Comparing criminal law to “big law” (spliced)

[Coffeecadet]

29 minutes ago, easttowest said:

So, your answer more or less goes to what @blockedquebecois said about being bored by these exchanges. Your view is apparently that big corporations are bad, and that’s the end of it. “Big corporations represent exploitation” therefore you can’t see a good reason to rep one is frankly not an interesting position to engage with. Your mind is made up.

Yeah, the view being pushed here is such a cartoonish image of corporations and the work that big law lawyers do that it's difficult to engage with.

I've spent the majority of my articling term doing management-side L&E work. It would be easy for some to say that I'm working for big bad corporations, helping them to fire their innocent workers. But even in that area it's not so black and white. Sometimes people deserve to be fired for cause, sometimes people use human rights complaints as a tool for airing petty grievances. When oil worker Rick is fired for harassing the only woman on site, he's not automatically in the right and deserving of 200K in damages by virtue of being an individual. 

These things have nuance and some here appear to be wilfully blind to that. 

And as a side note, @Barry, people have given several fair and honest reasons why they pursued big firm work - interest in certain areas, mentorship, training, support, career opportunities, etc (i.e. more than just money). Just because those don't speak to you doesn't mean they're not valid. 

[GGrievous]

34 minutes ago, Coffeecadet said:

Yeah, the view being pushed here is such a cartoonish image of corporations and the work that big law lawyers do that it's difficult to engage with.

 

You say it’s difficult to engage with and then you say I’m refusing to accept the engagement. I feel like you’re intentionally choosing to focus on others view of it as an excuse to not engage for your own reasons. Don’t put that on me. Just talk about your own area. I do appreciate hearing your experience and those few that did answer along the lines of career opportunities. 
 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Barry

[BlockedQuebecois]

If a bunch of different people say they are not interested in engaging with you or the views you espouse, perhaps your time would be better served reflecting on why exactly people have no desire to engage with you rather than... well, whatever you've been doing for the past 17 hours or so. 

[GGrievous]

6 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

If a bunch of different people say they are not interested in engaging with you or the views you espouse, perhaps your time would be better served reflecting on why exactly people have no desire to engage with you rather than... well, whatever you've been doing for the past 17 hours or so. 

I was asked. For someone with no interest you do seem to like repeating that you have no interest. We heard you. 

The previous posts have given good answers and examples there’s no reason to inflame this.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Barry

[BlockedQuebecois]

Here is another tip, on today's theme of reflection: if you feel the need to consistently edit your posts within minutes of posting, in a manner that changes the meaning of your posts—as you have now done for your last four posts in this thread—it is a sign that you are perhaps not thoroughly thinking through what you're saying. Again, your time might be better served reflecting. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois
Grammar.

[GGrievous]

Just now, BlockedQuebecois said:

Here is another tip, on the today's theme of reflection: if you feel the need to consistently edit your posts within minutes of posting, in a manner that changes the meaning of your posts—as you have now done for your last four posts in this thread—it is a sign that you are perhaps not thoroughly thinking through what you're saying. Again, your time might be better served reflecting. 

Great tip. Thank you for your terrific contribution and not engaging because you don’t want derailments! 

[123]

7 hours ago, Barry said:

Well I'll preface this by reminding you I never said there isn't a good reason, just that I haven't heard it. Given what my interests happen to be this forum is where I most likely would get that info, and apparently people are intentionally not publicly disclosing it. 

I will say in my view (since I was asked) big corporations represent exploitation: 

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-corporate-taxes-1.5179489

https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/amazon-mcdonalds-aw-sleep-country-tjx-linked-to-anti-union-conference

So it's difficult for me to understand why those with liberal values would want to contribute. I understand the desire to make a lot of money. I understand the pressure that individuals have to make more money to afford simple things like a house, their student loans, etc. I'm not a paragon of virtue either. I have socialist values but I don't think those who make the choice are bad people, it's just that we're drowning here and I just don't relate to that choice, which is why I asked. 

I don’t know. I chose work that aligned with my values. But I don’t feel it’s realistic to expect others to make the same choices I made.

My work isn’t for everyone. It pays fine relative to the median income for Canadians, but poorly relative to other lawyer jobs. It’s often a little unpleasant - the clients can be challenging. And outside  criminal and family, the decision making for poverty law fields tends to be low quality. Dealing with Legal Aid is taxing. Doing higher volume work takes a toll. And while I try not to let it bother me, having peoples hopes and dreams bound up in my work can be emotionally draining.  

I do this kind of work, because it’s personally important, and I derive enough satisfaction that the trade offs are generally worthwhile. But for lots of people, it probably wouldn’t feel worthwhile. And honestly, I think you do need some underlying level of commitment to do certain kinds of law. It sounds like you have it @Barry, and that’s great. But if others don’t have it, it’s probably best for everyone that they find other work, given the stakes of the cases for the clients. 

I encourage law students to look beyond big law. There’s lots of interesting, remunerative legal work out there, and you don’t have to go to a major firm to have a good career. But that could also be said for poverty law. I think the point should be that people should think critically and carefully about what their goals are and how best to meet them. But if someone’s goal is to focus more on building a comfortable life for themselves and their family, I entirely understand that. 

[Ghalm]

15 hours ago, Geworfenheit said:

Just wanted to chime in as a student with very limited experience in big law & corporate work. 

I decided I want to practice in big law a long time ago when I was in high school. I was attracted to that after I read a post written by a US big law lawyer sharing her M&A practice. I was intrigued by the opportunities to learn about different industries and companies and participate in big name deals. (I know this sounds the same for IBs/funds but I just don't like finance and prefer the idea of cultivating lawyering skills.) The story of "poison pill" also lighted me up and made me want to be an M&A lawyer like Martin Lipton.

I followed this career path and my big law plan worked out. I summered at a bay st firm last year and pretty much enjoyed it. I didn't get to do any substantive work as a student but do get the chance to witness some of the substantive and interesting work done by seniors and partners. For example, there was a kinda novel issue concerning dual-listing in the US and no precedent/past practice was available for reference. The partners on the email chain had to discuss the various National Instruments and TSX rules to figure out the answer. It was hard to follow their exchanges of thoughts (bc so many unfamiliar rules) but very entertaining to watch. There was another memorable case related to a post-acquisition arrangement. On the one hand, because of what happened in negotiations, it went from a Canadian-led deal to a US-led deal and it's interesting to see the different legal outcomes caused by different business decisions. On the other hand, it's interesting to see my mentor discussing the possibilities of various arrangements for payments received for the acquisition with partners. I felt it to be fascinating to walk through the corporate law & corporate governance guidelines (eg. Glass Lewis guidance) to come up with a workable plan.

My interest in big law practice may be considered shallow by experienced lawyers but that's how I feel right now. (Maybe @Rashabon, @Ghalm, and @BlockedQuebecois could let me know if I am being realistic?) I just hope I would continue to enjoy the corporate & securities law work I get to do in big law after I officially start my career.

I am not a corporate or securities lawyer but sounds to me like you have a pretty realistic excitement about the interesting issues that arise in your soon to be area of work! I also personally enjoyed the story of the poison pill and am fascinated by the issues that arise in the context of take over bids 🙂 Haven't worked on one as a jr litigator save for some research back when I was a student which I enjoyed a lot. 

[easttowest]

You guys would love the memo I churned out on rights plans in the fall. 

[qsizzle]

Can someone give me an TLDR of this thread please

[cherrytree]

1 hour ago, qsizzle said:

Can someone give me an TLDR of this thread please

This would be a very attractive Supporters perk 😆

[Rashabon]

19 hours ago, Geworfenheit said:

Just wanted to chime in as a student with very limited experience in big law & corporate work. 

I decided I want to practice in big law a long time ago when I was in high school. I was attracted to that after I read a post written by a US big law lawyer sharing her M&A practice. I was intrigued by the opportunities to learn about different industries and companies and participate in big name deals. (I know this sounds the same for IBs/funds but I just don't like finance and prefer the idea of cultivating lawyering skills.) The story of "poison pill" also lighted me up and made me want to be an M&A lawyer like Martin Lipton.

I followed this career path and my big law plan worked out. I summered at a bay st firm last year and pretty much enjoyed it. I didn't get to do any substantive work as a student but do get the chance to witness some of the substantive and interesting work done by seniors and partners. For example, there was a kinda novel issue concerning dual-listing in the US and no precedent/past practice was available for reference. The partners on the email chain had to discuss the various National Instruments and TSX rules to figure out the answer. It was hard to follow their exchanges of thoughts (bc so many unfamiliar rules) but very entertaining to watch. There was another memorable case related to a post-acquisition arrangement. On the one hand, because of what happened in negotiations, it went from a Canadian-led deal to a US-led deal and it's interesting to see the different legal outcomes caused by different business decisions. On the other hand, it's interesting to see my mentor discussing the possibilities of various arrangements for payments received for the acquisition with partners. I felt it to be fascinating to walk through the corporate law & corporate governance guidelines (eg. Glass Lewis guidance) to come up with a workable plan.

My interest in big law practice may be considered shallow by experienced lawyers but that's how I feel right now. (Maybe @Rashabon, @Ghalm, and @BlockedQuebecois could let me know if I am being realistic?) I just hope I would continue to enjoy the corporate & securities law work I get to do in big law after I officially start my career.

The good news is, that is the gig. As you move up in seniority, you involvement in those discussions increases and decision making increases. Not every day is a big cross-border M&A transaction or dual-listing, but there are lots of IPOs, unique offerings, governance, etc. to fill the days. Some people don't like continuous disclosure, but I happen to enjoy it. It is an annuity from a work perspective, and often an underrated chance to get to know the client and build relationships there, while also helping set the tone and direction of the disclosure. Some clients will do more in-house while others will depend more heavily on you.

Securities law (and corporate law relating to securities law) is always evolving in some fashion, bringing with it challenges and changes. The CBCA was just amended after a number of years which represents the largest single change in the election of directors of a public company since 2014 when the TSX adopted majority voting rules. I am currently working on my first ever well-known seasoned issuer base shelf prospectus, as the system was just introduced on a pilot basis in Canada.

So if you were intrigued by what you saw in the summer, you'll get to do more of that as an associate. It isn't always exciting and some of it is repetitive, but if someone has a practice where every single thing they did was new, I'd say they were a unicorn. Also stressful because you can't really be an expert without expertise.