Curious about articling for a sole practitioner

[MilkSteak]

Hi all, 

I'm a 3L and just got an offer in Vancouver to article with a sole practitioner. I haven't accepted yet and have been considering my options, namely if I want to move back to Vancouver (where I am from) or pursue something in another city. I was hoping that anyone who's articled with a sole practitioner (or very small firm) or knows someone who did would be able to weigh in.

1. In general what is/was the experience like?
2. What was the workload like?
   1. This sole practitioner is mainly in wills & estates, if possible that specifically.
3. How was finding an associate position after articling? This sole practitioner will not be hiring students back as lawyers and I would have to pursue opportunities elsewhere after.
4. Is there anything else I should know or you'd like to say?

Thanks

[Twenty]

If you feel confident that you can secure other offers (it is pretty early into 3L), I would look to article at a firm with multiple lawyers (doesnt need to be big, I suspect 3 senior lawyers giving you work would be varied enough and will keep your plate full). Exposure to different management/lawyering styles is important. If you only have one lawyer assigning you work and the way they work isn't a good fit, then that would make your experience harder. Moreover, you may think that that would be the only way to do things, which limits your learning experience. 

Just my 0.02 as an articling student of 2 months.

[QueensDenning]

As an incoming articling student, I wouldn't want to be at a place with no chance for hire-back, especially considering the economic outlook for the next few years.

[OntheVerge]

I articled for a sole practitioner and it was terrible, mostly because my principal was toxic, constantly setting me up for failure by giving assignments or tasks with impossible deadlines (i.e. serve and file this application before the court closes at 5 pm, but not giving it to me until 4:40 pm), insulting me when I had a question (didn't you learn anything at law school?) or flat out belittling (you'll never make a good lawyer). But obviously that is not the case for every sole practitioner (or hopefully, the majority of them). 

I now work at a small firm with only one other lawyer and it's great. I do find it interesting that your prospective principal will hire articling students but not hire them back as lawyers. I'm of two thoughts on that and can't decide where I land. On one hand, articling positions are tough to get and maybe the lawyer is trying to be helpful by taking a student on so they can end up being licensed, even if not employed. On the other hand, it seems a bit weird to want an articling student where you'll presumably invest time and money in their education and knowledge, but then not "benefit" from it by hiring them back.

I guess my worry as someone who practices in a solicitor office is that a lot of the work we do is finicky, takes a lot of oversight when you're working on certain things, and can have costly repercussions for the lawyer. So you might not be given the stuff a lawyer would do because of the aforementioned reasons, but instead might be assigned the less interesting work which has fewer ramifications if messed up. For instance, I've been training a clerk for the last year to help with wills because I know it'll have good payoff in the end, but it has taken a *lot* of my time. I know it would be quicker and easier to do the wills myself since I can draft them, review, and then give them to the clerk to finish up the printing. But instead, I'm teaching why we use what precedents and why, relevant case law when it comes up, explaining why we write A instead of B, then reviewing the clerk's draft, reviewing the amended draft, etc. It's a lot more work and time. But since the clerk is sticking around for the next 3-5 years(minimum), I'm willing to invest my time. I don't know if I'd be willing to invest the ongoing time and effort to teach someone who I know will only be here for 10 months, unfortunately. And I'd be worried as an articling student that maybe my principal isn't willing to do that, either. 

Have you spoken to your prospective principal about what work you'd be able to do? Going over expectations and seeing if you're on the same page is a good idea. Cause if you get a good articling experience and some knowledge about an area you want to work in going forward, maybe it would be worth it. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by OntheVerge

[CleanHands]

There have been good responses here but I wanted to add that this is a real crapshoot.

I haven't worked for a sole practitioner but I did work for two different two-lawyer firms before articling at a larger organization. I had very positive experiences at both firms, my bosses at both provided fantastic mentorship that was superior to what one would get in a larger institutional setting, they were supportive of my career and provided references and letters and a foundation for me to build upon, and it's been conveyed to me that I always have an open job offer at one in particular if I want to return as an associate. I have had great mentors in government but the larger institutional workplace setting simply isn't as conducive to forming the kinds of relationships one can in a small firm if the people/relationships/environment are good.

On the flipside, my friends who had the biggest nightmare articling experiences were mostly with sole practitioners. Really, that sort of working context, with no real accountability or oversight for a principal and them having the ability to be themselves and conduct things as they see fit, just allows both the good and bad to be amplified.

This is all to say, this is a huge risk if you don't know the lawyer somewhat. It could be the start of the best working relationship you've ever had, or it could be horrific.

I'd also have to endorse and echo @Twenty's point. The variety of organizations I've worked for and mentors I've had have made me a much more well-rounded lawyer who is better able to account for a multitude of different considerations, rather than being fixated on the pet issues of one former boss. Being exposed to a variety of different styles and philosophies has also enabled me to come out of my shell and develop my own style, because I've seen different things work for different people and I can pick and choose what works for me rather than doing things the one way I've seen them done that doesn't necessarily click with me.

Edited October 12, 2022 by CleanHands

[Dream Machine]

Can you reach out to previous articling students at that practice?

[123]

20 hours ago, MilkSteak said:

Hi all, 

I'm a 3L and just got an offer in Vancouver to article with a sole practitioner. I haven't accepted yet and have been considering my options, namely if I want to move back to Vancouver (where I am from) or pursue something in another city. I was hoping that anyone who's articled with a sole practitioner (or very small firm) or knows someone who did would be able to weigh in.

1. In general what is/was the experience like?
2. What was the workload like?
   1. This sole practitioner is mainly in wills & estates, if possible that specifically.
3. How was finding an associate position after articling? This sole practitioner will not be hiring students back as lawyers and I would have to pursue opportunities elsewhere after.
4. Is there anything else I should know or you'd like to say?

Thanks

Do they have any previous students you can speak to?

1 hour ago, OntheVerge said:

I now work at a small firm with only one other lawyer and it's great. I do find it interesting that your prospective principal will hire articling students but not hire them back as lawyers. I'm of two thoughts on that and can't decide where I land. On one hand, articling positions are tough to get and maybe the lawyer is trying to be helpful by taking a student on so they can end up being licensed, even if not employed. On the other hand, it seems a bit weird to want an articling student where you'll presumably invest time and money in their education and knowledge, but then not "benefit" from it by hiring them back.

I think it depends. There are good reasons to prefer students over new associates in some practice areas. 

In my area of law, where there are a reasonable number of Legal Aid Ontario files (this part isn't really responsive to OP, who is in Vancouver), articling students can make more sense than a new associate. First, the associate has to be empanelled, or approved by LAO to take cases. That's getting harder in my area of law. If they're not on empanelled, you can't use them for LAO cases. I wouldn't really talk about hireback until I knew they were empanelled. Second, LAO pays about $64.00 per hour for articling student work, and $109.14 for new call work. But you can bill 3x more hours for a student than for a lawyer. Given how slow most new associates are, the articling student makes a lot of sense, as employers would be stuck eating salaried associate's excess time on LAO files.

I would probably prefer taking someone as a student, who's term will just expire if it doesn't work out, than an associate who I would have to go to the trouble of firing if they're not a fit. I might offer that student an associate position if things go well. But I don't know if I'm willing to create any expectations about that early-on. I don't find it that strange, but I guess it does depend on area of law, practice, etc.

Edited October 12, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Phaedrus]

I articled for a two-lawyer shop, but the lawyers worked on the same files. My experience wasn't great, but it wasn't awful either. A lot of last minute tasks, but more critically, they were tasks with little to no context or explanation. A lot of memos, application prep, affidavit drafting, and research without identified goals. I was rarely, if ever, assigned work in advance or given a sense that - for example - our sentencing brief would be become my responsibility. It didn't help that I articled during the 'vid and worked remotely for 75% of the articling. 

In hindsight, I guess it wasn't so bad. My principal sent me down a ton of rabbit holes that, looking at it now, they didn't need me to at all. What senior defence counsel needs to know the up-to-date law on available defences for 266, 267, and 270 charges? It sucked at the time, but now that I'm in practice I'm thankful they did. I hit the ground running when I started practice - I just wish they took the time to explain it. I learned to "predict" the work coming my way (e.g., arraignment this Monday? That'll be give to me with 30 mins notice, better assume I'll told to do it) and that helped the later I got into articling. 

I (think) a problem with long-standing sole practitioners is that they're not as comfortable/familiar with task delegation. When you're on your own for long enough, and dealing with other counsel and judges, you're doing it all yourself and it's easy to take your experience and knowledge for granted. Handing that knowledge down, or taking the time to explain it to someone takes time - and time is incredibly valuable to a sole practitioner. They also know their working style, how long something "should" take; but that estimate is from an experienced counsel's perspective (and not from someone who it'll take twice as long, or longer from sheer inexperience). If the pressure is on them, clerks can unfortunately become an outlet for frustration (which isn't appropriate, for the record). I took a lot of "things I like/don't like about their practice" notes for future reference: how they managed files, organized their work schedule, were committed to volunteering in the community, how they approached litigation and addressed the court, etc.

On the clerk side, there are a lot of horror stories. I'm not dismissing the genuinely awful experiences (you can find them elsewhere on the forum), but a lot of complaints seem to come from hard realities about the practice of law. No one will spoon feed you what you need to know, and part of the "practice" of law is learning how to research and leverage your network/resources to learn about something you don't know. If you're told how to do everything, you never learn how to "figure it out", and that skill is as, if not more, valuable than the task itself. Next, practice is a fucking grind. The learning curve is incredibly steep, the expectations on you from your client, firm, and court are high, and you're inevitably spending way more time on every task until you know how to do it. That adds a lot stress to an already stressful job. Then you have the character of the working environment. It's not social, it's a business, and the environment can be cold and detached (even if it's a solo/small shop). Throw all of this into a blender and you can end up with some miserable clerks whose expectations were shattered. Did I mention that there's bar course/PREP on top of it, too? That's a whole other can of aggravating worms.

What I'm trying to say is that the fault of poor experience is not strictly limited to shitty solos. It can stem from unmet expectations, or realizing that practice isn't for you (and on this point, that's a perfectly acceptable conclusion). If you're looking for articles with small/solo shops, do your homework. Reach out to previous clerks (mentioned above. I was a contact point for the past few clerks that took my position), see if your network knows anything about them/their firm, and prepare yourself for the common gripes: little notice, little direction, and little validation. Articling sucks, the bar course/PREP sucks, and I haven't met a soul who said their articling year was a blast. But, that vast majority get through it in one piece.