Recommended Courses for Litigation

[MapleLeafs]

I'm an incoming 2L interested in litigation. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding must take courses for someone interested in litigation? Thanks! 

[QueensGrad]

A moot, evidence, trusts, admin, Advanced research/equivalent, statutory interpretation, civil trial practice/equivalent, civ pro and advanced civ pro/equivalent, an ADR/negotiations class, remedies/equivalent 

Edited July 8, 2021 by QueensGrad

[CleanHands]

A clinic involving court experience > A moot

[pinball]

10 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

A clinic involving court experience > A moot

Strongly agree. Take a full year clinic course - it'll help you find out if you actually like litigation.

[Ramesses]

I don't have any suggestions different than the ones already mentioned. But I would recommend keeping an open mind. I wanted to be a litigator all the way up until this summer and took 2L courses that supported that. However, after summering, I'm like nope, I want to be a solicitor now. 

[tralfamadorian]

Agree with the comments above - clinics can be a great way to get hands-on advocacy experience. While the rules and procedures of administrative tribunals (usually the realm of clinics) will differ from those of the Courts, the ability to make persuasive written and oral arguments is going to be transferable, and something to start developing early-on in your career. Clinics also tend to involve a fair amount of client interaction, meaning you learn a lot of skills that may not (or cannot) be taught in the classroom - interacting with emotional clients, hearing complex life stories and parsing out relevant facts and issues, managing client expectations, etc. 

Also, don't know what law school you're at, but I really enjoyed Osgoode's Trial Advocacy course. I haven't looked into it, but imagine that most law schools would have something comparable.

[MapleLeafs]

I'm currently working at a firm specializing in litigation and I like it. Haven't got to experience solicitor or corporate law work yet, but it does seem interesting. The problem is that I don't have any experiences that express a potential interest in corp law, so I want to show employers an interest in something for the 2L or articling recruit (that being litigation since it ties well into my 1L ECs and my summer job). I think I'll stick to a varied course load for 2L (with some litigation courses, other half corp law/PI/L&E) and double down on litigation for 3L if it's really my passion. The clinic is also a good idea! Thanks everyone 🙂 

[LMP]

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

A clinic involving court experience > A moot

Would you say it's feasible to do both in the same year? 

 

29 minutes ago, tralfamadorian said:

 

Also, don't know what law school you're at, but I really enjoyed Osgoode's Trial Advocacy course. I haven't looked into it, but imagine that most law schools would have something comparable.

Could you talk a bit about the trial advocacy course and why you found it helpful? Are there any other courses at Osgoode you'd recommend for those interested in litigation?

[CleanHands]

7 minutes ago, LMP said:

Would you say it's feasible to do both in the same year?

I know people who did both in the same year and yes, it seems doable (although those I know who did this did mention it certainly kept them busy).

I'm personally extremely biased against moots though. I see them as incredibly silly and a waste of talent and effort. Some top notch lawyers coach such things so I'm sure there are some great training opportunities to be had, but the fact that people with stacked resumes spend time on moots instead of volunteering helping low income clients or something just makes me hate them more (but hey, I fully admit this is a "me" problem). I also think that they are simply inferior training to getting actual court experience in a real-world setting.

Edited July 8, 2021 by CleanHands

[Aschenbach]

7 minutes ago, LMP said:

Would you say it's feasible to do both in the same year? 

I did both a moot and clinic in the same year. It's doable but if you also plan on doing the recruit, it can get really hairy. I remember doing moot practice at 7 am and then jumping straight to OCIs after and doing some clinic work in the evening. I was about 3 months behind on coursework by the time the moot and recruit ended. Looking back, I would have saved some of it for 3L.

[123]

If I was deciding between (i) a candidate who had examined witnesses, written affidavits, drafted letters, interviewed clients, prepared clients for testimony, had carriage of files under supervision, opened files, closed files, done a motion in court, done a housing hearing, or done whatever else students do at clinics and (ii) someone who spent dozens (or hundreds?) of hours refining the same appellate legal argument, that would be a pretty easy decision. 

Two caveats. First, I've never employed a student, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Second, I'm approaching this from a small firm/sole practitioner perspective, where I want students to demonstrate a commitment to serving individual, often vulnerable clients and I need them to contribute right away. From this perspective, practical experience and skills are paramount. I've heard it's different at bigger firms, where they can afford to pay the smartest students to do backend legal work under heavy supervision, even if the students have little practical experience. Moots might be more valuable if you're aiming for the latter.     

[BlockedQuebecois]

43 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

Second, I'm approaching this from a small firm/sole practitioner perspective, where I want students to demonstrate a commitment to serving individual, often vulnerable clients and I need them to contribute right away. From this perspective, practical experience and skills are paramount. I've heard it's different at bigger firms, where they can afford to pay the smartest students to do backend legal work under heavy supervision, even if the students have little practical experience. Moots might be more valuable if you're aiming for the latter.

I’d say big firms weigh moots and clinics approximately equally, which as you note is a shift from smaller firms. Individual interviewers at firms might have their own preferences (likely based on their law school experiences), but I think it essentially evens out. 

If you’re in litigation at a bigger firm, most of your early career work is going to more closely resemble the work done preparing for moots (i.e. researching and drafting). With that said, clinics demonstrate a lot of transferable skills, such as time and client management and written advocacy. 

At the end of the day, for big firms both are just signals that somebody has considered you halfway competent in the past and you have an interest in litigation, broadly defined. 

[tralfamadorian]

44 minutes ago, LMP said:

Could you talk a bit about the trial advocacy course and why you found it helpful? Are there any other courses at Osgoode you'd recommend for those interested in litigation?

Effectively, the trial advocacy course involves a series of lectures and small seminars, where you go through various steps of the trial process (ex. one week you'll focus on direct examinations, the next you'll be cross-examining, the next you'll be learning how to impeach a witness and the various purposes and techniques for doing so, introducing evidence, then on to closing statements, etc.). It's fairly hands on, and you are expected to conduct these exercises at each seminar in front of your peers, instructors, and guests. The course is led by practitioners, and they have guest practitioners and judges come in to act as witnesses, judges, etc. The instructors and guests provide practical comments, critiques, and insight, which I found to be very helpful, and which I continue to apply in practice. Given the format, it's also a potential avenue to do some networking. All in all, the trial advocacy course is a fairly low-stakes way to get some practical experience and make mistakes without worrying about prejudicing a client.

As a footnote, I took this course in the "before time", back when we had in-person instruction. I'm not sure that I would've enjoyed or gained as much from the course had it been conducted remotely.

I'll add that it's never too early to sit-in and watch actual Court proceedings. Even if you don't know everything that's going on, you can pick up a lot from watching other lawyers, observing the judge's reaction, and taking notes about what appears to be working and what doesn't:

"Wow, this lawyer is really speeding through his submissions. With the judge frantically typing away like that, I wonder if he is hearing everything the lawyer is saying. What point is he trying to make?"    vs.    "This lawyer started with a clear summary of her client's position. I can now follow-along with her arguments and I know her most important points. She's speaking clearly, paying attention to the judge, and pausing, when necessary, to allow the judge to follow along.")

[Psychometronic]

+ Negotiation or mediation courses if your school offers them. 

[Kid Presentable]

Take evidence. As far as substantive law courses go, it's the most useful by far for litigation.

[SadJaysFan]

If your school offers a remedies course I'd highly recommend it. There's way more issues there than people realize and it's guaranteed to come up every time you're in court.

Also do private international law/conflict of laws, since those issues tend to come up extremely frequently in any type of litigation.

[BlockedQuebecois]

20 minutes ago, SadJaysFan said:

If your school offers a remedies course I'd highly recommend it. There's way more issues there than people realize and it's guaranteed to come up every time you're in court.

Also do private international law/conflict of laws, since those issues tend to come up extremely frequently in any type of litigation.

I think you might be overestimating how frequently conflict of laws comes up in normal litigation. It’s a pretty uncommon issue. Certainly in some types of litigation the issue will arise with more frequency, but the vast majority of Canadian litigation won’t have any conflict of laws issues. 

[SadJaysFan]

16 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I think you might be overestimating how frequently conflict of laws comes up in normal litigation. It’s a pretty uncommon issue. Certainly in some types of litigation the issue will arise with more frequency, but the vast majority of Canadian litigation won’t have any conflict of laws issues. 

Conflict of laws itself, sure, that doesn't come up much. But usually a private international law course (sometimes labelled conflict of laws) will address other jurisdictional issues that come up all the time, like forum selection, enforcing foreign judgments, etc. Bearing in mind that international in this context often refers to interprovincial, these come up frequently (mainly where there are parties who have assets in multiple provinces).