Biglaw Articling Hours

[boyo]

To say NY pay is not relevant is wild to me, it very clearly is. 50% of my articling was competitive for NY and had opportunities to go, but chose not to because of commentary from Toronto firms that the lifestyle is far better here. You can't bait students like that and then have them working NY hours constantly. I don't mind working NY hours when needed, in fact it's fun if the deal is interesting, but it certainly shouldn't be the norm if our pay is half.

[PzabbytheLawyer]

Toronto just can't charge NY rates. The Canadian economy is a very small fraction of the US. And those NY firms have clients around the world; their economic power is global.Toronto is still far more local than NYC. 

So it isn't simply a "less hours less pay" argument to stay.

The hours are certainly less. But it's not a 1;1 ratio.

[Kimura]

2 hours ago, boyo said:

To say NY pay is not relevant is wild to me, it very clearly is. 50% of my articling was competitive for NY and had opportunities to go, but chose not to because of commentary from Toronto firms that the lifestyle is far better here. You can't bait students like that and then have them working NY hours constantly. I don't mind working NY hours when needed, in fact it's fun if the deal is interesting, but it certainly shouldn't be the norm if our pay is half.

I don't think it's a matter of baiting students. The point that's been lost in translation is that articling hours in Toronto big law can get bad, but you only article for 10 months, and then you tend to have a bit more control over your schedule as an associate. Compare this to associates in New York where the expectation as to hours is higher overall. 

[Kimura]

A more useful comparison would be to compare across Canadian markets because the client base is a bit more comparable than Toronto vs New York.

There used to be an IP lawyer around here who worked in Ottawa big law, but moved to Toronto because the hours were somewhat similar, with a much higher pay scale in Toronto. 

Articling students at Gowlings in Ottawa make 65k per annum, whereas you're making close to 100k at Gowlings here in Toronto. If the hours are worse for articling students in Toronto, I can see why. 

[ltmaverick25]

So where does studying to write the bar fit in. My assumption was that the ten month articles was a requirement to write the bar, and the bar is a requirement to move on from articles to first year associate. How do people manage working those hours and studying? Or is it normal to be unemployed after articles until you pass the bar?

[Kimura]

You'd generally write the bar exams before you start articling, but you can choose to write later. 

If you fail you'll have to re write during your articles. This is one of the things that made me most anxious after I wrote the bar exams, because I didn't want to re write while working. However, I know multiple people who had to re write throughout articling - they all made it work and they all passed on their second or third tries. 

[Cool_name]

5 hours ago, TalkingTom said:

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

Depends. If it is just a time for money exchange for you, then no, it probably isn’t worth it. 
 

It isn’t just about hours though.
 

Personally, I’ve moved from a firm with a really relaxed target, to one with “no target” (for those who are students still, if a firm has “no target”, it’s because you will be working enough that a target won’t matter). I wouldn’t go back to the more relaxed target firm. I like the busier firm more.
 

Why exactly, I don’t know. The busier firm pays more, which is nice and definitely a factor, but that isn’t the only reason. Maybe I’m just a masochist.  

[ltmaverick25]

1 hour ago, Kimura said:

You'd generally write the bar exams before you start articling, but you can choose to write later. 

If you fail you'll have to re write during your articles. This is one of the things that made me most anxious after I wrote the bar exams, because I didn't want to re write while working. However, I know multiple people who had to re write throughout articling - they all made it work and they all passed on their second or third tries. 

So you write the bar immediately after law school ends? How long does it normally take to prepare?

[Turtles]

1 hour ago, ltmaverick25 said:

So where does studying to write the bar fit in. My assumption was that the ten month articles was a requirement to write the bar, and the bar is a requirement to move on from articles to first year associate. How do people manage working those hours and studying? Or is it normal to be unemployed after articles until you pass the bar?

For Ontario:

Finish law school semester at some point in April (timing is school dependent / your course load dependent) -> LSO releases materials you will be tested on around April 10 -> you either chill for a bit or immediately start studying (many people wait until the UofT indices get released in early May, rather than studying on their own... some people swear you can pass with just 2 weeks of practicing with indices and taking practice tests so that's fine, others feel you need to take longer and actually read all the materials) -> write the first bar exam near end of May -> write second bar exam two-weeks later -> start articles sometime between mid-July to September, firm-dependent (and sometimes negotiable) -> finish articles around April/May (firm-dependent, based on when you started) -> get called to the bar around June -> start as an associate (firm-dependent and timing can be negotiable, some just keep working after articles under a special title because they want money, others take time off to relax or travel and just start as an associate during or even near the end of summer).

In the past few years the bar exams have been postponed due to scandals and COVID and such, so everything above is tentative. Also firms differ wildly. 

It's way too soon for you to even have a slight worry about studying for the bar. If you fail one or both exams, you can retake them again in November (?), and then again in February (?), before you have to jump through special hoops to do it again. The last stats I saw (I think 5 years ago) indicated something like 13% of Canadian law school grads failed one of the Ontario bar exams on their first attempt (compared to 40-something percent of NCA candidates, which brings the total fail rate to 18% on a weighted basis). The vast majority of Canadian law grads will not fail and have nothing to worry about, and even if you do fail, you get multiple chances that still allow you to be called on time. Unlike certain other jurisdictions (e.g., many US states), the hard part is getting into law school in Canada, the bar is not a substantive barrier to becoming a lawyer, whereas there are 200 law schools in the US, the bottom 25% will admit your pet mouse if you're willing to cover their tuition -- hence why they need a substantive exam to evaluate competency while we do not. Our bar exam is largely a game of find waldo where the only challenge is searching and finding answers in the sea of materials you have in the exam at a fast enough pace to be able to answer everything in time. 

Caveat emptor: I haven't gone through this process myself, just relaying what I have been told by sources I trust.

[ltmaverick25]

11 minutes ago, Turtles said:

For Ontario:

Finish law school semester at some point in April (timing is school dependent / your course load dependent) -> LSO releases materials you will be tested on around April 10 -> you either chill for a bit or immediately start studying (many people wait until the UofT indices get released in early May, rather than studying on their own... some people swear you can pass with just 2 weeks of practicing with indices and taking practice tests so that's fine, others feel you need to take longer and actually read all the materials) -> write the first bar exam near end of May -> write second bar exam two-weeks later -> start articles sometime between mid-July to September, firm-dependent (and sometimes negotiable) -> finish articles around April/May (firm-dependent, based on when you started) -> get called to the bar around June -> start as an associate (firm-dependent and timing can be negotiable, some just keep working after articles under a special title because they want money, others take time off to relax or travel and just start as an associate during or even near the end of summer).

In the past few years the bar exams have been postponed due to scandals and COVID and such, so everything above is tentative. Also firms differ wildly. 

It's way too soon for you to even have a slight worry about studying for the bar. If you fail one or both exams, you can retake them again in November (?), and then again in February (?), before you have to jump through special hoops to do it again. The last stats I saw (I think 5 years ago) indicated something like 13% of Canadian law school grads failed one of the Ontario bar exams on their first attempt (compared to 40-something percent of NCA candidates, which brings the total fail rate to 18% on a weighted basis). The vast majority of Canadian law grads will not fail and have nothing to worry about, and even if you do fail, you get multiple chances that still allow you to be called on time. Unlike certain other jurisdictions (e.g., many US states), the hard part is getting into law school in Canada, the bar is not a substantive barrier to becoming a lawyer, whereas there are 200 law schools in the US, the bottom 25% will admit your pet mouse if you're willing to cover their tuition -- hence why they need a substantive exam to evaluate competency while we do not. Our bar exam is largely a game of find waldo where the only challenge is searching and finding answers in the sea of materials you have in the exam at a fast enough pace to be able to answer everything in time. 

Caveat emptor: I haven't gone through this process myself, just relaying what I have been told by sources I trust.

Thanks for the info. It seems I had everything backwards. What are these indices you mentioned? You also mentioned you didn’t have to go through this. Is there an alternative process?

[Rashabon]

You're just starting law school. You'll learn on this in time - don't worry about it on a Saturday as summer is about to start.

Indices are prepared by various groups that act as detailed indices of the written materials. LPP candidates don't "article" and certain schools (TMU/Lakehead) don't have to article. It is not the norm.

[KOMODO]

On 4/21/2023 at 7:19 PM, Phaedrus said:

@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.

I don't think there are too many contingencies built into my comments, I see it the other way around - it makes no sense to claim that having students work late "is exploitation" when that is often not the case. Maybe you should take issue with people making blanket statements that aren't true in many cases. I'm pointing out that there are often conditions that make those claims untrue. 

Also, I'm not sure what to make of your last paragraph. You agree that biglaw articling is a valuable experience, like a job interview, pays well, etc....but you don't think it's worth it? That's absolutely fine, nobody is requiring people to article in biglaw. These positions are hard work and they're not for everyone, if someone doesn't feel the tradeoff is worth it, then they should probably work somewhere less intense for less money.

On 4/22/2023 at 9:12 AM, TalkingTom said:

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

I think the "sacrifice" is being overplayed in this thread. I would encourage those commenting who are now articling or lawyers to think back to when they were law students, or even law applicants - many of them would have given anything to be working late on a cool transaction, feeling like a part of the team, learning new things, etc. When I arrived at my firm as a student, I was genuinely excited to get into things, and although I definitely felt tired from working late, I enjoyed what I was doing and it felt like I was being useful. It didn't feel like a huge hardship, it was hard, but it was over quickly and there were a lot of positives. It's kind of sad that the same group of people who, during interviews, would say they would do anything for an opportunity to work hard and participate in files, would claim once they were hired that being expected to work late was somehow abusive.

In terms of the second part of your question, yes - I like being wealthy and it's hard for me to picture another career that would have given me this kind of wealth and lifestyle. I don't really work crazily hard now (almost never work on weekends, pick my kids up from daycare and spend time with them every night, see friends and family regularly, etc. - I do work after the kids go to bed, but duh, biglaw is not a 9-5 job and anyone expecting it to be that is ridiculous in my opinion). But also, I actually like my job - I find it interesting and fulfilling and mostly pleasant. I have challenging days/weeks like everyone, but overall I think it's a great career. So the question of "was working late most evenings one year when you were basically still getting an education worth having a career you enjoy, that pays well and facilitates good work life balance?" seems funny to me because of course, for me it was absolutely awesome. Now, in fairness, I have lots of peers who would say they dislike being lawyers or would have hated staying in a big firm, and fair enough - it's not for everyone. But the "working late during articling" thing is just so minor and inconsequential, I don't think people who are unhappy with their life decisions would count that aspect of their experience as defining. It's not like being a prisoner or something, there are things to enjoy while you're doing it.

On 4/22/2023 at 10:44 AM, boyo said:

To say NY pay is not relevant is wild to me, it very clearly is. 50% of my articling was competitive for NY and had opportunities to go, but chose not to because of commentary from Toronto firms that the lifestyle is far better here. You can't bait students like that and then have them working NY hours constantly. I don't mind working NY hours when needed, in fact it's fun if the deal is interesting, but it certainly shouldn't be the norm if our pay is half.

Nobody is baiting anyone, this is ridiculous. Working until even 11pm on weekdays, for a 10 month period, is not "working NY hours constantly". 

Also, for you and everyone saying they're fine to work late "when needed" but "it shouldn't be the norm" - do you think anyone is requiring students to sit in an empty office for no reason? If a student is regularly working late, it's because they're needed. Let's stop pretending that there is any difference between "it's okay to work as late as needed when things are going on" and "it's okay for students to need to work late regularly". That's the same thing - the latter group are needed regularly.

Edited April 24, 2023 by KOMODO
typo

[boyo]

21 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

Nobody is baiting anyone, this is ridiculous. Working until even 11pm on weekdays, for a 10 month period, is not "working NY hours constantly". 

Also, for you and everyone saying they're fine to work late "when needed" but "it shouldn't be the norm" - do you think anyone is requiring students to sit in an empty office for no reason? If a student is regularly working late, it's because they're needed. Let's stop pretending that there is any difference between "it's okay to work as late as needed when things are going on" and "it's okay for students to need to work late regularly". That's the same thing - the latter group are needed regularly.

I'll admit "baited" is too strong a word and not appropriate for what I'm trying to get across. But when a firm has conversations with students considering leaving for NY and they give stories about first years billing 250 hours a month and how that simply does not happen in Toronto, that's clearly something to call out. 

And on the second para, certainly no one is expecting you to sit in an empty office, but they sure as hell are expecting you to be ready to work at any given moment. It's been easily over a dozen times on a Friday evening or weekend where I've asked the associate or partner whether it's fine to step out for a walk or go do something for a few hours, and then answer is no - I need to be ready at a moments notice (and then usually nothing comes in). Bad file management? Maybe, but it's not uncommon. Probably a consequence of WFH abilities, but that doesn't negate the fact that I can name 10+ students I know who have the same experience regularly, whether they're on an active deal or not.

None of that is to say I hate my job because of it. I still love the work and the people I work with, but the communication from firms that you don't need to be available 24/7 is a lie.

 

[JurisPrudent]

27 minutes ago, boyo said:

And on the second para, certainly no one is expecting you to sit in an empty office, but they sure as hell are expecting you to be ready to work at any given moment. It's been easily over a dozen times on a Friday evening or weekend where I've asked the associate or partner whether it's fine to step out for a walk or go do something for a few hours, and then answer is no - I need to be ready at a moments notice (and then usually nothing comes in). Bad file management? Maybe, but it's not uncommon. Probably a consequence of WFH abilities, but that doesn't negate the fact that I can name 10+ students I know who have the same experience regularly, whether they're on an active deal or not.

Just wanted to note that this experience is not the norm at all of the big shops on the street (in my experience). There are always going to be periods during a transaction/case where things are moving quickly and everyone needs to be all hands on deck, but, absent those circumstances, to tell students on a regular basis that they are not permitted to leave their computers for a few hours on Friday evenings/weekends is unusually draconian. At my firm, that would be a great way to ensure that you'll struggle to staff your files (and there are certain partners with reputations for similar behaviour that do struggle with staffing). 

If a junior tells me that they are going to a Jays game on Friday night and I don't anticipate anything being dumped on us that evening, I can't imagine telling them that they are not permitted to go simply because there's a possibility something might come up. That's brutal - even for BigLaw.

[Jaggers]

That seems weird to me. Even if you go to the Jays game, you could be in the office in like 10 minutes if you had to, which would be rare.

Also, why would you ask if you can go for a walk? Just go. You have a phone and they can summon you if necessary.

[Kimura]

Ironically, while I work more now in terms of hours than I have in any previous job, I also have more autonomy now than I've ever had - no punching in, I can roll in around 9:30 am, and I can generally come and go from the office as I please. If I want to go meet a friend for a coffee or lunch, I don't have to ask anyone, I just go. As long as the work gets done, no one bats an eye, which is a perk in my opinion.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Kimura

[BlockedQuebecois]

2 hours ago, KOMODO said:

Also, for you and everyone saying they're fine to work late "when needed" but "it shouldn't be the norm" - do you think anyone is requiring students to sit in an empty office for no reason? If a student is regularly working late, it's because they're needed. Let's stop pretending that there is any difference between "it's okay to work as late as needed when things are going on" and "it's okay for students to need to work late regularly". That's the same thing - the latter group are needed regularly.

Yes, because students are never working late on non-urgent files because of one or more of: (i) insufficient capacity due to a firm's failure to hire/retain enough articling students or junior associates; (ii) insufficient capacity due to a partner's failure to turn down mandates when the group is at capacity; (iii) a partner or associate's failure to staff the file adequately; or (iv) a partner or associate's failure to anticipate the need for student assistance and organize such assistance in a reasonable amount of time. 

There is such an obvious difference between a student working late on an emergency injunction because the other side has just announced they intend to take some action in two days and a student working late in order to urgently review OSC disclosure for a hearing in three days that has been sitting at the end of the partner's desk for three months because they failed to delegate that task in a reasonable time.

I'm honestly shocked that needs to be said – I would have thought that was clear to everyone. 

Edited April 24, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois

[Pantalaimon]

On 4/21/2023 at 3:52 PM, Kimura said:

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. 

My two cents, for whatever they're worth, in case any students are still reading (which seems unlikely, but hey). I'd pay close attention to the culture of the different groups at your firm when you're deciding where you'd like to be hired back. If the argument is, essentially, (1) we're very busy and there's work to be done, (2) we pay you well, (3) it's valuable learning experience, and (4) it's a drawn out job interview, all of those arguments also apply to associates. The work doesn't go away, and as you get more experienced you're expected to do even more of it because not that much on most files is doable by a student. Associates are obviously paid well - well enough that the argument that you need to work late and be available applies even moreso! Every file is a learning experience, as your capacity to learn in this profession is more or less only limited by your intellect and ability to resist burnout. Finally, the dangling carrot of "work hard and it will pay off in the future" simply has its goalposts shifted from hireback to partnership. The conversation about making partner starts way earlier than you think - I'm a first year and we just had a big PowerPoint presentation on what they'd be looking for to make partner. Ostensibly that's in the name of "transparency", but boy did billable expectations come up a lot.

If there's a particular group that doesn't allow you to live the lifestyle you want as an articling student, I'd seriously consider picking a different group for hireback. Don't burn bridges, but assuming you have a pulse and don't have a huge chip on your shoulder, you probably have more leverage than you think - the firm has invested a lot into you by the time you're done articling. I would not have taken a hireback in some of the groups described in this thread.

[KOMODO]

5 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Yes, because students are never working late on non-urgent files because of one or more of: (i) insufficient capacity due to a firm's failure to hire/retain enough articling students or junior associates; (ii) insufficient capacity due to a partner's failure to turn down mandates when the group is at capacity; (iii) a partner or associate's failure to staff the file adequately; or (iv) a partner or associate's failure anticipate the need for student assistance and organize such assistance in a reasonable amount of time. 

There is such an obvious difference between a student working late on an emergency injunction because the other side has just announced they intend to take some action in two days and a student working late in order to urgently review OSC disclosure for a hearing in three days that has been sitting at the end of the partner's desk for three months because they failed to delegate that task in a reasonable time.

I'm honestly shocked that needs to be said – I would have thought that was clear to everyone. 

We obviously have very different perspectives on what "needed" means. I'm shocked that you're taking the view above, which I find totally unreasonable. I'm also annoyed that you keep moving the goalposts of this discussion, so that now "when needed" can only apply to files where some unexpected third party emergency has occurred. 

You're saying that if a firm asks an articling student to work late because of "insufficient capacity" (i.e., the only reason a student would ever regularly work late, because if there were enough other similar level employees to complete the work, then this whole discussion would be irrelevant), that's somehow abusive to the articling student? And you're seriously saying that partners should turn down mandates to avoid having their students regularly work in the evening?! 

I don't see it that way at all. If a firm or a partner chooses to give level-appropriate work to a student because the group is busy, for whatever reason, I see that as legitimate. It's probably a great learning experience for the student and as long as they're getting appropriate oversight, instructions, people are treating them with respect and thanking them for their work, etc., it's frankly absurd to me that a partner would not be allowed to assign work to whichever member of the team they felt was able to do it competently. In your world, groups would need to overstaffed much of the time to avoid ever being understaffed, and partners would need to tell clients to move their work elsewhere to ensure that none of their juniors went through long busy periods. That is not how the business of law works.

If we went by your method of telling partners they could only use students if the assignment had been thoughtfully designed specifically for them and handed down from a perfectly staffed group with the perfect amount of time to complete it during normal business hours, articling students would be bored senseless and learn almost nothing. We use students to complete tasks that need to be completed, we don't design tasks to keep students relaxed and well rested in an unrealistic bubble.

If a student comes to me and says hey, I would love to get involved in a transaction, and I have one closing the following week, I have two options. I could either use the student, which means that for the next 10 days they're going to be working hard and probably late most nights to produce documents that are helpful to me (and btw, I will also be working more than I otherwise would to teach them how to draft, revise their work, etc., but in exchange for hopefully a helpful bit of assistance), or I could tell them I don't have anything for them and do it myself, which will be faster but teach them nothing. I'm not going to pick one tiny task, spend an hour explaining it, have them work on it for one day during regular business hours, and then spend half an hour revising it, when it would have taken me half an hour total to do it myself without them, just to get them involved without making them work longer hours. Expecting experienced lawyers to do that is out of touch with reality.

[BlockedQuebecois]

@KOMODO, your post is an unrecognizable strawman of my posts and betrays either a complete failure to understand what is being said or an utter lack of good faith on your part.

Feel free to revive this discussion when you have taken some time to disengage and respond to my actual position.

Edited April 24, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois

[PzabbytheLawyer]

I'm with @BlockedQuebecois.

 

There certainly is urgent work in law. Different practices have more or less of it.

There are however, different manners of "urgent".

There is legally urgent, which are situations like the emergency injunction @BlockedQuebecoisdescribed.

Then there are the client urgent matters, wherein a task becomes urgent because of a client's demands, which can either be reasonable or unreasonable. For example, certain work needing to get finished and billed for prior to end of fiscal for budgetary reasons - this is reasonable. Unreasonable is a client demanding it for no other reason than to demand it. 

Finally, there are "partner urgent" matters, which happen because the partner forgets about the work, and dumps it on the associate when they remember.

This behaviour separates poorly organized lawyers from well organized ones. If this is something of a norm, that lawyer isn't doing a good enough job in their practice, and you should avoid picking up their habits.

[KOMODO]

3 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

@KOMODO, your post is an unrecognizable strawman of my posts and betrays either a complete failure to understand what is being said or an utter lack of good faith on your part.

Feel free to revive this discussion when you have taken some time to disengage and respond to my actual position.

Obviously I don't agree at all, and in fact, your comment is exactly how I feel about your posts. I have always taken significant time to provide detailed responses in a respectful way, while I feel that you ignore most of what I say most of the time.

But in any event, clearly we are not ever going to agree on the substantive issues here. Hopefully people who are reading this thread with an interest in this kind of stuff have found it useful to see a variety of different perspectives.

[GGrievous]

3 hours ago, KOMODO said:

Hopefully people who are reading this thread with an interest in this kind of stuff have found it useful to see a variety of different perspectives.

I think if anything anyone who had an interest is more confused than ever. Would it be a good idea for a young student in this situation to just ask a first year at their office?

Edited April 24, 2023 by Barry

[boyo]

12 hours ago, Barry said:

I think if anything anyone who had an interest is more confused than ever. Would it be a good idea for a young student in this situation to just ask a first year at their office?

Asking multiple first years is probably the way to do it. Asking one or even a few that all work with the same group/partners is unlikely going to survey the field.

[KOMODO]

13 hours ago, Barry said:

I think if anything anyone who had an interest is more confused than ever. Would it be a good idea for a young student in this situation to just ask a first year at their office?

Perhaps, although if you're already a student in a law firm, then you probably already have a good sense of it, as this discussion has been about expectations for students. If you're interviewing/deciding where to work, then it may be best to ask a student rather than an associate, though you always want to be careful about how to frame your question so that you don't come across as unwilling to work hard as someone starting out.

In terms of being more confused than ever, that's a shame and I'm sorry that it feels that way. I feel like some of the comments yesterday crossed a line for me. I've been participating in this board and its predecessors for more than 10 years, and I see my time as a sort of public service which I hope helps people who are just starting to move through this field. In the past I always felt like my perspective was appreciated even when it was different from others, but over the last few months I've noticed a tone shift in a few of the longer substantive threads, and it just feels really unpleasant. There's nothing wrong with people having differing points of view, but a post accusing me of having a lack of good faith when I've taken a lot of time out of my day to explain my thoughts is really jarring. I've reread the last few posts a number of times now and still feel that I was responding fairly to the comments that were made, and the post lashing out at me for that was uncalled for. It's not like I gain something from being here, it's meant as a way to give newer members of the bar a genuine perspective they may not otherwise get. But perhaps I've outgrown this community and it's time to move on.