Litigation vs Transactional Law

[MapleLeafs]

What is the difference between litigation and transactional work? While I have a solid understanding of litigation, I'm having a hard time understanding the nature of transactional work despite talking to a few corporate lawyers. 

Litigation sounds more interesting to me. Having the ability to appear in Court, write stories and narratives, be an advocate. While I'm interested in litigation, I want to learn more about what it is that transactional lawyers do before I close that door. What's the pros and cons of being a transactional lawyer? 

[Homosapiens]

I remember one of my real estate law professors once said a good solicitor can minimize future litigation risks of their transactions and contracts. I practice solely civil litigation now, but I do appreciate a good contract prepared by a solicitor even if things later went south and ended up on my desk.

[efrefgg]

See archived thread if you haven't yet: solicitors_litigator_comparison.txt

[PePeHalpert]

To really simplify it (perhaps overly), transactional lawyers write the contracts and structure the deals.  Litigators duke it out when a dispute arises under the contract or the deal goes sour. 

[Ramesses]

I do not have the answer but I strongly recommend summering or articling at a firm that does both. I wanted to be a litigator all through 1 and 2L but it was not until I summered this year that I got a real taste of litigation and transactional work. Really enjoy transactional work and not so much litigation work. I think trying both would give you the answer you are looking for. 

[TheCryptozoologist]

This topic is unfortunately going to a bee's nest because we are talking about people's 9to5s and pretty much entire existence here get dismissed, as it sounds like the case in that old solicitor vs. litigator thread. I don't have much to say except I've heard very polarized feelings about both. Some people absolutely hate the interpersonal stress of litigation while others revel in it the same way that criminal lawyers get their adrenaline fixes from their battles, but others are maybe comfortable with a mountain of paperwork that would make others wince hard. 

Personally I have a hard time seeing the joys of playing a passive role in the world as it seems like transactional work is caught up in very mundane and specific things. They don't seem to move society or their client's business in any major way and to me it seems strange that they mark how well they do by the size of a transaction. On the other hand, litigators are more active and play a role in shaping their territory. If you've seen the TV show Goliath, you'll get what I mean. There are specific consequences to what they do which seems exciting. This is just my bias speaking though. 

Also just spotted someone referencing the Clausewitz Engine from the readme posted and also references Total War games and other references to Dante's Inferno. This is TrueNerdShit.jpg right there and I love it. LS was such a good collection of smart and quirky people way back. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[Telephantasm]

I agree with most of the above, but would add a bit more. I'll begin with the caveat that I am in the litigation camp. But I dipped my toe in both while summering at my firm and genuinely tried to get a flavour about what they're all about.

In my opinion, transactional work is more of a business role than it is a legal one, at least vis-a-vis litigation. You'll rarely do transactional style work in law school, and you'll probably feel (rightly) that you have know idea what you're doing when you get staffed on your first transactional assignment. Transactional work, at least early on, is a lot of pouring over and drafting corporate documents. Think merger agreements, prospectuses, articles of incorporation, etc. Usually, you're either: (a) thinking of prospective liabilities and drafting documents so as to avoid them; or (b) reviewing previously-drafted documents for potential liabilities, often material mistatements which would draw the ire of investors. Others may disagree, but I found that at my firm transactional work was a lot more predictable on the work hours front. My work load was fairly steady except when deals were closing, at which point the workload became immense. Skills wise, I find transactional work/lawyers to be highly detail oriented, but less creative.

Litigation work is very much legal, with some hints of business. As you note, you get to be an advocate, thinking of creative arguments. However, I would disabuse you of the notion that litigation is highly court oriented. Most big cases settle and BigLaw litigation tends to be a lot of letter swapping with opposing counsel rather than duking it out in the courtroom. Courtroom battles do occur, especially at firms which specialize more closely in litigation, but when there's a lot of money on the line, the tendancy is to handle the matter out of court. Ergo the emphasis on litigation being "dispute resolution", and the drive towards arbitration/mediation. Hours-wise, litigation is very up and down. There will be weeks where you work more than the people in other departments, and there will be weeks when you forget that you have a job because the workload is so light. I'll add that litigation can be incredibly frightening. You won't get on your feet in the courtroom early on in your career if you're in big law, but both drafting facta and arguing them in court can be incredibly terrifying. Public speaking isn't for everyone.

This turned out longer than I had hoped, but I hope that it helps. Feel free to DM.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Telephantasm

[Rashabon]

15 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

This topic is unfortunately going to a bee's nest because we are talking about people's 9to5s and pretty much entire existence here get dismissed, as it sounds like the case in that old solicitor vs. litigator thread. I don't have much to say except I've heard very polarized feelings about both. Some people absolutely hate the interpersonal stress of litigation while others revel in it the same way that criminal lawyers get their adrenaline fixes from their battles, but others are maybe comfortable with a mountain of paperwork that would make others wince hard. 

Personally I have a hard time seeing the joys of playing a passive role in the world as it seems like transactional work is caught up in very mundane and specific things. They don't seem to move society or their client's business in any major way and to me it seems strange that they mark how well they do by the size of a transaction. On the other hand, litigators are more active and play a role in shaping their territory. If you've seen the TV show Goliath, you'll get what I mean. There are specific consequences to what they do which seems exciting. This is just my bias speaking though. 

Also just spotted someone referencing the Clausewitz Engine from the readme posted and also references Total War games and other references to Dante's Inferno. This is TrueNerdShit.jpg right there and I love it. LS was such a good collection of smart and quirky people way back. 

Think you need a bit of a reality check about how law moves society. It does not happen the way you think it does, nor with any real frequency. You strike me as incredibly naive.

Not to mention that the day to day of a litigator is the same old boring shit as a transactional lawyer. Your average litigator is fighting over commercial bullshit between two parties on a daily basis in the same a transactional lawyer is negotiating and creating that commercial bullshit.

[KOMODO]

15 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

...

Personally I have a hard time seeing the joys of playing a passive role in the world as it seems like transactional work is caught up in very mundane and specific things. They don't seem to move society or their client's business in any major way and to me it seems strange that they mark how well they do by the size of a transaction. On the other hand, litigators are more active and play a role in shaping their territory.

...

 

Uh, I would totally disagree with this - when you're doing (corporate) transactional work, you are quite literally assisting your client to organize and shape their business. A good transactional lawyer considers their client's business goals and exposure and then provides advice on how to structure their transactions to maximize profitability and reduce risk. To put it another way, transactional lawyers set everything up, they write the "rules" that various parties have to live by, and then litigators deal with the fallout if things go south. So, the opposite of your comment above.

Also I haven't seen the television show you referenced, but in my experience, any time someone says "if you've seen this TV show, you know how it works", they most definitely do NOT know how it works. The real practice of law is not at all similar to television.

[TheCryptozoologist]

42 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Think you need a bit of a reality check about how law moves society. It does not happen the way you think it does, nor with any real frequency. You strike me as incredibly naive.

Not to mention that the day to day of a litigator is the same old boring shit as a transactional lawyer. Your average litigator is fighting over commercial bullshit between two parties on a daily basis in the same a transactional lawyer is negotiating and creating that commercial bullshit.

just going to ignore your blunt points. A solicitor doesn't play an inventive role in their field since they don't necessarily influence the field. You can replace a solicitor doing a will with any other, or even alter the will without any conséquence on the broader field. 

Litigators do however since it'll continue to be part of the record and generating case law advances a field in real time. 

14 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

Uh, I would totally disagree with this - when you're doing (corporate) transactional work, you are quite literally assisting your client to organize and shape their business. A good transactional lawyer considers their client's business goals and exposure and then provides advice on how to structure their transactions to maximize profitability and reduce risk. To put it another way, transactional lawyers set everything up, they write the "rules" that various parties have to live by, and then litigators deal with the fallout if things go south. So, the opposite of your comment above.

Also I haven't seen the television show you referenced, but in my experience, any time someone says "if you've seen this TV show, you know how it works", they most definitely do NOT know how it works. The real practice of law is not at all similar to television.

Should have phrased things better, but solicitors do not décidé business decisions except tactical things, they do not need to know the business of their clients in any real depth. It's not uncommon to meet people working parallel to finance without understanding how capital markets are behaving on a macroeconomic level, only the rules to facilitate its movement. Granted they do not need to, it's simply not the job of lawyers to do that but it's playing passive décision maker.

Yes, most litigators also technically just play handmaiden, but the direction of an industry doesn't move on a solicitors activity while litigators are masters of their field and reshape it since clients aren't capable of devising legal arguments or litigation stratégies or marshal evidence and so-on. There's also a degree of depth required if you want to be capable of cross examining professionals or expert witnesses and so-on, since you need to know how to speak their language.

[BlockedQuebecois]

I agree with Rashabon and KOMODO. The vast, vast majority of civil litigators are working on mindless, routine disputes with relatively low dollar values that will do absolutely nothing to advance the law, let alone society. To the extent most litigators will ever advance the law in some fashion, it's largely because the facts are so overwhelmingly in their client's favour that the judge would have advanced the law in that direction even if the client had appeared in person with duct tape over their mouth. 

A smaller fraction of civil litigators will be involved with complex, interesting litigation, but even that will generally not shape society in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, the number of lawyers who practice actual groundbreaking litigation in this country is a tiny fraction of that already small fraction. Think Joseph Arvay, Craig Dennis, or Justice Jamal before his appointment to the bench. 

Your odds of becoming that calibre of a lawyer—particularly if you don't start of your career as a clerk, at an excellent firm, or at specific Crown offices—are so small that its largely an irrelevant consideration for law students and young lawyers.

6 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Yes, most litigators also technically just play handmaiden, but the direction of an industry doesn't move on a solicitors activity while litigators are masters of their field and reshape it since clients aren't capable of devising legal arguments or litigation stratégies or marshal evidence and so-on.

This is quite possibly the worst take that has ever been written on this forum. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[TheCryptozoologist]

3 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I agree with Rashabon and KOMODO. The vast, vast majority of civil litigators are working on mindless, routine disputes with relatively low dollar values that will do absolutely nothing to advance the law, let alone society. To the extent most litigators will ever advance the law in some fashion, it's largely because the facts are so overwhelmingly in their client's favour that the judge would have advanced the law in that direction even if the client had appeared in person with duct tape over their mouth. 

A smaller fraction of civil litigators will be involved with complex, interesting litigation, but even that will generally not shape society in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, the number of lawyers who practice actual groundbreaking litigation in this country is a tiny fraction of that already small fraction. Think Joseph Arvay, Craig Dennis, or Justice Jamal before his appointment to the bench. 

Your odds of becoming that calibre of a lawyer—particularly if you don't start of your career as a clerk, at an excellent firm, or at specific Crown offices—that its largely an irrelevant consideration for law students and young lawyers.

This is quite possibly the worst take that has ever been written on this forum. 

I'm glad we're not restricting this to just a narrow subset of purely corporate but don't see why small scale changes don't matter. There are plenty of very specific legal situations that are still just caught up in lower court case law, or only really reach appellates and big firms after some time in the lower courts. Yes it's probably true most litigators don't do anything out of the ordinary, but it doesn't mean there isn't consequences when they obtain judgement.

You can have Joseph Arvay create seismic changes to drug policy, but you can have say, someone defending a client for unfair dismissal over drug use for some specific reason which in turn builds up its own record.

I'll go ahead and stop analogizing since I am not thinking clearly enough to give decent analogies or ones that make much sense. 

[TheCryptozoologist]

1 hour ago, KOMODO said:

 

Also I haven't seen the television show you referenced, but in my experience, any time someone says "if you've seen this TV show, you know how it works", they most definitely do NOT know how it works. The real practice of law is not at all similar to television.

Dunno why I brought it up, but mostly since I am watching a lot of it being stuck in bed on meds after getting my wisdom tooth removed yesterday.  Think my point is that there is a practical conséquence to litigator activity you can see in real time. 

Anyways Stars Billy Bob Thornton and it's on Amazon Prime, and it's such a good show. It's a very specific legal drama involving a specific trial of a washed up alcoholic. I have a hard time watching Suits or anything with a hint of unbelievability, but Goliath is great at making it believable. I loved Billy Bob Thornton in Fargo but think he's outdone himself in this series.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/goliath_shows_legal_tv_works_best_with_only_a_hint_of_law_practice_reality

[Rashabon]

I'll give you a generous out and let you blame the drugs for your dumb takes.

2 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

just going to ignore your blunt points. A solicitor doesn't play an inventive role in their field since they don't necessarily influence the field. You can replace a solicitor doing a will with any other, or even alter the will without any conséquence on the broader field. 

Litigators do however since it'll continue to be part of the record and generating case law advances a field in real time. 

The vast majority of cases don't even go to trial, goofy. Of those that do, most of them don't advance anything, they just result in court applying existing law to facts at hand. Then you have a small number that result in incremental changes. Then finally, you have an absolute minority, so small that plugged in law students and lawyers can quote them by name, that actually effect any change. And broadly the law is far slower than societal pressures and is often playing catch-up. Court cases don't happen in a vacuum. Yeah, Carter changed the law on physician assisted dying. It took 22 years after Rodriguez was settled for that to even happen.

So sure, you can replace one solicitor doing a will with any other without consequence, just like you can replace 99% of litigators with any other without any consequence. In fact, that happens more frequently in litigation than solicitor work. Appellate counsel is often different from trial counsel, for at least one of the parties, because one side lost their case to even get there.

You're not a lawyer, let alone a solicitor, so it's rich for you to talk about solicitors not playing an inventive role in their field. https://www.goodmans.ca/files/file/docs/Under the Rocks are the Words - Kari MacKay.pdf

There's one example - the mining stream financing arrangement was invented in 2004. Since its invention, it's become a common way for mining companies to raise financing, all advanced by the solicitors who have designed these complex commercial arrangements. Now some of the largest players in the mining sector are royalty and streaming companies, and a ton of mines seek out streaming arrangements as part of their financing package.

The Canadian REIT, which has dominated Canadian capital markets for years and are a constant feature of the various indices, portfolios, etc. are entirely a creature of solicitors, and have been copied by numerous firms and companies going public (or forming private REITs). Developments in that sector regularly influence the field. Some REITs have instituted creative capital structures that aren't found elsewhere. You saw it in the income trust era before the tax changes wiped out all the non-REIT income trusts, but then you had a handful of REITs with stapled structures (InnVest, Northern Property, H&R, Granite, etc.).

Developments in public M&A are routinely followed by other solicitors. Someone was the first to invent a superior proposal or a right to match or break fee or reverse break fee, etc.

In the capital markets and public company field, companies regularly seek exemptive relief from the application of securities laws. Usually one company goes first and then numerous others follow, creating new examples or expanding the nature of the relief.

I'm not saying any of that is societally important, but that's not your argument, and your argument is stupid.

2 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Should have phrased things better, but solicitors do not décidé business decisions except tactical things, they do not need to know the business of their clients in any real depth. It's not uncommon to meet people working parallel to finance without understanding how capital markets are behaving on a macroeconomic level, only the rules to facilitate its movement. Granted they do not need to, it's simply not the job of lawyers to do that but it's playing passive décision maker.

Yes, most litigators also technically just play handmaiden, but the direction of an industry doesn't move on a solicitors activity while litigators are masters of their field and reshape it since clients aren't capable of devising legal arguments or litigation stratégies or marshal evidence and so-on. There's also a degree of depth required if you want to be capable of cross examining professionals or expert witnesses and so-on, since you need to know how to speak their language.

This is asinine.

[Rashabon]

2 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Dunno why I brought it up, but mostly since I am watching a lot of it being stuck in bed on meds after getting my wisdom tooth removed yesterday.  Think my point is that there is a practical conséquence to litigator activity you can see in real time. 

Anyways Stars Billy Bob Thornton and it's on Amazon Prime, and it's such a good show. It's a very specific legal drama involving a specific trial of a washed up alcoholic. I have a hard time watching Suits or anything with a hint of unbelievability, but Goliath is great at making it believable. I loved Billy Bob Thornton in Fargo but think he's outdone himself in this series.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/goliath_shows_legal_tv_works_best_with_only_a_hint_of_law_practice_reality

Lmao this is so incoherent. The title of the article you quoted is literally: "'Goliath' shows legal TV works best with only a hint of law practice reality" and you somehow cited this show in support of your claims about what litigation practice is really like. Here are some other choice quotes:

"but how accurately does this show reflect what goes on in the world of real attorneys … and would it be as entertaining if it did?

Though you might want to, you can’t curse at the judge handling your case … except on TV."

"The first episode of the series finds McBride, in your typical alcoholic attorney fashion, showing up late for a hearing on a defense motion."

"But anyone worth their salt knows you can’t go on a verbal tirade against a judge and not face serious consequences. However, the fictional aspect came back down to earth long enough to keep me engaged when I thought, “He’s right … he does get an evidentiary hearing in this situation!” There was just enough law to keep me grounded in the ridiculousness of the fiction … and I loved it."

"The fact that this legal drama is set in a courtroom in the first place is contrary to what happens in real life. Only 2 percent to 3 percent of all civil cases ever go to trial. The other 97 percent to 98 percent of cases are either dismissed, abandoned, or settled by the parties. Before a case is ready for trial, there are months or years of pretrial proceedings. But a series is not going to hire actual attorneys to script out the day-to-day paper push; no one wants to see that. It’s not entertaining for the general public, and it’s a reminder practicing attorneys don’t want when they get home from a hard day’s work."

"Goliath is entertaining because of the fact that it’s not an accurate portrayal of what lawyers deal with in their practices on a daily basis."

"Watch Goliath for entertainment, but if you want to learn what lawyers do for a living, go to a local courthouse. Find a seat in a courtroom, listen, and learn what really happens in courts. It won’t be wall-to-wall excitement; however, sometimes real people fighting real fights is more exciting than anything Hollywood can dream up."

[TheCryptozoologist]

4 hours ago, Rashabon said:

I'll give you a generous out and let you blame the drugs for your dumb takes.

The vast majority of cases don't even go to trial, goofy. Of those that do, most of them don't advance anything, they just result in court applying existing law to facts at hand. Then you have a small number that result in incremental changes. Then finally, you have an absolute minority, so small that plugged in law students and lawyers can quote them by name, that actually effect any change. And broadly the law is far slower than societal pressures and is often playing catch-up. Court cases don't happen in a vacuum. Yeah, Carter changed the law on physician assisted dying. It took 22 years after Rodriguez was settled for that to even happen.

So sure, you can replace one solicitor doing a will with any other without consequence, just like you can replace 99% of litigators with any other without any consequence. In fact, that happens more frequently in litigation than solicitor work. Appellate counsel is often different from trial counsel, for at least one of the parties, because one side lost their case to even get there.

You're not a lawyer, let alone a solicitor, so it's rich for you to talk about solicitors not playing an inventive role in their field. https://www.goodmans.ca/files/file/docs/Under the Rocks are the Words - Kari MacKay.pdf

There's one example - the mining stream financing arrangement was invented in 2004. Since its invention, it's become a common way for mining companies to raise financing, all advanced by the solicitors who have designed these complex commercial arrangements. Now some of the largest players in the mining sector are royalty and streaming companies, and a ton of mines seek out streaming arrangements as part of their financing package.

The Canadian REIT, which has dominated Canadian capital markets for years and are a constant feature of the various indices, portfolios, etc. are entirely a creature of solicitors, and have been copied by numerous firms and companies going public (or forming private REITs). Developments in that sector regularly influence the field. Some REITs have instituted creative capital structures that aren't found elsewhere. You saw it in the income trust era before the tax changes wiped out all the non-REIT income trusts, but then you had a handful of REITs with stapled structures (InnVest, Northern Property, H&R, Granite, etc.).

Developments in public M&A are routinely followed by other solicitors. Someone was the first to invent a superior proposal or a right to match or break fee or reverse break fee, etc.

In the capital markets and public company field, companies regularly seek exemptive relief from the application of securities laws. Usually one company goes first and then numerous others follow, creating new examples or expanding the nature of the relief.

I'm not saying any of that is societally important, but that's not your argument, and your argument is stupid.

This is asinine.

Fine I admit, I was wrong on many points in generalizing about innovations in this field. Now that I think about it, there are many things which emerged not out of caselaw which had positive benefits for society, one that comes to mind also in the Mining and Extraction Industry are Impact Benefit Agreements between mining companies and First Nations.  

I still am absolutely adamant that the majority of solicitation work are templated in nature and does not really function to move an industry or fix things deeply or structurally within society or the economy. Litigation on behalf of First Nations, for decades, was the reason why mining companies can no longer do a project with impunity and without consideration of local interests. Hard-earned rights were won in the courts, and the IBA is a great innovation but these things aren't invented with regularity and were created under a new legal pressure that litigators built.

I didn't at any point imply that lawyers don't innovate in how they structure transactions or agreements so I hardly see how your link is a refutation about what I said. Franco-Nevada's for example business decisions are still largely driven by company directors who don't need a law degree to understand how streaming transactions function, or to understand alternative financing models. You can connect a few examples of how some prior agreement helped influenced a subsequent one, but project and alternative financing is also its own field with its own professionals in the finance sector who devises these financing models. Its not solicitors who were the ones that invented streaming financing models in mining, nor do you need a law degree to understand it, though they may have helped put it into effect in actuality. 

Don't get me wrong, solicitors you will need them every step of the way and I am not dismissing their role in shaping these things. But they don't move the field since its not their role. They didn't give a Nobel prize to a lawyer for inventing microfinancing models, they gave it to a trained financial economist. A lawyer might have worked behind the scenes to facilitate how the first microfinance bank operated, but they don't alter the playing field in the way that a litigator might if they win some case on oppressive conduct or something. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[TheCryptozoologist]

3 hours ago, Rashabon said:

Lmao this is so incoherent. The title of the article you quoted is literally: "'Goliath' shows legal TV works best with only a hint of law practice reality" and you somehow cited this show in support of your claims about what litigation practice is really like. Here are some other choice quotes:

"but how accurately does this show reflect what goes on in the world of real attorneys … and would it be as entertaining if it did?

Though you might want to, you can’t curse at the judge handling your case … except on TV."

"The first episode of the series finds McBride, in your typical alcoholic attorney fashion, showing up late for a hearing on a defense motion."

"But anyone worth their salt knows you can’t go on a verbal tirade against a judge and not face serious consequences. However, the fictional aspect came back down to earth long enough to keep me engaged when I thought, “He’s right … he does get an evidentiary hearing in this situation!” There was just enough law to keep me grounded in the ridiculousness of the fiction … and I loved it."

"The fact that this legal drama is set in a courtroom in the first place is contrary to what happens in real life. Only 2 percent to 3 percent of all civil cases ever go to trial. The other 97 percent to 98 percent of cases are either dismissed, abandoned, or settled by the parties. Before a case is ready for trial, there are months or years of pretrial proceedings. But a series is not going to hire actual attorneys to script out the day-to-day paper push; no one wants to see that. It’s not entertaining for the general public, and it’s a reminder practicing attorneys don’t want when they get home from a hard day’s work."

"Goliath is entertaining because of the fact that it’s not an accurate portrayal of what lawyers deal with in their practices on a daily basis."

"Watch Goliath for entertainment, but if you want to learn what lawyers do for a living, go to a local courthouse. Find a seat in a courtroom, listen, and learn what really happens in courts. It won’t be wall-to-wall excitement; however, sometimes real people fighting real fights is more exciting than anything Hollywood can dream up."

Man, you are really going all out. Don't take what I say too seriously, half the time I exaggerate for the sake of debate. Goliath is a very different show than Suits, its less casual entertainment since its something you watch in one full sitting when you have entire days off. Just watch it for yourself, its Billy Bob Thornton still at his absolute best as one of the great actors of our time. 

[Rashabon]

Alright I tried to give a serious response before but it’s patently obvious you are a deeply unserious person so I won’t bother. Your blather is dumb and pointless and it’s evident you don’t know anything about the real world. Maybe your inability to find articling is tied to the fact that you don’t understand the practice of law at either the macro or micro level.

There are thousands upon thousands of litigators in Ontario. 99% will never argue a case of macro importance the way you suggest in their entire careers.

P.S. litigators act at the behest of their clients. That you think they go off and do things of their own accord is hilarious naive.

 

[BlockedQuebecois]

4 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Don't take what I say too seriously, half the time I exaggerate for the sake of debate.

So, there are four problems arising from this sentence.

The first problem with this approach is that this isn't reddit; it's a professional resource site where people come for anonymous advice about topics that are incredibly important in their lives. The OP in this thread was asking for serious advice about two very different potential career paths—they weren't looking for some shitposting about how litigators are the "masters of their field" or whatever other nonsense you think is going to get a rise out of people. And if people hadn't bothered responding to your shitposting, there's the possibility that either OP or some other impressionable law student would read what you said and actually make career decisions based on it. 

The second problem is an extension of the first: your posts make it painfully obvious that you don't actually have any clue what litigators or solicitors do. It's clear from your post history that you don't have much, if any, experience working at a firm. Instead, you have a romanticized and naive view of what the legal landscape actually looks like. And that would all be fine, except: (i) you've graduated law school, so you probably should've been dissuaded of at least the more outlandish of those views by people who know better; and (ii) you think that your romanticized view is one that should be shared with people trying to make serious decisions. 

The third problem is that it's just a cowardly cop-out to go into a thread, spew a bunch of nonsense, and then say "lol I was only kidding bro, why did you get so upset". 

The fourth problem, and probably the most important one, is that you should treat this forum as a thinly-veiled extension of your professional reputation. How many people just graduated from Ottawa and are starting the LPP in six days? How many more have an interest in climate change litigation, have a background in environmental science, a grad degree in climate policy and took natural resource law as a 1L? I would wager most of your graduating would recognize that profile if they read it, and its probably not hard to identify you on LinkedIn either. So before you post something to be deliberately provocative, you should ask whether or not its something you'd be fine having attributed to you by many in your professional network. 

[TheCryptozoologist]

4 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

So, there are four problems arising from this sentence.

The first problem with this approach is that this isn't reddit; it's a professional resource site where people come for anonymous advice about topics that are incredibly important in their lives. The OP in this thread was asking for serious advice about two very different potential career paths—they weren't looking for some shitposting about how litigators are the "masters of their field" or whatever other nonsense you think is going to get a rise out of people. And if people hadn't bothered responding to your shitposting, there's the possibility that either OP or some other impressionable law student would read what you said and actually make career decisions based on it. 

The second problem is an extension of the first: your posts make it painfully obvious that you don't actually have any clue what litigators or solicitors do. It's clear from your post history that you don't have much, if any, experience working at a firm. Instead, you have a romanticized and naive view of what the legal landscape actually looks like. And that would all be fine, except: (i) you've graduated law school, so you probably should've been dissuaded of at least the more outlandish of those views by people who know better; and (ii) you think that your romanticized view is one that should be shared with people trying to make serious decisions. 

The third problem is that it's just a cowardly cop-out to go into a thread, spew a bunch of nonsense, and then say "lol I was only kidding bro, why did you get so upset". 

. 

When I said don't take what I wrote seriously, its just referring to me exaggerating about Goliath, the TV show on why he should not take what I wrote seriously. It was nitpicking one point, about a show, which derailed this whole thread. I take this board fairly seriously on all other matters since I understand the social norms are different from posting on facebook. My first response was very serious and I went out of my way to read the article that he had linked, all 25 pages. I even brought up an example about why my first initial response was dumb and short sighted. The second response about goliath which you are replying to was in response to @rashobon making a very detailed critique about one line I wrote about why the show was great 

I was a regular poster on LS, under a different name, and deliberately hid my profile or details to the extent that people would question that intention to do so. Me being more open about myself now, I do understand I am readily identifiable since I have colleagues I message here time to time here. I honestly just didn't think I'd piss you off to the extent that its incredibly personal and you need to look me up on LinkedIn. I have tremendous respect for lawyers generally, and the legal profession and this board since its an intellectual rigor that is very precise and meticulous, fine-tuned and emotionally detached (mostly) which are qualities I respect in people. But I honestly try not to take anything personally, since its the internet and the whole point of a nom de guerre is that it "isn't" oneself in real life. Just aspects one wishes to build. 

Honestly, you do come off as insulting with others and I've seen you get into heated arguments with others, but you are a regular poster which I always value reading. Don't get why you would just jump to these conclusions, and why you need to look me up. But its clear I am going to take a step back and stop responding. I think I pissed you off in the other thread about climate litigation since I was a bit mocking, and did not honestly mean to. Didn't put my social boundaries filters and realized bantering or mocking was inappropriate in that thread.  

5 hours ago, Rashabon said:

Alright I tried to give a serious response before but it’s patently obvious you are a deeply unserious person so I won’t bother. Your blather is dumb and pointless and it’s evident you don’t know anything about the real world. Maybe your inability to find articling is tied to the fact that you don’t understand the practice of law at either the macro or micro level.

There are thousands upon thousands of litigators in Ontario. 99% will never argue a case of macro importance the way you suggest in their entire careers.

P.S. litigators act at the behest of their clients. That you think they go off and do things of their own accord is hilarious naive.

 

Honestly, sorry mate but going by the other thread where you somehow concluded I have no empathy, no capability to see people or whatever in the politics thread when I suggested radical centrism is a valid ideology, I've obviously pissed you off. I really do go out of my way to be precise in how I phrase things,  I did give a serious response and read through what you linked. Me being a bit unclear or unprecise or overgeneralizing with what I said, or my lack of general experience I understand is problematic. I try not to do that and will draft through my responses here, but have been bedridden and not myself with a pulled wisdom tooth. I'll go ahead and apologize for this from the first post, and should really have edited more precisely.

I did read through what you posted carefully including 25 pages of the article you sent, and already admitted I was wrong literally on the first line and when I brought up IBAs that contradicted what I first wrote. Don't take the fact that I am responding as necessarily opposing you since its impossible to read intention online. 

I just don't understand why you would pick a minor point about what I said regarding a TV show and analyze it in detail. The last thing I do with my time is trolling people or deliberately try to annoy people. I told you not to take what I said about Goliath too seriously, but wow it really had to be a drawn out debate.

PS honestly, me not applying to articling is fairly deliberate. I have a fairly specific career goal which may or may not involve practicing law on the long term. Dunno why you would make up all this shit, and say things like I have zero empathy like in the other political thread because I suggested radical centrism is a good ideology, when you know nothing about me mate or how I am in real life. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[Rashabon]

Your reading comprehension could use some work. My post about Goliath is like 4 lines long and just a copy paste of quotes from the review. The balance of my post is targeted at your incredibly dumb takes on litigation and solicitor work.

[TheCryptozoologist]

34 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Your reading comprehension could use some work. My post about Goliath is like 4 lines long and just a copy paste of quotes from the review. The balance of my post is targeted at your incredibly dumb takes on litigation and solicitor work.

I know that I phrased it in a very provocative way or atleast one open to interpretation since it wasn't complete, but I did boldface it as a personal opinion about my personal feelings and that it was my personal biases. But somehow you convinced yourself I have a vendetta against you and taking this whole thing way too personally to the point that you just invent things. This isn't a rare opinion. I've heard the same thing literally in real life from coffee meetups and repeated across LS and TopLawSchools, and brought up the handmaiden analogy because I heard the same thing constantly get repeated.

I don't get why you need to convince yourself I was personally attacking you or that I was dismissing solicitor work. I have lots of respect for what solicitors do, personally found the solicitor who helped draft my parent's will as one of the great, informed, personable figures that I value in people and was one of the people that shaped my impression of lawyers prior to law school. When I say passive role, he isn't playing an active role because that would involve killing people, probably and mundane and specific things are quite necessary. 

I am quite open to being wrong. Its the only way to learn. But I don't see what you are trying to achieve just by naked insults. You are an adult mate, figured you would have learned by now insulting is the least effective way to convince someone they are wrong. There are also healthier life habits than going on a forum and looking for fights, try trail running or meditation since obviously your cortisol baseline is way too cranked up and you are just looking for internet fights.

Quote

Personally I have a hard time seeing the joys of playing a passive role in the world as it seems like transactional work is caught up in very mundane and specific things. They don't seem to move society or their client's business in any major way and to me it seems strange that they mark how well they do by the size of a transaction. On the other hand, litigators are more active and play a role in shaping their territory. If you've seen the TV show Goliath, you'll get what I mean. There are specific consequences to what they do which seems exciting. This is just my bias speaking though. 

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[Toad]

2 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

I was a regular poster on LS, under a different name, and deliberately hid my profile or details to the extent that people would question that intention to do so. Me being more open about myself now, I do understand I am readily identifiable since I have colleagues I message here time to time here. I honestly just didn't think I'd piss you off to the extent that its incredibly personal and you need to look me up on LinkedIn. I have tremendous respect for lawyers generally, and the legal profession and this board since its an intellectual rigor that is very precise and meticulous, fine-tuned and emotionally detached (mostly) which are qualities I respect in people. But I honestly try not to take anything personally, since its the internet and the whole point of a nom de guerre is that it "isn't" oneself in real life. Just aspects one wishes to build. 

Honestly, you do come off as insulting with others and I've seen you get into heated arguments with others, but you are a regular poster which I always value reading. Don't get why you would just jump to these conclusions, and why you need to look me up. But its clear I am going to take a step back and stop responding. I think I pissed you off in the other thread about climate litigation since I was a bit mocking, and did not honestly mean to. Didn't put my social boundaries filters and realized bantering or mocking was inappropriate in that thread.  

 

That wasn't my interpretation of his post. It seems more like a reminder that you may not be coming across in the best way in some of your posts and that the reality of this forum is that you are likely to be easily identifiable by anyone who you were close with in law school or by anyone who feels like spending a few minutes on Google going through the process of elimination. 

The reality of this website is that almost every regular poster will have provided information that makes it fairly easy to identify them in real life. This was a source of inconvenience for the moderators and administrators on the old website because people would try to get their old posts deleted because they did not want it linked to their real life identity. So even if you're fine with your posts now, there is a possibility that you may become uncomfortable with some of them in the future.

 

[TheCryptozoologist]

39 minutes ago, Toad said:

 

That wasn't my interpretation of his post. It seems more like a reminder that you may not be coming across in the best way in some of your posts and that the reality of this forum is that you are likely to be easily identifiable by anyone who you were close with in law school or by anyone who feels like spending a few minutes on Google going through the process of elimination. 

The reality of this website is that almost every regular poster will have provided information that makes it fairly easy to identify them in real life. This was a source of inconvenience for the moderators and administrators on the old website because people would try to get their old posts deleted because they did not want it linked to their real life identity. So even if you're fine with your posts now, there is a possibility that you may become uncomfortable with some of them in the future.

 

Agreed, re-reading BQ's post, there was probably some good intentions there. Its still filled with quite wrong insinuations and just plain insults, e.g. he's convinced I was trolling by taking my comment about not taking things too seriously in response to a derailed topic out of context.

I get that I am generally naive about these topics, since I am not a working attorney, and do get that there is some modicrum of responsibility when posting here. But honestly half of the responses to me are just two posters filling whatever personal void is in their life and being automatic in their interpretation. I've gotten into these arguments with BQ a handful of times and don't take his standoffish and angry way of writing personally. Its also evident that there are personalities in this thread who are quite thin skinned and likely have self-esteem issues since they feel the need to insult me and look up my posts.

I've never cared about what others who I'm not close to or developed a personal respect for think about me in real life. I would be quite apathetic if they know me in real life and developed a negative opinion of me, and would pity if people IRL would still get riled up or emotional about such petty things like someone's comment on the internet. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[CleanHands]

6 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Agreed, re-reading BQ's post, there was probably some good intentions there. Its still filled with quite wrong insinuations and just plain insults, e.g. he's convinced I was trolling by taking my comment about not taking things too seriously in response to a derailed topic out of context.

I get that I am generally naive about these topics, since I am not a working attorney, and do get that there is some modicrum of responsibility when posting here. But honestly half of the responses to me are just two posters filling whatever personal void is in their life and being automatic in their interpretation. I've gotten into these arguments with BQ a handful of times and don't take his standoffish and angry way of writing personally. Its also evident that there are personalities in this thread who are quite thin skinned and likely have self-esteem issues since they feel the need to insult me and look up my posts.

I've never cared about what others who I'm not close to or developed a personal respect for think about me in real life. I would be quite apathetic if they know me in real life and developed a negative opinion of me, and would pity if people IRL would still get riled up or emotional about such petty things like someone's comment on the internet. 

Dude, it's really "lady doth protest too much" stuff to write multiple posts arguing that someone was insulting you and yet spending three paragraphs ranting about how you're too cool to care whether someone insults you. Cringe.