Indigenous Law Internship Positions

[Donut2001]

Hello everyone!

I am just wondering if anyone is familiar with the area of Indigenous law and where the most internships for this area tend to be provincially? Or if there are certain schools that are better for helping you achieve these placements than others? 

Thank you! 🙂 

[Diplock]

Hi

You've raised this topic in a variety of posts already, and there's certainly nothing wrong with expressing your interests, but this is as good a place as any to ground your question in some reality. Your intentions to attention law school all seem to revolve around this admittedly niche area of legal practice, and it's important for you to hear a couple of things. First, there is quite a limited number of lawyers employed on any basis doing what you are interested in doing. Second, of those lawyers employed in this area of law, quite a lot of them - probably more than half - are employed on what you probably consider to be the "wrong" side of the issue. That is to say, the government employs lawyers who defend against claims relating to Indigenous land claims, etc., and those are certainly jobs in this area of law, but I'm guessing those aren't the jobs that you want?

Basically, what I'm saying is this. You're asking some of the right questions but you're skipping right past the most foundational and difficult of the basic questions you should be asking first. It's not "where are most of the entry level opportunities for students in this very niche, very specific, high competitive area of law" but more like "how likely is it I'm going to end up employed doing this at all?"

There's nothing wrong with your enthusiasm, but if you're genuinely interested in going into this with your eyes open, you need to know that attending law school with the admirable goal of righting vast historical wrongs doesn't equate in any sense with the availability of paying jobs that are going to employ you to spend your full-time career trying to right those historical wrongs. Until you address that topic, not a lot of what you're asking is going to come with the appropriate context.

Hope that helps.

[Dnian]

Diplock raises very important points, but I would add a few things. I had an interest in this area of law going into 1L and so I happen to have done some additional research, which I am happy to share.

Large firms:

Large downtown law firms all have Aboriginal/Indigenous law divisions and I am sure all of them would jump at the chance to hire an Indigenous law student, who is themselves an otherwise very strong candidate, interested in practicing Indigenous law at their firm. Here are a few of the best-rated firms according to Chambers.

Like Diplock said though, these firms and the Federal/Provincial Government employ the majority of Indigenous law practitioners. You will be representing project developers or governments the vast, vast majority of the time (although not always). There would be an expectation that you are ready to act in defence of a resource extraction company or settler government being sued by a First Nation, for example. If this is not for you, you probably should not work for one of these firms - which means your options are much more limited.

Boutiques:

However, there are also Indigenous law boutiques, usually lead by Indigenous partners, that exclusively represent First Nations and/or Indigenous peoples in matters pertaining to Indigenous law & Indigenous issues. Here are some examples (there are more):

• Nahwegabow Corbiere (Ontario)
• Olthuis Kleer Townshend (Ontario)
• First Peoples Law (Ontario/BC)
• Pape Salter Teillet (Ontario/BC)
• Woodward & Company (BC)
• Maurice Law (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba)

There are also small to mid size firms who have Aboriginal/Indigenous law divisions, which are exclusively plaintiff side (typically represent First Nations only). More examples:

• Ratcliff LLP (BC)
• Field Law (Alberta/NWT)
• Cochrane Saxberg (Manitoba)
• Falconers LLP (Ontario)

Keep in mind that these firms each probably employ 1-2 law students, max, each year - if that. So, you will need to be an outstanding candidate as the application process will no doubt be very competitive. However, if you are seriously dedicated to Indigenous law and are willing to put in the work (volunteering for Indigenous law opportunities, getting strong grades, etc), I do think there is work out there - especially if you are an Indigenous applicant. 

In terms of schools to go to, I think it really depends on your financial resources. These jobs (aside from the Bay street positions) will not pay well up front. Unless you get significant financial aid, think very hard before accepting at a place like Osgoode or U of T for that reason. Good luck!

Edited July 25, 2023 by Dnian
typo

[chaboywb]

1 hour ago, Dnian said:

Diplock raises very important points, but I would add a few things. I had an interest in this area of law going into 1L and so I happen to have done some additional research, which I am happy to share.

Large firms:

Large downtown law firms all have Aboriginal/Indigenous law divisions and I am sure all of them would jump at the chance to hire an Indigenous law student, who is themselves an otherwise very strong candidate, interested in practicing Indigenous law at their firm. Here are a few of the best-rated firms according to Chambers.

Like Diplock said though, these firms and the Federal/Provincial Government employ the majority of Indigenous law practitioners. You will be representing project developers or governments the vast, vast majority of the time (although not always). There would be an expectation that you are ready to act in defence of a resource extraction company or settler government being sued by a First Nation, for example. If this is not for you, you probably should not work for one of these firms - which means your options are much more limited.

Boutiques:

However, there are also Indigenous law boutiques, usually lead by Indigenous partners, that exclusively represent First Nations and/or Indigenous peoples in matters pertaining to Indigenous law & Indigenous issues. Here are some examples (there are more):

• Nahwegabow Corbiere (Ontario)
• Olthuis Kleer Townshend (Ontario)
• First Peoples Law (Ontario/BC)
• Pape Salter Teillet (Ontario/BC)
• Woodward & Company (BC)
• Maurice Law (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba)

There are also small to mid size firms who have Aboriginal/Indigenous law divisions, which are exclusively plaintiff side (typically represent First Nations only). More examples:

• Ratcliff LLP (BC)
• Field Law (Alberta/NWT)
• Cochrane Saxberg (Manitoba)
• Falconers LLP (Ontario)

Keep in mind that these firms each probably employ 1-2 law students, max, each year - if that. So, you will need to be an outstanding candidate as the application process will no doubt be very competitive. However, if you are seriously dedicated to Indigenous law and are willing to put in the work (volunteering for Indigenous law opportunities, getting strong grades, etc), I do think there is work out there - especially if you are an Indigenous applicant. 

In terms of schools to go to, I think it really depends on your financial resources. These jobs (aside from the Bay street positions) will not pay well up front. Unless you get significant financial aid, think very hard before accepting at a place like Osgoode or U of T for that reason. Good luck!

You raise an important distinction here that (in my opinion) will factor heavily into OP's potential in this field. They haven't, and certainly don't need to, identify themselves on this forum, but being Indigenous will open up a lot of doors - rightfully so given the severe underrepresentation of Indigenous lawyers. If they are non-Indigenous, then it becomes as difficult as breaking into any other niche. The opportunities exist but they are competitive and will not necessary pay very well at first.

[Diplock]

@Dnian nailed it, and with much more foundation in this area of practice than I bring. I'm embarrassed at how sloppy my initial post was (too late to edit) and I banged it out quickly. But I'm glad if it nudged the conversation in the right direction. I also find it interesting that Dnian had an interest in this area of law. That probably also suggests an avenue worth exploring.

This is a perennial issues. Indigenous law (taken generally to mean "only working for the good guys") is a subset of "human rights and social justice law." It's the sort of thing students toss off in a conversation to emphasize how their intentions in attending law school are pure, and they only want to do good things for good people with their soon-to-be legal credentials, but of course they also expect to be paid very well to represent the interests of the poor and oppressed. And could anyone please direct them to where all the jobs are, exactly, that pay lawyers top dollar to do that?

I don't mean to make light of anyone's good intentions or enthusiasm. There's a big topic here, and of course lawyers can and do spend their careers doing worthwhile work for often marginalized clients. I consider myself one of them, most days, though depending on your politics you might not agree that I am. I've sure as hell practiced more "Indigenous Law" and represented more Indigenous clients than the large majority of my peers from law school who got into this talking a big game about how they were going to right historical wrongs just as long as someone would pay them well enough to do it and come right to their campus during OCI season to present that opportunity on a silver platter.

Anyway, I think I've made my point. It's an important conversation. The people who stick with ambitions of this nature are the ones who go in with their eyes open, aware of the costs, difficulties, and trade offs this kind of career will entail. The ones who don't end up doing something else, and complain about how the world forced them into careers they don't feel good about.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Diplock

[CleanHands]

22 minutes ago, Diplock said:

This is a perennial issues. Indigenous law (taken generally to mean "only working for the good guys") is a subset of "human rights and social justice law." It's the sort of thing students toss off in a conversation to emphasize how their intentions in attending law school are pure, and they only want to do good things for good people with their soon-to-be legal credentials, but of course they also expect to be paid very well to represent the interests of the poor and oppressed. And could anyone please direct them to where all the jobs are, exactly, that pay lawyers top dollar to do that?

Plaintiff-side Indigenous lawyers at (at least some of) the boutiques mentioned above make loads of money. Several times what the government lawyers on the other side of their files make.

[Dnian]

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

Plaintiff-side Indigenous lawyers at (at least some of) the boutiques mentioned above make loads of money. Several times what the government lawyers on the other side of their files make.

Interesting. I admit my statement in my post that these jobs would not pay well was mostly an assumption. 

Out of curiosity, though, how can they afford this? I am wondering how a boutique servicing exclusively First Nations bands or governments could feasibly pay their associates salaries commensurate to that of a bay street lawyer (or government lawyer), when I am assuming they charge far less.

Or do they in fact charge the plaintiffs roughly the same as a larger firm might charge the energy/resource company/etc which the FN is up against?

[chaboywb]

9 minutes ago, Dnian said:

Interesting. I admit my statement in my post that these jobs would not pay well was mostly an assumption. 

Out of curiosity, though, how can they afford this? I am wondering how a boutique servicing exclusively First Nations bands or governments could feasibly pay their associates salaries commensurate to that of a bay street lawyer (or government lawyer), when I am assuming they charge far less.

Or do they in fact charge the plaintiffs roughly the same as a larger firm might charge the energy/resource company/etc which the FN is up against?

I can't speak with certainty about the fees these firms charge, but I know of at least one boutique law firm that represents many First Nations and the partners do very well. I can't imagine they're taking a big fee cut to do that work. It's worth noting that many First Nations have a lot of money and are well invested. Others are not. But there are certainly some that can afford top lawyers at their full rate.

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by chaboywb

[CleanHands]

14 minutes ago, Dnian said:

Interesting. I admit my statement in my post that these jobs would not pay well was mostly an assumption. 

Out of curiosity, though, how can they afford this? I am wondering how a boutique servicing exclusively First Nations bands or governments could feasibly pay their associates salaries commensurate to that of a bay street lawyer (or government lawyer), when I am assuming they charge far less.

Or do they in fact charge the plaintiffs roughly the same as a larger firm might charge the energy/resource company/etc which the FN is up against?

I also had the same misconception of the practice area before getting exposure to it during an articling rotation (so I for sure don't have a lot of experience in the area, but given that I have any at all, that's still more than most lawyers).

What I didn't appreciate before working in the area, and what I suspect most interested students don't appreciate, is that (barring some pro bono work or something) the plaintiff-side boutiques aren't representing extremely marginalized clients with shallow pockets. They are representing by and large the most heavily resourced First Nation groups. They get compensated well for their work.

Which allows me to segue into saying I suspect this will disillusion some of the people who want to do that kind of work for the right reasons...

We have a rich-get-richer system. Some Indigenous groups have received recognition and significant funding from the Canadian state. They hire these boutiques and continue to vigorously advance their interests. Meanwhile, there are other Indigenous groups who never received any official recognition or status, and are totally broke and cannot afford legal representation to be able to assert their basic rights in the first place.

Also, the monetary incentives in the field are totally skewed and encourage prolonged litigation rather than settlements.

[123]

57 minutes ago, Diplock said:

I don't mean to make light of anyone's good intentions or enthusiasm. There's a big topic here, and of course lawyers can and do spend their careers doing worthwhile work for often marginalized clients. I consider myself one of them, most days, though depending on your politics you might not agree that I am. I've sure as hell practiced more "Indigenous Law" and represented more Indigenous clients than the large majority of my peers from law school who got into this talking a big game about how they were going to right historical wrongs just as long as someone would pay them well enough to do it and come right to their campus during OCI season to present that opportunity on a silver platter.

Anyway, I think I've made my point. It's an important conversation. The people who stick with ambitions of this nature are the ones who go in with their eyes open, aware of the costs, difficulties, and trade offs this kind of career will entail. The ones who don't end up doing something else, and complain about how the world forced them into careers they don't feel good about.

The good thing is that if someone has genuine good intentions and enthusiasm to help the marginalized, their overly narrow focus on one area of law as an applicant may work out fine. Between late-1L and now, I've firmly decided to pursue four or five areas that you could call social justice law. A couple were probably hilariously niche. But if someone has a genuine commitment to working for marginalized clients, there is plenty of work out there. And provided they are also willing to make the tradeoffs, it tends to matter less than some people think which area of law you're practicing in terms of self-fulfillment. There are other reasons area of practice matters. I couldn't hack family law for reasons specific to that area of practice. And there are specific tasks I'm better suited for in certain roles. But generally speaking, fulfilling work is fulfilling work. And provided that someone's commitment to practicing social justice law is real, I think it's fine to start with niche or unrealistic interests, because its possible to reorient their aims to other practice areas once you're in law school.

That said, it's tougher if OP is really exclusively interested in the substance of person-side indigenous law. That is pretty niche, and if there isn't passion or goals that could spill over into other fields, then it's possible law school isn't the most straightforward avenue to getting where they want.

Edited July 25, 2023 by realpseudonym

[studentoflaw]

I just want to jump in to add a clarification that is getting a little missed in this thread. There is a difference between "Indigenous law" and "Aboriginal law", in Indigenous legal circles. 

Most of this thread is actually referring to "Aboriginal law", which is the bodies of settler/Canadian law that impact Indigenous people. Whether that is litigating land claims, trying to protect traditional practices, child welfare, etc. It's Canadian law, the law you learn in law school, and Indigenous people are involved. This area is not particularly difficult to get into, because it refers to almost everything! There's "Aboriginal law" in criminal law, in family law, in real estate law, in business law, in municipal law, in constitutional law, the list goes on! If OP is interested in Aboriginal law, they can find their way to it in most major areas of law. Windsor, Lakehead, and Osgoode are particularly well-known schools in Ontario for their opportunities and employ quite a few Indigenous professors as well as traditional teachers (though most law schools employ at least a few Indigenous professors, these days). Osgoode has a semester-long program called Indigenous Lands, Resources, and Government that is open to students at any law school in Canada. UVic has the JID program if you're looking at BC, Allard has a placement program similar to Osgoode's Intensive, University of Saskatchewan had a Property Law program that ran in the summer for Indigenous students, but I heard that it shut down over the pandemic and I don't know if it has reopened since then. 

In contrast, "Indigenous law" is the traditional Indigenous legal orders, the various laws written by Indigenous people/nations that existed before colonialism and continues to exist, and right now there's a lot of work being done on the revitalization and implementation of traditional Indigenous legal practices. These are often specific to the Indigenous nation who wants to practice the adherence to and enforcement of their laws. There's the Akwesasne Court as one of the bigger examples that you can look into. This is a lot more niche and difficult to get into. Additionally, this is the kind of work that is largely practiced by Indigenous people, so OP if you're not Indigenous, you'll need to take lots of care to be learning from Indigenous teachers, both professors and elders/leaders, to figure out where you fit in (if at all). Non-Indigenous people getting involved in Indigenous Law makes many Indigenous people queasy, understandably so (for obvious reasons, I hope). If you are Indigenous, OP, there are law schools with dedicated Indigenous administrative staff members who would be happy to talk you through what their schools' practical placement opportunities are in either Indigenous or Aboriginal law. 

[CleanHands]

4 hours ago, studentoflaw said:

-Snip- 

This is correct and I'm sorry for muddying the waters. It was referred to as "Aboriginal law" in the context in which I was discussing.

I guess I'm admittedly a bit confused as to how to navigate the language, as my understanding is that the term "Aboriginal" is falling out of favour in general use, with "Indigenous" taking its place as the preferred nomenclature.

[studentoflaw]

19 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

This is correct and I'm sorry for muddying the waters. It was referred to as "Aboriginal law" in the context in which I was discussing.

I guess I'm admittedly a bit confused as to how to navigate the language, as my understanding is that the term "Aboriginal" is falling out of favour in general use, with "Indigenous" taking its place as the preferred nomenclature.

For referring to people? Absolutely. The term "Aboriginal person" is basically only used in court because *of course the courts won't let that language die* but absolutely Indigenous is the preferred identifier in the real world (that is a blanket statement not applicable to all Indigenous people and obviously go with whatever someone tells you they want to be called).  

But in terms of legal topics, we do still divide them up into Aboriginal Law for settler laws that apply to Indigenous people, and Indigenous Law being each nations' own sovereign legal orders and traditions 🙂

[TheDevilIKnow]

@studentoflaw, thanks for making that clarification. I wanted to do it myself, but was worried it would come across as too pedantic. You did a much better job explaining the difference than I would have.

OP, you are going to want to make sure you are 100% clear on that distinction before you start applying to jobs (of course, that's not the juncture you're presently at.)

Aboriginal law is a fairly niche area. Indigenous law is so niche as to be, well, barely existent as a practice area at all. It is important work but it is largely being done in the academic setting, as distinct from the practice of law. This is because the work is based around helping Indigenous groups research and recover their own legal orders. That is of enormous importance, but doesn't relate very much to the things lawyers normally do.

I think the space where these two areas come together would be, for example, where an Indigenous group has a recognized authority to create its own legal code on some issue (child protection, tax, land use) and the Crown's statutory framework has some way of recognizing, incorporating, or working with that "Indigenous" legal doctrine. The Crown's posture and obligations toward the Indigenous group would be "aboriginal law", but the content of law being recognized, incorporated, etc., would be "Indigenous law". I suppose there is some of this going on in work around the "Modern Treaty" groups, as well as "band" First Nations.

13 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I guess I'm admittedly a bit confused as to how to navigate the language, as my understanding is that the term "Aboriginal" is falling out of favour in general use, with "Indigenous" taking its place as the preferred nomenclature.

While I am not too experienced in these areas, as a recent graduate of UVic (where everybody is talking about these things all of the time), I would say this is definitely not the case. Here, at least, the distinction is very important and judiciously guarded. One would never refer to Indigenous legal orders as aboriginal, but one would also never refer to, say, fiduciary claims against the government as "Indigenous law". That's squarely addressed, and taught, as "Aboriginal Law".

As far as I can tell, there is also no overlap between the courses involved at UVic. The syllabus for the "Indigenous Lands, Rights, and Governance" contains nothing on Indigenous legal systems at all, and the courses on Indigenous legal traditions would not discuss colonial law much, I imagine. (I took the former but not the latter, so I am not as sure on that).

[Byzantine]

30 minutes ago, studentoflaw said:

For referring to people? Absolutely. The term "Aboriginal person" is basically only used in court because *of course the courts won't let that language die* but absolutely Indigenous is the preferred identifier in the real world (that is a blanket statement not applicable to all Indigenous people and obviously go with whatever someone tells you they want to be called).  

But in terms of legal topics, we do still divide them up into Aboriginal Law for settler laws that apply to Indigenous people, and Indigenous Law being each nations' own sovereign legal orders and traditions 🙂

Just as an aside, I do wonder if this distinction will continue to hold in the future due to the preference for using Indigenous over Aboriginal more generally. For example, big firm websites seem to use the term Indigenous law to refer to areas that are clearly under the Aboriginal law umbrella (aboriginal title, rights, etc.) 

[TheDevilIKnow]

25 minutes ago, studentoflaw said:

Aboriginal Law for settler laws that apply to Indigenous people

I would qualify that to say that Aboriginal Law refers to "settler law" as it applies to the collective rights and status of Indigenous people as Indigenous people. "Aboriginal Law" cases involve the interaction of state law with aboriginal land use, resource use. It includes the state's fiduciary duties to Indigenous people through common law (eg fiduciary duties) and statute law (eg the Royal Proclamation or Indian Act), etc.

But almost all laws apply to Indigenous people, as individuals, and that does not necessarily engage questions of Aboriginal Law. Application of the Pest Control Products Act to an Indigenous farmer, for example, does not really raise Aboriginal Law issues. Of course, if his Nation had drafted its own land use code and was seeking its recognition as the modern form of an Aboriginal Right, that would be different...

Overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the Criminal Justice system is also not an Aboriginal Law issue, simply because... it's a criminal law issue! It's an extremely important one, but one addressed using the Gladue principles, etc. The experts on that are criminal lawyers, and criminal lawyers do not practice Aboriginal Law! To bring this full circle, however... I would point out that special Indigenous sentencing courts, inasmuch as they are set up to accord with Indigenous legal principles inside the Canadian justice system, are in fact an example of both Indigenous Law and Criminal Law. In this case, without any Aboriginal Law. Clear as mud? 😉

 

 

2 minutes ago, Byzantine said:

Just as an aside, I do wonder if this distinction will continue to hold in the future due to the preference for using Indigenous over Aboriginal more generally. For example, big firm websites seem to use the term Indigenous law to refer to areas that are clearly under the Aboriginal law umbrella (aboriginal title, rights, etc.) 

I think this is a bit of a marketing issue. Firms that practice what we are calling Aboriginal Law need to market themselves to clients who prefer the word "Indigenous". So it makes sense that this will slip into the websites. However, it muddies the water and causes us to have discussions like this one. 😉

If the Aboriginal Law panel of the CBA got together (assuming such a thing exists) and decided that they would all start using the term "Indigenous Law"... what would happen to what we currently call Indigenous Law? They would have to find a new name for what they do, too, and confusion would continue.

[BlockedQuebecois]

51 minutes ago, studentoflaw said:

The term "Aboriginal person" is basically only used in court because *of course the courts won't let that language die* but absolutely Indigenous is the preferred identifier in the real world (that is a blanket statement not applicable to all Indigenous people and obviously go with whatever someone tells you they want to be called).  

It's not a "the courts won't let that language die" situation. If you conduct some research, you'll see that usage of the term "Indigenous" has been growing for years and far outstrips usage of the term "Aboriginal". That's clear even before you strip out all the instances of "Aboriginal" that are clearly justified (usage in quotations, usage where the case is referring to "Aboriginal law" or "Aboriginal title", etc.). 

I would wager there are only a handful of cases this year in which a court has referred to someone as "Aboriginal" in circumstances where they or their counsel referred to themselves as "Indigenous", and the lion's share of those will be honest mistakes. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois

[CleanHands]

48 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It's not a "the courts won't let that language die" situation. If you conduct some research, you'll see that usage of the term "Indigenous" has been growing for years and far outstrips usage of the term "Aboriginal". That's clear even before you strip out all the instances of "Aboriginal" that are clearly justified (usage in quotations, usage where the case is referring to "Aboriginal law" or "Aboriginal title", etc.). 

I would wager there are only a handful of cases this year in which a court has referred to someone as "Aboriginal" in circumstances where they or their counsel referred to themselves as "Indigenous", and the lion's share of those will be honest mistakes. 

Most definitely "Indigenous" is the preferred term to refer to individuals in the criminal law context at this point.

I've basically scrubbed the term "Aboriginal" from my vocabulary at this point, once I transitioned from law school to practice, which is why the distinction in practice areas went over my head initially. I think @Byzantine is right that the practice area won't be referred to by the same term for much longer, either.

[Dnian]

On 7/26/2023 at 10:01 AM, studentoflaw said:

I just want to jump in to add a clarification that is getting a little missed in this thread. There is a difference between "Indigenous law" and "Aboriginal law", in Indigenous legal circles. 

- snip -

I am a little late to this, but yes -- thank you so much for this important clarification. This is indeed a critical point and I admit I blurred the lines a little bit in my own posts for the sake of trying to guide OP. 

The only other thing I would add is that while they are two very distinct fields (for all of the reasons you described), I don't think that the 'aboriginal law' boutiques are so cleanly divorced from Indigenous law that working for them is not an "Indigenous law internship". For example, Indigenous legal traditions are at the forefront of the litigation in basically any aboriginal title or treaty rights case you are going to find before the Courts. Any student working for these firms will be doing research into and litigating disputes pertaining to such Indigenous legal traditions on a daily basis.

So while practitioners of Aboriginal law do not per se, practice Indigenous law, the folks at a firm like OKT are still very meaningfully engaging with Indigenous legal traditions and conducting advocacy centred around those traditions all the time -- and that remains true even if they are operating at an overarching level within a settler colonial system of law. And as you point out, there are probably far more attainable opportunities along those lines than there are career paths for a student which take them from a settler colonial law school to the Awkesasne Court. 

To that end, I think these opportunities are still potentially relevant to what OP was looking for and I hope they were of some help.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Dnian

[studentoflaw]

On 7/26/2023 at 3:41 PM, TheDevilIKnow said:

Clear as mud? 😉

- snip - 

You're completely right, and we can make it muddier if we go even more in depth on it, lol. I just boiled down "Aboriginal law" in quotes for OP to get a sense of what they're looking for, whether Aboriginal Law, Indigenous Law, or the practice of any area of law as it impacts Indigenous people. 

And @Dnian, love the folks at OKT and the work they are doing!

And I spoke with OP and the comments made have been helpful in directing them where they want to go 🙂 

[GoBigOrGoHome]

On 7/24/2023 at 9:33 PM, Donut2001 said:

Hello everyone!

I am just wondering if anyone is familiar with the area of Indigenous law and where the most internships for this area tend to be provincially? Or if there are certain schools that are better for helping you achieve these placements than others? 

Thank you! 🙂 

I will add some things that others have  not:

- in BC firms that do “indigenous law” gage a preference for those that are in UVIC’s indigenous law program (I have spoken to a couple and they said it themselves)

- for firms that do Aboriginal law there is going to be a preference for Indigenous students 

- if you are not Indigenous, come into law school with experience working with Indigenous communities (even if you are indigenous I would suggest doing work with your community because you will gain exposure to many of the economic and legal issues that your nation is grappling with)

- firms could use people who specialize in Aboriginal and Indigenous tax. This is a niche - but not that many people in it

- there are a lot more opportunities in Aboriginal law than people are acknowledging here. Nearly every natural resource development project in BC will interact with Aboriginal law. If you go into mining law you will work with nations, if you work a municipal law firm hired by small communities across BC, you will periodically come across Aboriginal law. Nations are writing their own child welfare legislation (but there are many lawyers and non-lawyers working with nations on this). If you work in public sector procurement you will often work with nations (even in social programs because some of them will bid for opportunities). 

The key will be getting in the door. If you are not indigenous, have work experience.

I am really emphasizing work experience, because given my own experience, there is a huge emphasis on relationship when working with nations. I will admit that I have been put in my place by someone and I learned so much from it (but was able to weather that because of the relationship). what I have come to realize over the years is some of the statements that you and I might consider normal often or perceived, as the Westerner are coming into the community, telling them how things should be. If I was in law school in my early 20s, I don’t think I would have the skillset to navigate the conversations with these communities in the way that I do now. 

I’m proud of the relationships that I have built because I know that in some cases if I call, my call will actually be answered (this is important because nations are dealing with so many requests from everywhere all the time and you are not important. So if they are not already your client, you better hope that they answer). 
 

 

[perryplatypus]

On 8/10/2023 at 7:41 PM, GoBigOrGoHome said:

firms could use people who specialize in Aboriginal and Indigenous tax. This is a niche - but not that many people in it

Do you know any firms (esp big law) specifically? It seems like not many do Indigenous taxation. The only one I have found is Gowling, and even then one of their main (only?) partners that does it just left the firm

[ZineZ]

1 hour ago, lawstudentvancouver said:

Do you know any firms (esp big law) specifically? It seems like not many do Indigenous taxation. The only one I have found is Gowling, and even then one of their main (only?) partners that does it just left the firm

I'm not too aware of many "big law" firms that specialize in this area. It's an interesting (and growing) niche, and many of the Aboriginal law boutiques do this work in-house. So if you're a First Nation looking for this work - you'll contact the Partner/firm you work with. Unless the firm doesn't have anyone in-house with the experience, they'll likely put you in touch with their corporate team or tax folks. 

If you want "big law" - your best bet is figuring out which firms do this work (especially ones that represent FNs) and then applying. If you'd like to do tax/corporate - highlight it. This is a skill that can put you ahead in a very competitive field.

[perryplatypus]

13 hours ago, ZineZ said:

I'm not too aware of many "big law" firms that specialize in this area. It's an interesting (and growing) niche, and many of the Aboriginal law boutiques do this work in-house. So if you're a First Nation looking for this work - you'll contact the Partner/firm you work with. Unless the firm doesn't have anyone in-house with the experience, they'll likely put you in touch with their corporate team or tax folks. 

If you want "big law" - your best bet is figuring out which firms do this work (especially ones that represent FNs) and then applying. If you'd like to do tax/corporate - highlight it. This is a skill that can put you ahead in a very competitive field.

This is the best advice I have gotten in my entire time in law school while trying to pursue a career in Aboriginal law. Thank you!! I only wish I'd gotten it before I did 2L recruit, but I am still lucky to be summering and articling at a big law firm. Hoping to pivot after a year or two there into a big law firm that does more Aboriginal law (my firm does very little)

[ZineZ]

1 hour ago, lawstudentvancouver said:

This is the best advice I have gotten in my entire time in law school while trying to pursue a career in Aboriginal law. Thank you!! I only wish I'd gotten it before I did 2L recruit, but I am still lucky to be summering and articling at a big law firm. Hoping to pivot after a year or two there into a big law firm that does more Aboriginal law (my firm does very little)

No problem at all. Congrats on the gig! 

I'd encourage you to take steps to show active interest in the area during both summer and articles and learn more if you intend to pivot. A lot of firms work with companies that have to fulfill DTCA obligations on their projects. This is particularly true if your firm works with any proponents related to energy, natural resources etc. Figure out if yours does that work and try to do it. Especially if you're on the West Coast. 

Many of the boutiques are growing and you can pivot later - but there's a lot of interest and you need to be able to show both passion and relevant experience. Cpds, certificates etc are also useful - as is focusing some of your courses in this area. 

If you can show an interest and experience in a mix of Aboriginal law and corporate law, you can be a strong applicant. But definitely be strategic if it's your end goal.