2L Summer - I'd like to get a second job in addition to my Big Law job

[Jaggers]

On 4/12/2023 at 12:56 PM, Ben said:

No one advised against disclosing it. There’s just no chance that failing to disclose a part-time RAship is cause for dismissal. 

It actually probably is, if your employment contract says you can't. And it definitely is if it breaches law society rules.

[Rashabon]

Good reminder not to take employment law advice from know-it-all law students.

[Jaggers]

Well, you shouldn't take legal advice from anyone on an anonymous forum 🙂

[Ben]

2 hours ago, Jaggers said:

It actually probably is, if your employment contract says you can't. And it definitely is if it breaches law society rules.

You really think that on a contextual analysis of whether the employee's conduct caused a breakdown in the employment relationship, the answer is "yes" with respect to a summer student whose first offence is doing part-time research work for a professor from their law school? 

[t3ctonics]

1 minute ago, Ben said:

You really think that on a contextual analysis of whether the employee's conduct caused a breakdown in the employment relationship, the answer is "yes" with respect to a summer student whose first offence is doing part-time research work for a professor from their law school? 

Failing to disclose it almost certainly is. Every firm I'm aware of that has a position on employees doing outside legal work takes the approach that disclosure is mandatory and the firm must have an opportunity to check for conflicts (legal and business). At some places this is just a workplace rule and in others it's right in their employment contracts.

Bypassing the conflict check process is a serious risk, as it could A) result in the firm being conflicted out of work for existing clients, or B) harm the firm's reputation in a particular area (e.g. if the student's outside work was for activism against an industry the firm works in). Moreover, if the firm has made it clear that disclosing outside legal work is mandatory, failing to disclose is dishonest, which is very serious for lawyers.

Then there's the fact that the LSBC prohibits it, which is a full answer in itself.

[GGrievous]

29 minutes ago, Ben said:

You really think that on a contextual analysis of whether the employee's conduct caused a breakdown in the employment relationship, the answer is "yes" with respect to a summer student whose first offence is doing part-time research work for a professor from their law school? 

Even if they're unlikely to dismiss a student over it either because it's not that serious to them or they give the student the benefit of the doubt, why would it ever be a good idea? It doesn't seem like you're advising someone to do it so I kinda just fail to see your argument here.

Are you saying OP shouldn't disclose it if they don't want to because they'd probably be fine?  

Edited April 14, 2023 by Barry

[Ben]

21 minutes ago, t3ctonics said:

Failing to disclose it almost certainly is. Every firm I'm aware of that has a position on employees doing outside legal work takes the approach that disclosure is mandatory and the firm must have an opportunity to check for conflicts (legal and business). At some places this is just a workplace rule and in others it's right in their employment contracts.

Bypassing the conflict check process is a serious risk, as it could A) result in the firm being conflicted out of work for existing clients, or B) harm the firm's reputation in a particular area (e.g. if the student's outside work was for activism against an industry the firm works in). Moreover, if the firm has made it clear that disclosing outside legal work is mandatory, failing to disclose is dishonest, which is very serious for lawyers.

Part-time RA work for law school profs obviously isn’t the kind of “legal work” whose performance on the side could give rise to serious concerns about conflicts, in all but truly exceptional circumstances. 
 

7 minutes ago, Barry said:

why would it ever be a good idea? It doesn't seem like you're advising someone to do it so I kinda just fail to see your argument here.

 

I’m not saying it’s a good idea! The very first post I made in here explained that I sought permission to do this very thing. I’m just saying that firing a student for cause for doing it is at least legally tenuous and, the law aside, histrionic and unnecessary. 

[Mal]

Even if it were the case that there is an argument that dismissal was disproportionate and there wasn't a sufficient breakdown of the employment relationship, the point is at best academic (and probably wrong for the reasons above). No one in the real world cares about the technically right answer if they can't get there because it is too expensive or risky to get there.

[Ben]

The discussion is obviously academic. No firm would attempt to fire a student for cause for doing this because it’s an insane thing to do and no one cares if students who are otherwise meeting their obligations are also doing academic research on the side. 

[epeeist]

Just now, Ben said:

The discussion is obviously academic. No firm would attempt to fire a student for cause for doing this because it’s an insane thing to do and no one cares if students who are otherwise meeting their obligations are also doing academic research on the side. 

Of course no BC law firm would fire an articling student for cause, that's why Ms. Ojanen wasn't fired for (alleged) cause from her articles and didn't have to spend years in litigation. Oh wait, she was fired - ultimately successful in litigation taking years going to the BCCA and under those specific fact circumstances, but she's still not a lawyer because she didn't complete articles.

Note to others, Ben states he "sought and received permission" so do what he did, not what he says, comply with the LSBC rules (or whatever your province is and check the requirements), if you want a second part-time job ask and be prepared the answer may be "no".

[GGrievous]

2 minutes ago, epeeist said:

so do what he did, not what he says

To be fair he also never said to

 everyone in this thread has given the same practical advice it seems. 

[LMP]

33 minutes ago, Ben said:

The discussion is obviously academic. No firm would attempt to fire a student for cause for doing this because it’s an insane thing to do and no one cares if students who are otherwise meeting their obligations are also doing academic research on the side. 

The real risk is not getting hired back. Which would be my top concern. 

[QueensDenning]

38 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Of course no BC law firm would fire an articling student for cause, that's why Ms. Ojanen wasn't fired for (alleged) cause from her articles and didn't have to spend years in litigation. Oh wait, she was fired - ultimately successful in litigation taking years going to the BCCA and under those specific fact circumstances, but she's still not a lawyer because she didn't complete articles.

Note to others, Ben states he "sought and received permission" so do what he did, not what he says, comply with the LSBC rules (or whatever your province is and check the requirements), if you want a second part-time job ask and be prepared the answer may be "no".

That Ojanen case has vastly different facts (getting drunk at work function and complaining about salary to co workers, ripping off employers IP and using it for private blog with a topic relating to the firm's main practice area, stealing client files without permission). Working as a part time RA is clearly distinguishable. 

Edited April 14, 2023 by QueensDenning

[Pecan Boy]

4 minutes ago, QueensDenning said:

That Ojanen case has vastly different facts (getting drunk at work function and complaining about salary to co workers, ripping off employers IP and using it for private blog with a topic relating to the firm's main practice area, stealing client files without permission). Working as a part time RA is clearly distinguishable. 

I'm pleased to see that epeeist is still churning out the high-quality legal analysis we've come to expect from him

[epeeist]

11 minutes ago, QueensDenning said:

That Ojanen case has vastly different facts (getting drunk at work function and complaining about salary to co workers, ripping off employers IP and using it for private blog with a topic relating to the firm's main practice area, stealing client files without permission). Working as a part time RA is clearly distinguishable. 

I can see how the point may have been misunderstood.

My point was that a law firm might unreasonably fire an articling student for alleged cause, and so asserting that no law firm would do such a stupid thing, was itself stupid.

Whether or not it's as stupid as advising would-be articling students to violate LSBC rules I leave to the reader to decide.

EDIT: also, QD, don't state as facts what she was alleged to have done, when the courts took a different view of it, including e.g. finding that no IP rights were violated (and it was her then-husband who did so without her knowledge etc.).

Edited April 14, 2023 by epeeist

[Pecan Boy]

6 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Whether or not it's as stupid as advising would-be articling students to violate LSBC rules I leave to the reader to decide.

Carefully read the thread and please tell me who is advising this! 

[QueensDenning]

4 minutes ago, epeeist said:

I can see how the point may have been misunderstood.

My point was that a law firm might unreasonably fire an articling student for alleged cause, and so asserting that no law firm would do such a stupid thing, was itself stupid.

Whether or not it's as stupid as advising would-be articling students to violate LSBC rules I leave to the reader to decide.

EDIT: also, QD, don't state as facts what she was alleged to have done, when the courts took a different view of it, including e.g. finding that no IP rights were violated (and it was her then-husband who did so without her knowledge etc.).

Fair enough but the point stands that the alleged facts (if proven) were far more unacceptable from the firm's point of view. It's not unreasonable to fire an articling student if you believe what was alleged. After a lengthly legal battle the employers may not have been able to prove what was alleged, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It would be unreasonable to fire an otherwise competent articling student for the sole reason that they've been making minimum wage doing some research in their free time.  

[Ben]

14 minutes ago, epeeist said:

I can see how the point may have been misunderstood.

My point was that a law firm might unreasonably fire an articling student for alleged cause, and so asserting that no law firm would do such a stupid thing, was itself stupid.

Whether or not it's as stupid as advising would-be articling students to violate LSBC rules I leave to the reader to decide.

You gotta try to learn to read better, man

[epeeist]

1 minute ago, QueensDenning said:

Fair enough but the point stands that the alleged facts (if proven) were far more unacceptable from the firm's point of view. It's not unreasonable to fire an articling student if you believe what was alleged. After a lengthly legal battle the employers may not have been able to prove what was alleged, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It would be unreasonable to fire an otherwise competent articling student for the sole reason that they've been making minimum wage doing some research in their free time.  

Re Ojanen, actually, it was unreasonable to fire her for alleged cause. That's what the litigation determined. Why are you defending the law firm?

You and some others also seem to be missing the point. Why would it be wrong to fire a lying, dishonest articling student who concealed outside employment, knowingly violating the LSBC rules, for cause? And even if they weren't fired, consequences might include not being hired back in preference to more honest people.

2 minutes ago, Ben said:

You gotta try to learn to read better, man

Actually, if you're going to criticize me for my post, you should criticize my writing, not my reading. You got it backwards.

Also, as fast a reader as I am, most of the stuff in this thread by non-lawyers isn't worth reading in full unless you're going to pay me (and maybe not even then). My concern was with warning people not to pay attention to non-lawyers implicitly advising them not to follow the rules at the outset of their legal career (implicitly advising by saying there'd be no serious consequences to not following the rules).

[GGrievous]

11 minutes ago, epeeist said:

unless you're going to pay me (and maybe not even then).

Hey can you DM me the invoice. I might be behind on payments here. 

[Pecan Boy]

16 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Also, as fast a reader as I am, most of the stuff in this thread by non-lawyers isn't worth reading in full unless you're going to pay me (and maybe not even then).

Lmao it's awesome to voluntarily come on this website in your free time, get into arguments with people constantly, and then when you're told you're misinterpreting other peoples' posts, saying that you can't be bothered to read what you're responding to because you're too busy/important to care

[epeeist]

1 minute ago, Pecan Boy said:

Lmao it's awesome to voluntarily come on this website in your free time, get into arguments with people constantly, and then when you're told you're misinterpreting other peoples' posts, saying that you can't be bothered to read what you're responding to because you're too busy/important to care

It's not worth reading in full the arguments of people saying there won't/shouldn't be consequences to violating the LSBC rules. If you think it is, get help.

[Pecan Boy]

You haven't once fairly characterized the argument being made. You're just strawmanning and patting yourself on the back. Go do billable work if your time is so valuable - it's 3:00! Back to it!

Edited April 14, 2023 by Pecan Boy

[Ben]

26 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Also, as fast a reader as I am

You rock dude, keep at it 

[epeeist]

1 minute ago, Pecan Boy said:

You haven't once fairly characterized the argument being made. You're just strawmanning and patting yourself on the back. Go do billable work if your time is so valuable - it's 3:00! Back to it!

I'm posting on here as a public service, warning people against following the advice you and some others are providing, to not follow the LSBC rules (implicitly as noted, even if not explicitly).

If I've mischaracterized the argument - that no-one will face termination or other serious consequences for violating LSBC rules and concealing outside employment - then what is the argument?