What type of lawyers have the best work-life balance?

[Ice]

Also wondering how much the expected salary would be, and the size of the firm 

[Lawstudents20202020]

The ones that make it a priority. 

There's no practice area that is inherently less work, it's up to the law to manage how large that workload is. Different practice areas will be busier at different time, real estate goes crazy during the summer, litigators work a ton during trial prep. 

Normally lawyers earnings are pretty much directly tied to their billables, so if you work less to spend more time away from work, you can expect to make less than people working more.

 

[BlockedQuebecois]

1 hour ago, Lawstudents20202020 said:

There's no practice area that is inherently less work, it's up to the law to manage how large that workload is. Different practice areas will be busier at different time, real estate goes crazy during the summer, litigators work a ton during trial prep. 

I'm not sure I agree with that.

It's broadly true that lawyers in any field could probably kill themselves with work if they wanted to, but there are definitely differences in how many hours the average lawyer in a field works compared to others. To pick just one example, the competition lawyers at my old firm generally worked significantly fewer hours than the public M&A lawyers. And while some of that may have been by choice, I don't think it's incorrect to say an M&A lawyer billing what a competition lawyer bills would be seen to be underperforming, whereas the firm would be perfectly happy with the competition lawyer's performance. 

[Darth Vader]

Small towns/cities, solicitor jobs in government, and wills and estates. Maybe other areas of retail law too. If you want a work-life balance the last place you should be looking at is Big law. 

[PulpFiction]

From my limited time in the legal profession and talking to my colleagues, I think most of this comes down to firm culture, not a particular practice area. Though, like BQ said, some practice areas are going to expect more of a time commitment than others just due to the nature of the work and industry-wide expectations. 

My first associate position I was working 7 days a week and always felt on. I was worried about the next thing I had to get done and it showed when I interacted with family and friends. I really enjoyed what I was doing but I couldn't believe I didn't have a day to regroup. It was just nonstop. It's a hot market right now, not just for big law corp lawyers, so I was able to leverage my limited experience at the very reputable firm I was at into something more suitable at a smaller firm.

My current employer makes an effort to promote work-life balance for all lawyers and staff and this is something that was thoroughly discussed during the interview. I now work  8 hours a day, never work weekends, have great mentorship, don't stress about work outside work hours, and get paid almost double what I was making at my last position. 

TL;DR answer to your question: It really depends. 

 

Edit: cut out info that isn't important. 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by PulpFiction

[GGrievous]

12 minutes ago, PulpFiction said:

From my limited time in the legal profession and talking to my colleagues, I think most of this comes down to firm culture, not a particular practice area. Though, like BQ said, some practice areas are going to expect more of a time commitment than others just due to the nature of the work and expectations. 

My first associate position I was working 7 days a week and always felt on. I was worried about the next thing I had to get done and it showed when I interacted with family and friends. I really enjoyed what I was doing but I couldn't believe I didn't have a day to regroup. It was just nonstop. It's a hot market right now, not just for big law corp lawyers, so I was able to leverage my limited experience at the very reputable firm I was at into something more suitable at a smaller firm.

My current employer makes an effort to promote work-life balance for all lawyers and staff and this is something that was thoroughly discussed during the interview. I now work  8 hours a day, never work weekends, have great mentorship, don't stress about work outside work hours, and get paid almost double what I was making at my last position. 

TL;DR answer to your question: It really depends. 

 

Edit: cut out info that isn't important. 

 

You’re in crim right? I’m just curious how you manage the 8 hour work day and no weekends. From what I understand (as a 1L who understands nothing)  crim in particular requires the flexibility  to answer calls at odd times just due to the fact that crime criminal charges happen beyond business hours. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Barry

[PulpFiction]

7 minutes ago, Barry said:

You’re in crim right? I’m just curious how you manage the 8 hour work day and no weekends. From what I understand (as a 1L who understands nothing)  crim in particular requires the flexibility  to answer calls at odd times just due to the fact that crime happens beyond business hours. 

I'm not in crim anymore. It will always be the most interesting practice area to me, but I had to figure out something that made more sense for me. A part of the reason I transitioned is because I found that I was not truly engaged with the practice of law like I thought I would be, and criminal defence isn't something you can coast through without that true desire and passion (especially while getting paid less than most of your peers of similar call level).

I transitioned into a practice area I had no experience in, and the employer was looking for for a lawyer with 3-5 years of exp. I guess I'm just charming (and got lucky).  

You're right, though, it's not possible in criminal law. Working 9-5 with no weekends would not be feasible as defence or crown - it just doesn't happen. 

If you want more details or have questions, feel free to shoot me a DM. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by PulpFiction
blah

[Darth Vader]

@Pulpfiction - out of curiosity, are you currently practicing in civil or commercial litigation? The criminal lawyers I've seen transition into a different practice area tend to leverage their litigation skills.

[PulpFiction]

11 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

@Pulpfiction - out of curiosity, are you currently practicing in civil or commercial litigation? The criminal lawyers I've seen transition into a different practice area tend to leverage their litigation skills.

Yeah, civil litigation (if you can even call it litigation - I do more negotiating and resolving than anything else). I'm confident I have more trial experience in the 18 months as a crim associate and articling student than most civil litigators on the opposing side of my files, including most senior counsel. When talks of trial comes up, I get kind of excited because it's very rare in my practice area and though I didn't want to do it weekly, I do enjoy court and trial. I'm ready to go if needed, but it's evident opposing counsel is shitting their pants and trying to resolve asap when those discussions happen. It's a great weapon in civil lit, tbh. Part of the reason the firm brought me on is because my comfort in court. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by PulpFiction

[CleanHands]

Just now, PulpFiction said:

Yeah, civil litigation (if you can even call it litigation). I'm confident I have more trial experience in the 18 months as a crim associate and articling student than most civil litigators on the opposing side of my files, including most senior counsel. When talks of trial comes up, I get kind of excited because it's very rare in my practice area and though I didn't want to do it weekly, I do enjoy court and trial. I'm ready to go if needed, but it's evident opposing counsel is shitting their pants and trying to resolve asap when those discussions happen. It's a great weapon in civil lit, tbh. Part of the reason the firm brought me on is because my comfort in court. 

This is definitely huge. Even in crim there are some lawyers who are terrified to run trials and it always shows and adversely affects their advocacy at all stages of the file.

[PulpFiction]

Just now, CleanHands said:

This is definitely huge. Even in crim there are some lawyers who are terrified to run trials and it always shows and adversely affects their advocacy at all stages of the file.

No doubt about it. There are many lawyers known to plea out every client - it's kind of embarrassing. Sometimes it's so obvious that there's a strong defence, but it requires effort (like a deep dive into Charter arguments) or you know, actually being a trial lawyer, and some just don't want to do it. It's sexy saying you're a criminal lawyer and the barrier to entry is low, so unfortunately, we end up with many ineffective and incompetent criminal lawyers. 

 

[Judgelight]

On 2/20/2022 at 4:00 PM, PulpFiction said:

No doubt about it. There are many lawyers known to plea out every client - it's kind of embarrassing. Sometimes it's so obvious that there's a strong defence, but it requires effort (like a deep dive into Charter arguments) or you know, actually being a trial lawyer, and some just don't want to do it. It's sexy saying you're a criminal lawyer and the barrier to entry is low, so unfortunately, we end up with many ineffective and incompetent criminal lawyers. 

 

This is such a judgemental take and its so sad to see you got some likes here. I was going to write a long winded reply to your post, but I won't bother lol.

[BlockedQuebecois]

It can be (and is) both judgment and true. 

[CleanHands]

4 hours ago, Judgelight said:

This is such a judgemental take and its so sad to see you got some likes here. I was going to write a long winded reply to your post, but I won't bother lol.

I'm baffled to see this response from a Crown. There's absolutely no chance that you haven't gotten exposure to exactly what @PulpFiction is referring to.

Edited February 26, 2022 by CleanHands

[Phaedrus]

 

Not to derail the conversation, but I feel it's important to recognize there are significant economic factors that determine whether a client (or lawyer) opts to plead a matter out versus pursue a juicy Charter issue (or other triable issue). I'll accept there are dump truck criminal lawyers, but of those many dabble in the area rather than have it comprise 1/3+ of their file load. @PulpFiction is absolutely correct that it just isn't something you can do on the side. It's always evolving and the ground can shift under your feet. 

Criminal lawyers can struggle to make ends meet, and there are few high income clients that aren't going to the top 2-3 firms (or local senior criminal counsel). The majority of clients qualify for legal aid, but that financial bar is not as high as you'd think. If you live independently and work 32 hours a week on minimum wage, you make too much and have to find private counsel. Let's work with this client. 

This client is charged with impaired operation (first offence), but the triable issue boils down to whether the "forthwith" requirement at the screening stage was met. On the facts, it's not clear how a Charter challenge is going to play out, or whether there'll be s.24 relief. Their blood-drug concentration level was high. The stakes are min $1000 fine and 1-yr driving prohibition, and the person might lose their job - but the client makes the final call. There's a lot of time involved in preparing a Charter motion, and trials are fucking expensive. The client has to decide if it makes sense to wager thousands of dollars on an issue the lawyer can't guarantee is going to be successful. If it works, great - maybe beating the charge allows them to keep their job and they can pay off their legal fees (and they're able to earn more in the year than they'd lose by eating the ticket). If they lose, they're stuck with the fine and legal fees and loss of income. For some people (a lot, actually), it makes more sense to take the certainty of a GP to the minimums than risking that much loss. 

For private counsel, these situations sucks. Counsel know this and some eat the hours of preparation and trial time, slashing their bills because there are greater interests at stake beyond this one case. Some feel bad for the client who's going to lose otherwise. Others simply can't afford to lose that much time without pay, and client doesn't want to push it. Again, certainty of outcome can make more sense than the gamble of running a trial, but the lawyer might look spineless. 

But, I'd be remiss if I didn't question the Crown's conduct in instances where the violation and remedy is more clear cut. There's an obligation for the Crown to assess the case on its merits and to determine if there's a realistic prospect of conviction in the face of clear Charter violations. If the answer is "no" and you're only proceeding because the guy's willing to plead it out, you're in unethical territory. 

On 2/20/2022 at 4:08 PM, PulpFiction said:

You're right, though, it's not possible in criminal law. Working 9-5 with no weekends would not be feasible as defence or crown - it just doesn't happen. 

Edit: I echo the above. Criminal practice isn't a 9-5 job. Family can quite demanding and often pushes past the ordinary work day too. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Phaedrus

[Judgelight]

18 hours ago, CleanHands said:

I'm baffled to see this response from a Crown. There's absolutely no chance that you haven't gotten exposure to exactly what @PulpFiction is referring to.

No, I've never encountered a "dump truck" lawyer - have I encountered lawyers who have a reputation for pleading their clients out? Sure, but I'm not privy to their conversations or discussions, so I'm not going to make assumptions about them.

And quite honestly, some of the worst lawyers I've seen are the ones who take everything to court, and yet some of the best are the ones who plead their clients out and get great dispositions.

See Phaedrus's excellent post. Just because your client has a defence, doesn't mean he's not guilty, and doesn't mean that he himself does not want to plead guilty for a variety of reasons.

16 hours ago, Phaedrus said:

 

Not to derail the conversation, but I feel it's important to recognize there are significant economic factors that determine whether a client (or lawyer) opts to plead a matter out versus pursue a juicy Charter issue (or other triable issue). I'll accept there are dump truck criminal lawyers, but of those many dabble in the area rather than have it comprise 1/3+ of their file load. @PulpFiction is absolutely correct that it just isn't something you can do on the side. It's always evolving and the ground can shift under your feet. 

 

  

18 hours ago, CleanHands said:

I'm baffled to see this response from a Crown. There's absolutely no chance that you haven't gotten exposure to exactly what @PulpFiction is referring to.

 

No offence, buy you are an articling student, so I don't think you are qualified to really participate in the conversation here.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Judgelight

[BlockedQuebecois]

I’d trust CleanHands the articling student’s take on this every day of the week and twice on Sunday over the person saying there’s no ineffective lawyers who routinely plea out their clients because they’re afraid of going to court. 

And hey, would you look at that, it’s Sunday. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois

[CleanHands]

2 hours ago, Judgelight said:

And quite honestly, some of the worst lawyers I've seen are the ones who take everything to court, and yet some of the best are the ones who plead their clients out and get great dispositions.

The funny thing here is I had figured that this was the bit of @PulpFiction's post that you took offence to:

On 2/20/2022 at 2:00 PM, PulpFiction said:

It's sexy saying you're a criminal lawyer and the barrier to entry is low, so unfortunately, we end up with many ineffective and incompetent criminal lawyers. 

But apparently you agree that there are terrible criminal lawyers out there and the only thing you took issue with was suggesting that some terrible criminal lawyers routinely plead out triable cases, rather than incompetently running trials? That makes your take even weirder and more nonsensical to me.

2 hours ago, Judgelight said:

some of the best are the ones who plead their clients out and get great dispositions.

Right but we clearly weren't talking about lawyers who are great negotiators and "get great dispositions." Hence this:

On 2/20/2022 at 1:49 PM, CleanHands said:

there are some lawyers who are terrified to run trials and it always shows and adversely affects their advocacy at all stages of the file.

And this:

On 2/20/2022 at 2:00 PM, PulpFiction said:

Sometimes it's so obvious that there's a strong defence, but it requires effort (like a deep dive into Charter arguments) or you know, actually being a trial lawyer, and some just don't want to do it.

 

2 hours ago, Judgelight said:

See Phaedrus's excellent post. Just because your client has a defence, doesn't mean he's not guilty, and doesn't mean that he himself does not want to plead guilty for a variety of reasons.

@Phaedrus's post was good, but I didn't respond to it because, while it raised valid points and contributed to the discussion, it didn't really respond to or challenge anything I had written and I agree with everything he said.

Of course there are files where an accused can only afford so much advocacy. Of course there are clients who insist on falling on their sword regardless of how good a defence they have if they want to fight (e.g. the Humboldt Broncos bus crash trucker). Of course there are a million more reasons these things can go that way. Clients don't always want what's in their best interests even if their lawyer tries to sell them on that.

But it's equally obvious that there are some lawyers who have been around for years and who everyone knows and yet who nobody can recall ever running a trial, who are not effective negotiators, who usually just plead to the initial Crown ECR positions without even any attempt to negotiate, who consistently fail to bring up live issues with respect to elements, Charter concerns, etc, on files where the Crown believes that RLOC and PI is met and thus prosecution is justified but they expect a fight on half a dozen different aspects of the file and then defence counsel just never mentions it. Yes, if this happens a few times there's nothing to read into, as they could be simply following their clients' instructions. But at a certain point it becomes a habit.

I'm not sure why you find it hard to believe that this kind of lawyer exists, when you openly admit that incompetent and ineffective counsel of the variety who goes to trial exists.

Edited February 27, 2022 by CleanHands

[Phaedrus]

Yeah, those lawyers exist and (imo) there's no debating it. They do their client a disservice and shouldn't be in litigation if fear of trial results in pushing a plea agreement on a client with a triable issue. 

Not all lawyers that plea out are dump truck lawyers. I intended to address the nuance that exists; to address a hasty generalization. There's less/no nuance with dump truck lawyers and it's hardly worth debating they're out there (or really discussing them in-depth). 

[PulpFiction]

1 hour ago, Judgelight said:

Just because your client has a defence, doesn't mean he's not guilty, and doesn't mean that he himself does not want to plead guilty for a variety of reasons.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what you're saying here. The best defence lawyers know it's not always worthwhile to go to trial or advance defences with a low likelihood of success. A very case-by-case analysis is required. Often the client sees a resolution offer from the Crown and thinks the risk/expense isn't worth fighting the charges, and they provide instruction to take the GP. The lawyer might see a strong defence but we act on our clients' instructions and maybe end up taking a GP on something that probably should have been fought.  Sometimes it's out of our control, sometimes it's the best option, sometimes shit happens.

All of this can hold true while also acknowledging that there are also defence lawyers out there providing ineffective counsel. There are lawyers that convince their clients to take GPs because they're ignorant to the options available or they have no desire to try the matter. This is often due to a mix of lacking skill/knowledge, experience, and probably, guts. This isn't new. 

 

 

[Darth Vader]

6 hours ago, Judgelight said:

No offence, buy you are an articling student, so I don't think you are qualified to really participate in the conversation here.

Aren't you in your first or second year of call yourself? My impression of @CleanHands posts is that he is quite knowledgeable about criminal law and has focused on only this area of law since Day 1 of law school. He's also mentioned having a lot of experience working on criminal law files through the innocence project, legal clinics, criminal law firms, and now his current articling position with the Crown office. Why is he not qualified to participate in this conversation here, especially in comparison to a junior lawyer such as yourself? 

[CleanHands]

13 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

-Snip-

It's kind of you to come to my defence but I really don't want to overstate or misrerepresent my own level of experience. I am, as @Judgelight points out, still an articling student, after all. I'd be the first to say I still have a lot to learn.

I will say this: it was not lost on me that @Judgelight is a junior lawyer, and that if we want to gatekeep who is "qualified to participate in the conversation," this did strike me as sort of an arbitrary line to draw. But beyond that, a few different criminal defence lawyers of equivalent year of call to him (or close enough) were saying the same things I was, so if one wants to disregard my take it was surplus to requirements anyways.

And just on the note of gatekeeping, I find it funny that I've been on the receiving end of the other direction of this: some applicants and students have prefaced disagreements with me with disclaimers about how I'm an articling student and they aren't there yet and maybe that won't reflect well on them. And I have responded to those posts saying I don't think that matters and that being a few years apart in our career progression doesn't make me automatically right about anything, and what matters is what's being said rather than who is saying it. So I think it's entirely consistent for me to say that I believe the same rules apply in the other direction here.

Anyways, I thought my learned friend here was so clearly wrong here, regardless of credentials, that I didn't feel the need to press this. 😛

[TheLawyer]

It's hard to say for sure, but I'd say my friends that are in house counsel for a major company/bank work pretty standard hours. 

[DennisNextDoor]

On 2/28/2022 at 4:47 PM, TheLawyer said:

It's hard to say for sure, but I'd say my friends that are in house counsel for a major company/bank work pretty standard hours. 

This. I had previous experience working for some of Canada's largest financial institutions and my job was (almost aggressively) 8:30-5:00. 

[easttowest]

19 minutes ago, DennisNextDoor said:

This. I had previous experience working for some of Canada's largest financial institutions and my job was (almost aggressively) 8:30-5:00. 

What did you do though?