In these pages lies Student Caucus (SC)’s response to the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC)’s Pathways Report on the future of articling. It is a commendable and articulate effort, to be sure, especially in view of a rather tight deadline, which the response notes. But alas! I’ve been forgotten again.
SC’s response raises the concern that most of the discussion to date focuses on larger firms, and that those law students wishing to serve “vulnerable communities” are left out of the analysis. Perhaps. But what about everyone else? I made the decision several months ago not to participate in the OCI process because I am not willing to work at a large firm. It has nothing to do with escaping big, bad Bay Street; I just know I wouldn’t be a good fit in that environment. I am also not interested in pursuing a career in social justice, or in any of the areas of law mentioned in the summary of the SC response. Of course, making my services available to people who cannot afford them will always be a part of my practice, but my areas of interest are simply not in demand among “vulnerable communities.” So, SC, where exactly do I fall on your spectrum of acceptable practice environments? Riddle me that.
That said, the portions of the SC response that deal with increased debt resulting from the creation of a second licensing track resonate with me: I have accumulated a great deal of debt. I will accumulate more before I graduate. I am not, however, interested in being told how able I am to pay for anything. Osgoode is expensive (I Googled it before I accepted my offer). I borrowed money to pay for it. I’ve planned my expenditures while I’m here so that I can graduate having borrowed as little as possible. When I graduate, I’m going to pay my debts. It might take a while, and may even take less time than I expected. Don’t get me wrong: $20 000 a year is a big deal, and I didn’t take the decision lightly. However, it’s a decision that I made and, through careful planning, I will handle its consequences. This neither disadvantages me, nor makes me “best able to pay” for a second-track licensing program. The Income Tax Act and I will be the judges of the sufficiency of my income in the years following my graduation, and I would greatly resent the Law Society imposing additional expenses.
Indeed, maintaining my delicate fiscal balance is essential to my ability to remain here. I view it as a bargain: a contract, if you will. A contract with Travis on one side, and all those who would seek to invoice him on the other. When all parties entered into the contract, I understood that I would receive a legal education and a licence to practise law in Ontario. In return, I would complete all degree and licensing requirements and pay the applicable fees, the amount of which I could predict with reasonable certainty. Sounded fair enough.
Three semesters later, I discover that the Law Society may intend to make the Class of 2014 the “guinea pigs” for a new licensing regime. I got excited. After all, becoming a lawyer in English Canada is an onerous process. I have a friend from Montréal who is one year younger than I am, has an LL.B. from the Université de Montréal, an Osgoode JD, and is currently awaiting the Québec bar exam. Most of the United States have no articling requirement. I hoped that the Law Society wished to relieve some of that pressure, especially when so many have trouble finding articling positions. Not so. Instead, we get the Law Practice Program (LPP), a second licensing option for those who can’t find articling positions. The most distressing thing about the LPP is that even those with articling jobs may be forced to pay for it, in the amount of multiple thousands of dollars each.
Maybe my understanding of contract principles is rusty, but I’m fairly certain that you cannot, at common law, demand additional consideration from an opposite party without providing something additional in return unless they consent to vary the terms of the contract. Professor Ben-Ishai, please back me up on this.
The LPP is a questionable program for a lot of reasons. The least the Law Society could do before implementing the thing is to wait two years so that at least the poor aspiring lawyers who get stuck with it know what they’re getting into before they begin the four-year process.
I know it’s only a few thousand dollars, and I know the so-called articling crisis can’t wait two years for a resolution. I don’t purport to speak for anyone but myself here, and my righteous indignation is mine, and mine alone. But, speaking as an aspiring lawyer whose aspirations tend to get left out of reports and their responses: I feel jerked around, and now you know.
LSUC, we’re going to have a lifelong relationship, and we are not getting off on the right foot. I’m going to remember this. If you make me pay for this preposterous program, I will acquiesce to your decision, but the Unreasonable Man shall be most displeased. Consider yourself on notice. Happy holidays.