Why do law firms hire legal assistants over articling students? Many articling seekers will take on any unpaid articling even if it's just a receptionist job.

[Littleleague]

Ontario has the LPP so it is understandable that people would rather do that than unpaid articling. But in other provinces there is no other option than to article. People in other provinces don't want to move to Toronto given the hassle of moving and significantly more living expenses. Many people that can't find paid articling positions are willing to take unpaid articling even if the job tasks are just answering the phone. Why pay $20/hour for a barely educated legal assistant when you could easily get an educated articling student for free? It's obvious there is that demand for articling positions greatly outweighs supply. Why aren't law firms taking advantage? It's simple economics. 

[CleanHands]

4 minutes ago, Littleleague said:

Why pay $20/hour for a barely educated legal assistant when you could easily get an educated articling student for free?

If you aren't trolling, I can see why (your post heavily implies that) you failed to obtain articles, and you need to cut out that bullshit attitude right now and learn some respect before you get a job in the field.

Answering your question sincerely: because almost any legal assistant is going to do a way better job doing legal assistant work compared to almost any articling student. And firms also want people to be in those roles on a long-term basis rather than hiring articling students who will be leaving the role as soon as they halfway figure out what they are doing.

Also, legal assistants do a lot more than "a receptionist's job." I am a lawyer and I continue to learn more useful knowledge every day from my legal assistants than I did from my law professors.

[Turtles]

Why does McDonald's hire teenagers rather than lawyers to flip its burgers?

[Littleleague]

Just now, Turtles said:

Why does McDonald's hire teenagers rather than lawyers to flip its burgers?

I disagree. What do you think all those looking for articles are doing? 

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, Turtles said:

Why does McDonald's hire teenagers rather than lawyers to flip its burgers?

This is also another dick comment.

No wonder people hate lawyers.

[Kimura]

14 minutes ago, Littleleague said:

Ontario has the LPP so it is understandable that people would rather do that than unpaid articling. But in other provinces there is no other option than to article. People in other provinces don't want to move to Toronto given the hassle of moving and significantly more living expenses. Many people that can't find paid articling positions are willing to take unpaid articling even if the job tasks are just answering the phone. Why pay $20/hour for a barely educated legal assistant when you could easily get an educated articling student for free? It's obvious there is that demand for articling positions greatly outweighs supply. Why aren't law firms taking advantage? It's simple economics. 

Have you ever worked in a law firm? I'll tell you the first person I go to when I have a question is a legal assistant, because they tend to know their shit - especially the ones that have been around for years.

 

[Littleleague]

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

This is also another dick comment.

No wonder people hate lawyers.

It's not a dick comment. It's the reality of life. I agree with you that firms want to keep someone for long term. However, ever since the pandemic, it's been tough keeping people unless you pay them well. From my experience, if you pay less $20/hour then they'll be gone within a year. 

I understand that you want to keep the prestige of the law profession, but the reality is that there is a large supply of lawyers. Even on this forum junior lawyers are being offered minimum wage. 

 

1 minute ago, Kimura said:

Have you ever worked in a law firm? I'll tell you the first person I go to when I have a question is a legal assistant, because they tend to know their shit - especially the ones that have been around for years.

 

I've worked with many legal assistants that have worked in the office I manage. There are some bright ones but they don't last long unless you give them a generous raise.  

[Turtles]

9 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

This is also another dick comment.

No wonder people hate lawyers.

Not a comment on legal assistants at all, but OP's point about why firms don't favor overqualified people, which is because either (1) they have other options that make them a big flight risk, (2) the company may not get a return on training before the person leaves if it's not long-term, and/or (3) they are suspicious why the candidate wants a role they are overqualified for and worries there's a skeleton in a closet waiting to come out, and would rather instead go with someone less qualified where that suspicion doesn't exist. 

I didn't comment on whether OP is accurately categorizing the work of legal assistants because it's not clear how the particular firm does this; in some provinces, legal assistants do significant paralegal-like work in addition to other responsibilities, whereas in Ontario where a firm has different types of support staff, the assistants manage administrative functions while paralegals (separately regulated) do substantive legal work. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Turtles

[CleanHands]

Just now, Littleleague said:

I understand that you want to keep the prestige of the law profession, but the reality is that there is a large supply of lawyers.

And I understand you're a bit stupid, so I'll clarify for you that I didn't even imply any such thing. And you are actually the one again framing things with an implicit sense of elitism about lawyering, because embedded into this post is the assumption that someone with a JD would somehow be debased by doing legal assistant work (but that it was some unfortunate necessity). I pretty clearly believe otherwise given that my take was that articling students would make for terrible legal assistants so it doesn't make business sense to hire them for such a role.

Anyways, thanks for the daily dose of schadenfreude. It's always nice to see someone who actually deserves to struggle struggling, for a change. 

[Littleleague]

2 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

And I understand you're a bit stupid, so I'll clarify for you that I didn't even imply any such thing. And you are actually the one again framing things with an implicit sense of elitism about lawyering, because embedded into this post is the assumption that someone with a JD would somehow be debased by doing legal assistant work (but that it was some unfortunate necessity). I pretty clearly believe otherwise given that my take was that articling students would make for terrible legal assistants so it doesn't make business sense to hire them for such a role.

Anyways, thanks for the daily dose of schadenfreude. It's always nice to see someone who actually deserves to struggle struggling, for a change. 

I take it that you can afford to pay for top legal assistants. Perhaps you are from a large firm. Maybe you are an older fella. Your arrogance is not a reflection of the current job market. When's the last time you have done some hiring? Do you conduct job interviews? You're first impression of me is that I am struggling to find articling. That is not the case. I don't even have a degree. I do hire people though. I am starting to hire interns for free and I was just asking why other firms are not doing so in this job market. 

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, Littleleague said:

I take it that you can afford to pay for top legal assistants. Perhaps you are from a large firm. Maybe you are an older fella. Your arrogance is not a reflection of the current job market. When's the last time you have done some hiring? Do you conduct job interviews? You're first impression of me is that I am struggling to find articling. That is not the case. I don't even have a degree. I do hire people though. I am starting to hire interns for free and I was just asking why other firms are not doing so in this job market. 

So, let me get this straight...

You don't have a degree but you are calling legal assistants "barely educated," and you are exploiting free labour from JD grad "interns" instead of hiring paid legal assistants? And you think that anyone who would hire a proper legal assistant and pay them properly is some kind of idiot because you can just milk the pool of JD grads who haven't secured articles?

You're even more of a piece of work than I assumed upon my "first impression of [you]." lol

[123]

43 minutes ago, Littleleague said:

Why pay $20/hour for a barely educated legal assistant when you could easily get an educated articling student for free? It's obvious there is that demand for articling positions greatly outweighs supply. Why aren't law firms taking advantage? It's simple economics. 

36 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Answering your question sincerely: because almost any legal assistant is going to do a way better job doing legal assistant work compared to almost any articling student. And firms also want people to be in those roles on a long-term basis rather than hiring articling students who will be leaving the role as soon as they halfway figure out what they are doing.

Also, legal assistants do a lot more than "a receptionist's job." I am a lawyer and I continue to learn more useful knowledge every day from my legal assistants than I did from my law professors.

Yeah, admin staff and articling students fulfill completely different purposes. Good administrative staff run many aspects of a firm. They might do everything from keeping the lawyer on top of things, to handling clients, billing, and really everything else that isn't practicing law. They are trusted, competent members of the firm, who can do many things that the typical student cannot.

The idea underlying articling is that the student should be learning to practice under careful and close supervision. Sure, part of the appeal of hiring one is that they're generally cheaper than an associate. And yes, even good principals may assign students a certain amount of administrative work, as that is part of practice. But that doesn't mean you're going to use them as a secretary. While I acknowledge that shitty principals might do so, there are lots of diligent, dedicated articling principals, who are legitimately trying to mentor the next generation of lawyers into the profession. In that vein, they should be used for case work. Legal assistants should not, generally speaking.

Why don't firms "take advantage"? Lots of reasons.

Edited November 9, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Littleleague]

12 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

So, let me get this straight...

You don't have a degree but you are calling legal assistants "barely educated," and you are exploiting free labour from JD grad "interns" instead of hiring paid legal assistants? And you think that anyone who would hire a proper legal assistant and pay them properly is some kind of idiot because you can just milk the pool of JD grads who haven't secured articles?

You're even more of a piece of work than I assumed upon my "first impression of [you]." lol

Yes. It's called economics. Don't they teach you how to run a business in law school? Many people coming out of non-law degree do free internships to gain experience. What makes a law degree any different? 

[123]

2 minutes ago, Littleleague said:

Don't they teach you how to run a business in law school?

Generally speaking, they don't.

[Littleleague]

15 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

Yeah, admin staff and articling students fulfill completely different purposes. Good administrative staff run many aspects of a firm. They might do everything from keeping the lawyer on top of things, to handling clients, billing, and really everything else that isn't practicing law. They are trusted, competent members of the firm, who can do many things that the typical student cannot.

The idea underlying articling is that the student should be learning to practice under careful and close supervision. Sure, part of the appeal of hiring one is that they're generally cheaper than an associate. And yes, even good principals may assign students a certain amount of administrative work, as that is part of practice. But that doesn't mean you're going to use them as a secretary. While I acknowledge that shitty principals might do so, there are lots of diligent, dedicated articling principals, who are legitimately trying to mentor the next generation of lawyers into the profession. In that vein, they should be used for case work. Legal assistants should not, generally speaking.

Why don't firms "take advantage"? Lots of reasons.

This is the type of answer I was looking for. Is there some sort of rule against giving mostly "receptionist" type duties? Would the law society discipline lawyers for not giving the full "articling experience". Most small law firms mainly need billing and receptionist help and occasionally can offer case work. 

[123]

14 minutes ago, Littleleague said:

This is the type of answer I was looking for. Is there some sort of rule against giving mostly "receptionist" type duties? Would the law society discipline lawyers for not giving the full "articling experience". Most small law firms mainly need billing and receptionist help and occasionally can offer case work. 

There isn't a rule directly dealing with that, no. The rules of professional conduct in Ontario only state that a "lawyer acting as a principal to a student shall provide the student with meaningful training and exposure to and involvement in work that will provide the student with knowledge and experience of the practical aspects of the law, together with an appreciation of the traditions and ethics of the profession." What that means, exactly, is open to some interpretation.

There are firms that treat their articling students more or less as administrative staff. Those are not good firms at which to article. As a student, you wouldn't come out of articling with the experience and skills that others will have.

I'm not going to provide a clear opinion on whether a principal could be disciplined or how likely that is. I'm not really knowledgeable enough to do so, and we don't give legal advice here. I wasn't talking so much about complying with the rules to avoid sanction. The rules and disciplinary proceedings only serve to protect the public and other members of the profession from the worst kinds of behaviour. There are lots of things you can do and still be a shitty lawyer or principal, in ways that fall short of breaching the rules.

My point was more that there are lots of principals who aspire to be more than the bare minimum, and that actual devotion to mentorship and the health of the profession are reasons why lawyers don't hire students to be administrative staff. Some lawyers have an aversion to exploitation.

Edited November 9, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Ben]

Great question. I will work as your legal assistant. PM me anytime we can set something up 

[OntheVerge]

53 minutes ago, Turtles said:

Not a comment on legal assistants at all, but OP's point about why firms don't favor overqualified people, which is because either (1) they have other options that make them a big flight risk, (2) the company may not get a return on training before the person leaves if it's not long-term, and/or (3) they are suspicious why the candidate wants a role they are overqualified for and worries there's a skeleton in a closet waiting to come out, and would rather instead go with someone less qualified where that suspicion doesn't exist. 

I didn't comment on whether OP is accurately categorizing the work of legal assistants because it's not clear how the particular firm does this; in some provinces, legal assistants do significant paralegal-like work in addition to other responsibilities, whereas in Ontario where a firm has different types of support staff, the assistants manage administrative functions while paralegals (separately regulated) do substantive legal work. 

I think the entire premise is skewed, though. Why is there an automatic assumption that the articling student is "overqualified" for a legal clerk position? If we need a legal clerk, we're looking for an experienced person who has familiarity with the work that the job entails. A law clerk will have that education and knowledge. An articling student won't. So just by being an articling student doesn't mean you're "overqualified".

In actuality, though, we don't hire articling students because we can't guarantee them even the option of a hire-back after articling, which doesn't seem fair to the student. And even if some firms don't care about that aspect, it doesn't make sense from a business perspective. It makes the office too transitional. You're hiring someone new every 10 months? That just means someone (either a lawyer or senior law clerk) has to re-train them over and over. You're losing man-hours, making the trainer's job more difficult and preventing them from getting to their actual work, because contrary to what some posters have implied, the job of a law clerk isn't just something you can teach in two days or that everyone can do. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by OntheVerge

[PePeHalpert]

Uh, because they are very different jobs, with different responsibilities, that require different skill sets?  Articling also lasts less than a year and lawyers don't want their assistants to be rotating out every few months.  Based on the tone of your post, this will probably come as a surprise to you, but many lawyers develop great relationships with their assistants, who develop a pretty in depth understanding of their files and their way of working.  They want to keep good people. 

1 hour ago, Littleleague said:

 Why pay $20/hour for a barely educated legal assistant when you could easily get an educated articling student for free? 

Good luck ever getting your work prioritized or your shit filed on time if this the attitude you are bringing to the workplace.  The work that legal assistants do is so important and they probably know the Rules of Civil Procedure ten times better than you do.  Looking down on them and calling them "barely educated" is going to bite you in the ass so hard. 

[Rusty Iron Ring]

1 hour ago, Littleleague said:

I've worked with many legal assistants that have worked in the office I manage. There are some bright ones but they don't last long unless you give them a generous raise.  

Sometimes you have to pay people what they are worth. Your inability to retain talent is not a reflection of any flaw in everyone else's business model. 

[hiccups]

2 hours ago, Littleleague said:

Why pay $20/hour for a barely educated legal assistant when you could easily get an educated articling student for free?

Because the educated articling student don't know shit, okay?  Jeez. 

If a firm doesn't need an articling student, the the value added from having an articling student is zero. 

[Yogurt Baron]

3 hours ago, Littleleague said:

Many people that can't find paid articling positions are willing to take unpaid articling even if the job tasks are just answering the phone.

Nobody's jumped on this, and this needs to be jumped on.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'll gladly concede that I could be naive about how things actually work, but my understanding is that "just answering the phone" for a year would not be considered articling.

That said - sure, if you're conflating "articling" with "being a lawyer's assistant", I can see why it makes no sense to you that people wouldn't simply give legal assistant tasks to articling students. The answer is, they're different jobs requiring different skills. I'm in a paraprofessional role these days supporting lawyers, and I can tell you that the things articling students are good at tend to be very different from the things legal assistants are good at. I work every day with articling students who are going to be awesome lawyers eventually, but who'd be absolutely hopeless legal assistants. Whenever you hire, you're trying to get the person whose skills most align with the role you're hiring for, not just the person who has the most education or is "best" in some ephemeral sense. 

[QueensDenning]

4 hours ago, Littleleague said:

I do hire people though. I am starting to hire interns for free and I was just asking why other firms are not doing so in this job market. 

Not everyone is an asshole that wants to take advantage of free labour.

[Littleleague]

18 minutes ago, QueensDenning said:

Not everyone is an asshole that wants to take advantage of free labour.

I'm not forcing people to work for free. It's not exploitation if people are willing to work for free. In matter of fact I am providing an opportunity for them to gain experience. Something they would otherwise not have. You could say that I am helping those who are struggling and sending me unsolicited articling applications. It's free labor for basically a guarantee for 1 year. 

After further digging, there are some small firms offering unpaid articles. They just keep it on the down low and don't advertise it. 

I appreciate all the answers though. 

[QueensDenning]

30 minutes ago, Littleleague said:

It's not exploitation if people are willing to work for free.

You sure about that? Why do we have labour/employment legislation? Whatever helps you sleep at night... 

There are small firms offering unpaid articles and they keep it on the down low because they (justifiably) get vilified for it. 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by QueensDenning