Biglaw Articling Hours

[GGrievous]

I could be wrong because I've never been there but I can't imagine there's much incentive to work in a big law office besides money. Learning is obviously important for the long-term benefits of even more money, but how much can a burnt out person even learn after working an unsustainable amount of hours regularly.

[BlockedQuebecois]

All I can say is that I’ve never articled, but that if someone expected me to work until 11 PM with any regularity, I would quit and go work somewhere else.

I encourage students (once they’re called) and associates to do the same, and I hope partners that expect that kind of thing will be left with no assistance. Hopefully when they need it most 🙂

 

[Ohshmagoda]

I don’t personally think a 12 or 14 hour day (with appropriate coffee or meal breaks, etc. as others have described) is that unusual in big law for students and associates that are trying to exceed expectations. If somebody is never working those types of days in a standard transactional corporate/M&A practice… I kind of assume they’re doing something weird. The nature of the deadlines, unexpected requests, etc. make it impossible (for me) to avoid long days. Aside from the volume of work to be done when juggling multiple transactions, it’s also common to have to work weird hours because of timezone issues or because there is a cadence to the flow of the transaction that would become disjointed and unnecessarily prolonged if you’re unwilling to work early and/or late to move things forward efficiently.

[KOMODO]

14 hours ago, Vitron said:

I don’t think the pay in the States is irrelevant, especially for practice areas like transactional law that are extremely similar between Big Law TO and NYC. I could see a different argument being made for litigation.

A lot of big law TO students were competitive for the NY recruit and many chose to not do it because NY has a reputation of grinding associates much harder than TO. 

So it’s totally a fair comparison when you’re comparing similar workloads with vastly different salary structures.

People working here are here for some reason - they have family ties, don't like the social structure in the States, aren't actually competitive for US biglaw positions, want a better shot at partnership, don't want to work as many hours, etc. But for whatever reason, they are in Canada. If they wanted to go to the States and someone wanted to hire them, they could do that.

Once we accept that they are in Canada, the question becomes - what kind of pay can our market support? And the fact is, the rates and size of clients here are never going to be widely on par with what is happening in NYC. So it really is irrelevant that an associate in NYC is making whatever they're making, because that's not possible here and the equivalent Canadian associate either doesn't want to go down there or isn't welcome to go down there.

Also, you're not comparing similar workloads. Being in the office from 9am-9pm (or even to 11pm) on weekdays in Toronto with breaks, non-billable stuff, weekends mostly free, etc. is less of an hours grind than many first year associates are doing in the States, even without all of the other benefits of being here that I mentioned above. And again, we're focusing on articling which is 10 months, whereas the hours grind in the States continues for much longer.

13 hours ago, helloall said:

Dangling a hireback as a carrot and pretending as if ~$80K is a substantial articling salary for being in the office ~70 hours a week is wild. Also, I agree with others that a comparison to NY is fair. Not only is there the supposed advantage of a more lenient schedule, but it renders the "training" argument moot for transactional law.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "training" argument being moot? My point is that being willing to work longer hours while articling gives you the opportunity to learn more while you're articling. It's nice to have the chance to ask questions, have someone else review your work, shadow other lawyers, etc. before you're fully responsible as a called lawyer. This isn't just a job, it's a career, and an articling student who takes the position that they're only going to work until 5 or 6 is probably missing out on chances to develop their skills early. People in this thread are treating articling like some kind of "put in your time for exactly $X and don't give your employer a minute more" and that's so odd to me, they would get much more out of it by looking at it as an extension of their education (during which they are paid exceptionally well).

Edited April 21, 2023 by KOMODO

[KOMODO]

10 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

All I can say is that I’ve never articled, but that if someone expected me to work until 11 PM with any regularity, I would quit and go work somewhere else.

I encourage students (once they’re called) and associates to do the same, and I hope partners that expect that kind of thing will be left with no assistance. Hopefully when they need it most 🙂

 

I mean, maybe the fact that you never articled is why you don't get it? Articling is a time for many people when they form meaningful relationships with their peers and supervising lawyers and get a chance to develop their skills before being at risk of a lawsuit. It's not the same as working at a restaurant over a summer where you're just there for the cash.

Also, the "hopefully when they need it most" bit is such a weird take. If people don't want to work biglaw hours, that's fine, they can obviously leave and I'm not saying that this job is for everyone. But wishing hardship on the partners training them is messed up. Firms don't make money off most articling students, it's actually quite a bit of work to supervise them and explain everything so that they can be involved with the work, and it's seen as an investment because we hope that they'll become associates and maybe even partners themselves. When my juniors are working long hours, it's typically because I've gone to extra effort to get them a piece of an interesting file that I feel will be a good learning experience. It might be easier for me to use a clerk or do it myself, but then our students wouldn't get anything out of the experience.

[BlockedQuebecois]

Yes, I’m sure the problem is that I “don’t get it” and not that expecting articling students (and junior associates) to work until 11:00 PM consistently is abusive and exploitative 🙂 

[Vitron]

[Vitron]

43 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

People working here are here for some reason - they have family ties, don't like the social structure in the States, aren't actually competitive for US biglaw positions, want a better shot at partnership, don't want to work as many hours, etc. But for whatever reason, they are in Canada. If they wanted to go to the States and someone wanted to hire them, they could do that.

Once we accept that they are in Canada, the question becomes - what kind of pay can our market support? And the fact is, the rates and size of clients here are never going to be widely on par with what is happening in NYC. So it really is irrelevant that an associate in NYC is making whatever they're making, because that's not possible here and the equivalent Canadian associate either doesn't want to go down there or isn't welcome to go down there.

 

I don’t understand this argument at all. When someone is working in any other industry, they constantly compare pay among different geographies for similar work. Is a tech worker in Toronto prohibited from comparing his conditions to someone working a similar job in Silicon Valley? Absolutely not.

While law is more geographically limited, this just means there are fewer jurisdictions to compare to, which is why we’re only talking about NY vs. Toronto.

It’s really not a stretch of argument to be: “Ok, so this person doing the exact same job as me is working slightly more hours makes 50% more. Good for them. In that case, I expect to work less than them”.

 

Edit: I suppose it’s different when you’re married and have a family but most articling students are not at that stage of life so comparing standards at largely fungible jobs is totally fair.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Vitron

[KOMODO]

56 minutes ago, Vitron said:

I don’t understand this argument at all. When someone is working in any other industry, they constantly compare pay among different geographies for similar work. Is a tech worker in Toronto prohibited from comparing his conditions to someone working a similar job in Silicon Valley? Absolutely not.

While law is more geographically limited, this just means there are fewer jurisdictions to compare to, which is why we’re only talking about NY vs. Toronto.

It’s really not a stretch of argument to be: “Ok, so this person doing the exact same job as me is working slightly more hours makes 50% more. Good for them. In that case, I expect to work less than them”.

 

Edit: I suppose it’s different when you’re married and have a family but most articling students are not at that stage of life so comparing standards at largely fungible jobs is totally fair.

I don't understand your perspective at all either. We aren't in NYC and the market conditions here are completely different. People still choose to work in Toronto for various reasons even though they would make more money if they were offered a job in NYC and chose to take it. Obviously they're not doing that either because they don't have the option or don't want to do it.

The discussion about "is it reasonable for articling students to work in the evening" is about more than just money. But in terms of money, I think it's ridiculous that a biglaw articling student would say they are unwilling to work late because they aren't paid enough. Very few career tracks allow someone to stay in Canada (which these people either want or need to do) and have the earning potential of a soon-to-be biglaw associate. 

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Yes, I’m sure the problem is that I “don’t get it” and not that expecting articling students (and junior associates) to work until 11:00 PM consistently is abusive and exploitative 🙂 

I think the problem is that as usual, you're completely ignoring the substantive part of my argument (what people get out of articling being more than just money, but rather training and other intrinsic benefits that stay with them long term, and those things scale with the amount of effort a student puts in) in favour of focusing on the most extreme example that anyone has mentioned (a student staying at the office until 11pm), and then acting like it's a baseline rather than an extreme. This whole discussion started with saying that I would encourage articling students to be in the office more than the minimum technical requirement because they'll have more opportunities to learn things if they're available. That's not abusive or exploitative at all, it's good advice for people who care about developing their skills.

[Cool_name]

I always find it slightly odd when people are shocked or annoyed that law firms require their associates to work long hours. Isn’t it common knowledge that lawyers, especially biglaw lawyers, work long hours?

If you want to work shorter hours (but still long) there are smaller firms with more relaxed targets. If you want to work even less, maybe policy based jobs. 

 

In respect of New York, if you think 12 hour days are bad, then New York pay is irrelevant because you wouldn’t make it, but in any event, they bill their lawyers out at much higher rates, which is why they can pay more.

[WhoKnows]

1 hour ago, KOMODO said:

This whole discussion started with saying that I would encourage articling students to be in the office more than the minimum technical requirement because they'll have more opportunities to learn things if they're available. That's not abusive or exploitative at all, it's good advice for people who care about developing their skills.

I don't think you'll find many, if any, people here that disagree that as an articling student you should be in more than is necessary to take advantage of the opportunities, or that articling students don't choose to work late in order to take advantage of that. I doubt @BlockedQuebecois would be against either of those things. 

What BQ is against, and frankly what I am against as well, is partners who believe it is their god-given right to have access to students at all times, and who don't care if it means they burn students and juniors out. There is a difference between students choosing to work until 11pm from time to time because they're interested in a subject and got a cool piece of work, or because it's a busy period, and a student who is simply expected to be in until 11pm (or frankly, until 9, or 10) every day because "it's their job". And given you seem to acknowledge that students are an investment, you should be against the latter too. It's bad for retention, morale, and work quality. 

And I think it's well known that the only thing that will change that is to make the partners that do have those expectations, and who do have the reputation for burning students out needlessly, is to make them feel the consequences of those actions. The best way to do that is to make sure they don't have assistance when they do need it. An added benefit is that those students and juniors still need to bill their hours, so they go and give more time to reasonable partners with reasonable expectations. Win-win, as far as I'm concerned. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by WhoKnows

[KOMODO]

33 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

I always find it slightly odd when people are shocked or annoyed that law firms require their associates to work long hours. Isn’t it common knowledge that lawyers, especially biglaw lawyers, work long hours?

If you want to work shorter hours (but still long) there are smaller firms with more relaxed targets. If you want to work even less, maybe policy based jobs. 

 

In respect of New York, if you think 12 hour days are bad, then New York pay is irrelevant because you wouldn’t make it, but in any event, they bill their lawyers out at much higher rates, which is why they can pay more.

Same....this was beyond obvious a few years ago, but since the pandemic people seem shocked that as literally the most junior person on the team, they would be expected to work past 6pm. It's amazing to me that an expectation for articling students to work evenings would be seen as "abusive" or "exploitative".

 

6 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

I don't think you'll find many, if any, people here that disagree that as an articling student you should be in more than is necessary to take advantage of the opportunities, or that articling students don't choose to work late in order to take advantage of that. I doubt @BlockedQuebecois would be against either of those things. 

What BQ is against, and frankly what I am against as well, is partners who believe it is their god-given right to have access to students at all times, and who don't care if it means they burn students and juniors out. There is a difference between students choosing to work until 11pm from time to time because they're interested in a subject and got a cool piece of work, and a student who is simply expected to be in until 11pm (or frankly, until 9, or 10) every day because it's their job. And given you seem to acknowledge that students are an investment, you should be against the latter too. It's bad for retention, morale, and work quality. 

And I think it's well known that the only thing that will change that is to make the partners that do have those expectations, and who do have the reputation for burning students out needlessly, is to make them feel the consequences of those actions. The best way to do that is to make sure they don't have assistance when they do need it. An added kick is that those students and juniors still need to bill their hours, so they go and give more work to reasonable partners with reasonable expectations. Win-win, as far as I'm concerned. 

I think that for at least part of this, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think expecting a student to work until 9, or even 10 or 11 in some situations, is always bad for retention/morale/work quality. As stated previously, using times of day is also kind of misleading because they will differ depending on when people start, the kinds of breaks they take, how productive they are, whether they work weekends, etc.

I think it's important to give students meaningful work, adequate instructions, quality mentorship, treat them with respect, etc., and if you're doing that then I don't think an expectation for students to work in the evening necessarily burns them out. It's hard work, but can absolutely be worth it, and it's a short period of time. Some of your phrasing suggests to me that the partners you've encountered have other management issues or are otherwise unpleasant and perhaps that is being conflated with the actual work hours concept.

[chaboywb]

12 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think expecting a student to work until 9, or even 10 or 11 in some situations, is always bad for retention/morale/work quality.

Nobody is saying this. The argument people are making is not that students should never work until those times. Certainly, it happens. However, being in the office EVERY day until those times is not necessary or an expectation anywhere. 

[WhoKnows]

14 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

I think that for at least part of this, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think expecting a student to work until 9, or even 10 or 11 in some situations, is always bad for retention/morale/work quality. As stated previously, using times of day is also kind of misleading because they will differ depending on when people start, the kinds of breaks they take, how productive they are, whether they work weekends, etc.

I think it's important to give students meaningful work, adequate instructions, quality mentorship, treat them with respect, etc., and if you're doing that then I don't think an expectation for students to work in the evening necessarily burns them out. It's hard work, but can absolutely be worth it, and it's a short period of time. Some of your phrasing suggests to me that the partners you've encountered have other management issues or are otherwise unpleasant and perhaps that is being conflated with the actual work hours concept.

We don't have to disagree on this at all. We agree on this. You use terms like "some situations", etc. We aren't talking about the same thing here. If we're in the heat of a closing, we're down to the wire, and something need to be turned, yes, I expect that the student will work late, and I'll work late with them, to get things done. If they've overloaded themselves and need to work late to meet a deadline, I expect that too. Shit happens. Deadlines coalesce, dead deals come back alive WWE Undertaker style at the worst moments, emergencies crop up. I've worked two 14's and a 12 this week because of it - and I don't complain because I signed up for it and I get compensated better than 95% of the country to do it. 

If you've only encountered partners that ascribe to that philosophy your entire career, I envy you. There are no shortage of partners who know the student is overloaded and don't care, who set unnecessarily short deadlines that result in late hours, who have their juniors docketing 20/30/40 hours during their vacations, the list goes  on. That's who I'm talking about, and that's who I hope get no assistance. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by WhoKnows

[Pantalaimon]

1 hour ago, KOMODO said:

I think the problem is that as usual, you're completely ignoring the substantive part of my argument (what people get out of articling being more than just money, but rather training and other intrinsic benefits that stay with them long term, and those things scale with the amount of effort a student puts in) in favour of focusing on the most extreme example that anyone has mentioned (a student staying at the office until 11pm), and then acting like it's a baseline rather than an extreme. This whole discussion started with saying that I would encourage articling students to be in the office more than the minimum technical requirement because they'll have more opportunities to learn things if they're available. That's not abusive or exploitative at all, it's good advice for people who care about developing their skills.

I have to admit I'm a bit confused. The post you responded to with "I disagree" was essentially a post saying that staying until 11pm consistently was not a typical baseline. But that's now an extreme example?

[KOMODO]

25 minutes ago, Pantalaimon said:

I have to admit I'm a bit confused. The post you responded to with "I disagree" was essentially a post saying that staying until 11pm consistently was not a typical baseline. But that's now an extreme example?

The post I responded to with "I disagree" was saying "it's ridiculous for students to stay even later than 9, or in one case consistently until 11....we are paid well but not nearly well enough to justify spending 100% of our waking ours in the office". I do disagree with that. I disagree that it's ridiculous to regularly stay till 9, or even for one person to stay regularly till 11, and I disagree that articling students aren't paid well enough to do it.

Here's the full chain:

On 4/19/2023 at 12:53 PM, Kimura said:

... I've actually heard of a number of students who stay even later than 9. One of my friends is consistently in the office until 11 pm. ...

On 4/19/2023 at 1:07 PM, chaboywb said:

That's ridiculous, even if not completely abnormal. In the middle of an intense file, sure. But not as a baseline. We are paid well but not nearly well enough to justify spending 100% of our waking hours in the office.

On 4/20/2023 at 9:17 AM, KOMODO said:

I respectfully disagree. My experience, and the experience of most of my friends, was that we worked the hardest (longest hours) when we were students at big firms, and as associates (some of whom stayed, some of whom switched firms or went in house), we gained much more control and work life balance. It's a very short time in your life and basically a big job interview, plus you'll learn much more if you're putting in the hours and then start as an associate with a broader knowledge base. In terms of not being paid well enough....what?! Biglaw articling students are paid very well, and again, it's a job interview for a very high paying job over the rest of your career. If you're saying that articling students in smaller firms aren't paid well enough, then I would assume they are not working biglaw hours, but I would also assume that regardless of the place of your employment you are likely to work longer hours as a student than you will be as an associate because everything takes longer to complete as you learn how to do it.

On 4/20/2023 at 9:55 AM, BlockedQuebecois said:

@KOMODO, you disagree that articling students are not paid well enough to spend 100% of their waking hours in the office? Seriously? 

I normally stay out of these discussions, because I’ve always worked fewer hours than my peers and received good reviews regardless, but the idea that articling students should be working 12-14 hour days regularly is absurd and antiquated. 

19 hours ago, KOMODO said:

I disagree that it's "ridiculous" or "completely abnormal" for there to be articling students who stay past 9, or even one who is consistently in the office until 11. That was the comment I was replying to. Obviously things have changed since the pandemic and many people choose to work from home in the evening, which might be fine, but I don't think it's ridiculous at all that an articling student would choose to work at the office late if they have the work to keep them busy. If their supervising lawyers are there too, it would make even more sense. I also don't think that working until 9, or even 11, is "spending 100% of your waking hours" in the office. I personally did this all the time in articling because I wanted to work less on the weekends, and I still tend to work late during the week to not work on the weekend . Also everyone seems to be missing that this is a very short time in your life, less than a year - I'm not saying this is necessary or normal long term, but if it happens during articling, I don't think it's absurd either. And if it's antiquated, that's a shame, because we learned a lot from each other when we (as articling students) all tended to stay late and work on stuff together.

...

15 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

All I can say is that I’ve never articled, but that if someone expected me to work until 11 PM with any regularity, I would quit and go work somewhere else.

I encourage students (once they’re called) and associates to do the same, and I hope partners that expect that kind of thing will be left with no assistance. Hopefully when they need it most 🙂

 

4 hours ago, KOMODO said:

I mean, maybe the fact that you never articled is why you don't get it? Articling is a time for many people when they form meaningful relationships with their peers and supervising lawyers and get a chance to develop their skills before being at risk of a lawsuit. It's not the same as working at a restaurant over a summer where you're just there for the cash.

Also, the "hopefully when they need it most" bit is such a weird take. If people don't want to work biglaw hours, that's fine, they can obviously leave and I'm not saying that this job is for everyone. But wishing hardship on the partners training them is messed up. Firms don't make money off most articling students, it's actually quite a bit of work to supervise them and explain everything so that they can be involved with the work, and it's seen as an investment because we hope that they'll become associates and maybe even partners themselves. When my juniors are working long hours, it's typically because I've gone to extra effort to get them a piece of an interesting file that I feel will be a good learning experience. It might be easier for me to use a clerk or do it myself, but then our students wouldn't get anything out of the experience.

3 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Yes, I’m sure the problem is that I “don’t get it” and not that expecting articling students (and junior associates) to work until 11:00 PM consistently is abusive and exploitative 🙂 

2 hours ago, KOMODO said:

I think the problem is that as usual, you're completely ignoring the substantive part of my argument (what people get out of articling being more than just money, but rather training and other intrinsic benefits that stay with them long term, and those things scale with the amount of effort a student puts in) in favour of focusing on the most extreme example that anyone has mentioned (a student staying at the office until 11pm), and then acting like it's a baseline rather than an extreme. This whole discussion started with saying that I would encourage articling students to be in the office more than the minimum technical requirement because they'll have more opportunities to learn things if they're available. That's not abusive or exploitative at all, it's good advice for people who care about developing their skills.

To to answer you, @Pantalaimon, I disagree that it's "ridiculous" for a student to consistently stay until 11, I think there could be good reasons for that happening for certain students / in certain practice areas even on a consistent basis and I don't think it would necessarily be exploitative. I personally consistently stayed until 11 or midnight most nights when I was articling and I don't think it was a bad experience at all, even though it was hard. But I ALSO think BQ is ignoring the main part of what I'm saying which is that articling is about more than getting paid, it's about developing skills, and instead he's focusing on the absolute latest time anyone has mentioned in this entire thread (one single student who stays until 11 consistently) and acting like that's a baseline requirement across the industry for every student, which it is not. Just because it's not a baseline doesn't mean it's ridiculous either.

[hiccups]

On 4/19/2023 at 1:27 PM, chaboywb said:

There is a huge difference between working every day til 7pm and working til 9pm, let alone 11pm as the other poster mentioned. 

Yes I said I work till 7 every day. But have I worked until 11 before? Yes, and more than once.  We're only talking about general daily routines here. 

He said it was one friend that worked till 11.   If his friend is working to 11pm every day, then maybe that person needs to be more efficient.  

It's not a huge stretch to be working 9 to 9 as an articling student -> eventually getting more efficient as a first and second year call -> working 9 - 7 hours. 

[Pantalaimon]

1 hour ago, KOMODO said:

The post I responded to with "I disagree" was saying "it's ridiculous for students to stay even later than 9, or in one case consistently until 11....we are paid well but not nearly well enough to justify spending 100% of our waking ours in the office". I do disagree with that. I disagree that it's ridiculous to regularly stay till 9, or even for one person to stay regularly till 11, and I disagree that articling students aren't paid well enough to do it.

Here's the full chain:

To to answer you, @Pantalaimon, I disagree that it's "ridiculous" for a student to consistently stay until 11, I think there could be good reasons for that happening for certain students / in certain practice areas even on a consistent basis and I don't think it would necessarily be exploitative. I personally consistently stayed until 11 or midnight most nights when I was articling and I don't think it was a bad experience at all, even though it was hard. But I ALSO think BQ is ignoring the main part of what I'm saying which is that articling is about more than getting paid, it's about developing skills, and instead he's focusing on the absolute latest time anyone has mentioned in this entire thread (one single student who stays until 11 consistently) and acting like that's a baseline requirement across the industry for every student, which it is not. Just because it's not a baseline doesn't mean it's ridiculous either.

Fair enough, thanks. For what it's worth, my interpretation of @chaboywb's post and @BlockedQuebecois's posts - given the reference to 100% of waking hours - was that they were specific to whether students should generally need to stay until 11pm on a consistent basis. If others shared my interpretation that might be why you're getting a bit more pushback than you expected. It sounds like you don't think most students would need to stay until 11pm on a consistent basis as a general proposition.

[Kimura]

4 hours ago, hiccups said:

He said it was one friend that worked till 11.   If his friend is working to 11pm every day, then maybe that person needs to be more efficient

In this case I'm talking about, it's not a matter of efficiency. It's a matter of working for a particular group that is understaffed and very, very busy, all the while trying to work for and maintain relationships with partners from a group they are actually interested in. I'm sure you can see how that can keep you very, very busy. Not to mention hireback being hung over our heads, and that urge to make a good impression. 

Everyone has different strategies as to how they go about articling. Some students leave at 5 and only work for particular groups, with no hesitancy to turn down work from groups they are not interested in.

Other students drop everything in their life for that 10 month period because, like Komodo pointed out, articling really is a job interview, and for some students, they don't want to risk leaving anything on the table in terms of how they are perceived by senior partners and the people who matter when it comes to hire back. 

What about those partners from the old guard who were in the office every night until past midnight? They surely exist, and they may expect that from incoming articling students. And maybe you just so happen to end up doing a ton of work for them. Maybe you're a student who cares what they think, or maybe you don't. My point is that it isn't black and white, and there are so many variables that go into how much you could end up working as an articling student in big law (or even criminal law, for that matter).

I was just trying to point out to students going into articling what my day to day looks like, and that some of the students I know are in the office until 11 consistently, while others are working from home regularly until between 9:30 pm to 1 or 2 am in the morning. Other students I know bounce at 5:30 pm every day and won't work their weekends. And then there are a ton of students somewhere in between. 

Regardless, Komodo's point that articling is a job interview is very valuable for incoming articling students, and the expectations from articling students are going to vary depending on where they work, who they work for, and the culture underlying it all. It's up to the student to determine what those factors are, and how they decide to play the game. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Kimura

[LionelHutz]

This entire thread has terrified me for articling. 

 

[Vitron]

1 hour ago, Kimura said:

 

Everyone has different strategies as to how they go about articling. Some students leave at 5 and only work for particular groups, with no hesitancy to turn down work from groups they are not interested in.

 

Seems like these students know what’s up. 
 

In all seriousness, if you’re doing good work, have great reviews, and nobody has talked to you about your hours, you’re in a good shape for hireback whether you work until 6, 7, or 11.

[Phaedrus]

@KOMODO I think the problem with your argument is that it's got so many contingencies built into it that the bottom line, it's not ridiculous nor exploitative is lost. If a tradesman invests in his craft and takes every opportunity to hone his trade while in his apprenticeship, of course that makes sense. In both cases you're cut from the umbilical cord at the end and begin a sort of "independent practice".

There's a bit of a blind eye being turned toward the functional realities that give rise to those kind of working conditions: too much work, too few opportunities for advancement, and an organizational culture/structure that impresses the importance of being at the office as much as humanely possible. For a lot of clerks, the choice is going to feel like do it or leave the profession. And that's where the exploitative natures comes in (yes, I acknowledge that it's socially privileged people, in a privileged industry, bemoaning the cost of joining the ranks). 

Your fundamentals are consistent and sound. Yes, it's an incredibly valuable experience. Yes, it's a job interview. And yes, in comparison, you're paid decently well for it. It's like professors in undergrad telling students to sign up for every society and really put themselves out there to grow. But, IMO the cost to mental and physical heath, together with the cultural demand that firm place on clerks/lawyers to "live large", negates some of the value of that deal. In the same way universities push "getting out there", the net result is a lot of burned out, miserable people. 

Just my two cents.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Phaedrus

[123]

41 minutes ago, LionelHutz said:

This entire thread has terrified me for articling. 

Our work here is done.

[Ohshmagoda]

My big law experience is that, on a daily basis, many lawyers (including partners) within the firm will be working late because there’s a bona fide need for work to be done that night. In my mind this is unavoidable if you want to be a provider of the premium, non-commoditized and time-sensitive legal services that big firms pride themselves on providing. I’ve only worked at one firm but the people that are successful here work very hard.  

I would love it if nobody had to work late hours, but we do*, and we expect students/juniors to do the same when it is required. It’s not about working late for the sake of it - being a team player means that you don’t turn down work to preserve a 9-6 schedule at the expense of other team members that are already working late. As a student/junior you have lots to learn and a good attitude/effort is one of the only things we expect of you. 

We have had new members of the firm try to erect barriers that are inconsistent with the culture established by the rest of the team, and it has always resulted in eroded trust and/or them falling behind. I have friends that have seen a similar thing, and there were allusions to similar scenarios above. I expect that is colouring some of insistence in this thread that long hours are part of the gig.

*The changes that would eliminate a need to work long hours (i.e. changes to hiring to facilitate flex capacity/redundancy, changes to the economic model of the firm, changes to the business culture or client demands) are not happening any time soon, and would warrant an entirely different conversation.

[TalkingTom]

20 hours ago, KOMODO said:

The post I responded to with "I disagree" was saying "it's ridiculous for students to stay even later than 9, or in one case consistently until 11....we are paid well but not nearly well enough to justify spending 100% of our waking ours in the office". I do disagree with that. I disagree that it's ridiculous to regularly stay till 9, or even for one person to stay regularly till 11, and I disagree that articling students aren't paid well enough to do it.

Here's the full chain:

To to answer you, @Pantalaimon, I disagree that it's "ridiculous" for a student to consistently stay until 11, I think there could be good reasons for that happening for certain students / in certain practice areas even on a consistent basis and I don't think it would necessarily be exploitative. I personally consistently stayed until 11 or midnight most nights when I was articling and I don't think it was a bad experience at all, even though it was hard. But I ALSO think BQ is ignoring the main part of what I'm saying which is that articling is about more than getting paid, it's about developing skills, and instead he's focusing on the absolute latest time anyone has mentioned in this entire thread (one single student who stays until 11 consistently) and acting like that's a baseline requirement across the industry for every student, which it is not. Just because it's not a baseline doesn't mean it's ridiculous either.

Is it worth it though? Does the financial compensation down the line justify the sacrifice early on?