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

[BondGuy]

With respect, you are talking out both sides of your mouth. Your post says "Bond grads can be successful" but at the same time "they are too incompetent and should not be permitted to practice".

What I am hearing from you sounds more like a personal grudge against the NCA system rather than an honest, objective, and impartial assessment of the capabilities of NCA grads. 

11 hours ago, CleanHands said:

on average and in the aggregate, of poorer quality than a school with some degree of selection and vetting

To counter your "ineffective counsel" anecdote with my own, I have trained multiple articling and summer students from almost every law school in Ontario. As a Bond grad. Articling students are incompetent as lawyers, no matter where they went. And that is totally fine and expected  - that's why we have articling.

I have worked with less-than-stellar students from some of the most difficult schools to get into. But that's OK, lawyering is about much more than the ability to write the LSAT, undergrad grades, term papers, and exams. Lawyering is a skill learned largely in the field. 

I think the better approach is to rely on the accreditation process (both NCA and LSO licensing) and let the graduate's work speak for itself. As an individual. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by BondGuy

[CleanHands]

52 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

With respect, you are talking out both sides of your mouth. Your post says "Bond grads can be successful" but at the same time "they are too incompetent and should not be permitted to practice".

Did you go to Bond because you couldn't hack the reading comprehension section of the LSAT? In your previous post you defended the quality of training provided by Bond, when I clearly hadn't even implied anything derogatory about that (I don't know, nor do I really care). Now after I literally wrote "There are plenty of lawyers who are 'successful' but incompetent" and explicitly distinguished between those two concepts, you are acting like it's a contradiction for me to say someone can be both successful (in certain respects) and incompetent. And even though I explicitly used language such as "in the aggregate" and "on average" you are accusing me of saying that all Bond grads are incompetent. You're tiring me out here.

52 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

To counter your "ineffective counsel" anecdote with my own, I have trained multiple articling and summer students from almost every law school in Ontario. As a Bond grad. Articling students are incompetent as lawyers, no matter where they went. And that is totally fine and expected  - that's why we have articling.

I have worked with less-than-stellar students from some of the most difficult schools to get into. But that's OK, lawyering is about much more than the ability to write the LSAT, undergrad grades, term papers, and exams. Lawyering is a skill learned largely in the field. 

Absolutely. As a current articling student myself, trust me, I am acutely aware of my own current limitations (and I hope to overcome them). And even top schools don't train students to be lawyers.

But a school with median admission standards of a 3.7 undergrad GPA and 167 LSAT will attract more talented people on average, with superior cognitive skills, diligence, etc, than a school that recommends a 2.7 undergrad GPA and doesn't require an LSAT score. It's absurd for you to try to argue otherwise, and you know this, which is why you're trying to employ straw men and reframe what's being argued.

52 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

I think the better approach is to rely on the accreditation process (both NCA and LSO licensing) and let the graduate's work speak for itself. As an individual. 

Absolutely, but a Bond grad is going to be far more likely to be an idiot than a UofT grad. That won't be true in every single case but it's an entirely fair assumption to make in the absence of further information to the contrary.

And look, it's reasonable for you to say that you have a proven track record and people should judge your work, first and foremost. But it's not reasonable for you to go to a law school that is essentially open admissions and argue that no stigma should attach to that at all and it should be treated the same on its face as a JD degree from a program with a 10% acceptance rate.

Edited September 10, 2021 by CleanHands

[BlockedQuebecois]

What @CleanHands is saying feels provocative, but I would just add that it’s really not.

Whether or not Bond grads should be allowed to practice in Canada can be reframed as whether or not we should let Canadian universities open two-year unaccredited law schools and simply have their students write the NCAs upon completion. Most people, I assume, would oppose letting that happen. The fact that Bond is in Australia doesn’t actually change anything. 

The only other thing I would add is that I don’t think you need to say Bond grads can never practice in Canada. Just set Canada up like most US States—students have to prove their education is equivalent, write the bar, and meet some minimum practice requirements. I’m much less inclined to think a Bond grad will be incompetent if they have convinced some other jurisdiction to call them and have practiced for a few years. 

[Pendragon]

@BondGuy Welcome back driedupwaterparks. Where were you hiding all these days dude? Bond represent! 

[BondGuy]

24 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

But it's not reasonable for you to go to a law school that is essentially open admissions and argue that no stigma

Item 2, paragraph 2, and bullet 3. Straw man. 

9 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

@BondGuy Welcome back driedupwaterparks. Where were you hiding all these days dude? Bond represent! 

Mostly in my basement office drowning in coffee and frustration. Good to see ya bud, how ya been? 

 

12 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

ust set Canada up like most US States—students have to prove their education is equivalent, write the bar, and meet some minimum practice requirements.

Bingo. Agreed.  

I mean, it worked for Peter Hogg. He did alright, didn't he? 

[123]

12 hours ago, CleanHands said:

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.

This is the thing. I can think of several lawyers who are legitimate "success" stories from Bond. They have maintained busy practices for several years. Which is terrifying. I've read the work. If any one of those lawyers are carrying case loads of 100+ clients at a time, that's a lot of lives they're ruining in order to live their dream of practicing law. 

[BondGuy]

Just now, realpseudonym said:

that's a lot of lives they're ruining in order to live their dream of practicing law. 

And yet, with all this risk everyone keeps bringing up, I haven't seen a single solid example. 

[123]

1 minute ago, BondGuy said:

And yet, with all this risk everyone keeps bringing up, I haven't seen a single solid example. 

I don't post confidential client files on internet forums. 

[BondGuy]

13 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

I don't post confidential client files on internet forums. 

Not asking for that. 

I just find it funny that users assert that NCA incompetence is so endemic  that lives are being ruined left and right. Put the concept to proof and crickets. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by BondGuy

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, BondGuy said:

Not asking for you for any specifics, but that's a convenient out, isn't it? 

There is no example I've come across. And not for a lack of looking. 

I just find it funny that users assert that NCA incompetence is so endemic  that lives are being ruined left and right! Put the concept to proof and crickets. 

The overwhelming majority of incompetence of counsel issues never make it to a published Law Society or court decision.

[BondGuy]

Just now, CleanHands said:

The overwhelming majority of incompetence of counsel issues never make it to a published Law Society or court decision.

Are any of them Canadian trained? 

[CleanHands]

Just now, BondGuy said:

Are any of them Canadian trained? 

Yes, of course. Trying to refute another straw man?

[123]

..

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by realpseudonym

[BondGuy]

Just now, CleanHands said:

Yes, of course. Trying to refute another straw man?

No. I'm pointing out that incompetence is not exclusive to NCA, and certainly not Bond grads.  I think what it boils down to is "put up or shut up" about the alleged harm incurred due to NCA grads in particular. And in a manner which is significantly above and beyond the baseline incompetence issues from Canadian grads. 

 I'll wait. 

I'd return to my original point: judge candidates on their own merits. If you dismiss an NCA grad out of hand you (i) may miss out on a great articling student or junior; or (ii) get caught on your backfoot if you underestimate their ability when across the table from you. 

[Darth Vader]

29 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

Not asking for that. 

I just find it funny that users assert that NCA incompetence is so endemic  that lives are being ruined left and right. Put the concept to proof and crickets. 

Bear in mind that @realpseudonym I believe works in personal service areas of law, while you had stated that you work in the corporate/tech fields in the past. So the type of files you both see and work on are very different. I imagine they have more exposure to the work of Bond graduates as not many Bond grads go into corporate and technology law here.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Darth Vader

[Rashabon]

37 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

Item 2, paragraph 2, and bullet 3. Straw man. 

Mostly in my basement office drowning in coffee and frustration. Good to see ya bud, how ya been? 

 

Bingo. Agreed.  

I mean, it worked for Peter Hogg. He did alright, didn't he? 

Peter also had an LLM from Harvard and Victoria University of Wellington is a bit of a different school than Bond.

[BondGuy]

6 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Peter also had an LLM from Harvard and Victoria University of Wellington is a bit of a different school than Bond.

My point is more that foreign grads should not all be painted with the same brush. Especially once they've had time to practice.  The idea to prohibit practice by NCA just because they are NCA is a dumb one. That's it, that's all.  

[Rashabon]

1 minute ago, BondGuy said:

My point is more that foreign grads should not all be painted with the same brush. Especially once they've had time to practice.  The idea to prohibit practice by NCA just because they are NCA is a dumb one. That's it, that's all.  

Nobody disagrees with you. You're the only one who has brought up NCA broadly. The focus in this thread has narrowly been on Bond, and Bond is not HYS/Oxbridge/whatever. It's a degree mill with a business model predicated on admitting Canadians that largely couldn't hack it past the relatively low bars set by Canadian law schools to begin with.

[BondGuy]

3 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Nobody disagrees with you. You're the only one who has brought up NCA broadly. The focus in this thread has narrowly been on Bond, and Bond is not HYS/Oxbridge/whatever. It's a degree mill with a business model predicated on admitting Canadians that largely couldn't hack it past the relatively low bars set by Canadian law schools to begin with.

Okay, I'll rephrase: the idea that Bond grads shouldn't be allowed to practice just because they're Bond grads is a dumb one.  That's it that's all. 

[epeeist]

51 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

What @CleanHands is saying feels provocative, but I would just add that it’s really not.

Whether or not Bond grads should be allowed to practice in Canada can be reframed as whether or not we should let Canadian universities open two-year unaccredited law schools and simply have their students write the NCAs upon completion. Most people, I assume, would oppose letting that happen. The fact that Bond is in Australia doesn’t actually change anything. 

The only other thing I would add is that I don’t think you need to say Bond grads can never practice in Canada. Just set Canada up like most US States—students have to prove their education is equivalent, write the bar, and meet some minimum practice requirements. I’m much less inclined to think a Bond grad will be incompetent if they have convinced some other jurisdiction to call them and have practiced for a few years. 

Replying generally but quoting you two. The problem (in my view, not necessarily by professional ethics standards) lawyers I've encountered have been Canadian-educated and in some cases were at seven sisters. So what? That's just an anecdote by a part-time lawyer.

Actually, getting into law school is much more difficult in Canada than it "should" be, but that's a separate (lengthy) discussion, including access to justice and economic considerations as well as moral - but I'll just note that Bond University is accredited by, you know, Australia...

And your statement re US is inapplicable at least for two of the most significant states for foreign-trained lawyers, New York and California (California if called in Canada, can write "attorney exam" - no experience needed). My own experience many years ago, but getting called in New York involved an extremely difficult bar exam (that I believe is now much easier, for those wanting to go there...); that is all. Oh, I mean I had to prepare for the bar exam and send notarized copies of transcripts and forms etc., but I could have been called in New York before I was called here in Ontario if I'd wanted to. That major US states aren't so restrictive doesn't in and of itself invalidate your argument, it does mean make your argument without the flawed appeal to authority. And I'll note the hypocrisy (not by you, nor necessarily anyone in this thread) of people who want to go to law school in Canada and be free to go live and work at a lucrative US job, and how it doesn't matter they don't have substantive US legal education because common-law etc., but if they don't get that well-paying foreign law job and have to stay in Canada, well then, they don't want no foreign-trained competitors here... (and Bond etc. do give Canadian legal education unlike Canadian grad going to another country).

8 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

No. I'm pointing out that incompetence is not exclusive to NCA, and certainly not Bond grads.  I think what it boils down to is "put up or shut up" about the alleged harm incurred due to NCA grads in particular. And in a manner which is significantly above and beyond the baseline incompetence issues from Canadian grads. 

 I'll wait. 

I'd return to my original point: judge candidates on their own merits. If you dismiss an NCA grad out of hand you (i) may miss out on a great articling student or junior; or (ii) get caught on your backfoot if you underestimate their ability when across the table from you. 

I think I get your point, that a potential employer should judge without bias. Yes. But, for someone considering where to go, from what I've read/heard/discussed, and re the thread topic, they will face much more of an uphill battle finding employment in Canada.

But, even if NCA lawyers or articling candidates are not as good (based on what I recall of some LSO statistics though that's generally for all foreign-educated lawyers not specific to Bond or similar), that's not the be-all and end-all. Do we prevent the worst (but still passing) graduates of the worst law schools in Canada from practicing? No, they meet the requirements and even if there were evidence that the worst of the worst cause more problems, they still would be admitted. I actually think it's "smarter" lawyers, lacking sufficient humility and knowledge of their own limitations who are prone to cause more problems, but again, that's a different lengthy discussion.

[BlockedQuebecois]

@epeeist I wasn't making an appeal to authority. I said that most US States have a similar requirement as a way of showing that such a requirement is completely feasible and, in fact, already in place in many jurisdictions in a country with a relatively similar legal culture.

I wouldn't use the US as an authority figure that should be demurred to in this context because as much as I think the LSO has abdicated its responsibilities re: competency, I think the various state bar associations have done an even worse job, on the whole.

Edited September 10, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[Yogurt Baron]

I was going to say something, but then I thought, "I'm the least credible person on this board, maybe Rashabon or somebody will come along and make the point I was going to make." And lo, he did.

Look. I would never consider Bond, but in my most desperate days, I applied to some pretty questionable U.S. law schools. And...there's just a qualitative difference between "student from New Zealand, successful enough to get into Harvard, instead decides to attend law school in New Zealand" and "C+ student wants to study in Canada, can't make it, tries to take a sad back door."
 

My own experience biases me against saying that someone who did poorly in undergrad is automatically stupider than someone who did well (and I don't think anyone is saying that). There are tremendous systemic issues that make it easier for some people to do well in undergrad than others. Also, the older I get, the weirder it seems to me that your grades from when you're 18-22 dictate the trajectory of your life as much as they do---sorry to report, you're a baby until you're 30, at which time you become a toddler. But of course if you're getting A+s and I get C+s, one factor could be that you're just smarter and more capable than me. I don't see how that's debatable.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Yogurt Baron

[epeeist]

On 9/10/2021 at 2:19 PM, BlockedQuebecois said:

@epeeist I wasn't making an appeal to authority. I said that most US States have a similar requirement as a way of showing that such a requirement is completely feasible and, in fact, already in place in many jurisdictions in a country with a relatively similar legal culture.

I wouldn't use the US as an authority figure that should be demurred to in this context because as much as I think the LSO has abdicated its responsibilities re: competency, I think the various state bar associations have done an even worse job, on the whole.

Feasible, yes, but not so sure it makes sense.

I mean, law is a general license. Someone with 1 or 3 or 5 years experience as say a government lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction in a specific field doesn't magically have their law degree become better and be qualified to practice law privately in an entirely different field in Canada because of that experience.

As I've expressed before, if one really wanted to protect the public, make all lawyers write an online timed test annually. Any who fail get administrative suspension. Or, lawyers who voluntarily (but enforceably) limit their scope of practice do a subject-specific test which will be far easier for them to pass. You could even design it so it takes only half a day. But, no-one will ever impose that because no lawyer wants to do something so reasonable to protect the public if it imposes a burden on them. Instead, focus on not admitting people who are qualified.*

*If person A in NZ goes to law school in NZ, and person B in Canada goes to the same law school in NZ, the only thing that should matter is the law school education. NOT where they came from originally.

[Hegdis]

The people I have encountered who went to Bond are either doing well or quite poorly. To a man (and weirdly they are all men), this depends on their connections back home. 
 

Graduates who return to guaranteed articling positions with an (often family) established firm and several years of guidance ahead of them do fine. Even well. 

Those who return to no cushioned introduction to employment in Canada do - almost universally- poorly. They struggle because they have no connections (unlike local grads who have gotten opportunities to network), they have a huge stigma attached to them as demonstrated by the comments in this thread (pretty representative of the profession’s attitude), and none of this has anything to do with how smart or capable they are. They have a hell of a time finding employment. They end up hired by places that pay poorly and don’t offer much training and when they get Called they are on their own. And that’s often when the rest of us encounter them: and it’s not good. 
 

This is all anecdotal from the last fifteen years in criminal law. I have no doubt it’s not representative of every single Bond grad. But the key to me is not the degree so much as the context that frequently attends it.