It's Called “Law School” Not “Lawyer School”

There certainly exists a gap between the theoretical content taught by professors at law school and the practice of law. This gap was incredibly apparent during my summer at McCague Borlack.

Mooting vs Court

I had the opportunity to attend the Ontario Court of Appeal for a hearing as well as small claims court for a trial. In law school moots, students are expected to demonstrate their knowledge and may be questioned to determine their understanding of the facts and surrounding case law. Shadowing at court could hardly be further from this. The court is very busy, limited in time, and does not wish to hear anything irrelevant to the specific issues under review. Also, there is no reception afterwards with snacks!

"A successful litigator demonstrates their expertise by finding a swift and practical solution to the client’s problems, not by flaunting their wealth of knowledge."

Client Experience

Law school gives you little to no client contact experience. Within my first month at McCague Borlack, I have corresponded with opposing counsel, witnesses, co-counsel, and clients regarding trial preparation, document production, service of pleadings. Prior to this summer, I did not realize how important interpersonal communication and client expectation management skills were to the practice of law.

Getting the Right Answer

I have also learned that effective counsel is not always about finding the right answer, but rather about finding a practical solution. Many law school exams have a certain formula the students must follow to demonstrate their knowledge in the subject matter. I have learned in my short summer that a successful litigator demonstrates their expertise by finding a swift and practical solution to the client’s problems, not by flaunting their wealth of knowledge.

Work Schedule

Perhaps the largest difference between law school and practicing as a litigator is the volatility of personal schedules. When a law student prepares for a moot or exam, they can be sure that they will write the exam or participate in the moot. This is not always the case in the practice of law - a witness may not show up, documents may not have been produced, or preliminary issues may prevent a trial from starting. It has become clear to me that a litigator must be adaptable and “go with the flow”.

As amazing as Law School is for developing the foundation required for the practice of law, the law firm is responsible for practical development of the student. I have noticed all the above differences within 8 weeks of starting at McCague Borlack. I can only imagine what Articling has in store.

 By Robert R.

Calling (Potential) Clients – Yikes!

Prior to McCague Borlack LLP, I have had no formal law firm experience. My knowledge of interviewing and counselling was limited to what I was taught in law school, and I had never communicated with a client directly, let alone by myself.

Law Firms receive many inquiry calls from potential clients when looking to find a lawyer to take on their case.

When my turn came up in the rotation (read about our student rotation list), I was asked to call back a potential client and do the initial screening of their legal issue, I was so nervous! To calm my nerves, I prepared a mental script on introducing myself and what firm information I needed to provide to the individual from the outset. I quickly learned that there was only so much I could do to prepare for speaking with someone who is under a lot of stress.

From the start of the call, the individual was overwhelmed with their difficult situation. They often spoke in circles, repeating the same concerns, and reacting with strong emotions when answering questions. I was taken aback on how to acknowledge the caller’s emotions and still gather the information I needed.

As the conversation progressed, I found my footing and worked out how to direct the conversation to focus on the underlying issues. I acknowledged their emotions and difficulties while maintaining a professional tone. I realized that this approach helped in calming the caller down and guiding them to provide direct answers to my questions. Additionally, I began frequently referring to previously mentioned details, which helped the caller feel heard and provided me with the clarification I needed.

At the end of the conversation, I felt relieved and more confident in my direct client communication skills. Although it was a very emotionally charged experience, it was a great learning opportunity and exposure to client management.

by Simran S.

From Serving Tables to Serving Clients: How Customer Service Prepared Me for the Practice of Law

Before law school, I ran the gauntlet of customer service jobs. Food services, retail, receptionist, server – you name it, I did it. At the same time, feeling an early aspiration to pursue law, I couldn’t help but wonder if there were other jobs that would make me a more appealing candidate to schools and employers alike.

I was surprised not only by how receptive legal employers have always been to my past customer service work, but also how helpful it’s been in legal practice. 

Here are just a few ways I’ve felt the benefit of my experiences:

Managing Expectations

When I was a teenager, I could not stop getting myself into sticky situations by making promises I couldn’t keep. Once, a customer at a retail job asked me if they had a shirt in a certain colour, and I replied with an emphatic “Yes! Let me go get it from the back”.

After spending far too long in the back, realizing that we indeed did not have that shirt in that colour, the dread set in. Not only did I waste the customer’s time, but I now needed to return and admit my mistake to their face. The only real consequence upon doing so was being met with a blank face and “Oh, okay”. Even so, it was a simple lesson that empty promises aren’t worth the risk.

In law, there’s often a pull to try to placate clients by giving them immediate validation. Their matters are already taking “forever”, and the outcome is important to them. However, if you make a promise you can’t keep, you risk undermining their confidence in you. Once a client loses faith in their lawyer, the whole client-solicitor relationship may as well collapse entirely.

Information Gathering

In customer service, I quickly learned that what a customer says they want isn't always what they actually need. A customer who asks to omit shrimp from their dish may simply dislike the texture or tase. Or, they may have a shellfish allergy, in which swapping in scallops without asking is a bold way to find out. I learned to ask targeted questions and read between the lines, ideally before your customer starts breaking out in hives.

When a client comes to the firm with a legal issue, we’d be lucky if they present a neat, chronological, legally relevant timeline. Instead, they may give a messy narrative filled with personal grievances, irrelevant details, and missing gaps. My time in customer service taught me how to interview people effectively, including active listening, knowing when to dig deeper, and how to gently guide a conversation back on track to get the facts I actually need.

Dealing with Conflict

When I was much younger, my instinct was always to be very deferential to rowdy customers. I didn’t want to risk making them angrier. Over time, I found that coming in with an assertive-but-respectful attitude was far more successful than appearing sheepish. Customers who are upset are often testing the waters, gauging how much room they have to push. A confident "here's what I can do" landed better than being needlessly apologetic because it signaled that I was actually in control of the situation.

Now in legal practice, the stakes are much higher. Some clients are a combination of emotional, on tight time constraints, or confused by the legal process. Opposing counsel can be belligerent, or worse, incompetent. All-in-all, the average lawyer may be confronted with several difficult conversations per week. Any opportunity I had to build my confidence in dealing with confrontation was a valuable one.

The Main Takeaway

Looking back, I don't think my time in customer service made me a stronger candidate because it filled in space on my resume. It mattered because it forced me to develop skills that no amount of studying could have taught me. I shouldn’t have discounted the years I spent folding shirts, serving tables, or answering phones. I may not have known it at the time, but I was already a lawyer in training.

by Caroline S.

Examination for Discovery Loading…

My summer at the firm so far has been exciting, to say the least. Every day brings new learning opportunities. The workdays go by extremely fast; it doesn't feel like work because I am learning so much and am genuinely excited to take on new tasks. After only being with the firm for two weeks, I have already had the pleasure of meeting so many colleagues. Everyone is eager to assist us, whether by explaining their practice areas or helping us set up our technology.

One experience that stands out thus far happened within my first week of accepting assignments.

"A Partner reached out to me in the morning asking if I would be willing to attend an Examination for Discovery (ED) and take notes."

This would be my first ED (and proceeding), so I was very excited to attend.

After three hours, the deponent abandoned the discovery, citing previous commitments that they could not postpone. Three lawyers were placed “on hold” and would have to reschedule the proceeding. Watching the Partner handle this matter taught me a lot. I saw strong advocacy in action. The Partner was not willing to continue with the EDs as scheduled for the following day because this would be prejudicial to the other parties, including our client, if the order of EDs was changed. Even though it was inconvenient to have to reschedule all the days, that is what was best for the client and therefore how we needed to proceed.

After that, there were some laughs about this unusual scenario. I am told that the abandonment of an ED does not happen often, yet this was my very first experience. I am looking forward to attending the EDs whenever they take place. Plus, I've already come to appreciate that in litigation the only thing to expect is the unexpected."

by Alexis Z.

Attending a Coroner’s Inquest

With the articling term nearing its end, I have many new experiences to reflect on. I have had the opportunity to attend multiple examinations for discovery, to speak in court, to attend a day of Small Claims Court trial, attend mediations, and settlement conferences. While these forms of advocacy are typically covered in the articling term at McCague, I was also able to participate in a coroner’s inquest. I had not heard of an inquest before receiving the assignment, so learning about the process was an entirely new experience.

A coroner’s inquest is run much like a trial, with examinations and cross-examinations of witnesses, and closing statements being delivered by the parties. 

There is no finding of guilt or fault at the end; the jury makes a finding as to how the death was caused and makes recommendations that will hopefully prevent similar deaths from occurring in the future. There is also a collaborative nature to the inquest, as the parties work together to ensure that all of the evidence is presented to the jury so that they can make productive recommendations for future improvement. The goal of the inquest is unique among other forms of advocacy, and it changed the way I viewed the evidence and my approach to the examinations. While the subject matter and evidence could be difficult to engage with, given the nature of the inquest, the goal of the inquest in making an improvement in the system was a useful anchor to manage how I felt about the evidence itself.

My main task was to review all of the evidence that we received from the coroner’s office and to sort the facts based on how they affected our client’s position. It really challenged me to think about all of the different ways that the evidence could be perceived, and often it was not a simple “good” or “bad” answer, but one that could be viewed in multiple ways. I worked on finding a way to concisely communicate the various ways that the evidence could be viewed, while also trying to make a decision as to what the most likely or overarching message of the evidence was.

In addition to reviewing all of the evidence, I was also able to attend the inquest and take notes on the witnesses’ evidence. This allowed me to witness many different lawyers and their styles of cross-examination. Overall, it was a learning experience that I never expected to have about a form of advocacy that isn’t as common as our typical mediations, discoveries, and settlement conferences. The skills that I learned in reviewing the evidence and engaging with our client and the other parties will translate to the other forms of advocacy that I will engage in at the firm, and I look forward to applying them in the future.

Emily O.