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

[Pecan Boy]

Just now, epeeist said:

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?

The argument, which has already been noted as "academic" twice and not something to base anyone's conduct upon, is whether a failure to disclose that you're doing RA work is enough to create just cause for termination. Pretty sure every single person in this thread agrees that you should disclose that employment to your employer.

2 minutes ago, epeeist said:

I'm posting on here as a public service,

Thank you!

[epeeist]

1 minute ago, Pecan Boy said:

The argument, which has already been noted as "academic" twice and not something to base anyone's conduct upon, is whether a failure to disclose that you're doing RA work is enough to create just cause for termination. Pretty sure every single person in this thread agrees that you should disclose that employment to your employer.

Thank you!

[emphasis added]

Now who's not reading? Read the top post on page 2 (and other posts by other lawyers), asserting that failure to disclose is just cause for termination.

If you or others want to argue the principle in the abstract, you should post in off-topic. But in response to OP seeking advice, you shouldn't mislead them that it wouldn't/couldn't cause termination.

[CleanHands]

17 minutes ago, epeeist said:

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.

But it's worth responding to them?

10 minutes ago, epeeist said:

I'm posting on here as a public service

11 minutes ago, epeeist said:

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?

So you want people to elaborate upon arguments while admitting you don't/won't read their full arguments?

[Pecan Boy]

It's impossible to have a discussion with you, lol, I don't know how to make it any clearer that we're not trying to counsel OP to not disclose. I'm actually quite sure that, notwithstanding your trouble with this (due to various reading comprehension deficiencies, etc.), OP will get the very clear message that they should disclose. All of this discussion about the standard for just cause is, for the third time, purely academic. Good?

[epeeist]

Just now, CleanHands said:

But it's worth responding to them?

Yes, out of public-spiritedness.

If someone advises that drinking then jumping headfirst off a cliff into water of unknown depth won't injure you, and has a lengthy argument about how drinking alcohol makes you go limp so you won't injure yourself, one need not read their argument to advise them and others that it's a stupid idea and they shouldn't do it. Even if they claimed that one shouldn't do that, they were only arguing that in theory it would be safe to do so, "academically", one would want to warn others against following the implicit advice that it would be safe to do that.

Here, there are lawyers other than me saying that not only could one be fired for cause for not disclosing, but that they actually would fire for non-disclosure. Given that, what's the argument other than bare assertion that they're all wrong?

[Ben]

10 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Even if they claimed that one shouldn't do that, they were only arguing that in theory it would be safe to do so, "academically", one would want to warn others against following the implicit advice that it would be safe to do that.

Luckily, you're probably the only person who will ever read all this who can't distinguish between "I doubt the employer would succeed on this issue if it were litigated," and "summer students are well-advised to proceed on the basis that they would succeed at trial after years of litigation."

13 minutes ago, epeeist said:

Here, there are lawyers other than me saying that not only could one be fired for cause for not disclosing, but that they actually would fire for non-disclosure. Given that, what's the argument other than bare assertion that they're all wrong?

It's common law of employment stuff - wouldn't expect you to understand. Don't let it preoccupy you! 

[Mal]

1 hour ago, Ben said:

It's common law of employment stuff - wouldn't expect you to understand. Don't let it preoccupy you! 

[123]

On 4/14/2023 at 8:48 AM, KOMODO said:

I was on call all the time, and because I was happy to jump into stuff, I had lots of cool experiences and learned a bunch.

I don’t want to tell students that they should be on call all the time. Students seem increasingly willing to push back and set boundaries around their time, and that might be good. 

I’ll say that being keen, eager, passionate - whatever you want to call it - gave me access to all kinds of interesting work and valuable learning opportunities early on. It started building up a reputation that fostered mentorship relationships and generated a lot of referrals over the last few years. 

Again, I am supportive of students setting boundaries. But I also agree with what @KOMODO’s saying. If you’re getting interesting, relevant work as a student, putting in the time early on is a good investment in a student’s career. And keeping your availability open may pay dividends for years to come. 

[CleanHands]

49 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

I don’t want to tell students that they should be on call all the time. Students seem increasingly willing to push back and set boundaries around their time, and that might be good. 

I’ll say that being keen, eager, passionate - whatever you want to call it - gave me access to all kinds of interesting work and valuable learning opportunities early on. It started building up a reputation that fostered mentorship relationships and generated a lot of referrals over the last few years. 

Again, I am supportive of students setting boundaries. But I also agree with what @KOMODO’s saying. If you’re getting interesting, relevant work as a student, putting in the time early on is a good investment in a student’s career. And keeping your availability open may pay dividends for years to come. 

I am just going to come out and say it: there is a fine line between "work-life balance" and laziness/entitlement. And a lot of law students use the former phrase as a shield for the latter qualities.

Granted, if I had a BigLaw job I'd absolutely loathe my job so much I'd try to do as little work as possible and interact with my colleagues as little as possible, too.

[SNAILS]

Focusing just on what the OP posted, and not subsequent discussion, I would suggest giving your duties to your law firm your 100% effort (other than what you need for relaxation and down time) and not work a second job. People at the firm will come to respect and trust you, which is more important than extra short term income.

If you can at all afford it, find a way to pay your bills (or cut expenses) with the money you get, and then make more money next year and the year after.