Chances? Should I give up and go to the UK?

[DABMAN]

1 hour ago, CheeseToast said:

Are you okay with being the rich kid everyone knows was too stupid to get into Canadian law school (which isn’t even difficult)?

Take another year or two of uni, do well, and you’ll be fine with a 161 under your belt. 

[matthews95]

8 hours ago, Civil2Common said:

It looks like a lot of people have provided some great advice here OP.

While they are likely more familiar with the importance of grades + LSAT score, I get the impression that doing an extra year of undergraduate studies could help boost your overall average and make an impact on your chances for admission. You even mentioned a few schools sending personalized letters encouraging you to reapply the following year. I think that it is well worth a shot to do that before you decide to go the UK route. 🙂

On 7/5/2021 at 7:44 PM, luckycharm said:

You can consider transferring back to a law school in Canada after your first year in UK.

The deadline for application in Ontario is usually May 1 and you should check out upper year (2L) transfer deadlines all schools outside Ontario.

Check these out- some schools only accept transfer from within Canada

 https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Law+schools+upper+year+transfer&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I hope it does, I'm in the process of deciding between taking another year or going to the UK with the intention of transferring. I like both of these suggestions, but I'm definitely leaning towards taking another year. 

 

 

4 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

Are you okay with being the rich kid everyone knows was too stupid to get into Canadian law school (which isn’t even difficult)?

Take another year or two of uni, do well, and you’ll be fine with a 161 under your belt. 

I mean that assumption isn’t really applicable to me and I honestly couldn’t care what other people think. Thanks for the advice but anyone that would make such a generalization is someone I wouldn’t want to work with either.

[luckycharm]

26 minutes ago, matthews95 said:

I hope it does, I'm in the process of deciding between taking another year or going to the UK with the intention of transferring. I like both of these suggestions, but I'm definitely leaning towards taking another year. 

 

 

I mean that assumption isn’t really applicable to me and I honestly couldn’t care what other people think. Thanks for the advice but anyone that would make such a generalization is someone I wouldn’t want to work with either.

Assume you can get 3.7 for Sept 2021 and Jan 2022 semesters. Your application for Sept 22 will not be too much of a difference then have you

now because most law school in Ontario will only consider your completed years (may be Sept 2021 too ) when you apply . (Nov 2021 for Ontario) Your Fall 2021 grades will not be available after Dec 2021 and Winter 2022 grades in May 2022.  

You can apply to Sept 2023 cycle with 161 , B2/L2 3.7 but most likely a sub 3.0 cGPA.  Those stats are pretty borderline and many with similar stats were not admitted in the past in Ontario. Then you may complete the Bar exam and article requirements within one year. 2023 + 4 years = 2027. 

If for whatever reasons you can't get an offer, then you have wasted two years and may have to re-consider the UK route again.

If you take the UK route and start in Sept 2021, you can try to transfer to a school in Canada in early 2022. (deadline for Ontario schools is May 1, 2022, check out other school sin Canada). If you fail to transfer back, then you can complete LLB in May 2024 and assume you take another 2 years or so  to complete all the additional courses / bar exams and article requirements. Then you can you can be called to the Bar by 2026/2027 or earlier.

Again, I do not normally recommend taking the UK route. So , take it with a grain of salt.

Good luck 

 

 

[matthews95]

14 minutes ago, luckycharm said:

Assume you can get 3.7 for Sept 2021 and Jan 2022 semesters. Your application for Sept 22 will not be too much of a difference then have you

now because most law school in Ontario will only consider your completed years (may be Sept 2021 too ) when you apply . (Nov 2021 for Ontario) Your Fall 2021 grades will not be available after Dec 2021 and Winter 2022 grades in May 2022.  

You can apply to Sept 2023 cycle with 161 , B2/L2 3.7 but most likely a sub 3.0 cGPA.  Those stats are pretty borderline and many with similar stats were not admitted in the past in Ontario. Then you may complete the Bar exam and article requirements within one year. 2023 + 4 years = 2027. 

If for whatever reasons you can't get an offer, then you have wasted two years and may have to re-consider the UK route again.

If you take the UK route and start in Sept 2021, you can try to transfer to a school in Canada in early 2022. (deadline for Ontario schools is May 1, 2022, check out other school sin Canada). If you fail to transfer back, then you can complete LLB in May 2024 and assume you take another 2 years or so  to complete all the additional courses / bar exams and article requirements. Then you can you can be called to the Bar by 2026/2027 or earlier.

Again, I do not normally recommend taking the UK route. So , take it with a grain of salt.

Good luck 

 

 

Thank you for breaking this down. I wouldn't also have the liberty of taking two extra years, just one. The thing is I dont just plan on going to Ontario schools, I know my chances are slim so I plan on applying broadly across Canada and to programs like Ryerson, Lakehead, Windsor Dual which I have a better shot at.

Schools like Western/ Queens/ Ottawa seem like a really long shot even after taking another year.

[Darth Vader]

4 hours ago, matthews95 said:

I mean that assumption isn’t really applicable to me and I honestly couldn’t care what other people think. Thanks for the advice but anyone that would make such a generalization is someone I wouldn’t want to work with either.

Most people in real life wouldn't say it to your face, but guaranteed many people will be thinking it, including colleagues you work with, especially if you got the job through connections. Do what you have to do, but don't be delusional in thinking that this assumption won't be applied to you and that everyone you work with in the future will consider you to be on their similar level. 

[CheeseToast]

10 hours ago, matthews95 said:

I mean that assumption isn’t really applicable to me and I honestly couldn’t care what other people think. Thanks for the advice but anyone that would make such a generalization is someone I wouldn’t want to work with either.

Hopefully you don’t plan on working with any lawyers.

[luckycharm]

9 hours ago, matthews95 said:

Thank you for breaking this down. I wouldn't also have the liberty of taking two extra years, just one. The thing is I dont just plan on going to Ontario schools, I know my chances are slim so I plan on applying broadly across Canada and to programs like Ryerson, Lakehead, Windsor Dual which I have a better shot at.

Schools like Western/ Queens/ Ottawa seem like a really long shot even after taking another year.

If you can get 3.7 for the last 2 years, then you have better chance with Wester (L2) and Queens (B2).

I think Lakehead and Windsor dual put emphasis on cGPA.

Good luck.

[matthews95]

8 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

Most people in real life wouldn't say it to your face, but guaranteed many people will be thinking it, including colleagues you work with, especially if you got the job through connections. Do what you have to do, but don't be delusional in thinking that this assumption won't be applied to you and that everyone you work with in the future will consider you to be on their similar level. 

I see what your saying here, but I think your overstating the negative effects of having a UK degree. Sure, it may matter in the first couple of years, but once your established I don't see it impacting you much. And exactly why would it? At the end of the day, I will still be called to the bar and be judged on the merit of my work, not degree lol

 

3 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

Hopefully you don’t plan on working with any lawyers.

I don't know why your so salty, law degree or not your shit attitude isn't going to take you far in life. 

[CleanHands]

34 minutes ago, matthews95 said:

-Snip-

I don't think you are appreciating the optics involved.

Your work output is of course more important than where you went to school when it comes to what your bosses think of you once your foot is in the door, and in terms of the outcomes you are able to secure on your files. But from the outside looking in, most people in the profession are not going to be intimately familiar with your work and their first takeaways will be that you couldn't cut it and get into a Canadian school and that you articled/started your career through nepotism. And getting jobs outside what your existing connections can provide will be difficult (and references with familial connections to you won't be taken seriously).

You can certainly debate whether you think being negatively perceived over your degree and entry into the profession is fair. But it's not really debatable that such a negative perception would exist. I have seen firsthand how lawyers talk behind closed doors about Bond and Leicester grads who article at their parents' firm.

I don't think those other users are attacking you, despite how you are interpreting their posts. They are trying to warn you of how this could affect you even if money and employment are not an issue. Personally I would be uncomfortable being perceived that way by my professional colleagues. You will have to work harder and be smarter than others to prove yourself, and even then you will never be able to prove yourself in the minds of many. But if you don't care about people making assumptions about you, power to you.

Edited July 7, 2021 by CleanHands

[Rashabon]

I don't disagree the perception to some will be the OP couldn't hack it in Canada, but is this just super common in small firm or non-corporate law contexts or something? I rarely look up where another lawyer went to school. I usually stop at what year of call they're in when looking at their profile. I think people overestimate how much people pay attention to the education of lawyers, certainly past the first year out of school. Almost no one I've ever come across on Bay Street cares about school once someone has finished articling.

[BlockedQuebecois]

9 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I don't think you are appreciating the optics involved.

Your work output is of course more important than where you went to school when it comes to what your bosses think of you once your foot is in the door, and in terms of the outcomes you are able to secure on your files. But from the outside looking in, most people in the profession are not going to be intimately familiar with your work and their first takeaways will be that you couldn't cut it and get into a Canadian school and that you articled/started your career through nepotism. And getting jobs outside what your existing connections can provide will be difficult (and references with familial connections to you won't be taken seriously).

You can certainly debate whether you think being negatively perceived over your degree and entry into the profession is fair. But it's not really debatable that such a negative perception would exist. I have seen firsthand how lawyers talk behind closed doors about Bond and Leicester grads who article at their parents firm.

I don't think other users are attacking you, although you are interpreting it that way. They are trying to warn you of how this could affect you even if money and employment are not an issue. Personally I would be uncomfortable being perceived that way by my professional colleagues. You will have to work harder and be smarter than others to prove yourself, and even then you will never be able to prove yourself in the minds of many. But if you don't care about people making assumptions about you, power to you.

The same can be said for many Canadian law schools, though. Everybody knows that the Windsor grad wasn't smart enough to get into U of T, and there are a lot of people in the profession who actively look down on Windsor grads for that reason. And that's doubly true for Windsor Dual grads.

That's why I think it doesn't really matter if OP goes to the UK or not, in this specific scenario. They're choosing between a guaranteed acceptance at some shitty UK school or a possible acceptance at a marginally less shitty Canadian school. Any body who looks down on them for their UK degree is pretty likely to look down on them for their Windsor Dual degree, too.

And all of the normal people who don't care what school you went to will continue not caring. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[CheeseToast]

38 minutes ago, matthews95 said:

I don't know why your so salty, law degree or not your shit attitude isn't going to take you far in life. 

My attitude is just fine thanks. Don’t need to get all angry because I didn’t sugarcoat things for you, which I imagine others have done for you your whole life.

[pinball]

2 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

The same can be said for many Canadian law schools, though. Everybody knows that the Windsor grad wasn't smart enough to get into U of T, and there are a lot of people in the profession who actively look down on Windsor grads for that reason. And that's doubly true for Windsor Dual grads.

That's why I think it doesn't really matter if OP goes to the UK or not, in this specific scenario. They're choosing between a guaranteed acceptance at some shitty UK school or a possible acceptance at a marginally less shitty Canadian school. Any body who looks down on them for their UK degree is pretty likely to look down on them for their Windsor Dual degree, too.

And all of the normal people who don't care what school you went to will continue not caring. 

To be a bit practical though, no law firm will rule out a candidate just because they went to Windsor law, but I know of enough places who won't seriously consider apps from Bond/Leicester etc.

[CleanHands]

4 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

-Snip-

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am not familiar with BigLaw, but I imagine your world tends to involve equally resourced clients with different BigLaw firms representing them? So there would be some basic barrier to entry and vetting of your opposing counsel?

I imagine that would be quite different than small firm and sole litigation practice with retail clients. My very brief career so far has all been in crim law, but my experience is that it's a small world, everybody knows everyone, word gets around, there is a low barrier to entry and everyone knows who the Bond grad working for daddy is and looks down on them. Now, one caveat I should mention is that in every example of this I'm personally aware of, the nepotism hire with the foreign degree has been incompetent or borderline incompetent. So they would probably get dunked on either way. But I do think with a CV like that people tend to be harsher and less forgiving and more inclined to assume a lawyer is incompetent rather than having a rough day.

6 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

-Snip-

I would agree with you if we were talking about someone who went to a school like Bond or Leicester and then managed to secure articles by hustling. But I think the nepotism context compounds the stigma and does make this different in a way. In general a Windsor Dual grad would still be perceived as a legitimate lawyer at least (I think even if they articled for their family firm) while someone with a Leicester degree or whatever who articled at the family firm will be seen by many as someone who never would have been able to become a lawyer if not for having everything handed to them by their family. After all, even graduates of "lesser" Canadian schools tend to encounter far less resistance securing articles than grads of mediocre foreign schools. At least a Windsor Dual grad was able to get into a Canadian law school and at least a foreign grad who secured articles without connections was able to convince someone of their value. A foreign degree plus a nepotism hire is just a worse look.

But again, I wouldn't say this consideration should dictate the OP's choice, as it sounds like UK schools are a far better option for them than most. I'm just saying I don't think the stigma attached to this would be minimal.

[CheeseToast]

19 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I don't disagree the perception to some will be the OP couldn't hack it in Canada, but is this just super common in small firm or non-corporate law contexts or something? I rarely look up where another lawyer went to school. I usually stop at what year of call they're in when looking at their profile. I think people overestimate how much people pay attention to the education of lawyers, certainly past the first year out of school. Almost no one I've ever come across on Bay Street cares about school once someone has finished articling.

Yes, obviously it doesn’t matter if you somehow manage to article at blake’s after going to cooley, but good luck getting that position in the first place. 
How many people at your firm (I think you’re on Bay) went to Leeds/Bond/Leicester/whatever?

[BlockedQuebecois]

10 minutes ago, pinball said:

To be a bit practical though, no law firm will rule out a candidate just because they went to Windsor law, but I know of enough places who won't seriously consider apps from Bond/Leicester etc.

Plenty of firms don’t bother with Windsor grads. They’d probably interview the gold medalist if they applied, but the same is true of the gold medalist from some UK school. 

[Whist]

7 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

My attitude is just fine thanks. Don’t need to get all angry because I didn’t sugarcoat things for you, which I imagine others have done for you your whole life.

The only thing you have over OP is that you got into a Canadian law school and they didn't (which, by your own words, isn't that difficult anyway). Whether OP is naive or not, the one actual legitimate point among your ornery replies you delivered with all the tact of a freight train to the balls. I hope law school teaches you how to deliver answers like an adult, because as it is, you don't even have the experience in the field to justify "tough love."

[matthews95]

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

I don't think you are appreciating the optics involved.

Your work output is of course more important than where you went to school when it comes to what your bosses think of you once your foot is in the door, and in terms of the outcomes you are able to secure on your files. But from the outside looking in, most people in the profession are not going to be intimately familiar with your work and their first takeaways will be that you couldn't cut it and get into a Canadian school and that you articled/started your career through nepotism. And getting jobs outside what your existing connections can provide will be difficult (and references with familial connections to you won't be taken seriously).

You can certainly debate whether you think being negatively perceived over your degree and entry into the profession is fair. But it's not really debatable that such a negative perception would exist. I have seen firsthand how lawyers talk behind closed doors about Bond and Leicester grads who article at their parents' firm.

I don't think those other users are attacking you, despite how you are interpreting their posts. They are trying to warn you of how this could affect you even if money and employment are not an issue. Personally I would be uncomfortable being perceived that way by my professional colleagues. You will have to work harder and be smarter than others to prove yourself, and even then you will never be able to prove yourself in the minds of many. But if you don't care about people making assumptions about you, power to you.

What you’re saying is certainly correct and I do genuinely appreciate the advice you and others have given. It doesn’t really matter as to what I think, but what reality is and that such a stigma does exist and will continue too. But I do think the effects/ conception has been oversimplified. My clients won’t care as to where my law degree is from, but I do understand that my law degree may impact my ability to get opportunities for clients in the first place. The fact of the matter is so many factors go into becoming a successful lawyer and a Canadian degree is just one of them, albeit an important one, which is why I still intend to stay.

Like you said I will have to work smarter and harder, but I need these two things to be a successful lawyer anyways. Where I do get my degree from will impact my professional standing, but isn’t this temporary? As a colleague are you judging a person based on where they obtained there degree or the merit of their work or other variables? I would think the first might have some standing, but ultimately, it’s the latter or a combination that go in to this. Fact is there are a lot of people with LLB’s who are successful and probably plenty that aren’t, a lot of factors end up coming in to play. I know a UofT Law student who is on hard drugs 24/7, recently got a criminal record and a law degree that won’t even probably get completed. I know of several LLB students who are successful, one owns a well established law firm. I consulted a real estate lawyer recently and he had an LLB. At the end of the day people are going to judge you no matter what you do. What if I end up in the Dual program next year? Some people will still have stuff to say. What if by some chance I get in to UBC or Western ( probably not happening) . Some people will still say I was too stupid to get in to UofT.

[CheeseToast]

31 minutes ago, Liavas said:

The only thing you have over OP is that you got into a Canadian law school and they didn't (which, by your own words, isn't that difficult anyway). Whether OP is naive or not, the one actual legitimate point among your ornery replies you delivered with all the tact of a freight train to the balls. I hope law school teaches you how to deliver answers like an adult, because as it is, you don't even have the experience in the field to justify "tough love."

You have 0 clue what I’ve done before law school but thank you for commenting on my “experience” and “tact” - I’ll deliver my responses however I see fit thank you very much. 
I hope law school teaches you that the world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows.

[matthews95]

58 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

My attitude is just fine thanks. Don’t need to get all angry because I didn’t sugarcoat things for you, which I imagine others have done for you your whole life.

The only one whose salty is you lol, you should enjoy your acceptance. But keep assuming things about people, that will definitely get you far in life. 

4 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

You have 0 clue what I’ve done before law school but thank you for commenting on my “experience” and “tact” - I’ll deliver my responses however I see fit thank you very much. 
I hope law school teaches you that the world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows.

Your going to make a lot of friends in law school.

[Goblin King]

4 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

 I’ll deliver my responses however I see fit thank you very much. 
I hope law school teaches you that the world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows.

I always find your active choice to deliver your replies in the most unsavoury way possible pretty immature. It's almost like you go out of your way to derail conversations. I hope law school teaches you that it's about the people you're giving advice too, not you. 

[CleanHands]

@Rashabon @BlockedQuebecois

Something occurred to me to add regarding the difference between BigLaw and small firm retail law here. A difference that I think really strikes to the core of why the perspectives on this vary between those contexts and the stigma would be greater in the latter context, and why that actually makes sense and isn't a reflection of either camp being irrational.

In BigLaw, not only is there a higher barrier to entry, but there are nepotism policies. These don't stop nepotism from happening in BigLaw but they prevent the more blatant examples of the kind that are not uncommon in small firms. Also, perhaps most importantly, in a BigLaw firm I am sure there would be more supervision and management and quality control over work. And you're dealing with institutional clients on business matters. Basically, the worst BigLaw lawyer is not going to be as incompetent as the worst sole practitioner criminal lawyer, and is not going to be able to inflict as much damage with their incompetence. There are going to be fewer foreign grads and people who were barely capable of getting called, as well.

In the small firm retail law context, there are going to be more blatantly obvious nepotism hires, more foreign graduates, less supervision and reigning in and correction of incompetence. So lawyers in this context are going to get far more exposure to these qualities in opposing counsel than BigLaw lawyers will. And while it's not nice or completely accurate to generalize, certain patterns will and do present themselves in terms of what the profiles of incompetent vs competent lawyers look like (and it shouldn't surprise anyone that being a foreign degree holder with the same name as the firm's founding partner tends to correlate with incompetence). And when peoples' liberty is at stake, incompetence is a huge deal and people working in these areas will rightfully be very judgmental and intolerant of incompetence.

So anyways, when people who have exclusively worked in BigLaw think it's stupid to care where someone went to school or who they are related to, this is something to keep in mind. There will definitely be examples where it's not a fair assumption to make, but there is a reason it does end up being made in some circles.

Edited July 7, 2021 by CleanHands

[Whist]

15 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

You have 0 clue what I’ve done before law school but thank you for commenting on my “experience” and “tact” - I’ll deliver my responses however I see fit thank you very much. 
I hope law school teaches you that the world ain’t all sunshine and rainbows.

I know for a fact that you have zero experience as a lawyer. 

[Pendragon]

I see Windsor single and dual grads working in every single legal market in Canada, including BigLaw and government. While some employers may not hire from the school and some people (mostly law students) may not hold it in high regard, Windsor students are not held back from pursuing the same jobs as anyone else that graduated from a Canadian law school. Windsor graduates still land clerkships. Meanwhile, you can count the number of foreign trained lawyers hired in BigLaw, government, and other competitive fields annually on one or two hands. 

OP may have connections that can get them into their field of choosing, but I am still doubtful whether these connections can land them BigLaw, government and other highly competitive legal jobs where you see almost no one with a foreign law degree working; and they certainly would not be able to land a clerkship barring exceptional circumstances. 

Pursuing the foreign route is fine for the OP if they are ready to face the stigma and are fine with closing some of these doors. If you just want to work at a small real estate or personal injury firm, no one will care where you went to school. Some of these fields also have very low barriers to entry.

On another note, OP came here asking for advice and should be treated with respect and not be piled on for the fact that they come from a privileged background. This forum doesn't exist just to assist people with Canadian law school admissions, but Canadians that are seeking law advice in general, too. 

[QMT20]

On 7/5/2021 at 6:48 PM, BlockedQuebecois said:

Is money an issue? If you have someone footing the bill for your education and you're confident articling will not be a problem if you go, I would strongly consider going to the UK and just taking a flyer on transfer applications next year. The timing of the degree abroad + NCA is either as long or shorter than the timing of reapplying, with no guarantee you'll be accepted in Canada next year.

You should make sure you're truly confident about securing an articling spot, though. There's a guy out in BC who keeps getting dinged for practicing law without ain  licence because he couldn't find articles, even though his father was the name partner at a pretty significant firm before becoming a provincial court judge. 

I agree with @BlockedQuebecois's advice and I think it bears repeating. If you're going to go to a UK school, make sure you've had an actual conversation with the person/people who are going to help you secure articling, and make sure you have a guaranteed offer in hand. I wouldn't take that plunge if I was just assuming someone in my family is going to help me but if you've received real assurances from people who have the authority to make those decisions, well that's a different story. 

The problems with the foreign degree are basically the cost, the diminished access to the Canadian legal market compared to local grads, and the "stigma" which might follow you. It seems like cost and access to work aren't going to be an issue for you, just make sure that's actually the case before you go. 

As for the "stigma", my first impression of someone would be less if they went to a foreign school like Bond just like I would view someone more highly if they had an SCC clerkship. However, I think most people's minds can be changed if you actually do work hard and do a good job. I would more readily defer to someone's opinion if they were an SCC clerk because I'm deferring to their previous accomplishments. I would also probably be more critical of someone with a foreign degree because of their lack of previous accomplishments. I think that's fair, maybe others don't. But I'd be open to changing my mind about either person. 

I don't think going to a foreign school is a "good option" but if it's the one you have and the factors which weigh against it like cost and job opportunities don't apply, then do what you think would give you the best start in imperfect circumstances. But again, make sure you actually do have a guaranteed offer because otherwise you might have a law degree and no way to become a lawyer.