2023 Toronto Recruit Survey Responses

In Their Own Words: 2023 Toronto Recruit Survey Responses

Class of 2024 shares their experiences with the Toronto recruit

JEFFREY LIU (2L)

As part of Ultra Vires’ recruit coverage, we surveyed the Class of 2024 to gather data about their results,demographics, and experiences throughout the recruitment process. The responses to the longform survey questions were anonymized, edited, and reproduced below.

Do you have any comments on the Career Development Office (CDO)'s services during the recruitment process?

When asked to rate the CDO’s helpfulness on a scale from one (not helpful at all) to five (very helpful), the average response was 4.08. The comments were generally quite positive.

I really appreciated how available the CDO was for quick advice during the recruit. Being able to call Theresa [Chan] at 8pm if necessary was so helpful, and I’m grateful for how much of their time they gave up! Theresa was an incredible resource for navigating the recruit. From talking through employers as a whole, to advising on how to respond to firms pressuring/suggesting your first choice and how to keep other firms interested when you already first choiced someone else, to talking through your feelings about making a final decision, and just as a general emotional support... Theresa knows how to make you feel confident in your abilities, secure in your choices, and that everything will be okay.

Nevertheless, some respondents cautioned against relying entirely on the CDO’s advice, particularly for those interested in public interest positions.

I sometimes received advice from the CDO that was completely different from what professional mentors, lawyers in the field, and other upper years told me, so I felt like I needed to take everything they said with a grain of salt. Still, they were extremely accessible and willing to help! It would be great if they had more support available for non-Bay Street options. The vast majority of their advice, info sessions, and career panels are geared towards the large business law firms and I felt like I had to make my own connections and do my own research for the other options. Very helpful to understand the corporate firms and the process, but the advice felt a bit cookiecutter at times. I followed my gut and ignored their cover letter advice, which I think helped me a lot in the recruit. The CDO recommended that I include a paragraph on legal research (which I have done in limited quantities with zero enthusiasm). I instead wrote about a work experience that I was more proud of. I truly think that writing about my actual strengths instead of writing a conventional CDO-approved cover letter went a long way with the firms (I got asked about it a lot in on-campus interviews (OCIs))—the standardized approach isn't always the most effective.

due—most commonly through coffee chats, but also by attending virtual open houses/firm tours and information panels. Sixty-four percent of respondents who received an offer engaged in some form of networking with the firm that ultimately hired them.

The respondents who had positive comments generally emphasized networking as a means of gathering more information, name-dropping, and distinguishing between firms.

I genuinely don't think networking made all that much of a difference for getting OCIs or infirms. I'm glad I did the coffee chats though because it was helpful to have a sense of some of the firms and what things stood out to me before the recruit started. Once it did, I wouldn't have had the time to sort out what I was looking for in a firm.

If cold-emailing, try to go for students/young associates. They are closer to the law school experience and are often more open to talking.

The employers love to hear that you already spoke with someone from their firm. I found name dropping very helpful as it shows interest and also often gives you a mutual connection with your interviewer.

However, many students had doubts about the efficacy of networking, particularly past the application stage.

Networking is important for law firms, but not for government positions. I got OCIs from almost all firms where I did some networking, and zero from firms where I didn't talk to anyone there.

Beyond name dropping on your cover letter to get OCIs, not necessary for securing an offer. Not necessary in most cases. It does help to have something to talk about in interviews, but networking is mostly just a waste of time because you can find all the relevant details on the firm's website anyways. Hate it, 0/10.

Do you have any comments on the virtual events (e.g. receptions, panels, ask me anythings (AMAs), game nights)?

Seventy-four percent of respondents attended at least one virtual event during the recruit. When asked to rate their perception of their attendance’s effect on receiving an offer on a scale from one (no influence) to five (significant influence), the average response was 1.71. When asked to rate whether their performance at virtual events or interviews was more important in receiving an offer on a scale from one (virtual events are more important) to five (interviews are more important), the average response was 4.83. Not surprisingly, comments on virtual events were mostly negative.

The virtual events were awful! You know we have been in interviews for upwards of eight hours that day. If firms truly respected our time and mental health, they would respect the need to rest and process all our experiences from that day in the evenings. It baffled me that they don’t get that and instead try to monopolize our time. I wish we did away with them entirely. I would have loved in person events like a dinner, for the opportunity to really see the culture in action. But virtual events just ended up turning into more interviews, as “social coffee chats” are hard to keep truly social over Zoom.

Nevertheless, for those who had the time and energy to attend them, virtual events may help in signalling interest and gathering more information about a firm and its culture.

I do think that going to them signalled ongoing interest to a few firms—particularly for the socials (less so for the panels). However, the firms signalling interest in me did it well before they knew if I had gone to the socials and I think only used the socials to gauge whether I was interested back.

I think that watching how people at the firm interact with each other can be a good indication of the firm's culture. Also, it can be a good way to figure out what sorts of skills a specific firm is looking for/what to emphasize in a cover letter (ex: Cassels was all about "entrepreneurial spirit").

Did any of the employers you interviewed with ask you inappropriate questions or make you feel uncomfortable?

Among the 44 students who responded to this question, 22.7 percent responded affirmatively. Most of their negative experiences had to do with pressure from employers to give them “first choice language.”

I felt a lot of pressure to first choice. There were a lot of times when I could tell the recruiter or interviewer was trying really hard to get me to say it, but I’d already given it to my favourite firm. I had a few recruiters ask me directly where the firm stood in my rankings, which made me deeply uncomfortable. I got asked if somewhere was my first choice. Again, on the second and third day firms would repeatedly ask if there was “anything else you wanted to tell them.”

On Day 2, my interview was essentially completely dedicated to eliciting a first choice answer from me, which was very off-putting and uncomfortable as I was not ready to do so at that time.

Eighty percent of respondents ended up giving first choice language to only one firm, while 4.5 percent indicated to multiple firms that they were their first choice. The remaining 15.9 percent abstained from using first choice language throughout the entire in-firm process. Fifty percent of respondents changed their first choice employer during the recruitment process, most commonly during in-firms.

Did you experience any employers not following Law Society of Ontario (LSO) Procedures?

About 21 percent of respondents reported witnessing employers breaking LSO procedures. Some respondents withheld the names of offending firms. Students who wish to complain to the LSO about firm conduct during the recruitcan consult the LSO’s discrimination and harrassment resource. The resource contains information related to the Discrimination and Harassment Counsel (a confidential and free service independent of the LSO for those who witnessed or experienced harassment or discrimination by a lawyer or paralegal) and the LSO complaint procedure.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care told me they had already filled one of the two positions they were hiring for at the beginning of the my-in-firm interview. A Seven Sister firm contacted me during the blackout period to tell me I wouldn't be extended an offer. As I had first choiced them previously, some prior notice would have been considerate to allow me to show greater interest in other firms. BLG rescinded my third-round interview. Davies asked me what my ranking was. One Bay St firm told me they were going to give me an offer before the offer time. Not naming the employers, but I was asked several times in kind of shady language where the firm ranked for me or who I was thinking about.

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

UV reached out to Davies regarding the allegation above. The LSO Procedures dictate that employers must not put undue pressure on students to either accept an offer or reveal their intention to do so. Amanda Fiorelli, Director, Student Program at Davies, responded: “those from Davies that participate in the recruitment process are trained in the LSO student recruitment procedures, and Davies abides by both LSO procedures and [National Association-Law Placement] (NALP) best practices.”

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG)

UV likewise requested comment from BLG on the allegation of a rescinded third-round interview. The LSO Procedures state that an employer must carry out an interview if they have communicated an intention to do so. According to Madori Sakamoto, the BLG Manager of Professional Recruiting, BLG investigated the matter and “found no record of such an occurrence.” Sakamoto further stated “BLG is committed to following LSO Recruitment Procedures as well as prioritizing those Procedures when structuring our process and preparing our lawyers for the interview process.”

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Upon request for comment regarding an alleged hire prior to offer day, the Ministry affirmed their interviewers adhered to the LSO procedures. The LSO states that an employer must not extend an offer of employment to a student earlier than offer day.

What advice would you give to someone participating in the process next year?

Responses to this question were quite varied. Some of the most common advice expressed that extensive preparation and research were key to success.

Put together a strong application package and take as many OCIs as you can. It really helps you to refine your answers to common interview questions. Be kind—make sure to thank your interviewers/support staff/hosts. Start researching firms, networking, writing cover letters/resumes well in advance of the application deadline. Details matter—extensively edit and get anyone who is willing to read over your materials to do so (especially the CDO)! My other piece of advice is that I would also suggest networking with your favourite potential employers throughout the process and not just prior to applying. Prepare thoroughly for the interviews. I prepared an answer to each of the past questions listed in the CDO database. I also printed out a cheatsheet of my interviewers each day with their picture, name, title, practice areas, and anything interesting from their bio that might be worth talking about. This helped me to feel prepared and confident.

Others emphasized the importance of deeply considering what you want out of your legal career and paying close attention to the firm’s culture.

It’s so important to really sit down and think about what is most important to you before interview week begins. I went into it with a strong sense of what I was looking for, and I think it helped me stay strong through a lot of pressure from employers. We all know “culture” is big, but what specific aspects of a firm culture are most important to you?

Also, pay careful attention to how a firm treats candidates, because it’ll surely be similar to how they treat their students. If a firm is not being respectful of your time, you likely won’t want to work there anyway. Don't apply to places just because you feel like you should if you don't think you would be happy there!

Keep an open-mind throughout the process. I had talked to students who summered at all my firms between OCIs and in-firms, which really helped me think through a ranking beforehand, but my first choice changed over the course of the week. I learned a lot about my original second choice firm that I loved throughout the process and that firm also seemed to be the most excited about me. When my initial first choice firm started signalling interest, I realized that my second choice was actually the better fit. This also means that if a firm you love drops you early—it might not actually have been the best firm for you!

Regardless of how the recruit goes, many respondents emphasized that participants should keep their head held high.

No matter how much you prepare, it is often a game of luck and has nothing to do with your self-worth. Also, more opportunities will come up later on. This doesn't decide your career for life. This process can be so arbitrary, and rejections are in no way a reflection of your worth. Lean on your support system. It doesn't hurt to be over-prepared BUT it's important to remember that hiring decisions aren't necessarily personal. Not getting an offer at the end of interview weeks doesn't necessarily mean you messed up or you're unqualified—there could be so many factors at play that we aren't even aware of.

It’s important to remember that there’s more to life and law school than the recruit as well.

Know that there are many options outside of the recruit, so it's not the end of the world if you don't get a job through this process! The school does not do a very good job of showing you those options, but know that they are there and that so many students find amazing jobs outside of the process every year. Try to stay on top of readings heading in because after it's over, exams are almost here.

What did you not want your interviewers to know about you?

Many students kept feelings of anxiety and uncertainty about their career choices to themselves.

That I'm not 100 percent sure I want to stay in Toronto long-term. I ended up alluding to it in one of my answers to a behavioural question anyway because I couldn't think of another answer for what they had asked me. I don't regret it because I was honest, but it probably worked against me. That I am still figuring out what I want and I am not necessarily looking to become a partner. That a big reason for applying to a private law firm was to pay off my school debts. That I was seriously considering jobs in other areas of law. That I was very, very nervous and stressed out prior to interviews. That I have anxiety. That I know nothing.

What, if anything, would you change about the recruitment process?

Overall, students were highly critical of the structure of the recruit, ranging from call day procedures to the pressure that employers put on students to use first choice language.

Call day—use a portal instead of playing telephone tag. It was unnecessarily stressful to schedule.

The virtual events were so time consuming. I wish we had longer to make a decision. I wish there was less focus on first choice language. I think first choice language unnecessarily limits options and stresses students out due to the gamble of deciding who to give the language to.

Many students voiced concerns about how the pacing and scheduling of the recruit made it difficult to make decisions carefully about their future and that the recruit dominated their time.

I would push the deadline to apply back. It seemed crazy to be applying for summer jobs for next year when I was focused on my current summer job. It was dumb to have Toronto applications due during the NY recruits because it led to undue stress (especially since Toronto OCIs were months away at that point). I think first choice language unnecessarily limits options and stresses students out due to the gamble of deciding who to give the language to. It's too fast. Students can't get feedback from firms or really take time to weigh options. I slept 4 hours on Monday and Tuesday night—I had interviews and events from 8am–10pm on Monday (without more than a one-hour break), then had to write thank you emails for another two hours and research my Tuesday interviewers for another hour and a half—took a one hour screen break at midnight because I was barely alive. I went to bed at 2:30 and got up at 6:30. There was no time to cook dinner or go for a walk, let alone think through how I actually felt about the firms or call friends to get sanity. I also missed signals from firms on Day 2 and 3 because I was exhausted. There has got to be some way to lighten the daily load for students or find a way to make time (BEFORE giving first choice language—ie. not the blackout) for students to take care of themselves and consider their options. Day 3 is totally unnecessary IMO. Not coming back for Day 3 should be the standard, and people should only continue to have meetings if they truly need more info to decide. I had some calls on that day that were a total waste of time for me. Also, social events are only good if they’re in person. Virtual events are a complete waste of energy. I also wish there was more transparency. The guessing game of figuring out where you stand is awful for both parties. Regulation around first choice language and 24 hours where you can actually weigh the firms. I was having to make very important decisions at the end of the day when I was exhausted. A 24 hour cooling off period may help students actually help with their decision-making process, where they aren't bombarded by emails and calls.

Others emphasized that students suffered from information asymmetries that kept them guessing and worried throughout the entire process.

Allow firms to tell you if they're going to give you an offer so that you know where you stand. It is not an equitable process. It's hugely based on your ability to seem charming/make good small talk with upper-class people, so social capital plays way too big a role. I would also completely gut out the mind games/aspects that are completely irrelevant to one's ability to be a good lawyer (i.e. the obsession with first-choice language, the "call day" scheduling fiasco which should just be online, etc.). I think that people should be more honest about firm culture and their experiences. I think that the concept of only saying good things about firms ultimately harms students. I would have really appreciated it if anyone, even anonymously, gave me a real honest take on the firm they worked for. Students have the resources to communicate this information discretely amongst themselves, and I think they should. Everyone deserves to be able to make an informed decision about where to begin their career. These giant firms don't need to be protected. Students should take back some of the power. Less behavioural questions. As a [woman of colour], I personally don’t feel that structured behavioural questions add much in the way of equity. Whether a firm can put people in front of you that have enough in common with you to carry on a more conversational interview is also a huge testament to diversity.

Do you have any comments on the LSO Recruitment Procedures?

Students were critical about how the LSO’s procedures unduly favour employers, as well as how these procedures are inadequately enforced.

This might be an unpopular opinion but I do think some of the LSO rules are really unhelpful. Finding out about an offer earlier gives you so much mental relief and forcing the firms to wait when they’ve already made the decision just adds unnecessary stress to students, and forces them to keep other employers they aren’t really considering dangling on the hook. It’d be much more beneficial to let the process end early and end our suffering before Wednesday at 5pm. I didn't have any firms actually break the LSO guidelines by saying I'd get an offer before 5pm, but some firms certainly gave more positive indications than others. But then there are firms who barely stray from the guidelines, which can make it difficult to read where you stand with them. I know it's easier said than done, but I feel like the guidelines should be an all-or-nothing approach. Otherwise, the way certain firms interpret the guidelines can cause a lot of confusion for reading where you stand with certain firms. A greater focus should be given throughout the process on reducing pain points for students and reducing the first choice politics and game playing between firms and candidates. The rules create a huge power imbalance and information asymmetry between firms and students. The call day procedure makes no sense because students have to make quick decisions before even knowing all the options open to them. Employers should be mandated to send ITCs before the blackout period, like they do for in-firms. That way students could evaluate all their choices.

Are you satisfied with the outcome of the recruitment process? Please explain.

About 84 percent of respondents reported that they were satisfied with the outcome they achieved in the Toronto recruit. Students generally had great things to say about their employers, even if the process itself was draining.

I got a good job at a good firm. It was not my first choice but I feel lucky that I will get good experience at a "prestigious" firm. I got my top-pick firm, and although it was an absolutely miserable and exhausting process, I feel like I learned a lot not only about the firm I'm going to work at, but also the other firms who do similar work. I made some valuable connections outside of the firm I ultimately accepted, and I think the recruit, for all its faults, is a good way to get to know a lot of firms quite intimately, quite quickly. I went into the week with a strong idea of what I wanted, found a firm that really matched it, and had the love reciprocated. Now it’s finally over and I can catch up on my two missed months of schoolwork. I am happy because I received an offer and I feel like lots of hard work is paying off. Was the process itself satisfying? No. But a positive outcome is rewarding.

Do you have closing thoughts?

Year after year, students at the Faculty achieve great results during the Toronto recruit, but nevertheless look back on their experience with a sour taste in their mouth. Many respondents advocated for wholesale changes to the entire recruitment process.

I think that this whole process benefits firms more than students. There is a feeling of scarcity and competition that is completely unnecessary. People are pressured into making decisions that are not what they really want because they are afraid of waiting to look for anything else. I think the whole idea of a formal recruit should be re-examined.

This whole ordeal was a brutal rat race. My mental health was in the trenches. I’m happy and grateful that I secured a job, but it took me weeks to recover.

This process is horrendous. I was the lucky person where every single stage of the process went better than I expected and I was getting a lot of interest and early validation from multiple firms I liked. I was still MISERABLE and stressed out of my mind. Everything was so uncertain, there were so many mind games, the stakes felt so high, and it was so so fast. I also had no time to sleep or cook dinner, let alone access my support networks and normal healthy coping mechanisms during a stressful time. If the process had gone even slightly worse (ie. literally even going the way I would have expected it to) I cannot imagine how hard it would have felt. I feel incredibly fortunate with the way things went for me, but this process is designed to inevitably take an insane and unreasonable toll on participants' mental health and I'm sure even more so when it doesn't go smoothly. I feel like we don't acknowledge financial pressures enough. I wouldn't have cared so much about the outcome if I didn't have all this debt. The recruit is the easiest way to break into a high paying job. Yes, there are a lot of jobs still out there post-recruit. But, not as many of them are well-paying, come with good chances of hireback, etc. At the very least the recruit was a chance to get some financial peace of mind. I question whether coming to U of T Law will be worth it in the end.