Has anyone ever gotten "stuck" in a legal field they didn't like?

[sarcasticlemon]

Hey guys, 

I'm really striking out for my 2L job prospects, and while I know its early in my legal career, I'm a bit worried. My biggest fear is I end up having to settle for any articling position I get, and it'll be in a type law I really don't like and don't want to spend the rest of my life doing. 

Does this happen? Do people get pigeon-holed into doing less popular types of law?

[123]

Just now, sarcasticlemon said:

Do people get pigeon-holed into doing less popular types of law?

Just now, sarcasticlemon said:

it'll be in a type law I really don't like and don't want to spend the rest of my life doing. 

Yes, people can get pigeon-holed. But no, that doesn't mean you have to do that job for the rest of your life. If you're unhappy with your job, you network to try to build relationships with counsel in your preferred area of practice. You apply for jobs that are maybe a stretch. You contact headhunters. You might look to do some work as a sole, or on contract. You take something that might be a little lower paying or outside your geographical boundaries.

People change jobs in law all the time. It's better to article in something you'd like to do in practice. But your work as a student or junior doesn't bind you to anything forever.

Also, striking out for 2L jobs doesn't mean you won't be able to find decent articles.

[CleanHands]

I just want to mention that it's extremely common for people to get pigeon-holed because they secured 2L OCI jobs.

Make a rough mental note of how many of your law school classmates:

-Get BigLaw jobs after talking a big game about social justice issues in 1L;
-Sheepishly explain that they just want to "open doors" and pay off debt before doing what they really went to law school for and they didn't want to restrict their options by self-selecting out;
-Never end up working in whatever field (crim, refugee, "human rights," mental health, child protection, employee side L&E, Aboriginal, etc) they once claimed to have cared about and intended to work in.

Just wanted to throw that out there given that you asked if this had happened to "anyone," and funny enough my mind went first to people who had secured OCI jobs rather than those who hadn't. In fact, outside of OCIs more than within OCIs, people tend to land jobs that actually align with their CVs--i.e., the volunteering they chose to do, the courses they chose to take, etc. And people tended to pursue things they were actually interested in.

[123]

9 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I just want to mention that it's extremely common for people to get pigeon-holed because they secured 2L OCI jobs.

Make a rough mental note of how many of your law school classmates:

-Get BigLaw jobs after talking a big game about social justice issues in 1L;
-Sheepishly explain that they just want to "open doors" and pay off debt before doing what they really went to law school for and they didn't want to restrict their options by self-selecting out;
-Never end up working in whatever field (crim, refugee, "human rights," mental health, child protection, employee side L&E, Aboriginal, etc) they once claimed to have cared about and intended to work in.

Just wanted to throw that out there given that you asked if this had happened to "anyone," and funny enough my mind went first to people who had secured OCI jobs rather than those who hadn't. In fact, outside of OCIs more than within OCIs, people tend to land jobs that actually align with their CVs--i.e., the volunteering they chose to do, the courses they chose to take, etc. And people tended to pursue things they were actually interested in.

I had one classmate who went from "I came to law school to do union side labour law, worker's rights!", to "I'm just going to apply to other OCI jobs to practice appiication-writing and keep my options open", to "I've accepted a job at management-side firm X, but it's good because I can help protect workers from the inside", to (in the middle of a labour law seminar) "as you know, I'm a management girl..".

I don't really have a dog in the union-management fight, but that was a remarkable ideological evolution in less than a calendar year!

Edited December 6, 2022 by realpseudonym

[LMP]

I agree with CH, I feel way more piegonholed post recruit. 

But putting that aside, I don't see what jobs you fear you are missing out on. Sure, many of the big full service firms might no longer be an option. But there are (and this is doubly true for the articling recruit) many positions in criminal, family, government, realestate, PI and labour focused firms. 

You're only pigenholded if you consider Bay Street the only option. And even then that door, while certianly not wide-open, isn't completely closed. 

[Whist]

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

Make a rough mental note of how many of your law school classmates:

-Get BigLaw jobs after talking a big game about social justice issues in 1L;
-Sheepishly explain that they just want to "open doors" and pay off debt before doing what they really went to law school for and they didn't want to restrict their options by self-selecting out;
-Never end up working in whatever field (crim, refugee, "human rights," mental health, child protection, employee side L&E, Aboriginal, etc) they once claimed to have cared about and intended to work in.

This is my pet peeve. I understand people change their mind on what they want to do, and that doesn't bother me as long as people are up front about it. I'd much rather someone tell me that they want better pay and a nice office, rather than saying to my face they're all that about social justice and abandoning that the moment BigLaw throws them a bone. Like, classmate X, I can see your Instagram posts displaying your passion for social justice, but I also know where you chose to work last summer/where you have future articles and it ain't adding up. 

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

Just wanted to throw that out there given that you asked if this had happened to "anyone," and funny enough my mind went first to people who had secured OCI jobs rather than those who hadn't. In fact, outside of OCIs more than within OCIs, people tend to land jobs that actually align with their CVs--i.e., the volunteering they chose to do, the courses they chose to take, etc. And people tended to pursue things they were actually interested in.

I also agree with this. I'm still in the process, but I feel way more confident about my ability to pursue jobs outside OCIs based on having connections to people through courses or clinics I'm in and wanting to pursue those areas.

[BlockedQuebecois]

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

I just want to mention that it's extremely common for people to get pigeon-holed because they secured 2L OCI jobs.

This is a difference of definitions, but I don’t think it’s right to say people on Bay Street are “pigeon-holed” any more than people off Bay Street. If anything, it is probably easier to move from Bay to other practice areas, because the structural barrier to entry is much lower.

The reason people end up working on Bay when they don’t want to be is because they let their lifestyle inflate and become accustomed to making well over six figures almost immediately out of school, and so they worry that moving into any of those less lucrative areas of law will irreparably harm their quality of life. 

But it’s wrong to say they’re pigeonholed. They could go hang their own shingle and practice criminal law, or family law, or whatever (and the reverse isn’t true). They’re just afraid to give up the paycheque. 

[ZukoJD]

3 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

This is a difference of definitions, but I don’t think it’s right to say people on Bay Street are “pigeon-holed” any more than people off Bay Street. If anything, it is probably easier to move from Bay to other practice areas, because the structural barrier to entry is much lower.

The reason people end up working on Bay when they don’t want to be is because they let their lifestyle inflate and become accustomed to making well over six figures almost immediately out of school, and so they worry that moving into any of those less lucrative areas of law will irreparably harm their quality of life. 

But it’s wrong to say they’re pigeonholed. They could go hang their own shingle and practice criminal law, or family law, or whatever (and the reverse isn’t true). They’re just afraid to give up the paycheque. 

What's the proportion of people that this happens to even? I thought most Bay Street lawyers leave after a few years anyway. Where is the mass exodus of associates going? Mid-sized corporate firms, in-house, solo? 

Edited December 7, 2022 by ZukoJD

[Garfield]

The bay st pigeon hole discussion is kewl. also wouldn’t mind hearing too from folks who took articles in an area of law they did not wind up loving (either out of choice or lack of choice) and then found themselves switching to a different area of law and how hard that was (or not hard) etc…

Edited December 7, 2022 by Garfield

[Naj]

4 hours ago, Whist said:

This is my pet peeve. I understand people change their mind on what they want to do, and that doesn't bother me as long as people are up front about it. I'd much rather someone tell me that they want better pay and a nice office, rather than saying to my face they're all that about social justice and abandoning that the moment BigLaw throws them a bone. Like, classmate X, I can see your Instagram posts displaying your passion for social justice, but I also know where you chose to work last summer/where you have future articles and it ain't adding up. 

I wouldn't really hold that against them. They could end up using some of that nice big law pay to pursue any social justice interests they may have and end up enjoying both a comfortable lifestyle and virtue ventures.

[BlockedQuebecois]

^That’s true. I donate 10% of my salary every year just so that @CleanHands doesn’t publicly roast me for using my legal knowledge to protect the interests of TSX 40 companies. 

[Whist]

1 hour ago, Naj said:

I wouldn't really hold that against them. They could end up using some of that nice big law pay to pursue any social justice interests they may have and end up enjoying both a comfortable lifestyle and virtue ventures.

I'm not expecting that everyone hand over their lives to socially just pursuits, or even parts of their lives. But I'm not interested in people who come down from on high once in awhile to aid social justice causes, just to make themselves feel better about having abandoned something they claim to be so passionate about. I have no problem with people who're up-front that they changed gears because they like money, or acknowledge that the socially just cause was too emotionally taxing or it wasn't what they thought it'd be. The lack of self honesty is my problem. 

[Naj]

1 hour ago, Whist said:

But I'm not interested in people who come down from on high once in awhile to aid social justice causes, just to make themselves feel better about having abandoned something they claim to be so passionate about.

I get that your commentary is intended to be directed towards the people you're describing here, but most people aren't like this (yes, some are) and I think you're overgeneralizing. You paint a cynical picture, when more likely than not they've just made a rational decision to prioritize security and comfort, when the opportunity to do so presented itself, over what you perhaps consider to be a nobler pursuit. Occasionally donating money or giving a little bit of their time every here and there to support a social cause they once cared about doesn't need to sound so self serving as you've made it out to be.

The way you frame those students with initial social justice interests but who later take BigLaw positions as having "abandoned" social justice causes is nonsensical. I think your evaluation would make more sense if the employment decisions of the population you refer to actually had the potential to result in some sort of loss to a cause, but you're just talking about a bunch of law students who haven't committed to anything in the first place in order to have subsequently abandoned it. In such a case, I would consider it a premature interest, and to 'abandon' that for an alternative opportunity involving financial gain and social status is about as normal as people get.

You're the abnormal one, if you will, in this scenario. If you're going to prioritize a career/life of doing something that benefits others at some cost to the benefit you would otherwise receive doing something else, you should generally expect that most people wont empathize with you. I think part of devoting yourself to a just cause, social or otherwise, is accepting that you likely wont be receiving the support and respect that you maybe should be receiving - which actually sounds like what you're really after, some sort of reminder that you chose the difficult but nobler road and they chose the convenient one (which isn't even necessarily true in this case) and then labeling a lack of this as others lack of self honesty in failing to admit such or by providing an alternative reason that doesn't involve subjecting themselves to inferior judgement relative to yourself. Nobody owes you anything for your decision to base your career on some form of social justice, not even their supposed self honesty in admitting they would/could not do the same, believing otherwise would be seriously problematic for yourself.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Naj

[123]

For anyone reading, who is considering a career in a more social justice oriented area of law: there is plenty of support for you in practice. Lots of people will respect and value what you’ll do. If you have any questions about how to connect with that support, feel free to PM me or post elsewhere on the forum. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Whist]

10 hours ago, Naj said:

 - snip -

You misunderstood/misconstrued my point twice. My comments are intended to be directed to a specific subsect of people, which I’ve made clear. I’ve already acknowledged many people change their mind on their path for reasons that I find entirely acceptable and normal. You’re an applicant and have no way of knowing if I’m generalizing or not since you’re not in law school—but even so, I never said anything about the frequency of the behaviour I’m criticizing, you put that in there. I don’t think it’s most people who're like this, but it happens often enough that I’m not the only person who’s mentioned it in the thread. You’ve also decided to make quite a few assumptions about me, when the only info I’ve given is that I’m not using OCIs to job seek. People who dedicate their lives to good causes absolutely get support and respect. I guess you've never done that kind of work or you'd know. Moreover, I’m not someone dead set on a career that betters others at a cost to me. I want to help good causes where I can but I fully acknowledge that my personal wellbeing comes first. Like most people.

This thread was about getting pigeonholed into certain types of law. I suppose mods can splice if they want, or you can stop making unhelpful comments. 
 

[t3ctonics]

There's a fair bit of opportunity for mobility between practice areas, especially for more junior lawyers. I know many lawyers that have transitioned through multiple different fields, and I have done so myself. I don't personally know any lawyers that are currently stuck in fields they hate, though I've known a few that felt stuck until they landed something else. This is pretty common at the mid-to-senior associate level.

The challenge isn't that experience in one area disqualifies or locks you out from other areas; it's more that it just doesn't really qualify you for other areas. Fundamental lawyering skills (contract/statutory interpretation, writing and communication skills, client management, etc.) are transferable between areas, as is very general legal knowledge and experience, but practice in most fields depends on knowledge and experience with the law and factual context of that area. Doing labour litigation isn't particularly relevant experience to wills and estates practice. Doing mergers and acquisitions isn't particularly useful for criminal practice. So on and so forth. Obviously, some areas have more crossover than others; for example, criminal defence experience would be more relevant experience for a class action litigation job than, say, a corporate tax job, because general litigation skills are transferable.

What this means is that if you want to switch areas, it will likely mean taking on a less senior role than your year of call would otherwise suggest (at least temporarily - from what I've seen, a lot of people seem to catch up after a few years). I don't think it ever means starting from the same footing as a brand new call, as general legal knowledge and experience has some value, but legal employers will always discount irrelevant experience to some degree.

Some potential employers might see you as a flight risk, particularly if you're applying for a more junior position and would easily be able to make more going back to your old area. You'd need to be able to convince them that you genuinely want to switch practice areas. That shouldn't be hard if you actually want to switch.

[CheeseToast]

On 12/6/2022 at 5:34 PM, LMP said:

But there are (and this is doubly true for the articling recruit) many positions in criminal, family, government, realestate, PI and labour focused firms

At least where I am these two types of jobs actually seem to be the most difficult to get. 

[LMP]

20 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

At least where I am these two types of jobs actually seem to be the most difficult to get. 

Hasn't been my experience. But even if that is correct it doesn't change my point which is that those types of roles will at least be avalible (if not accessible) during the articling recruit.

Something that can't be said about big law jobs. At least not in the way they were avalible in the 2L recruit.

[ZukoJD]

Does anyone know how those professional certifications offered by Osgoode are viewed? If someone was looking to switch areas and didn’t want the commitment of an LLM-but still wanted some sort of academic grounding in an area-would those kind of certifications be useful? Or are they not really worth much/only useful to lawyers in that specific practice area? 

Edited December 9, 2022 by ZukoJD

[Diplock]

"Stuck," as the word used in the title, is the right word. Yes, people do get stuck in areas of law they would prefer not to practice, just as people get stuck in many ways. People get stuck in other jobs they dislike too. People get stuck in unhappy marriages. People get stuck in unhealthy lifestyles. Being stuck is a human condition, and in most cases it has very little to do with not having options. It's only about how you choose to approach your life and whether you're willing to make necessary and sometimes difficult changes.

Leaving aside the question of whether it's more reasonable to feel stuck due to high income you can't fully replace elsewhere, and whether one kind of stuck is better than another kind of stuck, the commonality to all of these situations is that you're only doing it to yourself. I mean, if you really have the only job that anyone is willing to give you, that's something beyond stuck. If you can't afford to leave because you're supporting two disabled children and your benefits are the only thing making it work, that's beyond stuck. But almost anyone working in the legal profession has options. We're just talking about situations where you don't like the trade-offs. So really, all we're talking about is exaggerated angst over not getting everything all at once, and having to make compromises. And in some cases, as in the "I really want to do social justice but I'm forced to work for Bay Street and it makes me so sad to need so much money I have no choice" scenario, we're talking about either real failures to identify what's most important of the compromises available to you, or we're talking about comforting lies that allow people to pretend they don't like the compromises they've made even though they do reflect their values.

Regardless, the point is this. Leaving aside extreme scenarios, you're only ever as stuck as you allow yourself to be. Chances are, you won't get everything you want in life all at once. Almost no one does. Identify what's most important to you, keep a clear eye on these areas where you are willing to compromise and the areas where you are not, and make that choice deliberately. That's the best anyone can ever do.

 

[Diplock]

Just to hammer home a thought that was in my mind the whole time I wrote the above, but never quite said, I'd like to add this. Some people get on their high horse over colleagues and friends who talk a good game about social justice and then grab for the money and work in big law without ever looking back. That's a kind of hypocrisy, absolutely, and in a way it does take away from the students and lawyers who are really walking the walk as well as talking the talk. But the older I get, the less it bothers me. When you're young, everyone is going to be an artist or a bitcoin entrepreneur or open a trendy yoga studio. Dreams adapt to reality. Young people sneer at older people who have made compromises and imagine they are pure until they get older themselves. It was ever thus.

Where I get on my high horse is here. When you are a highly educated young person living in Canada with your life ahead of you - absent extremely specific personal conditions - it's simply ahistorical to describe yourself as forced to continue in a job you dislike. In the great sweep of human history, almost everyone who ever lived really had no choice. Most people were born into subsistence level work and they did the same things their family were doing already. You know what happens when you stop doing the subsistence-level work you were born into? You stop subsisting. Leaving aside somewhat-older history, I doubt almost anyone here needs to look back many generations to see what having no choice really looks like. My grandfather had a grade eight education and worked in a clothing factory with minimal English. That's a guy who did the only work he could get to support his family. My father sold cars, which was the best job he would ever find until it wasn't. My mother worked a blue collar job in the printing trade. There was a market for her skills, but she couldn't support me (my father wasn't working then) doing anything else. That's my family history, and most of yours probably isn't different, going back only a couple of generations.

Your parents and grandparents and the family before them worked with few or no options to put you in a position where you do have options. Bitching about the options you have, and pretending they don't exist because not being able to afford fancy vacations is an intolerable compromise in your life, is a gross insult to the people who got you to where you are.

P.S. The "you" in all of the above is rhetorical. I don't claim anyone here is doing this directly, right now. But the question was about the general impression that working lawyers do get trapped in jobs they dislike, so the "you" refers to anyone making such a claim.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Diplock

[SNAILS]

The issue of 1L students that go to big law is sooooo true.

I'm probably the most "anti-woke" person you'd ever meet. I would not be caught dead at a BLM protest. I wrote a law school term paper on the merits of capitalism (and got an A in that course).

Last summer, there was an African refugee who did not speak English. He was accused of sexual assault and his Legal Aid was denied (he had a minimum wage income but no excess money). No social justice warriors came to his aid.  It was I who arranged an interpreter and told Legal Aid that he risks deportation to an oppressive country if they don't reconsider his Legal Aid. He got the certificate and plead out to simple assault. It was all a big misunderstanding due to the language barrier.

[123]

6 hours ago, SNAILS said:

I'm probably the most "anti-woke" person you'd ever meet. I would not be caught dead at a BLM protest. I wrote a law school term paper on the merits of capitalism (and got an A in that course).

My only complaint about this part of your post was it wasn’t longer. These examples of being anti-woke are excellent and I simply must hear more! What else?  “I have two subscriptions to the National Post and I wake up half an hour early to ensure that I have time to read both before trundling off to set-date court.” “I will sometimes give money to buskers playing instruments, but only if they can provide me with their SIN number so that I can report them to the CRA, because shouldn’t that be taxable income goddammit?!” 

[CleanHands]

"I hate wokeness but I'll defend a man accused of sexual assault even if he's black." lol

[123]

55 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

"I hate wokeness but I'll defend a man accused of sexual assault even if he's black." lol

It's wonderful that he thought to share this anecdote with us. It raises so many questions. He started with the premise of there being SJWs working on bay street. Okay, fine. But what does the African migrant story have to do with woke law students? Why would some corporate summer student get involved in this? Was the expectation that woke people should defend this guy because he's from Africa? Why would that matter? Does he believe that true progressives walk around going "hmm, some guy was charged with sexual assault, but wait, he's from Africa!"?

Anyway, weird post. 10/10. Thanks for stopping by@SNAILS. Really good stuff.