Jump to content

ITCs/PFOs Toronto Articling Recruit


everythingbagel
 Share

Recommended Posts

BlockedQuebecois
  • Lawyer
5 minutes ago, VivianKensington said:

I noticed it was removed from the site, so I emailed it in. I would have hoped that they would have let schools/applicants know

That’s what they did when they pulled their listing from the portal. They probably emailed anybody who had already applied through the portal letting them know they decided not to hire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piccolo
  • Law Student
5 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

That’s what they did when they pulled their listing from the portal. They probably emailed anybody who had already applied through the portal letting them know they decided not to hire. 

That would be the courteous thing to do, but I don't think they did that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JustinCredible
  • Law Student
6 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

That’s what they did when they pulled their listing from the portal. They probably emailed anybody who had already applied through the portal letting them know they decided not to hire. 

No they didn’t 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

everythingbagel
  • Law Student

Anyone heard from any of the following?

Samfiru Tumarkin, Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson, Unifor, Dewart Gleason, Green and Spiegel, Levitt (LSCS), Mills & Mills, TTC, CERA, CELA, Teplitsky Colson, LEAF, OHRC, any other MAG offices

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlockedQuebecois
  • Lawyer
2 minutes ago, Piccolo said:

That would be the courteous thing to do, but I don't think they did that.

Fair enough. If I were them I would have, although it’s pretty common for employers just to ghost unsuccessful candidates.

My point was mainly that they told potential applicants and schools they weren’t hiring when they pulled the listing, and it’s silly to think they should’ve somehow let every potential applicant and school know they decided not to hire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VivianKensington
4 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Fair enough. If I were them I would have, although it’s pretty common for employers just to ghost unsuccessful candidates.

My point was mainly that they told potential applicants and schools they weren’t hiring when they pulled the listing, and it’s silly to think they should’ve somehow let every potential applicant and school know they decided not to hire. 

I disagree. My school had a listing up in our job portal that remained up until the application deadline. The least they could have done is notified schools, so they could have notified students and pulled the listing. I thought it was a viportal glitch. 

Edited by VivianKensington
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UofT3L
  • Law Student
11 minutes ago, everythingbagel said:

Anyone heard from any of the following?

Samfiru Tumarkin, Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson, Unifor, Dewart Gleason, Green and Spiegel, Levitt (LSCS), Mills & Mills, TTC, CERA, CELA, Teplitsky Colson, LEAF, OHRC, any other MAG offices

Have got ITC from MAG Crown Civil, MAG Justice Policy Branch, City of Toronto, Stevenson Whelton, Deloitte. PFO from Dentons just now.

 

Haven't heard from Mills/Green and Spiegel/CELA/Teplitsky/LEAF/OHRC/FRSA or any other MAG 

Edited by UofT3L
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlockedQuebecois
  • Lawyer
11 minutes ago, VivianKensington said:

I disagree. My school had a listing up in our job portal that remained up until the application deadline. The least they could have done is notified schools, so they could have notified students and pulled the listing. I thought it was a viportal glitch. 

Look, the reason I make posts like these is because students so frequently need a dose of reality about the dynamics during recruits. Without that dose of reality, these threads end up like that discord server with just law applicants who are all giving unrealistic advice and making silly complaints.

Students think that the employers owe them something simply because they've decided to apply, as evidenced by the sentiment you've expressed and the sentiment above that they should all send ITC/PFO emails on the same day. 

They don't. They don't owe you anything. Some employers will decide they aren't hiring and just put the resumes in the trash. Some employers will ghost you. They're perfectly within their rights to do so.

If I were an employer I would tell the school so that the school pulls down the listing, but that's because I wouldn't want to get a bunch of emails I need to trash with random resumes, not because I would owe those applicants anything. For all you know, the firm doesn't even know the school put its listing on their website and has been annoyed that all the students from [insert school name] after the pulled their listing from the portal. 

I'm not saying this to be mean, but to remind everyone here that this is the dynamic of job searches. Outside of the specific rules the firms have agreed to play by with the LSO (which to be clear, are for their benefit, not yours), the firms are going to treat this like any other job recruit. You should too. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piccolo
  • Law Student
3 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Look, the reason I make posts like these is because students so frequently need a dose of reality about the dynamics during recruits. Without that dose of reality, these threads end up like that discord server with just law applicants who are all giving unrealistic advice and making silly complaints.

Students think that the employers owe them something simply because they've decided to apply, as evidenced by the sentiment you've expressed and the sentiment above that they should all send ITC/PFO emails on the same day. 

They don't. They don't owe you anything. Some employers will decide they aren't hiring and just put the resumes in the trash. Some employers will ghost you. They're perfectly within their rights to do so, and they don't owe you anything. If I were an employer I would tell the school so that the school pulls down the listing, but that's because I wouldn't want to get a bunch of emails I need to trash with random resumes, not because I would owe those applicants anything. For all you know, the firm doesn't even know the school put its listing on their website and has been annoyed that all the students from [insert school name] after the pulled their listing from the portal. 

I'm not saying this to be mean, but to remind everyone here that this is the dynamic of job searches. Outside of the specific rules the firms have agreed to play by with the LSO (which to be clear, are for their benefit, not yours), the firms are going to treat this like any other job recruit. You should too. 

1069901.jpg.611587e94e1123a0674071a335466cf1.jpg

  • Like 4
  • LOL 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UofT3L said:

Have got ITC from MAG Crown Civil, MAG Justice Policy Branch, City of Toronto, Stevenson Whelton, Deloitte. PFO from Dentons just now.

 

Haven't heard from Mills/Green and Spiegel/CELA/Teplitsky/LEAF/OHRC/FRSA or any other MAG 

To people who've received 5+ more ITCS, just wondering, how many interviews do you plan to accept? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawllapalooza
  • Law Student
3 minutes ago, Sureaboutnotbeingsure said:

Is there anything significant about ITCs? Does that mean the employer is very interested in you? 

ITC stands for 'intention to call'. Essentially the way that the recruit is regulated makes it so firms cannot book an interview time with you until a specific date (for this year's Toronto articling recruit, that date is tomorrow), however they can email you before then to advise that they will be calling. Not every firm sends them but when they do it acts as an interview offer that will be formalized/the exact time selected on Call Day.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sureaboutnotbeingsure
Just now, Lawllapalooza said:

ITC stands for 'intention to call'. Essentially the way that the recruit is regulated makes it so firms cannot book an interview time with you until a specific date (for this year's Toronto articling recruit, that date is tomorrow), however they can email you before then to advise that they will be calling. Not every firm sends them but when they do it acts as an interview offer that will be formalized/the exact time selected on Call Day.

Thanks! So one cannot infer that if they received an ITC, the employer is more than normally interested in recruiting them? As opposed to receiving a call without an ITC prior to call day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawllapalooza
  • Law Student
Just now, Sureaboutnotbeingsure said:

Thanks! So one cannot infer that if they received an ITC, the employer is more than normally interested in recruiting them? As opposed to receiving a call without an ITC prior to call day?

Correct, the exception being that if a firm that does send ITC emails does not send you one but then calls you on call day, you can infer that those who received ITCs from them are candidates the firm was more interested in. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By accessing this website, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT CONSTRUE ANY POST ON THIS WEBSITE AS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE EVEN IF SUCH POST IS MADE BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A LAWYER. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.