Articling with MAG vs. Law-adjacent job with DOJ

[AlanDershowitz]

If you were in a position where you had to choose between continuing in a law-adjacent federal government role, and articling with the provincial government, which would you choose and why?

Articling with MAG (criminal) in a small town ($77k per year) or EC-04 position with DOJ in Ottawa ($83k-$95k per year). The DOJ job is not an articling position and would not lead to a law license in the future.

[acatinthesun]

I was in a similar spot and ultimately decided to article - although not in crim. 

My thought process was that articling keeps doors open that it would not otherwise. If i didn't like articling at all, previous government experience and being a lawyer are huge advantages for government jobs and I didn't think it would be a terrible transition back. It is harder to go article later if you have regrets. I'm very happy i decided to article and am currently a gov lawyer with no current plans to bounce back to policy. 

Ultimately it is up to you and how you see your future. What kind of thoughts do you have around being a lawyer? why did you go to law school?

 

[AlanDershowitz]

5 minutes ago, acatinthesun said:

I was in a similar spot and ultimately decided to article - although not in crim. 

My thought process was that articling keeps doors open that it would not otherwise. If i didn't like articling at all, previous government experience and being a lawyer are huge advantages for government jobs and I didn't think it would be a terrible transition back. It is harder to go article later if you have regrets. I'm very happy i decided to article and am currently a gov lawyer with no current plans to bounce back to policy. 

Ultimately it is up to you and how you see your future. What kind of thoughts do you have around being a lawyer? why did you go to law school?

 

I went to law school because law interested me as a career, but I also thought that a law degree would open doors elsewhere (i.e. in government). Now that I'm in a position to choose between the two, I get very anxious whenever I think I've decided on one over the other. I think ultimately articling may be the best long-term decision, but in the short term the idea of living in Ottawa, renting a decent apartment, and working without the bar exam looming in the coming weeks sounds ideal.

[BHC1]

1 hour ago, AlanDershowitz said:

I went to law school because law interested me as a career, but I also thought that a law degree would open doors elsewhere (i.e. in government). Now that I'm in a position to choose between the two, I get very anxious whenever I think I've decided on one over the other. I think ultimately articling may be the best long-term decision, but in the short term the idea of living in Ottawa, renting a decent apartment, and working without the bar exam looming in the coming weeks sounds ideal.

Are you bilingual? Otherwise you’re shooting yourself in the foot long-term, at least salary wise. You’re going to have to become a EX-4 to make a comparable salary to a working level DOJ lawyer. 
 

Your inclination is probably correct: your long term prospected are likely much stronger if you tough it out in law.

[Jaggers]

I've never been faced with this choice because I've always intended to practice law (at least since starting law school) but it does seem shortsighted to go all the way through law school then decide not to article, unless you know you really don't want to practice law.

[Dinsdale]

He's not closing the door on articling in the future though.  Plus, there is always the law practice program to fall back on to get your Ontario credential (though you'd need to get a leave of absence or quit your FT job).  Also, without looking it up I believe the LSO imposes a time limit for when you must complete the licensing process after graduating law school?  But still, I'd say "do what you love".

Edited March 27 by Dinsdale

[Phaedrus]

9 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

He's not closing the door on articling in the future though. 

Sure, they're not, but it becomes increasingly difficult to secure an articling position the longer a person's out of law school. Every year, there's a new cohort of graduates with "fresh" legal knowledge to compete with, and it's harder to believe someone a few years out has retained much from their legal education/training. If you need proof, ask me specific questions about my honour's thesis; consumed me when I wrote it and I could talk about the literature ad nauseum, but now I have little more than generalizations that have little utility because the field's evolved. 

Plus there's the issue that the longer you're out of law school working non-law jobs, it's harder to justify taking what will be a massive pay cut to start at the bottom rung of the earnings ladder. Like @Jaggers said, it doesn't make a lot of sense to forgo articling unless you know you don't want to practice. I'd be inclined to article and maintain non-practicing status if it was truly a door I didn't want to close.

[BHC1]

23 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

He's not closing the door on articling in the future though.  Plus, there is always the law practice program to fall back on to get your Ontario credential (though you'd need to get a leave of absence or quit your FT job).  Also, without looking it up I believe the LSO imposes a time limit for when you must complete the licensing process after graduating law school?  But still, I'd say "do what you love".

@Phaedrus is right. If OP is competent enough to go to law school and secure a job as a DOJ policy analyst, they are definitely competent enough to become a senior policy analyst making $130k within a few years. The longer they go down one path, the harder and less realistic that it will be for them to switch roads. 

With that said you also got a point. While it’s easy for us in the cheap seats to tell OP to delay gratification, if they like being an analyst and want to live in Ottawa right now - who are we to say it isn’t the better option?