponent of watching good counsel work whenever you can.

[razraini]

Worst day: I was tasked with written submissions on what looked like a loser case. The law was against me. The allegation appeared to be made out on video. The client came across as a spoiled brat. The officer came across as reasonable and patient. After much thinking and a deep dive in to the case law, I thought I had finally found an angle. I worked on it night and day for nearly a week while balancing everything else. Right before I was about to submit my brief to my principal, I gave it once last proofread. I was in the courtroom library as I reviewed the brief on my phone. As I did, I re-read the Criminal Code provision upon which my highly technical argument (read: probably going to lose but would not be laughed out of the room) was based. I felt myself sink onto my butt and sit up against the wall in public. I had not read the last four words of the provision. Those four words foreclosed my argument in its entirety. I was deeply embarrassed and felt cold panic particularly since I pride myself on reading statutes and case law word for word.

Best day: I was also facing a deadline. I asked my principal for one extra day to get them the brief. And in 15 hours I managed to bang out an argument from first principles that was significantly better. It was creative without being wonky. It felt intuitively "right" while enjoying some support in law. It had a common sense simplicity while being able to address possible legal counterarguments to a high level of abstraction. If it is not obvious I am still proud of it. At very least, my principal was thoroughly impressed by it and went over it with the client without any edits or changes. The charge was stayed. 

So sometimes best days and worst days run in to one another. The practical lesson was to not skip ahead with what I am reading because I think I have the gist of it. Statutory text does not really have a "feel" that gives you a sense of what is being communicated without reading through to the end. At least not for me. Every word matters. It was a humbling reminder that a large part of being an effective litigator is to know what is actually being communicated as opposed to what was more or less communicated. Often our job is to probe the gaps between those two states of understanding and to point out the difference between appearances and reality.  

[Jaggers]

Not really a "worst" day, because I just had to reverse my position, but I once filed a defence relying totally on "there is no common law tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario" shortly before the Ontario Court of Appeal created one out of thin air. I still won the case (and also the appeal) but needed a bit of a change in direction.

I never did a trial outside the Small Claims Court, but I did a ton of human rights tribunal, workplace safety, occupational health and labour arbitration cases. You have so many really good and bad days that you start to lose count eventually. It's so unpredictable and there's such a human element that even though your training is to plan for everything ... it's impossible.

7 minutes ago, razraini said:

So sometimes best days and worst days run in to one another. The practical lesson was to not skip ahead with what I am reading because I think I have the gist of it. Statutory text does not really have a "feel" that gives you a sense of what is being communicated without reading through to the end. At least not for me. Every word matters. It was a humbling reminder that a large part of being an effective litigator is to know what is actually being communicated as opposed to what was more or less communicated. Often our job is to probe the gaps between those two states of understanding and to point out the difference between appearances and reality.  

I had one case where opposing counsel was being quite unreasonable in their settlement position. I found it strange, but sometimes your clients just do that to you. I found out *when making closing submissions in the hearing* that the reason he was being unreasonable was because he had received a case from whomever did his research which had highlighted the Federal Court of Appeal's summary of one party's argument, and thought it was the law because he hadn't read the whole case for himself.

I normally don't interrupt counsel when they're making submissions, but I did have to stand up when he started quoting that passage and pretending it was the court's ruling.

[PzabbytheLawyer]

Best few weeks; working on a precedent setting SCC case on international law and the Canadian constitution.

Worst few days: putting together the appeal book and compendium and fixing the citations for 2 factums for the same file, all in 4 days.

[razraini]

10 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

Counsel was being quite unreasonable in their settlement position. I found it strange, but sometimes your clients just do that to you. I found out *when making closing submissions in the hearing* that the reason he was being unreasonable was because he had received a case from whomever did his research which had highlighted the Federal Court of Appeal's summary of one party's argument, and thought it was the law because he hadn't read the whole case for himself.

I normally don't interrupt counsel when they're making submissions, but I did have to stand up when he started quoting that passage and pretending it was the court's ruling.

I encountered a similar situation earlier this week actually. I filed written submissions for a sentencing hearing. Opposing counsel, who is very senior, argued that I had misconstrued "principle X" [placeholder--not a real principle of sentencing although that would be cool] of sentencing in a paragraph in my brief. The paragraph was a block quote from the Court of Appeal of Alberta defining "principle X". There was a sheepish acknowledgement on record that maybe he had not read that paragraph all the way through.

[Jaggers]

I suppose my worst day was when I slept on the floor of the factory in my suit because I had gone to draft an affidavit and the union, which was on strike, wouldn't let me out. Last time I ever wore a suit to a factory.

That whole month was the worst. Every day I'd wake up at like 5 a.m. and look at my phone to see where I had to go that day to draft an affidavit about the picketing. But at least most of the time I got to sleep in my own bed.

[CleanHands]

Worst:

Was given a file and position by a lawyer to speak to in court. Being a student, I was and am still deferential to actual experienced lawyers. I didn't dig into it because that seemed incredibly presumptuous and it wasn't what was being asked of me. I just went there to argue the position I was told.

I was in court with a different supervising lawyer, and when opposing counsel and I got into a back-and-forth about the point being contested, the lawyer supervising me stood up and said that they believed that the position I was advancing was unconstitutional and that we withdrew the argument and conceded opposing counsel's point.

I felt completely and utterly humiliated and ended up having it out with both lawyers over it afterwards. To be clear, what our constitutional jurisprudence says is more important than my ego, and I recognize that. I admittedly didn't handle it too well. It didn't help that it was also in front of a judge I greatly respected and I still feel embarrassed appearing in front of them as a result.

Best:

Does clinical experience during law school count? It was doing the same stuff I've ended up doing at work as a law student.

Anyways if so, it would have to be my first contested sentencing hearing. I was representing an accused person on an extremely minor assault that was being blown very out of proportion by the Crown (now that I have Crown experience I have a better sense of the degree to which this was the case, but it was evident even at the time), with a client who was approaching middle age and had no criminal record despite having endured horrific life circumstances. The Crown wouldn't budge in negotiations, and related a narrative of events far more serious than what actually occurred, that was clearly and directly contradicted by video evidence of the offence. When I pointed this out, the Crown said they were just relating what the complainant told them (wtf). I asked them to please review the video. The Crown also frankly kind of strung me and the client along getting us to obtain letters proving the client was attending counselling, only to ultimately not join me in a joint submission despite highly implying they would if I did that.

When the sentencing hearing came, first I learned the bit above that the Crown wouldn't be doing the joint sentence they implied they would. Then the Crown read in the facts and again related the narrative that they got from the complainant that made the offence sounds 10 times worse than it was, and that was demonstrably, provably false by any fair-minded review of clear video evidence on file.

By the time it was my turn to have a go, I was furious. Being a 2L who had never done a contested sentencing hearing before, I was very confused and had no idea what one was "supposed" to do when the (veteran, 20 year or so) Crown's submissions are absolute nonsense. But I had given them fair warning and begged them to watch the video before, and I wasn't going to be responsible for my client being treated this way without a fight, so I just channeled that fury, declared that the Crown's account of the facts was wrong, rattled off 10 ways this was the case, and indicated that all of these discrepancies can be demonstrated through review of the video.

The judge sided with me and we got the discharge I was looking for so my client wouldn't be saddled with a criminal record. The client thanked and hugged me. To the Crown's credit, they graciously told me "good job" before leaving the courtroom, but their face was flushed red. My supervising lawyer explained to me, since I was inexperienced, that the Crown has the onus of proving contested facts in sentencing BARD and the judge could have asked to see the video but instead just took my word for it. I guess they figure a student wouldn't be going off about such things in detail, burning with passion, against a Crown with decades of experience, unless they were sure they knew what they were talking about.

Anyways, that was one of the first real tastes of "lawyering" I have gotten, and I've worked on significantly more "important" cases since, but it still stands out as the one that gave me the biggest "high."

Edited January 27, 2022 by CleanHands

[Jaggers]

6 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Does clinical experience during law school count? It was doing the same stuff I've ended up doing at work as a law student.

Oh man. Some of the hearings I got into while doing landlord and tenant stuff at Parkdale... shady characters on all sides of every file it seemed!

[CleanHands]

3 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

Oh man. Some of the hearings I got into while doing landlord and tenant stuff at Parkdale... shady characters on all sides of every file it seemed!

Oh yeah, the one landlord/tenant file I took involved Mr. Burns-level cartoonish villainy from the landlord. Like a living left-wing strawman.

[Jaggers]

My favourite was the guy who was being evicted (not through the proper legal process, I should say!) because he had dangerous amounts of stuff in his apartment that created fire hazards. At some point in the hearing, he was asked if he had a receipt for something, and it was basically this scene:

 

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

Oh yeah, the one landlord/tenant file I took involved Mr. Burns-level cartoonish villainy from the landlord. Like a living left-wing strawman.

I may have had a few cases where I knew whom I thought was right or wrong. But it was mostly tenants who weren't paying their rent, letting propane tanks explode on their balcony or storing 17 washing machines in their living room, and landlords who threw their shit out into the snow banks without following any process.

And any third party witnesses were almost always obviously lying on behalf of the party that called them.

[razraini]

22 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Anyways if so, it would have to be my first contested sentencing hearing. I was representing an accused person on an extremely minor assault that was being blown very out of proportion by the Crown (now that I have Crown experience I have a better sense of the degree to which this was the case, but it was evident even at the time), with a client who was approaching middle age and had no criminal record despite having endured horrific life circumstances.

I'm still surprised at how aggressive some senior prosecutors can be with law students. Case in point, I had a domestic violence trial during 2L. Before I could even introduce myself to the prosecutor: "Is your client ready to take responsibility yet?" "Um...he says it didn't happen that way..." "*Sigh* Alright, suit yourself." And after half a day, he was acquitted on the first branch of W(D).

On one hand I appreciated that I wasn't getting the kid glove treatment. On the other hand...I was a law student...

Edited January 27, 2022 by razraini

[PzabbytheLawyer]

13 minutes ago, razraini said:

I'm still surprised at how aggressive some senior prosecutors can be with law students. Case in point, I had a domestic violence trial during 2L. Before I could even introduce myself to the prosecutor: "Is your client ready to take responsibility yet?" "Um...he says it didn't happen that way..." "*Sigh* Alright, suit yourself." And after half a day, he was acquitted on the first branch of W(D).

On one hand I appreciated that I wasn't getting the kid glove treatment. On the other hand...I was a law student...

Isn't that just.. too crowny? I personally wouldn't consider that "normal" as in "not kid gloves". 

It smells of fear tactics against a student who might cave because of fear, not the law.

I hate crowney crowns.

[razraini]

3 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Isn't that just.. too crowny? I personally wouldn't consider that "normal" as in "not kid gloves". 

It smells of fear tactics against a student who might cave because of fear, not the law.

I hate crowney crowns.

I was trying to be charitable. She was what I often refer to as a "turbo Crown".

[GGrievous]

43 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Does clinical experience during law school count?

I’ll answer this in case it prevented any stories being told from anyone else. I only wanted first jobs because I assumed inexperience would lead to the best stories, but these are fun to read and I’ll happily take any stories from any seniority level. 

[AnomanderRake]

58 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Isn't that just.. too crowny? I personally wouldn't consider that "normal" as in "not kid gloves". 

It smells of fear tactics against a student who might cave because of fear, not the law.

I hate crowney crowns.

As a law student attending court with my criminal client, I once saw a very senior Crown stand up in the middle of the courtroom, while the judge was sitting, and say quite loudly, "where is the young man who wanted to talk to me about the X assault?" 

The said young man was a first or second year call counsel representing the accused. 

The same Crown tried to railroad me multiple times into setting matters for a guilty plea while I was at the court with supervising lawyer instructions to set the matter for trial. In all fairness though, when it became clear that I wasn't going to accept that she would regularly review the file and give me a resolution proposal similar to what we wanted.  

[Vizslaw]

Oh this brings back such fond and painful memories lol.

Worst day: My best friend passed away after fighting Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. He was in the hospital for several months before passing and the first was well aware. I never missed any time and visited him during lunch breaks of evenings, often on the lunch break during court. As soon as he passed away, I told the firm that in a few days I needed the afternoon off for his funeral and it was like pulling teeth getting the time off. They also called and e-mailed me several times during the funeral and I never forgot or forgave them. I didn't accept a hire-back offer because of that. 

Best day (thankfully before the above-happened): It was truly glorious. I was helping one of the lawyers with a jury trial. Charges were aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. Client was a drug dealer and two of his buddies tried to rob him and steal drugs from his apartment. He testified that despite being significantly bigger (and scarier) than the other two, he had to defend himself with a small kitchen knife because they were going to kill him. He caused a deep laceration on the complainant's hand. They all had significant credibility problems, with lengthy records, crimes of dishonesty and even argued about whether they were guilty of some of their convictions. It was just a wild kind of trial.

The complainant and witness denied being friends and denied that they concocted a story about how our client was the aggressor, when he was not. The two Crown witnesses said they were practically strangers and only saw each other once in a blue moon. It was odd to hear that specific phrase from both of them.

Cue my involvement - the trial was at 361 University so the Eaton Centre is nearby. I saw them walking back from the Eaton Centre together during one of the lunch breaks, side by side holding shopping bags. They were laughing and spoke for at least 5-10 minutes. This was also while one of them were still under cross, so not a great look. I was with the lawyer and he told me to grab his phone and take pictures of them walking and talking. I took a whole bunch and we got some printed later that night. They were clearly buddies. Not the kind of people who only spoke once in a blue moon. I saw the same behavior on two subsequent days. We had the photos printed and I was called as a defence witness to describe what I saw and tender the photographs into evidence. You could see the jury's outrage.

The Crown accused me of spying on their witnesses or that I had some incentive to embellish what I saw because my hire-back hinged on it. I had a good laugh at that and it definitely backfired on the Crown. It set me up to say that, no, I wasn't embellishing and I just took the pictures, which pretty much speak for themselves. I also got in a good zinger that I was in almost as much disbelief as her because we all heard both the complainant and witness testify they only spoke once in a blue moon, and I was like well that's a few blue moons in a row and the jury actually laughed. If the Crown could have disappeared through the floor she would have. I still tease that Crown about it but it's all in good fun. Client was acquitted and it felt like a huge victory because he always maintained his innocence and I felt like I contributed in a meaningful way beyond the usual trial prep and second-chair stuff. Definitely a trial to remember. Thankfully that was my one and only time being a witness. 

[GGrievous]

39 minutes ago, Vizslaw said:

-snip-

I really can’t believe people like your worst day firm exist and can sleep at night. 

[Jaggers]

I have some American colleagues, and their stories about how their firms treated them during their maternal and parental leaves are insane. Canadian firms tend to be a little better, though there are definitely plenty of exceptions.

[Twenty]

Summered in-house at a tech company:

Best: Conducted legal research involving the Arkansas Constitution, Sovereign Immunity, and Contract Law. Under Arkansas law, its public instituions are protected from court litigation through Article 5 Section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution. This influenced contract negotiations between the tech company and an international client, and I was asked to dig deeper into the law. It was super interesting and I was mentally fist-bumping myself when my research was confirmed by opposing counsel in a subsequent negotiation meeting.

Worst: The company was preparing for a potential IPO (I can say this because it is now public information) and I hated my tasks involving the potential IPO. The worst was having to review the draft prospectus and making note of material facts in an excel spreadsheet. Riveting /s. 

(Bonus) Bread & Butter: Amending and drafting various contracts (licensing agreements, gotta love em). It felt like hands-on transactional practice. I liked the work, even though it can get pretty routine but still require a high level of attention to detail. 45-hour work weeks, with a lot of flexibility - was able to walk my dog during my breaks :). 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Twenty

[cherrytree]

Best day so far in articling: Got a settlement that was 30% higher client's expected amount in Small Claims, on the exact terms requested by client.

Worst day so far in articling: Spent hours and hours reviewing the English side of bilingual contracts and following the summary template sent to me, only to be told that I need to re-do my part of the review using the completely different and much more extensive template used by counsel to summarize contracts of the non-English language. That was when I knew corporate isn't for me. My other colleagues complain about doing DD too, because of course everyone complains about how dry and monotonous it is, but they are able to buckle down and grind through the mountains of files with much less damage to their HP.

[Twenty]

@cherrytree Big oof. I also found that bilingual contracts tend to screw around with the formatting on Word the most. Can get extremely frustrating and time consuming having to clean up bilingual contracts. The day I spent basically half a day trying to fix the formatting of a billingual contract (thank goodness it was a slow work day) was the day I learnt that I am NOT proficient at Word. 

[cherrytree]

Just now, Twenty said:

@cherrytree Big oof. I also found that bilingual contracts tend to screw around with the formatting on Word the most. Can get extremely frustrating and time consuming having to clean up bilingual contracts. The day I spent basically half a day trying to fix the formatting of a billingual contract (thank goodness it was a slow work day) was the day I learnt that I am NOT proficient at Word. 

A small part of me dies every time the Word file is unavailable and I have to convert a PDF to Word...because that always means 1-1.5 hours to be spent on fixing the stupid blanks and wonky margins that result from the conversion.

[TobyFlenderson]

My best day actually occurred some time after I left my 2L summer job, when I got a call from one of the lawyer’s I’d done some work for that they used my research without changes to settle a claim for six figures. Definitely helped alleviate some of the imposter syndrome I went through while I was doing the research, and it was the first time I actually felt like I had made a real difference in a client’s life.

Luckily, nothing stands out as a particularly bad day, although I suspect that will change when articling starts!