Ultra Vires Vol 15 Issue 5: 2013 October

EDITORIAL/NEWS

2 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

ultravires.ca

UV Expands Its Attempts at Legitimate Journalism: Introducing the Student Debt Survey EMILY DEBONO (3L)

T

he MBA portion of the JD/MBA constantly makes reference to the idea of “integrative thinking.” While nobody is sure what exactly that means, we know it’s something we’re supposed to attempt every time we complete an assignment. Looking at the pages of UV this month, it’s clear that this vague concept might actually be something we should try to apply. There are articles about mental health, about job prospects, about tuition, and about admissions. Some of the articles consider how these important issues impact one another, but the combined effect is hard to articulate. We have

hypotheses about how the student experience is changing as a result of these factors, but with only the Faculty to rely on for evidence it is difficult for students to make a case that speaks to the real impact of these factors on students in law school now.

In the coming weeks, UV will be administering a number of surveys. As in the past, there will be the OCI survey, asking 2Ls and 4-year combined degree 3Ls to comment on their experiences and outcomes in the LSUC recruitment process.

While this is interesting in its own right, it’s an incomplete picture of our prospects as we prepare to leave law school. Debt impacts mental health and

career choice, and mental health impacts our performance in job interviews, and tuition impacts debt, and the permutations are endless…

In an effort to provide a more holistic set of information, this year UV will also distribute a school-wide survey on student debt, led by Jeff Ma (3L), and a poll to 3Ls asking how their student debt has impacted their choice of postgraduation jobs. We expect to publish the results in the January issue of UV. Our hope is that this information will prove useful both to students in making their case to Faculty, and to Faculty in understanding how students perceive our

circumstances and how the school’s choices are impacting our lives.

To make these surveys as useful as possible, we have two requests. First, please take the time to fill out the surveys accurately and thoughtfully.

Our results are only as good as the information you share with us, and they are only meaningful if our response rate is as close to 100% as possible. Second, if you’d like to get involved in drafting the student debt survey, please let us know!

We have a working draft and welcome feedback.

Please get in touch with me, or email ultra.vires@utoronto.ca, if you’d like to contribute.

Law Societies Introduce New Requirements U of T Complies with New Mandatory Legal Ethics Course KENT KURAN (1L)

S

tarting with the graduating classes of 2015, all common law program graduates in Canada will have to meet new national rules to become lawyers.

“In 2010, Canada’s law societies agreed on a uniform national requirement that graduates of Canadian common law programs must meet to enter law society admission programs,” said Bob Linney, Communications Director of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC).

The added benefit to new graduates is greater mobility across Canada. “Any graduate from any approved Canadian law program will be able to apply for admission to any law society,” he said.

FLSC Requirements According to the Report of the Task Force on

the Canadian Common Law Degree, the idea of a national requirement first started back in 2007 when the FLSC saw the legal market in Canada changing. Until then there had been no uniform requirement, the closest approximation being the Law Society of Upper Canada’s over40-year old requirements. With the 2002 National Mobility Agreement allowing for inter-provincial movement and the increase in foreign-educated lawyers entering through the FLSC National Committee on Accreditation, standardization was needed to harmonize the differences between provinces.

“The national requirement specifies the competencies and skills graduates must have attained, and the law school academic program and learning resources law schools must have in place,” said Linney.

By 2015, all common law programs will have

to be approved by the FLSC Canadian Common Law Program Approval Committee. Not all of the law societies have made the changes needed for the FLSC decision to be final and binding.

As for the committee that decides on the approval of programs, it is comprised of members chosen by the Council of the FLSC, with some recommendations from the Council of Canadian Law Deans.

Though the committee will enforce many requirements for common law programs, the FLSC will largely allow them to meet the requirements however they see fit. One exception, documented in the report, is that it is recommended that ethics and professionalism competencies be acquired in their own course. Other requirements for applicants to law societies will include the understanding of the duty to communicate in a civil

manner, ability to address ethical dilemmas, and familiarity with general principles of ethics and professionalism such as fiduciary and confidentiality duties to clients, conflicts of interest, and the importance of serving the serving the public interest in the administration of justice.

U of T Law Program Changes Unlike most Canadian law schools, U of T Law only has mandatory courses in first year, leaving the upper years free for student to choose their own path except for the compulsory moot, and the Critical Perspectives and the International, Comparative, or Transnational Law requirements, which were only added recently.

Continued on page 4

Ultra Vires is an editorially independent publication. We are open to contributions which reflect diverse points of view, and our contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the Faculty of Law, the Students’ Law Society, or the editorial board.

Editor-in-Chief Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus News Editors Features Editors Opinion Editors Diversions Editor Special Content Editors 1L Editors VP Finance Web Editors Layout Editor

Emily Debono Patrick Hartford David Gruber & Katherine Georgious Marita Zouravlioff & Jacquie Richards Louis Tsilivis & Paloma van Groll Alanna Tevel David Feldman & Eryn Fanjoy Alexander Carmona & Lisana Nithiananthan Daanish Samadmoten Kevin Siu & Aron Nimani Alyssa Howes

Errors If you find any errors in Ultra Vires, please email ultra.vires@utoronto.ca

Advertising Advertising inquiries should be sent to vp Finance Daanish Samadmoten at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca.

Submissions If you have an article submission or a tip for us, please contact us at ultra.vires@utoronto.ca.

Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions for brevity and clarity.

NEWS

ultravires.ca

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 3

Justice Binnie Visits the Faculty of Law NADIA ZAMAN (2L) WITH PREFACE BY DAVID GRUBER (2L)

F

ormer Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie visited the Faculty of Law on Wednesday, October 23rd, where he spoke to a group of students and faculty on the topic of judicial activism. Binnie gave an animated presentation where he recounted going from practicing slipand-fall law on Bay Street straight to crafting a Supreme Court ruling on Quebec secession.

Binnie described judicial activism as a term of abuse used to dismiss unpopular decisions. The concept is “an illegitimate importation from the states,” Binnie said. While the United States can draw on the writings of Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton to ascertain the framers' intent, he added, Canadian constitutional instruments often lack any original intent, such as in the case of the “scribbled” together British North American Act. Other constitutional tools, such as section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are simply too vague to be interpreted strictly.

However, he did suggest that there is room for legitimate debate on the role of the Court, such as in cases where judges create solutions that have no grounding in the text at all.

Nadia Zaman (2L) sat down with Justice Binnie after his presentation to talk about the state of the legal profession.

Do you think judicial activism is more of a problem now than it was before?

No, I don't think so. As I pointed out, I think judicial activism is just a label that people apply to decisions they don't like. Quite often, people in contrary positions attack the court, each under the name of judicial activism. I think there are areas where the court is called on to be creative, but in most of those areas it is just as creative to say no as it would be to say yes. So in neither of them can you really describe the position as activist.

Chief Justice McLachlin said in an interview that she favours gender parity on the bench, and this is especially timely given the recent appointment. What are your thoughts on this?

I think the bench requires a measure of diversity. At the time that I left, there were 4 women and 5 men. I don't think there's any particular magic in the 4 and the 5. I think there are many diverse interests and they are represented on the court. One of the complaints in the Aboriginal community is that the court keeps dealing with Aboriginal issues and nobody with an Aboriginal background is on the court. So yes, gender is important—it's not the only important issue. I think the expectation is that when the next appointment comes up from Quebec, it will be a woman. There are certainly many highly qualified women in the Quebec courts. But I think the numbers game can be misleading.

all of that background is something that I brought to the table. Other people brought different things to the table. And the idea is with nine judges, the sum total of all the backgrounds and experiences and viewpoints produces the best results.

Given that you were appointed without ever being a judge, do you think it's important to have diversity of experience on the bench?

Was there any particular case that threw you into a moral dilemma?

Yes, I think that's part of diversity. I think when I joined the court, Chief Justice Lamer had been a judge for something like 25 years, so he was a long way from the realities of practice. The continuity that he brought to the court was extremely important, but it's important also to have other people—an academic, Frank Iacobucci, former dean of the law school, on the bench; Louise Arbour, another academic. So all different areas within the legal community that have something of interest to say and to the extent that this is reflected in the court, I think it's a good thing.

So would you say that your experience informed your opinion in the case of Grant?

Yes, I think I tended to view legal problems in quite concrete terms—as to what works and what doesn't work and how people really interact with the police in real terms. I thought the view taken by the majority was unrealistic. And I think a large part of my thinking was based on my experience in practice, and that practice included a number of attempts to correct wrongful convictions including the Guy Paul Morin case. So

What do you think makes a good advocate?

Focus. I think the major problem with young and old lawyers is they ramble around and it's difficult for the court to figure out what they are saying and why they are saying it. The advice usually given to young advocates is to get to the point, be brief and be gone.

The case that bothered me most probably was the Jehovah's Witness girl who was not yet eighteen—who was according to the doctors in need of a blood transfusion. But at the same time the medical committee at the hospital said she was perfectly adult in her capacity to judge whether she wanted the transfusion or not. She appreciated the consequences, she was not influenced by her parents, she was acting based on her religious belief. I thought and I think that forced medical treatment is an extremely serious invasion of personal autonomy and the state has to have a reason for doing so and in that case it didn't, because the hospital itself negatived any disability arising from age. And the Manitoba legislation, unlike the law in some of the other provinces, made the presumption of her incapacity irrebuttable. So no matter what she said, it was not open to her to resist the blood transfusion. So I thought that was very difficult.

To what extent do you think judges' ideological beliefs inform their opinions?

I do think that judges’ values certainly are an important part of making legal judgments. For example, if you are wholly unsympathetic to the Aboriginal population, or if you believe law and order is of prime importance, then your decisions will tend to flow out of your basic convictions. But I hope that the judges who do have strong convictions are still sufficiently non-ideological that they will look at particular cases on the merits and adjust their views accordingly.

What worries you the most about the profession?

Well I think my concern is that the profession is becoming less professional and is becoming far more focused on law as a business and focused on maximizing income. As a result, we have a huge access to justice problem in this country—we have self-represented litigants required to deal with, in court, issues where a lawyer is essential.

You certainly have an increase in wrongful convictions. You have an increase in marital disputes that get out of control because the parties are dealing nose-to-nose. So the ability of the profession to service the legal needs of the community is a problem, and I think it flows from a lack of sense that we owe the public delivery of legal service. And I think lawyers need to be reminded—they are aware of it, but they need to be reminded – that the monopoly which we enjoy in courts is a privilege. And generally speaking, monopolies that don't meet the needs of their customers lose the monopoly. And I think maybe that's the way we are going, the direction we are traveling. I think more and more of what we now see as the preserve of a lawyer will be taken over by paralegals, conveyancers, people who specialize in drawing up wills of a simple kind. So the world will adjust to the lawyers. My hope is that lawyers will first adjust to the world, and vindicate the values of the profession.

Well, ideological is a bit loaded. I don't really think you could point to many judges in the Canadian system who act based on ideology.

Queen’s Law Planning to Raise Revenue by Increasing Class Size LISA WILDER (3L)

Q

ueen’s Law recently announced it is looking for ways to increase revenue. According to Dean William Flanagan, the province’s 5% cap on law school tuition (introduced last year) has left the school in a difficult position. Dean Flanagan says that Queen’s must increase revenue if it wants to remain competitive among “the very best in the country”.

Dean Flanagan is referring to U of T and Osgoode, the only schools that beat out Queen’s in this year’s Maclean’s professional school rankings. Queen’s tied with McGill for third place.

A few weeks ago, Queen’s notified students by email that it is considering adding 35 or 50 spots to its first year class. Dean Flanagan says that the addition of 35 students would generate enough revenue to hire six new faculty members. Queen’s current class size is 165. Last year, Queen’s received nearly 2,792 applica-

tions for those 165 spots.

While Queen’s has fewer course offerings than Osgoode and U of T, it offers some unique clinical placements including Family Law, Business Law, Elder Law, and Correctional Law. Dean Flanagan says that the school’s increased revenue will allow it to offer even more opportunities for students, which should come as good news.

Some Queen’s students are concerned about the effect of the increased class size on the job market, calling the plan short-sighted.

Dean Flanagan is not concerned—he cites Queen’s high articling placement statistics, which are a function of its strong reputation and the high calibre of its students. The Dean is hopeful that new faculty hires and new course offerings will enhance the school’s reputation, which will in turn help it attract first-class students.

Queen’s proposed increase would be a drastic development for

that school, but it is not unique in Ontario. Windsor and Ottawa University have both increased their class sizes significantly since 1997, and Lakehead University just opened its new Faculty of Law in September, with 60 students.

On October 8, Queen’s Law held a meeting where students could share their opinions about the proposed plan. Dean Flanagan has promised to use feedback to develop a proposal that he will present to Faculty Board. Faculty Board is made up of representatives from faculty, staff, students and alumni.

The decision will have its greatest impact on the Queen’s community, but will not go unnoticed among law students across the province.

4 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

NEWS

U of T Law Modifies Admissions Policies New Recruitment Efforts Aim to Compete with US Schools

S

ally has a role that integrates all three components and looks at the relationship between the three and makes a conscious effort to connect the three areas,” said Joshi.

“There are peers in the U.S. that have been doing this for many years. It is a very thoughtful approach and it is new territory in law school environment here [in Canada]. It is not to say that we were not doing diversity recruitment or recruitment activities in the past. They were definitely done, but we are looking at it from a different perspective,” he said.

In addition to its existing programs for lowincome students, consisting of LAWS for secondary school students (launched in 2005) and the LSAT prep program for pre-law students (launched in 2012), the law school is looking forward to a new program to coach students through the first few years of undergraduate education.

From what the law school has seen, many students come to the LSAT prep program when it is too late for them to submit a competitive polished application.

New changes this year to admissions also include an automatic application fee waiver on OLSAS to “make the law school experience afford-

The faculty is also seeing an intake of students both full-time and on exchange from overseas, including from civil law countries such China and European Union members.

"The reality is that law is a much more multijurisdictional than it used to be, and at the world of high-level law and policy, it is not a very jurisdictional world," said Moran.

Admissions Process Becomes More Holistic

KENT KURAN (1L) tarting this year, the Faculty of Law will be undertaking a considerable shift towards increasing recruitment and diversity outreach to augment its existing equity and admissions programs. The new policy comes on the heels of last year's changes in admissions policies and grading practices.

“We have recently taken a more proactive approach to recruiting in general. We feel we are in a different world," said Dean Mayo Moran.

“We have decided to dramatically increase our outreach in order to improve our class. We do not want to be complacent and rest on our laurels,” explained Professor Ben Alarie, Associate Dean of the First Year Program and Co-Chair of the Admissions Committee. “We want to go out and make sure we are getting the very best, most diverse, most talented class that we can possibly get.”The Faculty has brought on board a new admissions director, Neel Joshi. Coming from York University where he worked on recruitment, he is well versed in the world of higher education admissions and diversity outreach.

Joshi's job is tripartite: admissions, recruitment, and diversity outreach. “It is interesting because we are the only university in Canada that actu-

ultravires.ca

able and accessible” for those who received the “Canada Student Grant for Students from LowIncome Families” during the past four years.

U.S. Recruitment U of T Law is also looking south of the border.

“This year we are going to New York for the first time in the last few years for the law school forum to attract Canadians that did their undergraduate in the US as well as to speak to Americans who are interested in studying in Canada,” said Joshi.

The law school is interested in both Canadians who went to U.S. for undergraduate studies and are now interested in law school as well as Canadians who are considering going to law school in U.S. “We get the best students that we can possibly get, and part of that is not only looking inside Canada but beyond,” Moran explained. Every year when I go down to New York, a lot of talented Canadians go to U.S. colleges and they often have offers from U of T law school and fantastic U.S. law schools. So I go down and try and convince them to come to U of T Law. We invite them to alumni receptions in New York. We have done this for years and we are just being more proactive.”

The faculty has also seen an interest from Americans, especially in New York, looking to attend law school in Canada. “It is anecdotal so far, but I have definitely seen an interest in that so far and I think it is because of the strong legal market locally as well as the reputation for schools here in Canada,” said Joshi.

Last year saw the Faculty of Law move towards a holistic admission process. The new process consists of academic factors comprising twothirds and biographical factors comprising the remaining one-third of the evaluation. Academics include the LSAT and GPA, considering the candidate's institution and program, while the biography includes the statement and sketch. Reference letters are still not required.

“Historically we were viewed as more numerical,” said Joshi. “While our actual admit numbers in terms of GPA and LSAT medians may not be shifting dramatically, the way we approach our assessment and review of a student and their eligibility for admission is quite different.”

This year U of T had an increase in the self-selectivity rate, with the acceptance rate at 16.8% and the yield rate at 68.8% (accounting for deferrals). That is compared to 15.9% and 64.1% from last year, which was the lowest and highest, respectively, in the province, the latest year for which comparable information is available, and in league with top U.S. law schools.

This year was also the first that U of T disclosed its 25th and 75th percentiles for GPAs and LSATs in addition to medians. This year’s entry statistics for the entering class of 2013 were in line with recent years, as Joshi explained, with GPAs for the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles at 83.0, 85.4, and 87.7 percent, respectively. LSATs for the same percentiles were at 90, 95, and 97 percentile, respectively, with the median at least a decile above other law schools in the province.

Continued from page 2

“Last year, the Standing Curriculum Committee of the Faculty [Council] was tasked with considering how the new FLSC requirements should be met,” explained Ian Lee, Associate Dean of the JD Program. “At the Committee’s recommendation, in March 2013, the Faculty Council adopted two new JD graduation requirements.”

To fulfill those two new requirements, students will have to take a course in ethics and professionalism as well as Business Organizations to fulfil the Federation's fiduciary duty requirement, in order to graduate in 2015 or later. The faculty will be offering a new Legal Ethics course (LAW 362 H1) and the existing Business Organizations course (LAW 212 H1) to meet the requirements.

The administration noted that over 90 percent of students were already taking “biz-org”, making it a minor modification to the existing curriculum. Meanwhile the new ethics course can either be taken during an upper year semester or as an intensive course.

Last year's first year class, which will be the first to graduate under the new rules in 2015, had “Ethics Week”, consisting of an intensive ethics course in the fall semester of first year. Because of the substantial similarity in content to the new ethnics course, they will probably only be required to take Business Organizations and not the new Ethics course.

However, Sara Faherty, Assistant Dean at the Office of the Associate Dean, explained that

the law school administration is still waiting for formal approval of the previous JD program that students started in 2012-2013. The FLSC states that it will post whether a program complies with the national requirements as of 2015.

“We believe that the Legal Ethics programming delivered in the first year of the JD program in 2012-2013 meets the Law Society of Upper Canada's new requirements, and have had informal indications to this effect from the Law Society of Upper Canada,” said Lee. “We are, however, still awaiting formal confirmation. When we receive it, we will let the affected students know that they do not need to take one of the new ethics courses in 2014-2015.”

For this year’s incoming class, the changes to the curriculum have already been implemented as first year students no longer have “Ethics Week” in the fall semester of first year, but rather had an “Ethics Day” in its place. The extra week has become a fall break or reading week for students.

The trend towards implementing two reading weeks per year, usually attached to an existing statutory holiday such as Thanksgiving Day in the fall and Family Day in the winter, has become more common, with universities across Ontario now focusing on student health and wellness issues.

NEWS

ultravires.ca

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 5

Dean Alarie Introduces New Admissions Regime

Faculty Puts More Weight on Undergrad School and Personal Statement, while New Criteria Sees Diversity Drop DANIEL CARENS-NEDELSKY (1L), FACULTY COUNCIL REPORTER

T

his is the first of many articles about what goes on behind closed doors at that most august of assemblies known as the Faculty Council. The first insight I have to share is that these doors appear to be genuinely open to all. Dean Moran was very welcoming of this UV reporter, and I’m certain that any student who is interested in attending Faculty Council will be received warmly, and you would not be alone. Apart from myself, a large portion of the academic side of the SLS was there to observe, ask questions, and enjoy the delicious free food.

Seriously, the food was ample, enjoyable, and of noticeably higher quality than what is found in the standard “free” lunches we have all become accustomed to. The roasted vegetable sandwiches were topped with goat cheese and the salad included a slivered almond garnish, to name only a few of the more notable differences.

After moving through uncontroversial updates from the Dean and student society presidents, we reached Ben Alarie's much more contentious report on the new admission criteria. Alarie outlined the new admissions system and highlighted some of the effects it had on this year’s entering class. The most significant change he discussed was the new role that personal statements play in the admission process. The previous system

relied extensively on GPA and LSAT scores to determine which files were auto-admitted, which were auto-denied, and which would be read holistically. Now GPA and LSAT account for two thirds of an applicant’s score, while the remaining third is based on their personal statement, which is read by three to six members of the admissions committee. Under the new formula, no candidate can be assured acceptance, and any candidate who could possibly be considered for admission based on their GPA and LSAT will have their file read. Automatic rejections are given only to those applicants who could not reach the admission threshold even if they were to score 100% on their personal statement.

The second significant change in the admissions policy is that GPAs are now weighted based on the performance of past U of T law students from the same program and university. Specifically, they are adjusted based on previous student performance in first year compared how well the admissions committee expected them to perform. One notable effect of this system is that while the “real” median GPA of the incoming class has decreased slightly (down one percent to 85%), the weighted GPA has increased to 89%, a gain Alarie is quite proud of. He also attributes the significant increase of students from

Grand Moot

undergraduate programs at U of T (46, up from 34 last year) to the new weighting system. U of T is well known for its strict marking, and it appears to have been disadvantaging previous applicants from the school in previous years.

Professor Alarie’s presentation was met with a barrage of questions from faculty and students. It seems that while new buildings and student societies don’t pique the council’s interest, they are actively concerned with who comes (and who is allowed to come) to our school. The discussion felt honest and informative, but was unfortunately cut short due to time constraints. The questions centered around two general areas of concern: the fairness of putting so much emphasis on personal statements, and worry over the effects the new criteria appeared to be having on diversity amongst the incoming class. The deans appeared to be conscious of these issues, and promised to keep a close eye on whether personal statements proved to be a good indicator of success at U of T. In the short term, it was pointed out that applicants also have to fill out a personal sketch with verifiers that could be used to try to detect cheating if red flags appeared in a given application.

Concerns over diversity seemed to arise principally from the fact that the percentage of vis-

ible minorities in the incoming class decreased to 31% (from an average of 35% over the last 3 years). Alarie cautioned about drawing too many inferences from a single year of data, noting that the difference might simply be caused by the particularities of this year’s applicant pool.

This point is a fair one to make; for example, the same proportion of the 2011/12 class consisted of visible minorities. Still, there was some (understandable) confirmation bias in Alarie talking up all the significant achievements of the new system while downplaying any negatives as statistically non-significant. Overall, I was impressed with the meeting. I expected a relatively bland hour and half of updates about what was going on at the school, and I was treated to a faculty and student body who were actively concerned about the future of this school. It will take at least a few more years before we can say to any degree of certainty what the effects of the new admission system are, but it was comforting to see the issue taken seriously at all levels. The next meeting is scheduled for November 27th, for any who want to mark it in their calendars.

NEWS/FEATURES

6 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

ultravires.ca

The Law in These Parts Film Screening and Discussion at U of T Law

SOFIA IJAZ (3L)

T

he West Bank and Gaza Strip came under the control of the Israeli military following the Arab-Israeli war in 1967.

Overnight, 1.5 million Palestinians became subjects of a new legal regime, one defined and administered by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

The Israeli military has, over the course of nearly half a century, issued hundreds of military orders regulating vast areas of Palestinian life, and has also established military courts to try civilians for what it deems to be security and criminal offences. The effect on daily life is heavy, with 40% of Palestinian men having spent some period of their life in prison.

This military legal system is a little-known aspect of the occupation, and is the focus of the new award-winning documentary, The Law in These Parts by Israeli filmmaker Ra’anan Alexandrowicz. On October 22nd, Alexandrowicz presented his powerful film to an audience of more than 85 students, professors, and legal practitioners at U of T Law. The stop in Toronto was part of his tour of universities along the East Coast, including Harvard, NYU, Columbia, and the University of Virginia.

In the film, Alexandrowicz interviews the men —including Israeli judges, prosecutors, and legal advisors—behind the military legal system in the Occupied Territories. It marks the first time they have spoken publicly about the complex system of proclamations, rules, and regulations that emerged out of a set of documents prepared for the eventuality of an Israeli occupation, years before the first Palestinian villages in the territories came under the control of the IDF. In a post-screening panel, Alexandrowicz, alongside Professors Kent Roach and Markus Dubber, reflected on fundamental issues of law raised by his work. What, for instance, is the impact of this long-term occupation on the rule of law in Israel? Is the legal system operating in the

territories as a mechanism to achieve some sort of justice, and if so, what does that justice look like to a population that has no say or role to play in the legal system, except as its subjects?

Further, if the rule of law is to be effective as a tool to control a population, would it not matter whether the subject population is in fact listening—that it see the legal system itself as valid to some degree? Or is the Israeli public the ultimate audience of the Israeli military courts’ efforts?

These questions however are not isolated to the Israeli-Palestinian context. As Professor Kent Roach aptly pointed out, the film speaks to many legal systems trying to come to grips with the post-9/11 security environment, including the UK, US, and Canada. He pointed to the Guantanamo military trials as one site where these tensions come to a head: “One of the issues is whether the state is having it both ways: the state wants to have military tribunals which don’t have the same independence as the civilian courts, but also wants to characterize what is going on as a crime as opposed to an act of war.”

The film thus asks us, as students of the law, to take questions about the rule of law and the role of law seriously—not as a matter limited to the specific conflict at the heart of Alexandrowicz’s remarkable film, but as essential challenges facing liberal democratic societies, including our own.

Alexandrowicz’s The Law in These Parts has won several international awards, including Winner of the World Cinema Documentary Grand Jury Prize at Sundance (2012), Winner of Best Documentary at the Jerusalem Film Festival (2011), the Anne Dellinger Grand Jury Special Jury Award at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival (2012) and the Special Jury Prize International Feature at Toronto’s own Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival (2012).

Law Bro ANONYMOUS (1L)

D

o you think that Rocky, after ascending the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and triumphantly pumping his fists, thought about how many precious calories he burned to get there? That’s my worry right now. It takes several flights of stairs to get to the third floor of Victoria College. In addition to each of them spiting me for yesterday’s leg workout, my carefully calibrated diet of 3750 calories, 250g of protein, 300g of carbs and 88.5g of fat has been ruined. I reach the top with my heavy bags (by anyone’s standard) and protein shake as a dejected Sherpa. The numbers will have to be crunched again later.

I make an attempt at composing myself before class. This consists of straightening out my skin-tight v-neck and tucking away the last, deviant strands of a haircut I had my stylist emulate from a cover model of Men’s Health magazine.

My peer mentor says that Bay Street doesn’t hire anyone with a faux hawk. The learning curve to use “hair finishing paste with flax seed” has been steep. A combination of 7 scoops of pre-workout stimulant and refusal to do any form of exercise beyond lifting things up and putting them back down has made my heart into the cardiac equivalent of Coltrane’s Giant Steps. Seriously, this must be what love, and/or the early onset of

a stroke feels like. When my pulse slows down to a not life-threatening pace, I try to find a seat.

This is the most difficult decision I make each day. Due to extreme levels of muscle-generated body heat, my options are limited. I’ve heard rumours that, in the bygone days of Flavelle, classrooms were not furnished like confusing modern art installations or shaped liked convex ovens. The upper years tell me I don’t know what “bygone” means. My usual seating strategy is to find a spot away from the other large individuals and, optimistically, next to someone with an iron deficiency. This is, of course, difficult when seating arrangements in Vic are comparable to using wooden church pews for an economy class Air Canada flight. Sadly, I fail to find someone who could otherwise act as a human heat sink.

With resignation, I sit down next to a member of the varsity rugby team. He gives me a look of sympathetic acknowledgment. It is only a matter of time until both of us are incinerated in a supernova of bro-sweat and thermal energy.

During class, my Facebooking and neurotic e-mail checking is balanced by small intervals of actually paying attention. I simply do not understand how village cricket, lacking any feats of strength whatsoever, can be to the delight of anyone. I want to type this thought out, but my

fingers are too sore from doing chin ups. At this point I have no other option than to bang my calloused hands against the keyboard in jesustake-the-wheel fashion. This ends predictably.

Later on I’ll have ask the person in front of me writing the War and Peace sequel in four different varieties of bullet points for their notes later.

The nervous look I get from Leo Tolstoy, who has now turned around to face me, indicates that they think I am a gunner. I should allay their fears by showing them the several pages of incomprehensible numbers, letters and wingdings my hand-banging has produced. Instead, I make two finger pistols and do my best Shooter McGavin impersonation.

Back to my e-mails. Law games is coming up, apparently. Of course bench press is conspicuously missing from the list of athletic events. It shouldn’t be. Naturally I daydream about it.

I imagine winning the inaugural Law Games bench press competition. My classmates celebrate my victory, the other bros get jealous and Western Law admissions sends me a letter of acceptance. After the big win we celebrate. During the after-party I drink, like, 13 beers, a bottle of wine, 3 red bulls and probably 7 shots of jaeger, man.

I try to do the universal “make it rain” gesture only to have various change and my Scotia card

fall through my fingers and into a pint glass.

Drunk texts are sent out. I’m good for about a dozen of those a month, though. And so, in this way, the “dead dream fought on as the afternoon slipped away” as I finish the remnants of my strawberry-banana protein shake.

When I snap out of it, the heat is, somehow, even more intolerable. I’m dehydrated and there’s no protein left. The existential nausea I feel from this realization can only be understood by Sartre and those worried about losing their precious gym gains. The spring rattling around in my empty drink container is to the annoyance of everyone. The caffeine and “proprietary blend” high of the pre-workout stimulant is gone. I find myself comfortably nestled on the rugby player’s shoulder. He smells like grapefruit. As the professor dismisses us, I remember the floor I am on. The thought of going back down the stairs and the necessary lowerbody pain and caloric arithmetic involved is depressing. I long for the days of Flavelle and bungalow-style legal education. Facing the rugby player in despair, I whisper, sotto voce, into his ear: “please, carry me.. I did legs yesterday.”

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 7

Glasgow, A Love Story: Aka, what I’ve learned so far on Exchange

BY A PETITE BRUNETTE UNNAMED 3L, LOST SOMEWHERE IN THE SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS UNTIL JANUARY 2014

L

aw School can feel a bit like a train heading at breakneck speed to the rest of your life: Survive 1L (make sure you have enough extra-curriculars!), find a summer job (do OCIs and infirms!), get a job (hopefully), spend second year summer chained to a desk (and pretending to adore every minute of your indentured servitude), finish 3L (why do we even bother with this year?), write the bar, article (more indentured servitude!), get called to the bar, become an associate, etc, etc…

Some people choose law because they like this train and I don’t blame them. The lure of a relatively stable life-style in an increasingly unstable workforce is appealing. I, however, am not one of those people. I chose law because I wanted to do something challenging and exciting with my life. (To all of you snorting into your coffee at my “naive” idealism: just let me keep telling myself this dream for a couple more years, it’s gotten me this far.)

Usually I feel good about this decision. However, by the beginning of 2L second semester, after agonizing over another paper that was going to fall on the curve where it always did, I started getting that “OMG I NEED TO GET OFF THE TRAIN!” feeling and decided I needed a detour. STAT. Like magic, the email arrived in my inbox, “Exchange info session (Free pizza)”.

[Skip forward two months.]

"GLASGOW!?! W.T.F." The words spoken (yelled) at my computer screen last March when I found out where I was going on exchange. I hadn't even put Glasgow on my list, having opted for the more "mature" masters of Comparative Constitutional Law at Central European University in Budapest.

"You'll love it!!!" My mother said that evening as I pouted into my soup. "Remember that program on TLC about Glasgow I told you about?

I've wanted to go ever since!"

"Mom, that was about innovative ways Glasgow deals with its heroin problem..."

"Details... It looked like a lovely place, very green!”

"It rains all the time! I'll get depressed with the lack of sun!"

“You'll finally get to make use of those overpriced rain boots of yours. Besides, your father and I have been dying for a reason to visit." “...”

More pouting into my soup.

However, after researching the University (and rewatching Trainspotting and Braveheart), I decided, why not? I asked for a challenge and they gave me one heck of a challenge (have you heard a Glaswegian accent?!), Glasgow it is.

One thing you should to know when applying to Exchange programs is that Canada and the US are just weird when it comes to Law. The rest of the world does it as an undergrad degree.

This can lead to lots of awkward questions about your age/quarter-life crisis in which you start finding imaginary wrinkles/intense frustration when no one understands you bitching about the constant engagements that keep popping up on your newsfeed. 10 months from now you’ll be starting your articles and entering the adult world and most likely your flatmates and classmates were born in the early to mid 90s. Thus you arrive and are faced with two options: Option 1: Decide to be mature about things.

I decided it would be fun to “branch out” and didn’t bring anyone from U of T with me. In a position like this, you can cling to the one other Canadian law exchange student. You’ll soon

realize you have 25 mutual friends which gives you at least 4 weeks of gossip to fuel conversation.

Consider your time on exchange as an opportunity to visit cultural land marks, get in shape, learn to cook and pursue posh European hobbies like skeet shooting and horseback riding. Maybe even start doing your readings for class.

But this is 3L, and I didn’t work my ass off for two years to spend all my weekends in a library twice the age of Canada! As Renton in Trainspotting so aptly put it “Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that?”

This leads to Option 2: Remind yourself you’ve only got 10 months left of freedom, pat yourself on the back for going it alone (if no one from Ontario sees you sitting on the curb eating fish and chips with your hands at 4am, did it even really happen? My money is

on no...), tell anyone who asks you’re 20 (up it to 23 if you want to scare off a barely legal fresher on a mission to get laid), join the most aggressive student union you can find on campus and sign up for every single course you always wanted to take but didn’t because it wasn’t “marketable”.

Okay, so I cheated and went with both options... but having that freedom is the beauty of being on exchange! Some days I wake up and a hipster themed pub crawl ending with Kamikaze shots at a bar called Vodka-Wodka sounds like the best idea in the world! (Downside of Option 2: Coffee in Glasgow is expensive... Alcohol is not. This makes hungover class the next day doubly painful.) Other days my unmarketable “Institutions and Jurisdictions of the EU” class is so fascinating I find myself working in the law library until close. I still haven’t learned to cook,

but I did join the running club (“the University of Glasgow Hares and Hounds”) and the Law Society (Bi-weekly open bar events... I’m not sure if this is an amazing or terrible idea on their part).

Going it alone was daunting at first, especially with very few other Canadian students. However, it’s been refreshing being surrounded by people who don’t understand (or care about) OCIs/articling/Canadian law jobs/where U of T even is. It’s embarrassing to say, but I’d kind of forgotten I could define myself in other ways.

So here we are, seven weeks into my adventure, how’s this little detour working out for me? FUCKING AWESOME. See you in January Everyone!!

8 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

No 2L summer job? No worries

UV’s annual reminder that there is a whole world outside of OCIs KATHERINE GEORGIOUS (3L)

A

t this time of the year, a lot of time and effort is rightfully expended helping 2Ls navigate the stressful waters of infirm interviews. But for those who chose not to do OCIs, or who did OCIs but didn’t get the results intended, the end of October brings about a very different kind of stress. As your friends fret about managing six interviews in two days, you might be second-guessing your decision to put all your eggs in one criminal law firm’s basket.

Or perhaps you feel frustrated because you badly wanted to work on Bay Street and you rocked those 17-minute interviews, yet your phone never rang. Regardless of how you ended up with an interview-free November, your 3L brethren want you to know that not having an articling position locked up by November 6th is hardly cause for concern.

Firstly, you can still find a great 2L summer job. Remember, if you do not get a position through the OCI process, that makes you part of the majority of law students across the province. The Faculty has probably told you this a million times but it really does bear repeating: there are numerous places that hire summer students that don’t do OCIs. You can work at a small firm; you can do research for a professor;

you can form your own project with external funding; you can go on that IHRP internship that you didn’t have the guts to do in 1L. The list goes on and on, with far more options than just doing doc review at one of the Seven Sisters.

If 2L winds down and you’re still jobless, there is still no need to panic. There are plenty of articling positions at places that do not hire 2L summers students, and many of these places are incredible employers. Criminal defense firms, family law firms, clinics, advocacy groups, public interest firms, and a variety of other niche employers seek out articling students. By not tying yourself down in the OCI process, you leave yourself available to apply to these one-of-a-kind opportunities. Best of all, if your heart is set on corporate law or litigation, you also need not despair, for numerous firms in these fields also seek out articling students outside of recruiting 2L summer students.

Now, it should be noted that having such an abundance of options for articling is quite overwhelming. You will spend many long nights on Google, researching what kind of jobs are out there. All of the employers you find will start blending together. You’ll start to go a little stir crazy because it will feel like you’ve been per-

petually applying for jobs since the middle of 1L. But having such a breadth of employers available to you gives you an opportunity to examine what you really want from your legal career. You apply to OCIs before you actually do any upper year courses and before you have any understanding of where your interests lie.

By the time you apply for articling, your experiences both in and out of the classroom will help you make a far more informed decision of where you want to start your career. And since there are so many possible places to go, you won’t feel the temptation you may have felt during OCIs to just apply everywhere and hope for the best; you can actually be picky without feeling like you are shutting too many doors.

Of course, it’s not all gumdrops and rainbows outside of the OCI process. As mentioned, perpetually applying for jobs is exhausting. Moreover, not having an articling position secured while you are facing a mountain of student loans can be a major cloud over your head. But remember, statistically speaking you are one of the most educated people in the whole damn country. Yes, you feel super poor right now and yes, the words “articling crisis” have been permanently etched in your brain, but you are not a

beggar. You are a chooser. You deserve more than just securing an articling position; you deserve an articling position that you love. You deserve to start off your legal career in a place that will train you to be the best type of lawyer you want to be. To quote a wise 3L who still hasn’t picked his articling position, “Don’t let your artificially constrained perception of your job prospects destroy your dreams.”

The cloud of uncertainty that hangs over your head while you are an unemployed law student is better than the cloud that hangs over when you have to go to a job you hate. So, if you opted to skip the OCI process because you knew it wasn’t for you, don’t fall into doubt about that decision. And if you did want an OCI job, but it didn’t go as planned, don’t despair. The legal profession is a big world that you have yet to fully explore, and this could end up being an incredible blessing in disguise.

ultravires.ca

FEATURES

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 9

UV Interviews Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michael Moldaver Note—This interview has been edited for length.

Patrick Hartford: Thank you very much for

coming.

Justice Moldaver: It’s a great pleasure.

P: As a U of T law grad, how much do you think

things have changed at the faculty since you’ve graduated?

M: Well, the facilities haven’t changed very much, I can say that, (laughs) but I guess they’re in the process of changing. I know it’s still a marvelous law school.

One of the things that causes me to say that life is unpredictable is that my first year [faculty] mentor at law school was the Governor General, David Johnston. He looked after me and others in our first year, when we were all nervous and uptight, and he was a wonderful man—couldn’t have been nicer. Fast forward something like 45 years and on the day my appointment came through, he signed the order of council for the Supreme Court of Canada, and he sent me a personal email saying congratulations. It was a very special moment. So I have good memories of this school.

P: What were you like as a student here?

M: I was non-descript. I did my thing and didn’t really shine at anything. In fact, I stood in the bottom quarter of my first year at Christmas Exams, which fortunately didn’t count—I don’t know if they still don’t?

P: They still don’t.

M: I stood in the bottom quarter and failed torts.

I went home at Christmas and told my mom and dad that law school was not for me and that I’d like to go into my father’s business. I got no sympathy whatsoever—well I got sympathy from my mother, but not from my father. He put me back on the first bus back to Toronto [from Peterborough] and said “You haven’t been working hard enough, get to work” I didn’t appreciate it at the time, and even to this day I don’t appreciate it (laughs). But I came back. It really wasn’t that I hadn’t been working. I had been working, I just didn’t know how to write a law school exam. I was under the mistaken belief that someone might actually want an answer. They don’t want answers, they just want issues. Once I learned that it didn’t matter what the answer was, that you just had to put out the issues, things got a little better.

There was one other little wrinkle in first year with the contracts exam. I never really did understand contracts—and may not until this day (laughs). The exam was maybe two and a half hours, and for the first 45 minutes I went numb.

I couldn’t see the page. I couldn’t read the questions. I was absolutely numb. I saw my year going right down the drain. Somehow I managed to put it together and ended up with a C and that was fine (laughs). And I moved on.

P: It’s the worst when you see everyone else writing or typing and you just sit there— M: It’s just panic city.

P: Were you in any clubs or extracurriculars?

M: Nope, I wasn’t in any clubs.

P: Whenever you’re mentioned in the [newspa-

per], they refer to you as the crim guy. Did you like criminal law right way or was that something that came later?

M: That’s an interesting question because—well, some might find it interesting if they have nothing else in their life (laughs)—but I loved criminal law here. The first term was taught by Martin Friedland, I don’t know whether you would know of Marty Friedland, but he was a great scholar in criminal law.

He went off at Christmas to Australia on sabbatical and John Willis came in as our teacher.

He was one of the best professors I’ve ever had.

He taught the whole criminal law in first year with one sentence on the board. We didn’t have to read any cases, we didn’t have to read any law.

He just taught us from one sentence that was written on the board, that had mens rea, actus reus, the whole bit. Mind you, in those days we didn’t have a Charter, so things were easier (laughs).

But the long and short of it is, I loved criminal law but I also loved real estate. I was, believe it or not, torn between those two. I had actually planned, when I finished law school, to go back to Peterborough, and practice with my brother, who did commercial real estate. And then things changed at the end of third year.

P: What did you spend your summers doing?

M: I worked at a law office in Peterborough, called Howell and Fleming, where I searched titles all summer long. It was a really fun experience, in part because I enjoyed searching titles, but more so because there were a whole lot of students just like me and we had a ball. We had a really good time.

P: If you don’t mind my asking, what was tuition back then? This year we hit $30,000.

M: That’s a very good question because I can answer it this way. From the money I made in the summer I was able, always, to pay my tuition.

And my father, to his great credit and my gratitude, paid my room and board. So I could not have saved any more than about $1000 in the whole summer and that was enough to pay my tuition. Things have changed, a little bit, I think.

I get a little bit discouraged just thinking about the cost. I have a daughter who is hoping to write her LSAT shortly and get into law school.

But the prospect of her coming to this university is one that would probably bring me on the brink of bankruptcy (laughs).

P: Was there pressure to work downtown when you were here?

M: it was a very different experience then, I can’t quite explain it. I got into this law school with a B average out of Arts. They wouldn’t even look at me today. We didn’t have to write an LSAT when I came through, so that was another thing.

When I graduated from here, we had the pick of virtually any downtown Toronto law firm. In fact, they wanted to recruit us. Essentially you could pick your spot. And I wouldn’t say that there was necessarily pressure to stay in one of the downtown firms.

I had decided to go back to Peterborough, but

things changed at the end of third year and I had an opportunity to article with someone called Arthur Martin, who later became Justice Martin at the [Ontario] Court of Appeal. That changed my whole experience and I ended up practicing criminal law here in Toronto.

P: You said something changed in third year, was it something in particular?

M: I call it a fluke. In third year I stood first here and that’s what changed things. It gave me the courage to contact [Arthur] Martin, to see whether or not he would consider hiring me as an articling student. And as it happened he had a vacancy. I went with him and decided to try my hand at criminal law in Toronto. That’s how life changes—overnight, just like that.

P: How’s your French? That was something you’ve said you’d work on.

M: C’est un peu meilleur. It’s a little bit better.

I’m taking lessons and I’m trying to do some immersion. And I listen to French radio when I drive into court each morning and when I come back. It’s not an overnight process, but I’m going to do the best I can. I’m considerably further ahead than when I came to the court. Am I able now to hear an appeal in French? No. Will I be next year this time? I make no promises, but I think I’ll be much better positioned.

P: Do you want to work until the [mandatory retirement age] of 75?

M: That’s a good question. I’m not sure. I will stay there as long as I feel I can make a contribution, and as long as my health holds out, and as long as my legs hold out. And by that I mean, this is not a job for people who are looking to semiretire. It’s a heavy, heavy load and I’m very honoured to be there. But I don’t want to overstay my welcome. If there comes a time that I feel I should be going and making room for someone else, I will do it.

P: There was an op-ed in the Globe, by Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at Waterloo, about L’Heureux-Dubé’s comments on the Quebec Charter [of Values]. Obviously I won’t ask you to comment on the charter itself, but in terms of retired justices speaking out on policy matters, do you have an opinion one way or another?

M: I haven’t given it a lot of thought. Personally, I would think long and hard before I would engage in that kind of comment or discussion or debate. Am I in the least bit critical of Justice L’Heureux-Dubé—forget about content—but just the fact that she spoke out? That to me is her perfect right and I respect her for that. To a certain extent, there has to be a bit of “to each his or her own”, and if there’s an issue that you feel very strongly about, perhaps there is room to make comment. But I think we have to proceed with caution.

P: Was it a big transition moving to Ottawa from Toronto?

M: It was a huge transition. I have wonderful friends here, I spent fifteen years on the Court of Appeal. And I, quite frankly, was not expecting to get the appointment. When it happens, you have to move very quickly. I spent my first

six months living in the Minto [Hotel] before my wife could get there and we bought a home. It was a bit lonely, and it was a bit difficult fitting into the new surroundings and fitting in with the new colleagues and doing a very different type of work than I had been doing on the Court of Appeal. And I was missing dear friends and colleagues from Toronto who had been a major part of my life for so many years. So was it easy?

No, it wasn’t an easy transition.

P: And what’s the working relationship like with the other justices? Are you close as a group?

M: I think we’re close and I think everyone respects each other. But we also recognize that the work is not easy. Issues are raised upon which reasonable people can and do disagree, and every one of us cares very strongly about what he or she is doing. You have to be able to separate the professional from the personal. Think about it, you’re with 8 partners in a law firm, and 30 or 40% of the time, your partners are your opponents. Not only are they going a different way on a case than you are, but the matter is going public across Canada. You have to be able to separate out the professional part of the job and be friends at the end of the day.

P: In the last few years, they’ve had the MP’s asking question of the [SCC] appointments. Do you think this is a positive development? Some people say it’s moving us in the direction of the States, other people say it’s just a formality.

M: I’m not sure it’s my place to comment on it.

It’s a decision made by the government, and to the extent the government is of the view that it might give the citizens of this country a better understanding and knowledge of a potential appointment to the Supreme Court, I wouldn’t disagree. As to whether it’s becoming more political than less, or moving towards the direction of the United States, I don’t feel that’s for me to comment on. I certainly do know, having watched yesterday’s proceedings, that care is taken to make sure that it doesn’t devolve into a political debate.

P: Today is the Grand Moot. Is there anything in particular you’re looking for from the mooters?

M: I give them tremendous credit. It’s probably harder to do what they’re doing today than actually doing a real case. And by that I mean, for most real cases the court room is virtually empty and [the lawyers] just make their submissions and move on. But today, [the mooters] are surrounded by colleagues and professors and perhaps members of their family. It’s a lot of stress and I give them so much credit for just standing up to the plate. I suspect they have worked tremendously hard and will do a great job.

P: Thank you for sitting down with us. It’s been a pleasure.

M: Thank you. I wish you good success, and I look forward to seeing you in court, as they say.

SPECIAL FEATURE

10 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

ultravires.ca

UV’s Guide to In-Firm Interviews ERYN FANJOY (2L) AND DAVID FELDMAN (2L)

“Know thyself, know thine enemy.

A thousand battles, a thousand victories.”

—Sun Tzu

UV’s Mini-Guide to Government Interviews KATHERINE GEORGIOUS (3L) You have probably heard numerous times that government interviewers ask standardized questions, they write down everything you say, and that they probably won't make much, or any, eye contact with you. While this is all true, there are still a few things you should know about government interviews so you can begin living sweetly on Canadian citizens' tax dollars:

1. They don't just ask substantive questions. Yes, they want you to know the relevant legislation, but they also ask you questions about you. So make sure you are still an interesting, or at least a semi-normal, person. Or at least appear so in your interview.

You don’t want to blank on a simple question like “what was your favourite and least favourite subject in 1L?" because you’re busy worrying about the 15 ways their office can enforce a court order in their favour.

2. Some places will ask for more than just one interview. You might think that the lunches and awkward Wednesday scheduling is for your big-firm friends, but office tours and second interviews happen with government too (albeit rarely). Make sure you factor in the possibility of MAG taking up more than 45 minutes of your time.

And they will do all of this without feeding you.

3. The pen is your guide. Since they write down all your answers, it's important to make sure you aren't talking too quickly. You can also use the pen to gauge how much to talk. If you're still answering and they stopped writing 10 minutes ago, move on. But if they're still writing and you still have thoughts about the barriers the office faces in accessing clients, then keep talking and rack up that perfect score!

I

n-firm week is a bastard. There’s no way around it.

But you don’t have to face it alone. Because UV is here for you. Which is why we spent the past month badgering the upper-year brain trust until they threw garbage at us and told us to go away. And then we went home, took a shower, and created the ultimate, definitive, and exhaustingly exhaustive guide to in-firms. (We’re pretty sure this is the longest piece UV, or indeed any newspaper, has ever run.

In fact, we’re so confident that this guide will help you succeed that we’re going to make you a deal. By reading this article, you give Ultra Vires the right to 10% of your future earnings if you are hired on November 6, 2013.

Yes, that’s the deal. Take it or leave it.

Time to put on your favourite workout playlist, lace up your greaves (you do have greaves, don’t you?), and put on your lucky undies.

Let’s do this.

Step 1: Preparing for Battle Fortune favours the prepared.

You wouldn’t ride off to war without packing some sandwiches, and you shouldn’t underestimate the importance of preparation for the in-firm-athon. Not all of these are crucial, but you’re going to want to make things easy for yourself where you can, and that means planning and provisions. Be Sun Tzu today, so you can be, uh, a winner tomorrow. The Karate Kid. Rocky. Remember The Titans. Whoever.

Whomever? Whatever.

Visualize your entire day in as much detail as you can before it happens. Plan your route. Do you know how to get from one office to another in the PATH? Or, if you’re a certified PATH moron, like me, have you decided to stay above ground for safety? Do you understand how the elevator banks at FCP work, or have you left yourself ten minutes to figure it out? Have you worked out when you’re going to eat, recharge, and attend to other, er, creature comforts? (The two minute space in between interviews is not when you want to learn that you can’t pee when you’re nervous.)

Think about what you’re going to bring with you. Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. (Actually, don’t bring a knife or a gun. What the hell’s the matter with you?) Bring your cell phone, in case you need to look up addresses, take or review notes, send thank-you emails, or even meet up with other in-firm warriors to relax during breaks.

If you promise to email a lawyer this great article you saw in Wired magazine about how moronic the Empire’s military tactics were during the Battle of Hoth, do that shit right away, so you don’t forget. Bring cash. Bring extra pantyhose.

Possibly a pair of flats, Band-Aids for blisters, a hairbrush, a little makeup kit, a locket-sized picture of your kitten, whatever it takes. Anything you can’t buy in the underground. After that, there are two different philosophies. If you’re carrying a bag (ladies and fashion-forward dudes only; definitely don’t bring your shitty MEC backpack), you can bring everything you could possibly need, stuff that will seem like overkill until it isn’t— Advil, Clif bars, Purell, dental floss, Tide to Go,

whatever—or you can skip it and trust that you can pick up what you need when you need it. If carting that shit around is going to make you feel safe instead of nervous, go for it. YOLO. You’ve already sailed/scraped through OCIs, so you’ve thought about the firms you’re going to visit. You know how to research the people you’ll be meeting. You’ve asked a friend at the firm for the inside scoop on who loves cats, who’s allergic to melons, and who has got a surprising physical deformity you should probably try not to stare at. You’ve practiced forcing a look of thoughtful surprise onto your face as though you haven’t already heard this question 15 times this morning. You have some good questions, some good answers, you know your stuff, and you’re ready to kick ass. So what’s next?

Step 2: Game Day

THE STRANGEST QUESTION RECEIVED

BY PAST STUDENTS: “What is it about the legal field that you are drawn to, philosophically?”

“What are you least looking forward to in your legal career?”

“What was your favourite case in 1L?” “Explain a legal concept to me as if I was a 5-year old” “Are you a leader or a follower?"

"What kind of animal would you be?"

“Are you a good salesman?”

“Do you have a girlfriend?”

(NB the correct answer is not “it’s complicated”)

All right, champ. Here’s the deal. You can expect each in-firm to last somewhere between ninety minutes and two hours. Each one will usually involve four or five conversations with one or two lawyers each. These will be about 15 or 20 minutes long, just like your OCIs were. An articling student or junior associate will shuttle you from one conversation to the next, and they may sit with you. They’re meant to help out and make you feel comfortable, but don’t let your guard down too much. A bad blunder with the babysitter can sink you.

If you’ve booked your in-firms at two-hour intervals, it can be a tricky thing to get from one to the next in time if the first firm is taking longer than expected to free you. Actually, let me rephrase that. There is no way to leave an interview abruptly to get to the next one in time without losing the first one. I don’t care if you shit

gold bricks with the letters “MPG” stamped into them. It can’t be done.

What you may be able to get away with is to be very clear up front, as gently and politely and regretfully as possible—with your babysitter and with the last person you’re meeting—that unfortunately you have to leave at a certain time.

The tone you’re going for is, “I really hate to go, but I have to rescue my infant from a burning building.” Sometimes the people you’re meeting with will give a shit. Usually they won’t. If things are coming down to the wire, you may have to call an audible and jump in a cab--although, of course, that won’t always be faster than walking.

This is basically the worst thing about in-firms, and at the end of the day you’re just going to have to pray it all works out.

Of course, the opposite thing can happen as well: sometimes you’ll block two hours with Example LLP, expecting to need 90 minutes, and they’ll only take an hour. (Love those guys.) This is the in-firm equivalent of an extra life, or maybe a fire flower. Take the time to eat something, decompress, play some Angry Birds, call your (hopefully non-law--but that’s an article for another time) significant other, and listen to “Eye of the Tiger” 5 or 6 times. If possible, find a non-law person who loves you unconditionally and meet them for lunch. You don’t want to eat alone in a food court with 300 other stressed out law students.

You don’t want that at all.

You may also find there are some surprises that weren’t in the schedule—offers to lunches, dinners, and drinks that weren’t part of your Call Day conversation. Obviously this is a good sign; equally obviously, you won’t want to cancel anything else unless you’re sure you’re comfortable losing the firm you’re cancelling. Most of the time, the best answer will be “That sounds great, but unfortunately blah blah bloo blah, can we do it at time X instead?” As they say in Texas (or someplace), you gotta dance with the one what brung ya.

Step 3: Talking the Talk When you’re actually sitting down with a lawyer, let these two mantras guide you: first, Read the Room; and second, Be a Human Being.

Reading the room means remembering that, contrary to popular belief, lawyers have personalities and they’re not all identical. That means a big part of your job is to listen. By paying attention to what kinds of questions someone asks, when they look interested, and when they’ve been asleep for two minutes, you can get a sense of who you’re talking to and how you can impress them by showing them what they need to see.

Some interviewers are going to want to make sure you’re a stone-cold business genius, and others really just want to talk about your shared love for One Direction. (Someone is going to get hired in this cycle because of a conversation about whether Harry is hotter than Zayn. I guarantee it. In case it comes up, the answer is “OBVIOUSLY”.) Both are important, but it’s on you to figure out which one you’re dealing with. That doesn’t mean pretend to be someone you’re not, but luckily your feelings for 1D don’t mean you’re not a stone-cold business genius. It’s all about knowing what to bust out when. If you’re having trouble getting a read on somebody, you can

ultravires.ca try asking them a question that’s an invitation to spell out what it is they’re looking for—without being too obvious, of course. For example, “What makes somebody excel here?” Opinions are like assholes: people like to think you care about theirs.

Speaking of the uncomfortable silence I just made, reading the room also helps you improve for your next conversation. Don’t underestimate how schtick-y this process is. Pay attention to which of your jokes, lines and stories are working and which aren’t, so you can improve as the days progress. This will be especially important for the obviously interesting things about you that everyone wants to know about. (“So, how did you wind up working on a chinchilla farm in Guatemala?”) If your joke about how you decided to become a lawyer because everyone else in your family is a doctor doesn’t work twice in a row, drop it, because it’s not funny. Sorry.

The second part of your job—being a human being—sounds easy, but it’s not. Not being total assholes by nature, a lot of us aren’t all that comfortable talking about how terrific we are for ten hours in a row. Throw in about a pint of raw adrenaline, and this can make you quiet and forgettable (bad) or brash and manic (also bad).

The important thing to remember is that, by making it this far, you’ve already proved a lot of what you have to prove. You’ve got the grades; those are forgotten, don’t ever bring them up.

You’ve impressed at OCIs; these people already agree with your mom about how smart and interesting you are and they are actually pretty stoked to meet you. That doesn’t mean the job is yours to lose (although it might be), but it does mean you can trust the groundwork you’ve al-

QUESTIONS YOU CAN ASK:

• What do you like about working at Firm X? • What makes a great Firm X lawyer?

• How does Firm X support young lawyers in their development beyond the summer/articling program?

• What did you do yesterday/what are you working on this month?

• What role did students play on your last file? ready laid, relax, and be your charming self.

One good way to think about these interviews is as some kind of trial run for when the shit hits the fan. The lawyers you’ll meet are trying to decide, among other things, how they’ll feel about you at 11 PM when they’ve missed their kids’ birthday parties for the third year in a row trying to get everything together for a closing.

Ideally, you’re going to be making that terrible time more tolerable, and not less.

Step 4: Don’t Stop/Can’t Stop If your first rounds go according to plan, you’ll be invited back for more facetime as the week goes on. Don’t stop hustling, because this is primarily a chance for you to impress more people, and you need to do that. But it’s also a chance for the firm to take another shot at impressing you.

If there was someone you wanted to meet but didn’t get a chance on Monday, they might arrange it for Tuesday. It’s also another round of signalling, and if you’re lucky enough to have more repeat invites than you can schedule, realize that “It was great meeting you and you’re definitely my number one firm, but I don’t have time to come back tomorrow and spend any more time

SPECIAL FEATURE talking to you guys” is not gonna be super credible. In other words, don’t turn anything down flat (“Lunch doesn’t work for me but how about X” is an option) unless you’re sure you don’t want an offer. And if you are going to turn something down, be a mensch and do it as early as you can.

The opposite is also true. If you get invited back for a second day but they don’t arrange for you to meet anyone you asked to meet and you find yourself staring across a desk at a confused-looking articling student instead, that might be a sign it’s not going to work out and you should think about putting some of your eggs in some other baskets.

Step 5: Quizás, Quizás, Quizás OK, home stretch. If things have gone according to plan so far, you’ve got some decisions to make and some new information to make ‘em with. Your top choice may not be who you thought they’d be going in, and that’s a good thing. It’s because of learning.

Maybe you’ve found that elusive, lightningbolt quality they call “fit”. Maybe fate has led you to that special firm that gives you butterflies and makes you feel like you’re leaping in hi-def slow-mo from cloud to cloud amidst a sky of fireworks. Maybe you’re even ready to close the deal on a little horizontal merger action, if you know what I mean.

But hopefully not. Law firms aren’t supposed to generate those kinds of feelings in people.

That’s weird. Get a life.

Instead, look at the students the firm has previously hired. Think about the people you met, especially the younger ones, who will be giving you most of your work. Is this the kind of person you would want to be stuck with in that scene from The Princess Bride with the quicksand and the panicking? If so, that’s a good thing. Does every student you meet make you think LPPE is a hootin’ hollerin’ good time? That’s a bad thing. Consider not returning to that firm. Unless you liked LPPE. In which case, well, see “get a life”, supra.

Beyond “fit,” you might want to take a last look at hireback rates if you care about sticking around after articling. (And if you don’t, maybe you don’t like the firm so much after all?) Think back to any sticky points you were ignoring before, because it matters now that you have a real proposition in front of you. It’s one thing to lie about how much you’d love doing a lot of Zambian strip mining deals during OCIs, but make sure you don’t lie to yourself. It’s easy to get swept up in the hustle, but sometimes it’s better to walk away. Similarly, don’t let your ego make this decision for you. After the 16th straight hour of doing a thing, you won’t care whether the firm you’re doing it for is in Lexology’s top whatever. What the thing is and who’s doing it with you is going to seem a lot more important.

(That’s a lie. After 16 straight hours, nothing is gonna seem important. Nothing at all.)

Once you’ve found the half that makes your whole, do you need to explicitly tell them they’re the wind beneath your wings? It’s probably not a bad idea to be as clear as you can be. When that dreaded 5 PM rolls around on offer day, nobody wants to be wasting time offering a spot to someone who might not accept it. In most cases, the we-want-you-do-you-want-us-too will be hashed out in advance. There’s so little about this process you can control, but this is one you can. Imagine how good it’s going to feel to be able to say, “Is there anyone else I need to convince, or are you guys comfortable going ahead?” Having The Conversation can mean major relaxation for everybody.

But you don’t want to tell them you’d accept an offer before you’re at least pretty sure they’re ready to make one. Remember, this is The Bachelor, and coming on too strong is a one-way economy-class ticket into that that dreaded limo, no matter how great of a match you are. Never drop the line until they prompt you to tell them where they stand with you. Ever. Desperation isn’t cute, even on pandas.

Also, don’t lie. Don’t tell more than one firm you like them best. Lots of people have gotten offers without saying it, and even if the prospect of

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 11

The structure of in-firms based on students’ past experiences (no guarantees!)

Aird & Berlis

1 hour total

Students meet with articling students in one room.

Interviewer picks student up and brings to their office. That interviewer then takes student to next office for next interview. 3 interviews total. Interviews last approximately 15 minutes each. If called back, process similar except only with members of student committee.

Bennett Jones

1.5 hours total

Students stay in 1 room and lawyers rotate in. Tour of firm with articling student after interviews.

Blakes

Just under 2 hours

Young associate “host” that walks you between offices and sometimes sits in depending on what interviewee and interviewer prefer. Interviews typically 1 v. 1.

“Host” introduces interviewee to employers at reception. Dinner is 3 v. 1. Tuesday interview was shorter.

Tuesday reception. Wednesday coffee with a partner.

BLG

Approximately 1.75 hours

Articling student “host” who sat in on interviews on first day but not following days. 3 interviews (1 v. 1) with partners on each of the 3 days of in-firms.

Each interview is approximately 20 minutes long.

Cassels Brock

Just under 2 hours

Articling student “host” brings you to offices. Approximately 5 interviews of 2 v. 1 or 3 v. 1 (each 15-20 minutes long). Fairly informal. If invited back, Tuesday is similar.

Davies

Just under 2 hours

Articling student “host” walks students around to each office. Most interviews 2 v. 1. Tuesday lunch 3 v. 1. Wednesday breakfast.

Dentons

Just under 2 hours

Articling student “host” walks students around to offices. Mix of 2 v.1 and 1 v 1. interviews. “Hosts” didn’t sit in on interviews.

Faskens

Approximately 1.5 hours

Associate “host” sits in on most interviews. Most interviews are 1 v. 1 but sometimes 2 v. 1. Approximately 3-4 interviews that last 20-30 minutes the first day.

Goodmans

Just under 2 hours

Associate “host” takes student to interviews and sometimes sits in on them. Approximately 5 interviews on the Monday. Tuesday interview approximately 1 hour.

Gowlings

Approximately 1.5 hours

Associate “host” takes students between interviews and sometimes sits in on interviews. 1 v. 1 usually.

About 4-5 mini-interviews. In past, no dinners or lunches, only a Monday night reception.

Heenan Blaikie

Approximately 1.5 hours

Articling student “host” who takes interviewees to a 2 v. 1 interview that lasts about 1 hour. “Host” takes you to chat as interviewers deliberate. Tuesday and Wednesday involve 3 or 4 mini-interviews.

McCarthys

Approximately 1.5 to 2 hours

Associate or partner “host” sits in on most or all of interviews. Approximately 4 mini-interviews that are 1 v. 1 or 2 v. 1 and last about 20 minutes each. Interview style is more behavioural than other firms. May not be as picky about face-time as other large firms.

Miller Thomson

Approximately 1.5 hours

Starts with informal coffee/snacks with student coordinators and other interviewees. 3 interviews (2 v. 1 and 1 v. 1), approximately 20 minutes each.

Interviewers come to meeting room where student stays put. Firm tour followed. Tuesday reception.

Norton Rose

Approximately 1.5 hours

Interviewees sit in room with 2 people (including “host”) while lawyers rotate into room. Approximately 3-4 mini-interviews. Interview followed by brief firm tour.

Osler

Just under 2 hours

Associate “host” accompanies students between interviews. “Host” stayed for some interviews depending on what interviewer preferred. Dinner was mix of interviewees, associates, and partners. Wednesday was coffee out of office with an associate and a partner.

Stikeman Elliott

Just under 2 hours

Articling student “host” takes you between interviews but doesn’t sit in on interviews. There are 5 separate 1 v. 1 interviews.

Torys

1.5 hours total

Articling student “host” took interviewee between offices but didn’t sit in on the interviews. Typically 3 interviews that are 2 v. 1. Conversational and relaxed.

Dinner with 3 lawyers and 3 students. Second interview lasts approximately 1 hour (2 interviews of 2 v. 1).

pissing off somebody in this very small community doesn’t make you itch, it’s still a dick move.

Step 6: Offer Day Hopefully, that special firm will return your affection and call you at 5 pm. If you have other suitors (hello, popular!) who come knocking on your door, let them down quickly so that they can call in their B-Team. Try this: “Thanks, but I’ve

accepted another offer. It was great to meet you.”

Congratulations, you dog.

No calls? Don’t get down on yourself. The firms got it wrong. They were blind, like Ron to Hermione. You’re smart, you’re interesting, and you’re a stone-cold fox. Other great 2L jobs pop up like Jennifer Aniston in rom-coms. Like, non-stop. You’ll win ‘em over then. And someday this will all seem funny.

FEATURES

12 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

ultravires.ca

Where the 1Ls Are ANONYMOUS (3L)

I

t is said that a single pride of lions can require up to 100 miles of hunting space. In the past, the same was true of 1Ls, except the 100 miles of space was “most of Bora Laskin Law Library and the Rowell Room”, and the hunting was “highlighting entire Torts casebooks”.

However, recent development activities in the old 1L habitat including the clearing of the library for the creation of a bigger, more glossy study area and the demolition and degradation of the Moot Court Room in hopes of a new, sparkling (and heat controlled) legal sparring space have forced this year’s 1Ls to flee into the wilderness of Victoria College. Here they must pursue new territory where they can study, eat and nap uncomfortably in semi-public spaces without becoming prey to undergraduate students and laptop poachers. If they do not succeed, the species faces extinction.

However, there is now a crisis in the law school ecosystem. Although last year’s painstakingly accurate UV admissions statistics demonstrated with 86% confidence that the administration did in fact let some new students in, there seem to be no 1Ls to be found in the designated “law student conservation areas” set up by the school administration on Vic campus. The 1Ls simply must still in fact “go here”, but upper year students cannot find them.

So, where have they gone?

UV staff members took a dangerous and unbelievably high budget trip deep into the uncharted wilderness of Victoria College to track the remaining population of 1LS, assess their endangerment status and find out, uh, where they go to study and stuff.

Here are the findings.

1. Upstairs at Goldring Student Centre

3. Birge Carnegie

Across the narrow, treacherous and BMW filled St. Charles Street pass lies a sparkling glass structure with a coffee watering hole at the bottom that even the upper year herd will periodically exit their lairs to access. However, most of the secrets this magical space holds are shrouded in mystery, as the upper floors of “The Goldring” are seldom accessed by anyone save undergraduate chamber musicians and, as it turns out, these 1Ls. 1Ls cluster together in this fashion both to conserve heat as energy and to appear larger, which deters undergraduate attacks.

I showed these images to an upper year student who immediately expressed both shock and admiration for the 1L species’ creativity and resilience during these times of adversity.

“Where the f*ck is that? That’s not even law school”, he noted.

While sparse in the way of sustenance and too small to house the entire species population, some 1L students can be spotted making camp in the Birge Carnegie Conservation area.

Ultra Vires Editor in Chief Emily Debono was fortunate enough to spot this herd of 1Ls in the reading room. She primarily identified these students as 1Ls due to their open textbooks, apparently intact social skills and Denning jokes.

1L student Claudia Dzierbicki hydrates in preparation for the long migration to Goldring Student Centre.

The insidious erosion of the 1Ls’ exclusive hunting grounds for the development of “shared study and relaxation spaces” has made some 1Ls into aggressive protectors of their couch territory.

Proceed with caution.

2. Pratt

4. The Gym

Previously a refuge for only those law students who “used to go to McGill” and were “tired of the Bora scene”, Pratt library has now become a central meeting ground for a wide variety of focused, reading 1Ls. An ideal 1L spotting ground is the basement, as this space offers the easy access to espresso machines, inexpensive jujubes and rare glimpses of natural light so integral to 1L survival through the long winter months.

While subtly observing this 1L’s reading habits was necessary for research and species preservation purposes, it is unsafe to interrupt a focused 1L in the wild in this way, and this should not be tried at home.

Some 1L students, unable to secure any of the aforementioned couch space, have adapted by resorting to new survival strategies previously unseen in the 1L species, such as regular physical activity.

5. Home In rare cases, the absence of a 1L home territory has seemed to expedite the evolutionary development of the species, resulting in the tragic loss of their capacity to dress themselves while “studying at home” far sooner than is the case in nature, where only 3Ls typically forego pants.

1 3i

2

4

5

ultravires.ca

FEATURES/OPINIONS

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 13

Lost & Found: Mental Health Awareness ANONYMOUS (2L)

W

hen I sat down to write about mental health awareness one story came to mind. It was the day before oncampus-interviews (OCI), which is an extremely stressful time for us 2Ls. I met a friend to do a mock interview, and when I reached for my phone to set the timer for 17 minutes, I realized it was gone. I re-traced my steps in the Goldring building. I checked the couches upstairs, the washroom, and the water fountain, but it was gone.

I went to the student council lounge on the second floor to ask for help. I was met by an undergraduate representative. It was his first hour on the job and his first year at U of T. He helped calm me down. He logged me into “Find My iPhone” and we watched the little blue dot bounce across campus. Together, with a laptop in hand, we chased the blue dot. Luckily, there was no thief, but it was the custodian from Goldring simply doing his job returning the phone to lost and found.

I realized a few things from this experience that tie into mental health awareness. As law students, we experience a great deal of stress, from exams to finding a job. When you are in a stressful time like OCIs, it is important to take your time, look around, and take a deep breath.

It is so easy to do careless things (like losing your phone), and jump to conclusions (like assuming that the person who took your phone was a thief) when you are under stress.

More than that, you need to rely on other people. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that we are all here to help one another. I was touched to meet the student, a total stranger, who was willing to drop everything to help me. I think that being in a community where people feel like they can rely on one another can do positive things for mental health. The more that we can trust each other and be there for one another in times where we feel powerless or stressed, the stronger our law school community can be.

The Health and Wellness Committee Most of us will experience some form of stress during our time at law school. Law school can be a competitive and demanding environment, and many of the stressors that we deal with at law school map onto the legal profession more generally.

How should the law school address health and wellness? Any steps to raise awareness of mental health issues or address them should be informed by students themselves. The administration has adopted this notion as fundamental to its health and wellness policy. At the beginning of 2012, the Faculty launched the Health and Wellness Student Advisory Committee (HWSAC).

The Committee, which is in its second year of operation, provides a regular forum to ensure communication between students and the administration. The goals are two-fold: (1) to acknowledge health and wellness problems, and (2) to respond to them. The Committee is open

to all law students, and meetings are held about once a month.

The Committee represents an opportunity for students to be actively involved in shaping the institution of law school to better address mental health issues. So far, HWSAC has launched several initiatives, such as yoga, Smoothie Days and massages. Last year, the Committee also launched a health and wellness blog, www.meetingoftheminds.com.

Many of these initiatives, however, focus on promoting health and wellness during peakstress periods, like exams. One could argue that broader, more systemic change is needed at law schools and in the legal profession. Nonetheless, HWSAC, in being open to discussion and adopting a creative approach to promoting health and wellness, is an important initial step because it is based on student input.

If you are interested in learning more about the committee, contact Assistant Dean Alexis Archibold at alexis.archibold@utoronto.ca.

Is Debt Burden Influencing Career Choice?

We’d like to know, but the Faculty won’t tell us SARAH RANKIN (3L)

T

here were a number of frustrating moments at the October 16 Tuition Town Hall. Among the most frustrating was the re-presentation of the data on career choice circulated earlier this year by the Faculty and presented in the listening lunches.

A graph was offered and interpreted to demonstrate that there have been no significant changes in career choices made by graduates ten years ago and now. In the “Listening Lunches” held in the spring, compelling criticisms of this data (and the rest, including the diversity statistics) were provided. Still, it made it into Wednesday’s powerpoint unchanged.

Critiques of the data are hampered by the fact that students do not have access to the source material, methodology, or data over time. Wednesday’s graph presented data as covering the period between 2002 and 2012, suggesting multiple surveys in that period. Information provided in the spring suggested there were two sample years—2002 and 2012.

The information provided in the spring (which is pretty much all we have to go on) raised a number of red flags with regards to its reliability and legitimacy. It certainly isn’t sufficient to address the correlation between postgraduation career choice and debt burden. For starters, the graph we saw Wednesday is based on data collected one year out of school. That is, it more or less covers the articling year. It is unsurprising that there has not been a significant change in articling decisions: the hiring patterns of major Bay Street and small firms have not changed. Articling decisions are controlled first and foremost by articling position availability and the sheer need to get an articling position to get called. Those of us going through the process are intimately familiar with fellow

students saying, repeatedly, that they are content to treat this year as a loss in order to become certified. In terms of career choice based on debt pressure, it is akin to surveying whether the decision to go into third year is affected by debt pressure. It is an essentially meaningless measure.

We were told on Wednesday that the Alumni office does their best to update career choice/ alumni position data around the time of the reunion. Somewhere, this updated data exists. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been presented to students, though it would be the best, meaningful indicator of career choices. It could track changes among those facing debt pressures once they are actually in a position to make choices about their career. This data is problematic as well, however, as it seems to track the alumni the school can find online and those who self-select to provide their information. It seems likely that, over time, the most visible individuals, and those most likely to self-select into the sample, are those at larger institutions.

In other words, it seems to me almost impossible that this data has not, always, over-represented those in large firms significantly. Those of us who searched for small firms for summer positions will be familiar with the number of firms without websites, without Linked-In information, who are not registered with the firm-site-trackers to which we are directed to do our research, etc.

My suggestion is that the small firm numbers have likely always been wrong and whatever is happening to the number of students entering those areas of the profession (whether it is going up, down, or holding steady) is likely not to have been tracked. This is not because the Alumni office is not working hard to find the information: it is because the Faculty’s measure of this information is a thoroughly inadequate one.

Add to this that tuition increases have been rapid. Data from the last several years is, likely, only starting to be collected—these are the students who have seen the staggering prices and these are the years which are likely to demonstrate the changes. Even if we had a decent measure of the changes, it would be a surprise if we were able to say anything concrete about the last five years.

My entire articling position search included small to slightly less-small criminal defence firms.

I sat through roughly a dozen interviews and in almost every single one the firm asked if I was able to do this work, given my debt. Not if I was interested.

If I was able. Small to medium firms that do predominantly non-institutional client-facing work are seeing what we students are describing: people in their early careers leaving the fields they are interested in because they are not able to service their debt there. I am not the only student who received this question from employers.1 Many of us have sat through presentations and guest lectures from professionals in these positions who speak openly about their suspicion and distrust of University of Toronto Faculty of Law graduates because of their debt. There are places that have been explicit about not hiring us, because of their experiences with interested professionals whose financial realities have controlled whether they could stay at that place of employment.

The Dean suggested on Wednesday that another indicator that finances are not tied to career choice is the sustained high application rates to public interest jobs. This is ludicrous. Those who have been through the OCI process are familiar with reassuring CDO emails reminding us that approximately 83 gajillion applications were received for these jobs (rough number). We are in an articling crisis in the midst of an oversaturated legal job market. Everyone is applying for

everything. It is indicative of exactly nothing, except perhaps the level of fear we have about the future.

The point is this: the question of the relationship between debt and career choice is not settled. The Faculty has not provided source data, or engaged in a good faith discussion of why they feel this question is settled. Those of us on the ground, meeting employers, talking to new calls through the Alumni mentorship programs, etc. have an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence that what the Faculty is telling us is not true. I am skeptical, but open to the idea that these anecdotes are not reflective of reality. To be convinced, however, I would require real evidence. It is frustrating and insulting that the Faculty has not given the most straightforward answer to the question of whether debt burden is influencing career choice: We don’t know, but we don’t think so. The student answer is that we don’t know either, but we certainly think so. What we have received, instead, from the Faculty is: we can say with certainty you are wrong about your experiences. It is a patronizing and offensive claim, when not backed by convincing figures.

My answer, incidentally, was “barely”. I had crunched the numbers before I went into the process because I had the same questions. Even with back-end debt relief, to do the work I love will be extraordinarily financially precarious.

Without exaggeration, in a couple more years I truly believe it will be financially impossible to make payments above monthly interest on our average debt load on the salaries in these positions. God forbid someone going into one of these fields is considering the prospect of maternity leave, or becomes ill, or in some other way faces a reduced income.

1

OPINIONS

14 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

ultravires.ca

Contempt of Course Return to Reading Law DAVID GRUBER (2L)

“L

aw school is where you learn the theory of law; articling is where you learn the practice of law.” Or so explained a thoughtful professor once. First you're given the concepts, then you're taught to apply them. Seems like a good plan, at least in theory.

Those of you who recently suffered through the OCI experience will have learned this lesson another way. Around this time of year it becomes apparent that law school is no more than an antechamber to the law firms and government offices where you'll soon audition for your dream any old job. Yes, an impeccably staffed, fantastically overpriced, shabbily furnished waiting room. And one where the coffee is emphatically not gratis.

In the bad old days of the Cold War, liberals and moderates would sometimes reason that although Communism may have been a good idea in theory, it doesn't work in practice. This formulation sounds clever for about two seconds, until one realizes that a theory is only worthwhile if it works in practice: If it doesn't work in practice, then it wasn't a good theory.

Law school is based on a theory of profession-

alization, which holds that the more elevated disciplines should be separated into their conceptual and practical components. The conceptual part, like all sophisticated pursuits, belongs in the university. This trend has helped to destroy a few noble callings (such as journalism) while swallowing up plenty of ignoble ones too (like marketing).

It's also the source of the abuse we're all currently enduring. And while it may sound compelling in theory, in practice it's unnecessary.

Modern legal training was only assimilated into the university relatively recently. The barristers and solicitors of yesteryear learned the theory of law by a process known as “reading law,” which consists of—you guessed it—reading up on the law. This was supplemented with an apprenticeship with a practicing lawyer. And voila.

Many great lawyers came up this way, Clarence Darrow and Abraham Lincoln among them.

In fact Lincoln was a strong advocate of independent study, as he explained in a letter to a young man asking the future president to be his teacher: “If you wish to be a lawyer, attach no consequence to the place you are in, or the person you are with; but get books, sit down anywhere, and

go to reading for yourself. That will make a lawyer of you quicker than any other way.”

Lincoln counselled numerous prospective lawyers to learn the theory of law for themselves rather than seek out an instructor. Among other reasons, the Great Emancipator advised that reading law was the quickest and cheapest method of study (tuition petitioners take note).

The tradition of independent study is so entrenched that a number of American states still permit people to join the bar without ever having taken law at university. New York requires but a year of law school before you can write the bar exam.

The idea that people should have to pay for their own job training is a new one, and a bad one. It forces students to place bets on their own futures, and bear the risks. This may not have been an onerous requirement in the days when a year of tuition cost roughly 300 times the minimum wage (as it still does in Quebec). But at this school the number has swelled to 3,000 times.

Expecting lawyers to have at least a taste of higher education is reasonable. So in England, where law is an undergraduate degree, law school

makes some sense. But here most law students will spend the better part of a decade amassing diplomas before they're allowed to apprentice.

Let's be honest. Most of what we learn at law school is self-taught anyways. Professors expect a pound of independent reading for every penny of lecture. And the luckiest students jump right into firm jobs and clinic shifts before getting any kind of substantial legal education.

Meanwhile the law is becoming ever more diffuse, complex, and specialized, making our broad, dated, theoretical training ever more useless. So why not adjust the ratio of theoretical study to practical training proportionally?

Three years of law school to one year of articling must have once sounded like a good idea in theory. In practice, it's three years of treading water. Universities are now trimming services while jacking up prices to indefensible heights.

What better time to begin thinking creatively about ways we can do without them?

Drop the Charade and Make Law an Undergrad ROBIN MCNAMARA (3L) UV PARIS BUREAU

A

midst the ongoing discussion about our ballooning annual law school tuition, we overlook another cost incurred by every lawyer in Canada outside Quebec: we all have undergraduate degrees (with the possible exception of those admitted after third year of undergrad). This massively increases the cost of legal education, wastes our time, and does little to ensure better legal practice.

Legal education in Canada and the US is unlike the rest of the Western world in this respect.

In all European countries as well as Australia, law is offered as an undergraduate degree. Maybe it takes longer than a normal bachelor’s—in France, for example, a law degree takes five years —but most people still start and finish their legal studies at a much younger age.

A requirement that lawyers attend more years of education is an entry barrier set up to make it difficult to practice law in Canada, just like the certification requirements for foreign practitioners and the limited number of spots available at Canadian law schools.

Some entry barriers are useful to ensure a consistent high quality of legal service. Given the importance of the right to counsel as the facilitator and guarantor of many other constitutional rights, it is vitally important that all lawyers are competent. A constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel would not mean much if anyone could qualify as ‘counsel’. In fact, because most legal communication is privileged, our justice system usually assumes that all lawyers are competent; if you had the opportunity to talk to a lawyer for

long enough, your right to counsel has probably been respected.

But entry barriers cause a lot of harm. They increase the cost of legal advice and limit its accessibility. Fewer people are able to practice law, which means that those who do practice are able to charge high rates for their services.

In this particular case, the high cost and duration of legal education in Canada probably distorts career choices too: money and security are much more important for people who are older and have a lot of student debt. Just like higher tuition, an undergraduate prerequisite might compel some students to choose more lucrative areas of law rather than more socially important ones.

Entry barriers should only be imposed when they actually improve the consistency or quality of legal advice. And the undergraduate prerequisite in Canada does not do that.

Top high school students can build the skills necessary to perform solid legal analysis in four years of study. The reading and writing skills of good first year undergraduate students are easily sufficient to digest the material in our IL classes. And much of actual legal practice, especially in the early years of a career, involves very, very basic tasks. Think highlighting a book of authorities. Heck, a high school student could do that without any university education at all.

The complicated parts, like how to negotiate a transaction, draft a factum or conduct a crossexamination, are built through work experience.

Law firms assume you cannot do any of that stuff,

even after seven years of university training.

Maturity is certainly important in legal counsel but prolonging the required period of schooling is not the way to attain it. Maturity—at least in the strict sense of being able to respect and understand a client’s interests, show up on time and be thorough in your work—is also gained through work experience rather than school. Law school graduates under the current system are certainly older than they would be if law were an undergrad but I am not sure how much more ‘mature’ we really are (with the exception of those who worked before coming back to school).

The value of having lawyers come from a diversity of different academic backgrounds is massively overstated. Many lawyers practice in areas that have nothing to do with their undergrad. A lot of the time, the entire point of going to law school was to get away from an academic discipline they did not like. For the small number of situations in which there is overlap between undergraduate material and law—like psychology for criminal law or economics for competition law—students could still take the complementary non-law courses. That’s the thing about an undergraduate degree: you can take ‘optional’ courses that are in fields other than your major. This would also benefit those students who are interested in law school but want to find out what it is all about before jumping into a full course-load.

If the concern is about having competent lawyers, then there are better ways to ensure this is the case.

One way is to have an actually difficult bar exam that actually tests your ability to understand the law. With a pass rate of ninety percent, the bar exam in its current form is a relic. If passing the current bar exam is sufficient to demonstrate competence as a lawyer, then why do I have to go through seven years of school before I can write it? What is so wrong with Mike Ross from Suits practicing without a degree? He seems to be doing a pretty good job.

Another way is to continue to have the Ontario Bar Society investigate instances of professional negligence or incompetence. I have no idea how aggressively this happens right now.

Although it is obviously preferable to take a preventative approach to incompetence than a reactive one, removing those who undermine the integrity of the justice system will ensure that those who remain are capable of upholding it.

Legal education in its current form needs to change. I do not think many would argue about that. It takes too long, costs too much, and does not do a good job at training the types of lawyers Canada needs right now. My educational experience at U of T has been incredibly rewarding, and it gave me skills and friendships that I will continue to cherish for the rest of my life. I just think it is a shame I had to wait until I was 22 to get here.

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 15

Faculty's Financial Aid Can't Justify High Tuition MARCUS MCCANN (3L), PADRAIGIN MURPHY (1L) & KRISTA NERLAND (3L)

J

udging by Dean Mayo Moran's comments at the October 16 town hall, the Faculty's financial aid system is the lynchpin in the administration's defence of high tuition.

And, in some ways, that makes sense. After all, there's an admirable egalitarian philosophy behind high tuition coupled with generous need-based financial aid.

But, at the risk of stating the obvious, the gap between tuition and the financial aid pot is growing. Consider, for instance, that students from the lowest income brackets used to get a full ride—financial aid covered their tuition entirely. Now, nobody does, and few students get more than half. The financial aid program is underfunded, and the problem is getting worse.

It's an American model. And, in the US, it works well (at least comparatively), largely because of their billion dollar endowments. We don't have that, so financial aid is paid out of tuition and operations money. And that means we're effectively just shuffling money between students.

For 3L students, financial aid has fallen noticeably—dramatically—even over the course of our time at the Faculty. As Katherine Georgious rightly pointed out at the town hall, for students like her (and many of us), the proportion of unmet need covered by financial aid shrunk from more

than half in 1L to roughly 30 percent this year.

As a result, the total financial aid package a student will receive over the course of their degree is a mystery to each incoming student. It makes planning unwieldy, even impossible, which is in turn a source of anxiety. Or it would be, if incoming students were advised that their bursaries are likely to decline in 2L and 3L. What they do with unmet need not covered by bursaries is also disingenuous. Financial aid gives students “interest free student loans”—which of course aren't loans at all. The interest free loan amount is a calculation of interest on commercial debt. In other words, the faculty provides a few hundred dollars and claims that it's $10,000 or more. But since the money's coming from the same pool—the financial aid pot—it's really just a few hundred extra dollars, however welcome, of financial aid. As students we might characterise this as a “don't spit on me and tell me that it's raining” scenario.

All of these figures are based on the shadowy calculation of unmet need. Students submit inputs —our rental agreements and parental income, our travel expenses and computer claims—and financial aid generates a dollar number: how much money the student is short for covering expenses. But because this figure doesn't line up

with our actual experiences, it can cause cynicism.

For example, interest on student debt from private loans from previous degrees is not accounted for. Mature students have also been voicing concerns about the base budget. It assumes that we are all at the same stage of life, which of course we're not.

These distortions have have knock-on effects, most obviously on post-graduation debt relief.

That program only covers debts incurred from unmet need on the basis that the program is only intended to cover reasonable expenses. It's rational, but only if unmet need is rational.

Not that the post-grad program is working.

The uptake remains very small, and the program horizon, 10 years, is too long to give students considering public service jobs any certainty during the crucial early years. And there will always be the risk that you exit the program early. For instance, if you exit the program after two years, you will have to repay 80 percent of the forgiven loan.

And this doesn't even begin to account for students who miss the cut off for eligibility, or international students who are excluded entirely.

Of course, the rise in tuition is happening in a world where low and middle income Canadians can't afford a lawyer, and where few lawyers

International Presence. Local Essence.

are providing affordable legal services. In other words, the stakes aren't just personal; they're affecting access to justice more broadly.

Our point is not that financial aid needs to be reformed. That's obvious. But the financial aid review currently underway can't possibly hope to address the problem. The very fact that this review is of financial aid, rather than tuition and financial aid, means that the review simply doesn't have the scope necessary to achieve meaningful change.

Rather, our point is this: the faculty cannot justify high tuition on the basis of financial aid now, if it ever could. Our financial aid simply system does not play the role the faculty says it does.

At their current dollar figures, tuition and financial aid do not add up. Either the financial aid pot must be bigger, or tuition must be smaller. And in the meantime, the administration can't in good conscience use the financial aid system to defend high tuition. And it certainly shouldn't trot out financial aid to persuade prospective students to come to U of T—at least not without realistically representing these significant shortcomings.

Aside from being part of a truly international legal firm, you’ll benefit from practical, hands-on experience and exposure to various areas of practice.

Law around the world

thenortonrosefulbrightdifference.com

16 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

Section 1: Why Can’t We Be Friends?

ALEX CARMONA (1L)

F

or those of you who are willing to cast off the shackles of case reading, map-making and OCI prep for at least one night a week, you’ll remember that we all had a lovely pub night at Pilot a few weeks back. What I remember most from that night, aside from the $9 beers and my empty wallet the next morning (thanks, Yorkville!), was that I met a great group of 1Ls I’d never had the pleasure of hanging out with before. We spent a large part of the night drinking, carousing and generally having a good time. And a scant three weeks later, not only could I not tell you a single one of their names, but I have yet to even see any of them again. Turns out they were in section 1… the OTHER section.

Now, I’m well aware that it’s only the end of October and that the sections will dissolve after 1L. I’m hopeful that the mixed

classes of 2 and 3L will open up vast new social horizons. But until then, it just seems strange to me that there is an entire other half of the 1L class that I simply won’t have the opportunity to really get to know this year. This is of course save for a few exceptions—I managed to scoop up at least a couple of token Section 1 friends (thanks, small group!).

Arguably, the Transition Space is partially to blame for this.

The Law Student Lounge in Birge Carnegie is a valiant effort, but it’s clear that it has, so far at least, failed to act as a powerful social hub, at least for 1Ls. Just check out the this month’s cover story for proof of that unfortunate fact. But I find it hard to believe that were we all still cooped up together in the old Flavelle dungeon, the added ability to cursorily wave and/or nod at section 1-ers as they walk to different classes than me would have

resulted in a much stronger bond between the two sections.

It’s also a little disconcerting knowing that so many social circles in 1L are largely determined by this seemingly random 50/50 split. Would my tenure at U of T have been completely different had I ended up in Section 1? It would have meant, at least for this year, different friends, different relationships, different parties, different study groups, different everything. But there’s no point dwelling on that. It would seem to me the takeaway from this is that if us first years are going to be a true 1L class—instead of two ½L classes—we’re going to need to be more active in seeking out our peers from other sections.

Or at least set up a second weekly pub night.

Point|Counterpoint

Should Queen’s expand their class size?

MARITA ZOURAVLIOFF (2L)

LOUIS TSILIVIS (3L)

POINT

COUNTERPOINT

Queen’s Law: Abandon Your still up 2 and a half million bucks.

Wayward Plans! Queen’s is This is all on top of the fact that Queen's stutired of playing second fiddle to the big bad To- dents that were recently polled about this masronto schools. The self-appointed ranking gods ter plan indicated that they would prefer a gradare really starting to get to them and the famed ual increase in tuition rather than increase class Queen’s pride just won’t stand for it anymore. So sizes and stretch already strained resources. they’re thinking of going forward with a radical Speaking of Ottawa, let’s give credit where plan. Instead of raising tuition like those Toronto credit is due. Queen’s didn’t think of this idea. jerks, they’re going to take the last 35 people who Ottawa U more than doubled its class size from got cut from the admissions list, and let them in. ’97 to 2012. How did that work out for them?

This will make the school better. The end.

Well, I’m not positive, but I don’t think you see So the idea is let more people in = more money Ottawa stealing too many U of T professors. = keep stride with or, better yet, surpass what ToOn another level, it’s not really about the monronto has to offer. ey. Well, not just about the money. If Queen’s This is a bad idea. Firstly, it will be a blow to insists on keeping up with the salaries that U of a profession that is already overcrowded and add T is doling out, the question is still going to be to the glut of new law grads; that much is well do you want to make $200,000 in Toronto, or established. We have an articling crisis on our $200,000 in Kingston? I mean, Kingston’s a hands, folks. But moreover, this plan won’t serve lovely place. Not only is the cost of living cheaper, Queen’s as they hope. but the waterfront is beautiful. Fort Henry makes The most oft-cited justification behind this for a nice day trip. Hell, with that kind of salary new scheme is that this will provide Queen’s with you could probably put a down payment on Fort more money to attract the big names in the biz. Henry. But comparing it to Toronto is like apples Not only attract them but assure they stay put. to oranges. Toronto is internationally renowned We U of Ters throw our money around and get as one of the best cities to live in…Kingston is all the A-listers. It’s just not fair! Bill Flanagan, the #2 retirement capital of Canada.

Dean of Queen’s Faculty of Law, put it best: “It’s And if Queen’s is worried about the quality of outrageous that the province continues to abso- their facilities, they shouldn’t be. We all chose U lutely refuse to deal with this highly inequitable of T and look at the dump Flavelle was. Granted, situation that ultimately, over time, means that we’re going to have a swanky new building soon there’s going to be one calibre of education avail- enough, but clearly it isn’t a deciding factor for poable in Toronto and another for the rest of the tential students or ranking systems for that matter. province,” he said. “That’s just not right.” Waa. The copycat effect that this might have is also But Bill: no matter how hefty a salary you of- cause for concern—if Queen’s follows Ottawa, fer, we will always be able to offer more. Just do then who’s next to expand their enrollment? the math.

When criticized, Queen’s pointed to the record In five years, if the faculty wins (and odds are number of foreign-trained law grads being acslightly in their favour ) tuition at U of T will be credited as the real problem for the articling cri$40,289. Optimistically, the student body will sis. It would follow that each law school outside stay under 200 students. In that year alone, the the city of Toronto could up their enrollment and school will pull in $8,017,511 in tuition fees. then, once articling Armageddon ensues, each Queen’s has 165 students now and they are Dean could point to the influx of international stufloating the idea of adding 35 students a year for dents to exculpate themselves. You would hope 5 years. This would mean they will have 340 stu- that someone in our profession would know that dents at the end of the expansion, which is almost two wrongs don’t make a right. on par with the amount of scholars the University of Ottawa is pumping out nowadays. However, if they are to keep their tuition rates “low”, this will generate revenue of $5,440,000 for them that year. If my math is correct, looks like we’re

Mo’ Queen’s Grads are not necessarily Mo’ Problems The Queen’s Faculty of Law’s Strategic Planning Committee has suggested raising the incoming 1L class at Queen’s from approximately 165 to either 200 or 215. The backlash to this proposal has been entirely predictable and predictably hyperbolic. Opposition ranges from a report by the LSS (the Queen’s equivalent of Toronto’s SLS) that is rooted in “student opinion”—a mere 37 students who gave their opinion via email and social media—to a Point-Counterpoint point by the normally sensible Marita Zouravlioff, who really misses the boat on this one.

Will this have a negative effect on graduates’ job prospects?

The answer is actually more nuanced than the detractors claim. For graduates of Queen’s Law, it is probably the case that their job prospects will be entirely unaffected—or possibly even improve. Of all of the law schools, Queen’s has the highest rate of graduates who take articling positions. The Faculty’s position in the Maclean’s rankings of law schools is an impressive third—beat only by York University’s Osgoode in second and perennial gold medallist Toronto. Queen’s also takes the third spot (in a near tie with Western) in terms of the percentage of its class that find jobs through the 2L OCI recruitment process. It is likely that another 35 or 50 graduates will have not really affect the hiring prospects of Queen’s graduates.

On the contrary, there are reasons to believe that the increase may even improve job prospects for law graduates from Queen’s. Consider that a larger class can produce a larger alumni base, which may preference fellow alumni in hiring. A larger graduate footprint can also mean that Queen’s will be better known outside of the markets that it traditionally does very well in (i.e. Toronto and Ottawa) and that the school may now have the larger graduate base and faculty size to perform better in the New York market. The logic that an expanded alumni footprint can actually improve all graduate job prospects is what lead the Queen’s School of Business— across the street from the Faculty of Law and ranked first in Canada for six consecutive years

by Bloomberg Businessweek—to increase its own class sizes.

A larger class size can also help Queen’s attract more high-profile professors or help retain professors who are being lured in by cash-rich Osgoode and Toronto, which in can maintain or even boost the school’s reputation and rankings spot. Osgoode and Toronto have the highest tuition rates in Canada, and are protected from other schools’ efforts to close this tuition gap thanks to tuition increase caps based on current tuition levels and those schools willingness to raise tuition by the full amount permitted. As a university, Queen’s also has the smallest full-time undergraduate population ( just under 15,000) and is in the smallest town ( just over 120,000 people) of any law school in Maclean’s top 12; this makes it particularly difficult to attract internationally-acclaimed legal scholars who are drawn to larger cosmopolitan centres and universities that can offer them spousal hires.

This move will, however, hurt the job prospects of students from schools that do worse in terms of articling rates or those who have done their legal degrees overseas. However, the effects of an extra 35 to 50 graduates a year on the entire legal market in minimal. The real offenders of the oversupply of legal graduates: the University of Ottawa, which increased its annual class size by more than the size of the current Queen’s 1L class; Windsor, which increased its class size by 63; Lakehead, which is starting a new school with a planned 1L class of 60; and the NCA program, which increased the number of certificates given to foreign-trained lawyers from 260 in 2009 to a whopping 730 today. To say that Queen’s—which has the highest articling rates— should not increase its enrolment because of oversupply caused by other schools and the NCA expansion is to actually ignore that the failure of other institutions in producing graduates who cannot find articling positions.

When we focus on Queen’s making marginal increases to its 1L class and act like that is the source of the articling crisis, we actually miss focusing out on the real problem: schools with lower articling rates that boost their class numbers without a clear plan and the rapid expansion of the NCA program.

OPINIONS

ultravires.ca

Diversity Stat Too Simple to be Useful Is the Faculty misleading applicants about the makeup of our class?

MARCUS MCCANN (3L) & SOFIA IJAZ (3L)

A

new promotional pamphlet produced by the Faculty of Law boasts that onethird of the incoming class are “students of colour.” At the Dean's Town Hall on financial aid and accessibility on October 16th, Dean Moran presented students a slide showing the upward trend in the number of visible minorities at the law school, hovering at about 33% for the past few years. These statistics are used by the Faculty to show that we as a class are both diverse and accessible.

Many students expressed skepticism at the statistics presented, and what it purports to tell us about diversity at our law school. They were right to do so. Here we raise two main concerns of the data presented.

Firstly, the “33%” statistic collapses all racial and ethnic identities into one category: “students of colour.” It obscures a fact that is painfully clear to anyone who has sat in a class at the law school: there is a significant underrepresentation of students from certain racial or ethnic groups, such as blacks, Hispanics, Arabs and Persians (to name a few). A breakdown of the Faculty's statistic would show that, rather than a diverse class (in a more sophisticated and deep understanding of what it means to be “diverse”), our

class continues to be racially imbalanced, with students of East Asian (followed by South Asian) descent accounting for the majority of minorities present at the school. Other equity seeking groups remain vastly underrepresented.

This critique does not take away from the fact that the Faculty’s minority numbers have gone up over the decade. Indeed, the fact that there are more minorities than there used to be is a good thing. However, we challenge the lumpsum statistic because fails to tell us about our diversity (and accessibility) “as it does not indicate which group are represented at the law school, and by correlation, which groups are not.

The 33% statistic is also misleading from the perspective of the experiences of students from underrepresented groups. In using the 1-in-3 stat as a recruitment tool (as it clearly does in its promotional pamphlet), the Faculty implies that there are going to be students at school who look like you and who share your background.

Unfortunately, for students from some backgrounds, that is simply not the case.

Furthermore, the methodology behind the statistic raises concerns. The responses are selfreported—but the question asked to students is not framed in terms of identifying as a person of

“colour” but rather, as identifying as part of certain ethnic minorities. This shift in terminology between the question and the answer is problematic—not only from a linguistic perspective, but in terms of the numeric validity of the statistic itself. Had the Faculty asked students to self-identify as persons of colour, their answer may have been different.

Secondly, the statistic is deficient because it fails to track the intersectionality of race/ethnic identity and class/socioeconomic status. This concern is not new, and was raised by students following the “listening sessions” last March, and expressed in a UV article by a group of minority students last spring. We repeat the concern here: by failing to explore the way in which race and class interact, we fail to take the concept of accessibility seriously. That is, by tracking the number of minorities and median household income in isolation, the Faculty has failed to address—or understand at all—the meaning of accessibility through its present data. If we admit students of diverse backgrounds, but only those from affluent homes, what does that say about our actual accessibility? Indeed, if lowincome minorities are not being admitted to the Faculty of Law, then what does the 1-in-3 stat

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 17 really mean in terms of accessibility?

The fact that the request for this intersectional data analysis has already been made to the Faculty nearly 7 months ago—during private listening lunches and public articles –makes the continued use of the reductionist 33% statistic ever more frustrating.

Given these two critiques, we request that the Faculty take the following actions: 1. Disaggregate the 33% statistic: the Faculty should discontinue its use of this statistic in its promotional and recruitment tools until it puts out new data which breaks down minorities by sub-groups. This new data will present a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the racial balance (or imbalance) and diversity of our class.

2. Conduct an intersectional analysis of race/ ethnic identity and class/socioeconomic status: Given that the Faculty collects information on race/ethic identity (through OLSAS and the LSAT data), as well as household income (through Financial Aid applications), it should be able to conduct an intersectional analysis without difficulty. This will give insight into our accessibility to certain groups relative to others.

There is no doubt that there are large, deep, systemic issues facing certain minority groups and their representation within the legal profession.

U of T Law is no exception. By presenting our racial composition in simplistic one-stat-sum-itall numbers, we are obscuring the hard reality of our very real racial imbalance. Moreover, the risk we run with such numbers is that there will be a feeling that “we are doing okay—not perfect, but pretty good”. In fact, we are not. Our racial imbalance is a cold, uncomfortable truth, and the statistics currently used by the Faculty make light of this fact.

Be who you are.

Law is what we do, but it doesn’t define us. We’re looking for individuals who are passionate about everything in life, including being a lawyer.

If this sounds like you, please check us out at www.torys.com to learn more about us.

OPINIONS/DIVERSIONS

18 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

ultravires.ca

The Perfect Lunchtime Salad YALE HERTZMAN (2L)

I

love salad. But bringing a salad for lunch can be messy. Who wants to eat soggy tomatoes, wilted lettuce, cucumbers that don’t crunch, and dressing that leaks all over your knapsack? Not me.

Is there a way to bring a fresh salad for lunch, while avoiding these disastrous consequences?

There is. I have tried salad dressing on the side, salad dressing in a bag, salad dressing mixed in, and no salad dressing at all.

I did give in to pizza once, but I missed my daily greens. So let me share some general tips, a step-by-step guide, and a simple salad recipe that will get you on your way to packing the perfect lunchtime salad.

General Tips • Pack your salad in a Tupperware with a lid that fits.

• Pack your salad items from heaviest to lightest. Heavier items (chopped veggies) should go on the bottom of your Tupperware, and lighter items (the lettuce) should go on top.

• Pour the dressing (about 2-3 tablespoons) on the bottom of the container, and then load the veggies on top. When you are ready to eat, simply shake and your salad is dressed.

Step 1: The Base Choosing the base of your salad is the most important step. The base that you choose will impact the general sogginess factor (GSF) of your salad (see Figure 1). Below is a chart that will help you see how some different bases stand up for long periods of time.

At the high sogginess end are mixed greens and romaine lettuce.

These are very susceptible to sogginess. If you use them, you must place them on top of your cut vegetables. Kale, on the other hand, is tough: you can mix and dress your salad in the morning, and it will stay crunchy throughout the day. On the far right are grains (quinoa, rice, etc.) and vegetables..

Step 4: Fun Extras Sometimes, you need a little something extra to keep your salad exciting. To mix things up, try one or more of the following:

Figure 1: Salad Bases

HIGH SOGGINESS

MIXED GREENS, ROMAINE

ARUGULA

KALE

LOW SOGGINESS

GRAINS (QUINOA, RICE), VEGETABLES

Step 2: The Veggies The next step is to choose your veggies. Here are some ideas: • Carrots • Celery • Cucumbers • Peppers • Radishes • Purple Cabbage • Radicchio • Tomatoes • Red onion (warning: may cause bad breath in afternoon) • Corn • Sprouts (alfalfa sprouts, sunflower sprouts) • Parsnips • Beets • Green beans

Step 3: The “Protein” Your salad needs energy. If you have some leftover chicken or meat, throw that in. Here are some vegetarian options: • Avocado: This is my all-time favourite. Avocado makes a salad creamy and filling. Make sure your avocado is ripe. I usually buy a lot of avocados in advance and leave them on my counter to ripen.

• Tofu: Cut into small cubes.

• Chickpeas & beans: These are delicious and filling. Make sure to drain and rinse well.

• Cooked vegetables: I sometimes add in cooked potatoes or sweet potatoes.

• Hard-boiled egg: A great source of protein and keeps you full for the afternoon.

• Nuts and seeds: I love sprinkling pumpkin and sunflower seeds on my salads. Walnuts, shaved almonds, and hazelnuts are also good.

• Cheese: Goat’s milk or feta.

• Fruit (dried): Cranberries, currants, cherries, etc.

• Fruit (fresh): Pears, grapes, honey crisp apples, etc.

• Olives, sundried tomatoes, roasted red peppers, marinated artichokes • Hemp hearts

Step 5: The Dressing Making your own salad dressing is really simple. See the recipe below.

Simple Salad Recipe Serving Size: 1 lunch-time salad (you can easily double this recipe)

Ingredients: • 1-2 cups of mixed greens • 1 carrot, chopped • 1 baby cucumber, chopped • Handful of cherry tomatoes • ¼ cup of purple cabbage, sliced thin • ½ avocado, diced • ¼ cup chickpeas • Handful of pumpkin seeds and sunflower seeds • Sprinkle of dried cranberries

Simple Salad Dressing: Make a large batch and use for salads all week. This will make enough dressing for 4 lunchtime salads.

Ingredients: • 1 teaspoon Dijon mustard • 1 teaspoon minced fresh garlic • 2 tablespoons red wine vinegar • 1 tablespoon honey • 1 tsp salt • ½ tsp freshly ground black pepper • ½ cup good olive oil (or more if needed)

Directions: 1. In a small bowl, whisk together the mustard, garlic, vinegar, 1 teaspoon salt, and ½ teaspoon pepper.

2. W hile whisking, slowly add the olive oil until the vinaigrette is emulsified.

3. Taste and adjust seasonings.

I Survived OCIs PALOMA VAN GROLL (2L) “Maybe I’ll just sleep here tonight!” I said—manically—to my friend, as we wrapped up day 1 of the OCI process down at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. It had been a long and exhausting day, but I had grown strangely attached to the carpeted floors and black leather (or was it pleather?) chairs of the OCI area at the Centre. In a Stockholm Syndrome kind of way.

In the weeks leading up to OCIs, some upper years talked about the process with pained looks on their faces, as if they were recalling their time in 'Nam, while others seemed to think OCIs were borderline fun. Common pieces of advice were: “just be yourself and you’ll be fine,” “don’t dwell on bad interviews,” “don’t let everyone else’s nerves freak you out.”

Surprisingly, the process overall wasn’t so terrible. Yes, it was weird to be trapped in a corner of a very large building for two days. Yes, I wasn’t really that comfortable with the idea of talking about myself for hours on end. Yes, I was still breaking in my OCI shoes. But being myself came pretty naturally. Bad interviews just made it clear that I wouldn’t want to work at that place anyway.

And I didn’t find my peers to be an overly nervous bunch; everyone was able to joke around during the in-between-interview times and let loose a little bit. It was almost like going on a field trip from school. A field trip where everyone wears suits and heels and stays inside all day talking to lawyers.

Some other things surprised me too. On day 1, I had three backto-back interviews and was dreading it. I nervously stood outside the doors to the OCI room, and waited to hear the ‘you can now send in the students’ voice (where was that voice coming from anyway?). Then, all of a sudden, I was back out and had finished three interviews. They went by so quickly, and I realized I actually liked that—I could ride the same wave of adrenaline. The 2-hour wait until my next one was subsequently brutal. I also found that I genuinely enjoyed speaking to the lawyers (most of them), and I did feel like I got a little flavor of the personality of each firm. Lastly, everyone stopped caring about who had OCIs with which firms and who didn’t. Instead, people swapped stories about the kinds of questions they were getting asked, and genuinely wanted to help each other out and prepare each for the next interviews. I wouldn’t say the vibe in the student room was relaxed by any means, but the whole thing was something of a bonding experience. We were all doing this weird thing together.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

Intra Vires Mayo Moran Discovers that ‘Muffin’ is Slang for ‘Vagina’ After years of ignorance, Dean Moran has discovered that ‘muffin’ is common vernacular for ‘vagina’.

“I’m deeply embarrassed,” said a visibly distraught Mayo.

“To think about how fucking ridiculous Mayo’s Muffin Madness sounds. I can just imagine the jokes students have been making at my expense.” Mayo explained that she made the discovery while reading about graphic sex acts on Urban Dictionary, for research purposes. She added that we are all amazing students and that U of T is the best law school in the country.

In light of the Dean’s discovery, Mayo’s Muffin Madness has been replaced with Tasty Taco Tuesdays.

OCTOBER 30, 2013 | 19

What Your Cover Letter Would Look Like If You Weren't A Big Filthy Liar With Pants Ablaze DAVID GRUBER (2L) Dear Ms.* Jesse Alex Taylor, I am a decidedly average student at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and I am very interested in a position at your or virtually any other firm.

As a person of flexible principles, I will be very amenable to whatever kind of work it is you do, no matter how sordid or amoral. While I indicated on my law school application that I have a passion for social justice advocacy along with many other bleeding heart causes, my interests have undergone considerable evolution since then.

At present, I am inexplicably committed to the important work of assisting your clients to avoid tax liabilities, outmuscling deserving civil litigants, and making a mockery of environmental and consumer safety regulations.

My law school record illustrates my ability to work independently and with minimal guidance. To everyone's surprise, including my own, I remain within spitting distance of the mean while attending a bare minimum of classes and

doing precious few readings. On the rare occasion that I did show up to class, I divided my time between shopping for shoes and captioning cat photos, which demonstrates my unmatched multitasking skills. My grades, while perfectly respectable, speak more to the generosity of my classmates and the quality of their Maps. During law school, I volunteered with the esteemed Journal of Out-Laws and In-Laws, after being recommended to do so by a friend with whom I am no longer on speaking terms. In my capacity as One Editor Among Many, I read many scholarly law papers, and claimed to have read many more.

I have dreamt of being a lawyer ever since a pragmatic school advisor informed me that I lacked the necessary prerequisite courses for dental school. While I have little-to-no genuine passion for the work you do, still I am sincerely prepared to devote the remainder of my years to it. I will compensate for my palpable disinterest by working absurdly long hours and tolerating any quantity of verbal and emotional abuse. In return I expect no more than a remote chance

of taking over your job when you are forced into retirement, which from my perspective cannot happen soon enough.

In conclusion, it was a disposition towards shiftless nihilism that led me to take a double major in International Development Studies and Economics, and then to apply to law school, yet I found success in all those areas. That same nihilism has led me to you, and there is no reason to think I will not manage to fake my way through this too.

I do not even know what “thank you for your consideration” means.

Sincerely, The Only Honest Law Student * I scoured the Internet in search of your picture, in order to avoid any embarrassment resulting from your hopelessly androgynous name.

Please accept my apologies if I misinterpreted said picture.

Keeping it Fashionable (and Appropriate) for November In-firms ALANNA TEVEL (2L)

A

fter chatting with U of T Law’s very own fashion expert, Emily Orchard, I have compiled a list of helpful tips on what to wear for November in-firms.

For the women: Notwithstanding the rumours you may have heard, both pant and skirt suits are acceptable for women. A collared shirt is a reliable option to wear under your suit. A good alternative is a tight-knit sweater that will provide a clean and smooth line. Women can more easily get away with a brighter shirt, so don’t shy away from colour if that is how you usually dress. As for heels, make sure you are comfortable with what you wear on your feet. There is no sense in wearing shoes that are difficult to walk in, especially since in-firms demand much more travel than the OCI process does.

For the men: Men should wear suits, ties and collared shirts.

Coloured shirts are okay, but it’s preferable to stick to more muted tones. However, don’t feel that you cannot add some flair with your tie. If you do choose to make such a statement, make sure it is an appropriate one. As Emily pointed out to me, there is no need to don a tie that is splashed with cartoon characters or makes some sort of political statement.

Changing your outfit for a cocktail party or dinner: Most people will not have the luxury to change before an evening event and will instead wear what they did earlier in the day. Remember, you may be exhausted by this point, and if you have a short window to relax, that may be more benefi(image from www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk)

cial than scrambling to change your outfit. The majority of the lawyers attending cocktail parties and dinners will be coming straight from work, so they will likely be in their suits. Ladies— if you have a dress and blazer you are keen on wearing, this can also be appropriate. Men—stick with your suit. During the event, you may notice other male lawyers removing their blazers.

Feel free to follow suit (no pun intended). Both genders—there is no risk if you stick with your suit. You will never be judged for being a little overdressed (although, the reverse may be true).

Additional tips: Feel free to add small details to your outfit. Some people love wearing jewellery, cufflinks or perhaps pocket squares. If this is how you typically dress and you want to show off a little bit of your personality, go for it. If you participated in OCIs, perhaps you can find inspiration from what your interviewers wore during this process. On a final note, do not worry about repeating outfits that you may have previously worn during OCIs or other firm events. No one will remember other than you!

20 | OCTOBER 30, 2013

DIVERSIONS

Things You Could Have Spent Your Tuition Money On!

ultravires.ca

Professor Celebrity Look-A-Like of the Month ANONYMOUS

LUCAS KITTMER (2L)

I

t’s that time of the year again—time to dive into the Scotiabank coffers and bury ourselves in another heap of lovely law school debt! This year the bill for first-year students comes in at $28,791.

But just how much money IS that? To help illustrate just how much you’re shelling out to sit in a library on a Friday night writing about statute reform, consider the following list of 10 things you could have spent your tuition money on instead:

you could get most of the way up Mount Kilimanjaro! emember back in high school when you worked minimum 5 Rwage to save money for school? Well you could go back in time and hire yourself for 8 hours a day for 464 days straight (note —that is calculated using Ontario’s minimum wage—it would vary by province.)

1 A 4-stroke, 1,498cc Kawasaki Jet Ski, a Honda V-4 paddle-shift 6 57 Alpacas from Hidden Hollow Alpacas. If you buy females they’ll top-of-the-line sport motorcycle, a Danier Leather Bomber Jacket even knock ‘em up for you FREE! Plus aren’t Alpacas adorable?! and a sexy pair of aviators to complete your free-spirited image.

professional hour-long hot stone massage every week for 6 2 Ayears (it can get stressful not having billable hours targets to look forward to.)

84,280 Cadbury Mini Eggs. The resulting mountain of choco3 4latey deliciousness would weigh more than an adult male hippopotamus! Feel like budgeting out your riches? Well you’d have 2017 eggs for each day of the school year including weekends and holidays. of nickels twice the height of the CN Tower. OK, you’d 4 Astillstack be 93 meters short of being truly double the height, but the ancillary fees and textbook costs would more than cover that.

If you could still get your hands on that much cash in pennies,

nough Henry of Pelham Riesling (quickest way to my heart la7 Edies) to fill three and a half standard 5x8ft bathtubs (that’s buying by the bottle folks—no specials). If three and a half bathtubs of wine doesn’t sound appealing to you 1Ls right now, just wait until you get to April exams!

0 seven-day, 2-person, all-inclusive vacations to Los Cabos 8 3(airfare and 4-star hotel included.) phrase “I LOVE LORD DENNING” skywritten above 9 Tthehecapitals of every province and territory from BC to Quebec. them von der Salztalblick—a fully-grown, professionally 10 Etrained German Shepherd protection dog. The prize of the Kraftwerk K9 guard dog facility. High performance blood-

vs.

Professor Kent Roach

Jason Alexander

(image from U of T website)

(image from www.nndb.com)

line, 90-90 protection scores and elite Schutzhund training.Plus fun doggie accessories including: • Char-dog-nay doggie wine from Yappy Hour Vineyards • Elegant “Baby Cakes” rhinestone t-shirt from “Bitch New York” luxury canine retailer • Silk and taupe sateen dog bed with goose down cushions, embroidered ivory silk side and foot boards, and crystal banding around the edges • Osmanthus-scented Les Pooches VIP dog Parfum [4oz.]—harvested from the petals of the rare Osmanthus flower (so rare it can only be harvested once every 2 years) • A nd because I can’t think of anything else to spend all this money on, 5,000 gourmet, organic, peanut butter and oat double dipped walnut sprinkled dog treats!