Is Cutting Articling from 10 Months to 8 Months Frowned Upon?

[ForTheWin2022]

Hi Everyone,

I posted a thread earlier about letting my firm know of my intentions not to remain at my firm after articling, but I figured I would ask this separately since it might also help others and is a different topic. How is it typically looked at by prospective employers if you cut your articling? Do they ever find out? With the new rules, you can get called at eight months, and I would prefer to finish my term then.

I figure telling my firm now is sufficient notice. I know it is ultimately their choice, but I do not think it will ultimately be an issue for them.

Edited December 25, 2022 by ForTheWin2022

[Apple]

It's not been a negative thing in my experience. It just meant I could make more money sooner. I don't see how employers would find out unless they asked. If they did take issue with it, then they're taking issue with 2 months of additional experience and that probably tells you a lot about them. If they bring it up, just articulate that you have the skill set and that two extra months of experience does not necessarily equal greater competency. 

If after 8 months you haven't gotten things together regarding competency - two months won't change that in my view. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

Presumably the fact that your articles were shortened would be obvious from your resume, as you will only have worked at the firm for eight months instead of ten. I know lawyers are bad at math, but they’re not that bad at math. 

I don’t really think this is something you can say is positive or negative on it’s own. I help with lateral recruitment for my group, and I would probably notice if someone had abbreviated articles this year and might ask them about it. My concerns wouldn’t be competence-based, but rather relationship-based: were you always supposed to article for eight months or did it get cut short, who cut it short, why, etc. 

It’s also worth noting the reason my concerns aren’t competency-based is because nobody in my practice area is competent in the true sense immediately post-call. I am not sure I would agree with @Apple that a 20% reduction in training time doesn’t lead to a decrease in competence in the fields where someone would be considered competent to run their own practice post-call. 

[reaperlaw]

I would be more concerned about what the firm you are asking to end articling early would think rather than what other firms would think.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone would care if you did eight months vs. 10 months. Surely they will know, as your call date will be outside the typical June call date for 10 month terms, I just don't know why that would be a problem. Lots of people have done eight month terms the past two years.

I'm risk-adverse when it comes to ending these sort of employment programs early, and I think of it in terms of whether you are risking burning a bridge. If I recall, since COVID, don't you indicate to the LSO when you started how long your articling term would be? So who decided your term would be 10 months then? Was it you or your firm? Have you talked to someone at your firm about this already? Or you planning on just making the request?

Our articling students this year are doing 10 months and we would've been fine of course if they had asked for eight months when they started, but I'm not sure how thrilled we would be if a request was made now to shorten the term to eight months, even if ultimately we said yes. Articling students can be valuable resource for keeping files on budget and we could already be counting on having that resource available in April/May.

If you haven't already done so/haven't already received information that suggests this would be OK, already, my personal advice would be to broach the subject informally first, whether that's with whoever makes the decision or someone else you're comfortable with. Do not assume without good reason that they would be OK with it.