Ryan: Hi all — since many of our 1L and 2L staff members and readers are in the midst of planning their summers, I thought it would be good for us to reflect on our 1L and 2L summers and provide some perspective. I’ll start by asking about the differences between the summer after 1L and the summer after 2L. How did you approach the two? Did anyone do the 1L recruit?
Laura: I certainly felt less pressure in 1L as compared to 2L to find a paying job in the legal field. I actually didn’t participate in the 1L recruit. I was almost exclusively interested in pursuing criminal defence work, and none of the recruiting firms aligned with my legal interests at the time. That being said, I knew I wanted to spend the summer getting some legal experience on my resume. I ended up “cold-emailing” a few criminal defence firms, introducing myself, expressing interest in defence work and asking if they might be looking for student assistance over the summer. I ended up assisting a sole practitioner in Toronto while working two retail jobs.
Ryan: I felt the same way. I think 1L is a bit of a blur in general; it’s hard to figure out the job market while also trying to do well in school. I wouldn’t obsess over the 1L recruit. It certainly doesn’t hurt to develop some legal experience right after 1L, but that doesn’t necessarily mean working at a law firm. And, in any case, doing so is not a prerequisite to participating in the 2L recruit. Corey? Any thoughts?
Corey: Definitely. Like Laura, I didn’t participate in the 1L recruit. Frankly, I was overwhelmed by my first semester of law school, and I did not feel like I was a strong candidate for a 1L summer position. I probably wasn’t. I worked outside of law during my 1L summer, and it did not affect — I don’t think — my job prospects in 2L. It’s probably safe to say that your 1L summer doesn’t have a huge impact on 2L summer… Just stay out of trouble, haha. Or at least get into “good trouble”, as the late John Lewis famously said.
Ryan: I would just add that 1L summer positions are not only pretty limited in terms of subject area, they’re also limited in number. So don’t stress if you do apply and things don’t work out. Before we get into the weeds of the 2L recruit, I think we should address working as a research assistant.
I personally think that being an RA is a really valuable experience. Whether or not you have an academic interest in the law, it’s a great way to get to know faculty members. Given that 1L classes have 70+ people, it can be hard for students to establish a connection with their professors, and vice versa — especially now that classes are being conducted remotely. Even in a seminar, you won’t get the one-on-one time that you will as an RA. Also, the work is fun (I think!). Corey, I know you’ve been an RA as well, so I’m interested in hearing what your experience was like.
Corey: Yep, proud RA here! Much like you, I have found my RA experience to be immensely rewarding. I’m currently assisting Professors Wilkie and Li. Part of that job is being the co-administrator of tax.osgoode.yorku.ca, along with Professor Wilkie. Working as an RA is an excellent way for students to interact with the law in a professional capacity, without some of the expectations or constraints you may find in working for a firm. My projects have been largely ad-hoc. They’ve included legal database research, editing and proofreading academic papers, and some administrative work. As to how one becomes an RA, each Professor has a budget. So, do relatively well in a given class, and then reach out to that Professor following the class by email or phone. That would be my suggestion. Don’t be shy!
Ryan: Alright — getting into the weeds then: what are everyone’s thoughts on the 2L hiring process? What did you like about it? What did you not like? Anything you would change?
Emily: There’s a lot to hate, but there’s a lot of “good” that I think often goes unrecognized. Obviously by way of bad, there’s a lot of pressure, anxiety, and inevitable disappointment. But the good is there; it’s just harder to find. There are no other recruitment processes that I know of, outside of the medical school matching process, where you get to meet your colleagues and see your workplace before deciding whether or not you want to work somewhere. In the 2L recruit, at least when it comes to firms, there’s an emphasis on connecting with students, lawyers, and staff at the places we’re applying to — the idea being that it’ll help us make our eventual choice of employer the right choice. It makes the decision about more than just your chemistry with the recruiter, and gives you more than just one shot at making an impression.
It’s also worth noting that as flawed as this system is, from what I understand, it was developed to protect students. By formalizing the process, the LSO guaranteed that students could only be formally recruited as early as the recruit begins, and no earlier. This prevented firms from “poaching” students outside of a process that regulated things like base pay and the methods used to contact them. The goal was to prevent students from being whisked away by what seemed like great firms for a great deal of money, without supervision and at a stage when students don’t know any better. I’m not sure if knowing this will make anyone feel better about the recruit, but it’s good to know, at least, why it is the way it is.
And finally, only 20% of students get hired out of the formal recruitment process. There are clearly far fewer jobs than there are competent people hunting for them, so it should be no surprise that the remaining 80% of students will still be well on their way to having a successful career without starting out on Bay St.
Corey: The formal recruit is not the be-all, end-all. However, it MOSTLY is, if you are seeking a position on Bay St. So it really depends on your expectations and goals. If you want to climb the ladder at Blakes, or McMillian, or Davies, I would strongly recommend the 2L recruit as your best shot. If you couldn’t care less about working for such firms, there are tons of opportunities following the formal recruit.
Ryan: People probably already know this, but a lot of government ministries and departments (mostly provincial, I think, but some federal too) participate in the recruit as well. However, even though the hiring timelines will be roughly the same, the processes aren’t identical. For example, networking won’t factor into how government recruiters score your interview, since they are “substantive” (and everyone gets the same questions).
On that note, what are your thoughts on 2L interviews? What are some of the interview formats you’ve encountered? And is there any feedback or advice you received that you thought was helpful (or any that you found unhelpful)?
Laura: During the OCI process, I had the opportunity to interview with both law firms and Crown offices. There was a stark difference between the interview styles of both. Interviews with law firms felt similar to every other interview I had done in the past. The interviewers ran through my resume (asking about my experiences and interests) and we discussed the job responsibilities and how I might fit in. The best advice I can give to interviewees is that they should aim to be likeable and friendly.
The Crown interviews were more substantive. During one of them, I recall being asked my opinion about changes that were being made to the criminal justice system (specifically, the elimination of preliminary inquiries for a variety of offences). In another, I was actually provided a series of fact patterns and questions (just like on an exam) and asked to issue-spot. Prior to these interviews, I did a lot of preparation in advance, but ended up employing very little of what I had studied. The most useful prep work I had done was having taken courses in criminal law and procedure. My advice to students doing substantive interviews would be to study and prepare until you feel confident speaking about the relevant area of the law.
Ryan: The substantive interviews are a bit like oral exams, in that the interviewers will read you the question and then just listen (and take notes) while you respond. I echo what Laura said about preparation. If you’re interviewing with a ministry, for example, you should have a sense of what legislation they deal with (usually on their website), what kind of matters they handle (civil litigation, prosecutions, tribunal applications), etc.
Emily: I’ve only ever done full-service interviews because I would flunk an oral exam — the same way I so astutely tackled my first year Torts final! Cs are for charisma! So you can skip this if you need substantive advice.
In conducting mock interviews, I often encounter students who recite their qualifications and capabilities to me like a list. They tell me how they’re excellent teamworkers, looking to work in a collaborative environment, with top-notch time management skills and the ability to work under pressure. There are so many self-aggrandizing synonyms for “collaboration” and “diligence” being thrown at me that I feel like I am playing dodgeball. Stop. Don’t. Let me explain.
In truth, I will not remember a single word or descriptor you use, and neither will recruiters. Lists without context are incredibly forgettable. What I normally suggest is a narrative approach to interviewing: tell a story that incorporates the skill you’re trying to highlight. For example, if an interviewer were to ask you about “a time you worked on a team,” here are two ways you could respond;
- When I worked at the Ontario Court of Justice, I worked alongside two other clerks to support 13 judges in their daily tasks. I was diligent in my time management and I returned all of the work I was assigned on time, and I spoke to my other team members to make sure that they were also being timely. With so many judges to work for, we had to communicate each task we received to the others, and would share work that another clerk had a knack for which allowed us to work more efficiently. On collaborative projects we would make a schedule that we would strictly adhere to. We would communicate with each other when there were days we could not meet our expectations, and collectively we never missed a deadline. I want a collaborative environment where I can have similar working experiences alongside others who are equally competent and driven.
- At the newspaper, we have a team of about 30 people, where we have to coordinate, edit, source, and vet content that makes up about 15,000 words, spread across 16 pages, to be published every two weeks. Our copy editors get our content first, after our team of section editors and usually the other managers source it from new and regular writers. Where one section is short of content, some or all of us add pieces of our own. We then work with our external graphic designer who lays everything out to look like a newspaper, and after the management team edits it a final time, we publish. Every task has its place, and every two weeks the cycle repeats itself. It takes a few months, but eventually we fall into step, and by the end of the year, the satisfaction of putting a paper together far outweighs the stress we all went through to make the process seamless.
Which do you find more compelling? Which do you think you’ll remember? Personally, I find narrative form more powerful in every single way. At the end of the day, people don’t tend to remember what you say, but they do remember how you made them feel. I suspect that you’ll likely forget the details of my clerkship, but you’ll remember at least an impression of how many hours of work goes into every single one of these issues.
Ryan: I think Emily’s point applies to substantive interviews too, in a way. Since the interviewers won’t stop you to clarify anything, it’s important to structure your answers in a way that’s easy to follow and, preferably, memorable.
Okay, to wrap up (so this piece doesn’t take up too many pages!): final thoughts? Do you finally feel like you know what you are doing? What would you tell your 1L/2L self if you could turn back the clock?
Laura: If I could turn back the clock, I would tell my younger self not to get caught up in the imposter syndrome most 1Ls seem to feel. I entered law school straight out of undergrad and was concerned that my lack of experience or additional graduate degrees would hold me back. I realized overtime that all law students come from different backgrounds and the right firm will appreciate you and your unique experiences.
Emily: Honestly, I would tell myself to stop taking things so seriously. I would tell myself to take the courses I wanted to take, and to stop thinking about how my future bosses would perceive my academic choices. I would hammer home that in the grand scheme of life, if I am going to let my competence or capacity be measured by my law school grades, that judgment would do me a disservice. I would quiet those many moments of doubt that stemmed from doing things that no one else was doing for lack of “CV value”, because at the end of it, that’s what made the biggest difference in my happiness, and eventually, in what made me able to connect with the lawyers at the firm I now work for.
Ryan: The message seems to be that students should try to relax a bit. I’m sure no one will appreciate hearing that from people who are over the hill haha. But it’s true.
Corey: I agree. Relax. Far easier said than done, especially given that law students are often wired in such a way as to make relaxation somewhat counterintuitive, but try! Always keep things in perspective as well. Think of the nurses our age serving in hospitals, or our military, or our sick and fallen. We law students really do not have it so bad at all.
Ryan: Thanks all for sharing your insights. Readers — tell us what you think. If you’re in 2L or 3L, did you have a different experience? If you’re in 1L, did we leave one of your questions unaddressed? Send us an email if so (as ever, editor@obiter-dicta.ca). We’d love to hear from you.