Jump to content

Is it really that bad to go to Bond/Leeds/etc?


Xxyz

Recommended Posts

Xxyz
  • Law Student
7 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

Finances (ie cost) are the most important consideration for many (most?) applicants. You made a post seeking advice about applying to foreign schools which cost multiple times more than attending a local school.

You make a fair point. I just, ultimately, was hoping for information on what the industry thought of foreign grads. Ultimately I can judge my personal finances better than a group of anonymous people on the internet, but I don’t have any information on how different schools are perceived & I don’t know anyone to ask. So while I can figure the financials out for myself, I can’t figure any of the industry stuff. 

Also I genuinely don’t have anything against the idea of going to Lakehead or Windsor. I’ve just lived in Ontario almost my whole life with two spells in the USA, so the thought of moving abroad is realy appealing to me. But perhaps a semester abroad or something would be more appropriate. Less exciting, but smarter. 
 

ETA: apologies, I was trying to be funny in my replies this morning. With the benefit of hindsight & more than 1 cup of coffee, my answer seems way less entertaining than they did at 6am…

Edited by Xxyz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xxyz
  • Law Student
3 hours ago, BondGuy said:

Relevant?

 

Very. I’d read that before posting. I think I originally posted hoping for additional perspectives from someone who went to school in the UK or somewhere else, as you & the one other person I know both went to Bond. Thanks for the info though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CleanHands
  • Lawyer
6 minutes ago, Xxyz said:

You make a fair point. I just, ultimately, was hoping for information on what the industry thought of foreign grads.

If that is all your concern here is, there is a clear stigma and negative perceptions attached and a not inconsiderable number of legal employers will immediately bin your resume if you attend the schools you mentioned. Every time this is brought up there is a heated debate but that only goes to show some employers and lawyers won't care...but a sizable proportion will. And the takeway from that should be that even if a good legal career is still theoretically viable with one of those foreign degrees, there aren't good enough reasons to restrict your prospects in that fashion if you are able to go to a Canadian law school instead. There was a Bond gold medalist with a good legal career here in Canada who would consistently even say on the old forums that Canadian schools should be the first option nearly everyone explores before considering going the route he did.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xxyz
  • Law Student
5 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

If that is all your concern here is, there is a clear stigma and negative perceptions attached and a not inconsiderable number of legal employers will immediately bin your resume if you attend the schools you mentioned. Every time this is brought up there is a heated debate but that only goes to show some employers and lawyers won't care...but a sizable proportion will. And the takeway from that should be that even if a good legal career is still theoretically viable with one of those foreign degrees, there aren't good enough reasons to restrict your prospects in that fashion if you are able to go to a Canadian law school instead. There was a Bond gold medalist with a good legal career here in Canada who would consistently even say on the old forums that Canadian schools should be the first option nearly everyone explores before considering going the route he did.

Fair, thank you. To be honest I was kind of hoping for a “Just get good grades & it will all work out” as two years of Australian weather and no Canadian winters does sound damn nice, but it doesn’t sound like that’s true. Will maybe aim for a semester abroad or something instead. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Xxyz said:

You make a fair point. I just, ultimately, was hoping for information on what the industry thought of foreign grads. Ultimately I can judge my personal finances better than a group of anonymous people on the internet, but I don’t have any information on how different schools are perceived & I don’t know anyone to ask. So while I can figure the financials out for myself, I can’t figure any of the industry stuff. 

Also I genuinely don’t have anything against the idea of going to Lakehead or Windsor. I’ve just lived in Ontario almost my whole life with two spells in the USA, so the thought of moving abroad is realy appealing to me. But perhaps a semester abroad or something would be more appropriate. Less exciting, but smarter. 
 

ETA: apologies, I was trying to be funny in my replies this morning. With the benefit of hindsight & more than 1 cup of coffee, my answer seems way less entertaining than they did at 6am…

Foreign schools are thought of poorly unless they are something like Oxford/Cambridge/HYS/etc. The perception will be that you only went to a foreign school because you were not capable of getting accepted at any of the Canadian schools. You will be at a disadvantage relative to any applicant from a Canadian law school who is also applying for the same job that you are. Some employers will explicitly not even consider your application in the first place. It is not uncommon for foreign graduates to have to spend many months or even years networking and cold applying for positions before landing an articling position. Even after completing the articling requirement you will still be at a relative disadvantage compared to Canadian graduates for associate positions. 

The only time people here would generally suggest that going overseas would be a remotely good idea is if you have a family member guaranteeing you a job when you get back, if you're from such a wealthy family that you don't actually need to worry about working, or if you are going to one of a handful of elite foreign schools. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CleanHands
  • Lawyer
Just now, Xxyz said:

Fair, thank you. To be honest I was kind of hoping for a “Just get good grades & it will all work out” as two years of Australian weather and no Canadian winters does sound damn nice, but it doesn’t sound like that’s true. Will maybe aim for a semester abroad or something instead. 

That's the way to go and a lot of Canadian law schools have some really nice and varied exchange options in any event.

Truthfully things of course *can* work out for foreign grads. And the people who have those experiences tend to come here and present their anecdotes as if that should assuage concerns. But in the bigger picture it's really an unnecessary handicap if one can get admitted here instead. In addition to virtually no Bond or Leicester grads working in OCI type jobs, even in practice areas with lower barriers to entry a Canadian legal education will give you the opportunity to network and work with Canadian lawyers in said desired practice area. Getting a job after going abroad is far from impossible but it's hard mode and usually involves trying to pick up the scraps of positions that are left once the Canadian grads secure jobs from the formal recruits and personal networking opportunities they had. Not a place I'd choose to be in if I could avoid it.

Good luck, man.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Xxyz said:

Fair, thank you. To be honest I was kind of hoping for a “Just get good grades & it will all work out” as two years of Australian weather and no Canadian winters does sound damn nice, but it doesn’t sound like that’s true. Will maybe aim for a semester abroad or something instead. 

It's worth pointing out for the sake of any person who stumbles upon this thread in the future that attending law school with the assumption that you're going to get certain grades is generally a bad idea. This also applies to foreign schools. 

Even if it were true that getting good grades would cancel out the stigma associated with schools like Bond (they do not), it still doesn't change the reality that grades are relative and most people attending Bond aren't going to be in the top 10-20% of the class. Most people attending foreign schools likely try to get top grades. Most of them end up being approximately average. 

Even if you were in the top 10-20% of your class at Bond, it still wouldn't be particularly impressive because the pool of students at schools like Bond aren't great. To put it in to perspective, the best Canadian students studying law overseas at schools like Bond generally have lower entrance stats than people getting accepted into Canada's least competitive law schools late in the cycle. 

This wasn't necessarily targeted at you. It's more of a generic post addressing a line of logic some people use to justify going to a foreign school. A proper risk assessment of attending a foreign school would involve a serious consideration of the possibility of ending up being an average or below average student. 

Edited by Toad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xxyz
  • Law Student
44 minutes ago, Toad said:

It's worth pointing out for the sake of any person who stumbles upon this thread in the future that attending law school with the assumption that you're going to get certain grades is generally a bad idea. This also applies to foreign schools. 

This is a very, very good point. And something that, wether you meant to target it at me or not, I definitely need to remember.

So far you probably win the award for the most effective arguments in favour of staying in Canada for school. Maybe I’ll apply in the prairies or something- I’ve never lived there before 😏
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I am glad you have been receptive. Apologies if I was blunt earlier. No intention to disparage. 

I think applicants often don’t really register this essential fact: Law is inherently jurisdictional. Unlike medicine or engineering, the same the world round, law depends on where you stand. So an education should be got where you intend to work - because it changes country to country. 

So as an example, I do criminal law. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which dictates how the state - specifically the police - must treat you. A violation of those rights can get evidence excluded. No other country has this legislation. A foreign graduate won’t learn this. So why would I hire some one, no matter how smart, no matter how capable, if they don’t know this extremely basic aspect of Canadian law - when there are ten Canadian school graduates who can already quote the caselaw and craft the argument?

 

That is an employer perspective. If it helps. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CleanHands
  • Lawyer
Just now, Hegdis said:

Honestly I am glad you have been receptive. Apologies if I was blunt earlier. No intention to disparage. 

I think applicants often don’t really register this essential fact: Law is inherently jurisdictional. Unlike medicine or engineering, the same the world round, law depends on where you stand. So an education should be got where you intend to work - because it changes country to country. 

So as an example, I do criminal law. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which dictates how the state - specifically the police - must treat you. A violation of those rights can get evidence excluded. No other country has this legislation. A foreign graduate won’t learn this. So why would Ibuire some one, no matter how smart, no matter how capable, if they don’t know this extremely basic aspect of Canadian law when there are ten Canadian school graduates who can quote the caselaw and craft the argument?

That is an employer perspective. If it helps. 

You're right but it should be mentioned that at least Bond specifically teaches Canadian law (including Canadian criminal law and the Charter) so I think this is a point that is often easily dismissed by those considering applying there. Of course, in addition to the other issues with going there, many Canadian legal employers are going to be unfamiliar with Bond and not know that (and those that do know it will be aware that they teach Canadian law specifically to recruit Canadian students who are not competitive for admission here).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diplock
  • Lawyer
Quote

Is it really that bad to go to Bond/Leeds/etc?

No, it's not that bad at all. We've been lying to everyone else here for years. But the clever way you've phrased the question, this time, leaves us no way to avoid the truth. You finally caught us.

  • Like 3
  • LOL 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xxyz
  • Law Student
On 8/27/2021 at 2:16 PM, Diplock said:

No, it's not that bad at all. We've been lying to everyone else here for years. But the clever way you've phrased the question, this time, leaves us no way to avoid the truth. You finally caught us.

I KNEW IT!! Buying my plane ticket right now. Sayonara, suckers.  😎 

  • Sad 1
  • LOL 2
  • Nom! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BondGuy
  • Lawyer
On 8/26/2021 at 5:59 PM, Toad said:

Even if you were in the top 10-20% of your class at Bond, it still wouldn't be particularly impressive because the pool of students at schools like Bond aren't great. To put it in to perspective, the best Canadian students studying law overseas at schools like Bond generally have lower entrance stats than people getting accepted into Canada's least competitive law schools late in the cycle. 

I have to point out that the grading system at Bond, and all UK AUS schools is much different than Canada.  

Bond does not have the "gentleman's 'B'". The curve, in my experience, was almost always used to lower grades.   The grading is much harsher, with averages usually around the low 60's. Several classes I was in didn't even give out anything over a 78. 
I did two degrees in Canada before attending Bond and can say - without a doubt - someone walking away with an 85% at Bond earned that grade, and are competent. You're better looking at the graduating honours status of the individual than their position in the class (e.g. First or Second Class Honours).  When I was applying I included the grading key to show what an AUS grade versus Canadian grade was. 

Of course, you need to get past the initial vetting of your resume to even have that key looked at. So. Still a challenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QueensDenning
  • Articling Student
On 8/30/2021 at 11:13 AM, BondGuy said:

I have to point out that the grading system at Bond, and all UK AUS schools is much different than Canada.  

Bond does not have the "gentleman's 'B'". The curve, in my experience, was almost always used to lower grades.   The grading is much harsher, with averages usually around the low 60's. Several classes I was in didn't even give out anything over a 78. 
I did two degrees in Canada before attending Bond and can say - without a doubt - someone walking away with an 85% at Bond earned that grade, and are competent. You're better looking at the graduating honours status of the individual than their position in the class (e.g. First or Second Class Honours).  When I was applying I included the grading key to show what an AUS grade versus Canadian grade was. 

Of course, you need to get past the initial vetting of your resume to even have that key looked at. So. Still a challenge. 

I’m confused. Why would the graduating honours status of the individual be better than looking at their position in the class?Isn’t the position in the class the only thing that would matter? 
 

Regardless of whether someone “deserves” a grade, everyone knows that a straight “B” average is not great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BondGuy
  • Lawyer
8 minutes ago, QueensDenning said:

Why would the graduating honours status of the individual be better than looking at their position in the class

You need to cross a grade threshold to get that honours status at UK and Aus school, and it is incredibly difficult to do. As I said, I rarely (if ever) saw the curve used to raise grades. 
You can be #1 in your class and graduate with a 70 average.  But someone at a UK or Aus school with an 85 average worked their tail off, those grades are really, really, hard to get. There are semesters with no one graduating with first class honours, relative position or not. 

Edited by BondGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QueensDenning
  • Articling Student
6 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

You need to cross a grade threshold to get that honours status at UK and Aus school, and it is incredibly difficult to do. As I said, I rarely (if ever) saw the curve used to raise grades. 
You can be #1 in your class and graduate with a 70 average.  But someone at a UK or Aus school with an 85 average worked their tail off, those grades are really, really, hard to get.

I’m sorry I don’t know if I’m missing something but I’m still confused. I think anyone whose 1st in their class would have to work their tail off, and I would view the actual % average as completely meaningless (if you got first in class you got first in class, you were pretty much perfect and better than everyone else at the school). 

How does the curve work at Bond? They might have a more strict curve, but a curve is a curve. Your literally being compared to your classmates. So getting an 85% may be tougher in AUS, but that would be reflected in the curve, and then to me looking at class rank would again be the only useful metric to compare academics between candidates. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BondGuy
  • Lawyer
Just now, QueensDenning said:

I’m sorry I don’t know if I’m missing something but I’m still confused. I think anyone whose 1st in their class would have to work their tail off, and I would view the actual % average as completely meaningless (if you got first in class you got first in class, you were pretty much perfect and better than everyone else at the school). 

How does the curve work at Bond? They might have a more strict curve, but a curve is a curve. Your literally being compared to your classmates. So getting an 85% may be tougher in AUS, but that would be reflected in the curve, and then to me looking at class rank would again be the only useful metric to compare academics between candidates. 

Your comment assumes that every single cohort will have a group falling within a standard distribution of ability. If we take Toad's comment above at face value about a sort of "selection bias" for people attending NCA schools, you could assume the middle of the bell curve skews lower. I suppose there is some truth to that.  This would mean that not every cohort is going to have that "bright" student. 

My experience is that the grading in AUS  is pretty consistent in that the curve - as I already stated twice and admittedly anecdotally - it is used more often to keep the grades low and not to raise them. The curve there is usually pegged at an average in the mid to low 60's. So when you say "a curve is a curve" ignores when and how that curve is applied.  In Aus they'd announce the top student for every class only if a student got above an 80. There were several classes I was in where no one hit that mark (indicative, again, that the curve was not used to raise grades). 

Curve aside, the threshold for honours is a static one: typically you need an 80% average to achieve honours. And that is really, really, difficult to do. "Honours" in Aus actually means something and it is not handed out easily. In my cohort it was less than 5 people with first or second class honours. 

This gets back to my first point: I think you're better off looking at an NCA candidate's honour status, as that is a better indicator of their performance if looking at NCA.  

Bond doesn't even publish class rankings, either. Only honours status at graduation. I suspect my reasoning plays into why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CleanHands
  • Lawyer
1 hour ago, BondGuy said:

-Snip-

The more you expand on your take on this the less sense it makes to me.

You're essentially saying that honours status is a better indicator of performance than ranking because it's a crappier, more ambiguous and less accurate proxy for some indication of rank (evidenced by you pointing out the supposed rarity of honours designation and inference that can be drawn that they outperformed their peers).

Your only point that even reached the level of being specious instead of patently nonsensical was the one about different class cohorts having different relative strengths, but I hardly believe that uncurved grades are somehow objective and scientific and better account for that as you seem to believe, or that (even if you were correct about that point) the presence or absence of an honours designation would provide a better indication of performance than class rank.

This is a stupid debate and I'm painfully aware of that so I tried (and clearly failed) to restrain myself from responding, but I just don't get why you're going to the mat over this even if you liked Bond and it worked out for you (in which case, good for you). Whether you got honours or a high class rank to show employers I'm sure you would have had the same outcome.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • LOL 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BondGuy
  • Lawyer
16 hours ago, CleanHands said:

The more you expand on your take on this the less sense it makes to me.

You're essentially saying that honours status is a better indicator of performance than ranking because it's a crappier, more ambiguous and less accurate proxy for some indication of rank (evidenced by you pointing out the supposed rarity of honours designation and inference that can be drawn that they outperformed their peers).

Your only point that even reached the level of being specious instead of patently nonsensical was the one about different class cohorts having different relative strengths, but I hardly believe that uncurved grades are somehow objective and scientific and better account for that as you seem to believe, or that (even if you were correct about that point) the presence or absence of an honours designation would provide a better indication of performance than class rank.

This is a stupid debate and I'm painfully aware of that so I tried (and clearly failed) to restrain myself from responding, but I just don't get why you're going to the mat over this even if you liked Bond and it worked out for you (in which case, good for you). Whether you got honours or a high class rank to show employers I'm sure you would have had the same outcome.

This is not a "debate". I am not arguing merits of one system over another. 

This is me describing to you how it worked based on my experience. Your relative position is less of an indicator of your performance at Bond. The JD classes are also often so small (they run three cohorts a year with three graduations) that your ranking doesn't tell you much, so a static indication of performance consistent (as far as is possible) across different cohorts is a better indicator.  The curve is not used in the same way in Aus, hence my point that it matters "when and how [the curve] is applied".  

1. The curve at Bond was not used as it is in Canada. It was not typically used to normalize grades "up". They pegged the average at low 60s. If grades were lower than that (barring one particular professor who was notorious for failing students), so be it. They typically were left that way.  As I stated - three times now. Meaning a comparison between the Canada/Bond doesn't sit comfortably. There won't always be an "A" student is the point. And you need an average of "A"  to get first class honours.  

2. The honours status was not linked to your position in the class. It was a static threshold you needed to meet. And it is very, very, difficult to meet.  Professors jealously guarded grading, often not giving out an "A" at all. Getting first in a smaller class with average students would not be as impressive as getting 1st class honours or getting an "A". 

3.  I never contended "objective and scientific". You are putting words in my mouth.  Honours means you have consistently performed in every class and in the opinion of almost every professor, as it is based on your final average.  

4. Bond doesn't publish your class ranking, so it isn't even possible to determine where you sit. So the whole discussion is moot.  If someone if telling you they were "top 10%", they are just guessing. Again - because the honours system is how it works there. They do publish your honours rank. 

5. I'm not "going to the mat" on anything. I am explaining my experience, having lived it.  

The overall point, is that it is more impressive in Aus to get over the "honours" hump, than it is relative position - and they often correlate anyway. 

The issue I find with this board - and this illustrates it - is that people commenting on NCA are only doing it from the Canadian side, through the lens of Canadian law schools, and applying the Canadian experience. Few of the users here have any experience actually living NCA. I am only telling you what I know having actually done it. You can accept that, or not. I don't really care.

 

 

 

Edited by BondGuy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CleanHands
  • Lawyer

Okay so, I have a confession to make: my perception of the career prospects of Bond grads in Canada has been shifting a lot recently.

I'm aware of what has to be at least a dozen hires of Bond grads to competitive, respectable, federal and provincial government jobs in Canada in the last few years. One or two I could brush off as exceptions but it seems to be becoming increasingly common. As far as I can tell they still aren't making much in the way of inroads into Canadian BigLaw, but I don't follow those circles.

I still, of course, know (not believe, but know) that prospects are better for grads of Canadian schools and they should be the first choice of anyone wanting to join the Canadian legal profession. But I no longer believe that Bond is a terrible idea for people who really want to be Canadian lawyers and can't get admitted to a Canadian school.

I still would personally never hire a Bond grad, and am personally biased against Bond grads and view them as people who couldn't cut it here (or could but willingly chose to give the impression they couldn't, which may be even worse) and probably shouldn't be allowed to practice law (as it's really not that hard to get admitted somewhere in Canada and some degree of competence and intelligence should be a prerequisite), however I must confess that increasingly people doing hiring in government seem to disagree with me and a Bond degree can't be called a worthless piece of paper at this point.

I got news of another such hire today so that prompted me to make this post. I am sure my take will piss off basically everyone who takes part in this debate.

Edited by CleanHands
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK2021
  • Lawyer

This seems consistent with what I've seen in public service hiring processes. The rules around formal selection processes put everyone who has a law degree, license to practice, and some experience on a level playing field. Once you're screened in, the job goes to whoever scored highest on the exam and interview rubrics.

The rules are quite loose when it comes to non-advertised appointments, however.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pendragon
  • Lawyer
1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

Okay so, I have a confession to make: my perception of the career prospects of Bond grads in Canada has been shifting a lot recently.

I'm aware of what has to be at least a dozen hires of Bond grads to competitive, respectable, federal and provincial government jobs in Canada in the last few years. One or two I could brush off as exceptions but it seems to be becoming increasingly common. As far as I can tell they still aren't making much in the way of inroads into Canadian BigLaw, but I don't follow those circles.

I still, of course, know (not believe, but know) that prospects are better for grads of Canadian schools and they should be the first choice of anyone wanting to join the Canadian legal profession. But I no longer believe that Bond is a terrible idea for people who really want to be Canadian lawyers and can't get admitted to a Canadian school.

I still would personally never hire a Bond grad, and am personally biased against Bond grads and view them as people who couldn't cut it here (or could but willingly chose to give the impression they couldn't, which may be even worse) and probably shouldn't be allowed to practice law (as it's really not that hard to get admitted somewhere in Canada and some degree of competence and intelligence should be a prerequisite), however I must confess that increasingly people doing hiring in government seem to disagree with me and a Bond degree can't be called a worthless piece of paper at this point.

I got news of another such hire today so that prompted me to make this post. I am sure my take will piss off basically everyone who takes part in this debate.

I have seen Bond and other foreign grads land top tier jobs in government, boutiques, and mid-sized firms as well, but I also wonder if they're a tiny minority compared to the whole. Apparently Bond has over 150 Canadians studying there right now. I don't think I've seen any more than 5 or 10 grads from that school land "top tier jobs" each year. People define "top-tier" differently but I see it as Biglaw, government/public sector, top boutiques, and top firms generally in different practice areas (in no particular order). 

Regardless, the admissions requirements are a joke.

https://bond.edu.au/intl/future-students/study-bond/search-program/law/information-students-canada

For both the LLB and the JD we generally require students to have a minimum cumulative grade/average of 70% (B- to B average). This can be expressed as a percentage or as a GPA such as 2.7-2.9/4.0, 3.0/4.33 etc.

If you don't meet this requirement, you may still be considered for admission to the program if other elements of your application are strong (eg. resume, references). We recommend everybody to apply regardless of your perceived eligibility and our assessment process will determine your eligibility. Should you not be directly qualified for entry to the LLB or JD, we also offer short pathway programs (1 or 2 semesters) to help you upgrade your results and become qualified.

No LSAT is required. Even if you have a score it will not be reviewed.

https://bond.edu.au/intl/program/juris-doctor

Total program fees is $127k!

Edited by Pendragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BondGuy
  • Lawyer
7 hours ago, CleanHands said:

and probably shouldn't be allowed to practice law

I'm not sure whether you're saying (i) NCA grads shouldn't be a thing at all in Canada; or (ii) those trained abroad are incompetent. 

If (ii), bad take. Bond's legal training is excellent. Each candidate needs to be assessed on their own merits.  I have people I went to school with in BigLaw, Crowns, very successful civil litigators (making a killing), public sector, partners at midsize firms, successful criminal defence lawyers. 

The thing is, as you get further into practice, your competence as a lawyer is linked less to your school and more to - well - your competence. Your work will speak for itself.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CleanHands
  • Lawyer
14 hours ago, BondGuy said:

I'm not sure whether you're saying (i) NCA grads shouldn't be a thing at all in Canada; or (ii) those trained abroad are incompetent. 

If (ii), bad take. Bond's legal training is excellent. Each candidate needs to be assessed on their own merits.  I have people I went to school with in BigLaw, Crowns, very successful civil litigators (making a killing), public sector, partners at midsize firms, successful criminal defence lawyers. 

I was saying (ii) (at least in relation to Bond specifically) but not as any sort of commentary on the quality of legal training provided by Bond. Rather, it was commentary on the non-existent admission standards. Even with great training, "garbage in, garbage out."

I've done appellate and post-conviction review work involving ineffective assistance of counsel arguments. There are plenty of lawyers who are "successful" but incompetent and literally ruin their client's lives through not having ability commensurate with the responsibilities they are tasked with. It shouldn't be controversial to say that when literally anyone who can afford it can get a law degree from a given school the quality of lawyers that result from that are going to be, on average and in the aggregate, of poorer quality than a school with some degree of selection and vetting. I'm not saying Canadian schools have discovered perfect metrics for assessing and screening for some baseline level of competence (if anything even Canadian standards are too low...and the cutoff is going to be arbitrary) but the idiom "better than nothing" applies.

Anyways, I acknowledged that Bond grads can be successful in the very post you are responding to.

14 hours ago, BondGuy said:

The thing is, as you get further into practice, your competence as a lawyer is linked less to your school and more to - well - your competence. Your work will speak for itself.  

And Bond practically screens for incompetent people to admit in the first place. 😛

Edited by CleanHands
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By accessing this website, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT CONSTRUE ANY POST ON THIS WEBSITE AS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE EVEN IF SUCH POST IS MADE BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A LAWYER. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.