Allegations and other comments from our survey
Ultra Vires conducted an anonymous survey of the 2L class about the Toronto Recruit. The Recruit is governed by the Law Society of Ontario 2019 Toronto Summer Student Recruitment Procedures.
Relevant Procedures
Procedure B.7. states: “Throughout the recruitment process, firms shall not put undue pressure on students to accept an offer of employment, or to reveal their intention to do so.”
Procedure C.8. states: “No communication of offers of employment shall be made prior to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 7, 2018 […]”
Firms (allegedly) not following procedures
When asked, “Did you experience any employers not following LSO Procedures?”, 18 of 91 responses said “Yes.”
To the follow-up question, “Which employer(s) did not follow LSO Procedures, and how?” these were their responses:
Miller Thomson LLP
One respondent said that Miller Thomson asked people if Miller Thomson was their first choice. Another respondent said that “Miller Thomson put[s] lots of pressure to say first choice.”
Jessica Watkins, the Director of Talent Management at Miller Thomson LLP, said in an email to Ultra Vires: “Miller Thomson is, and has always been, committed to complying with the Law Society of Ontario Recruitment Procedures and Guidelines. Should there be any issues arising from the recruit, Miller Thomson will deal directly with the Law Society of Ontario and the school’s Career Development Office, which are the appropriate channels for dealing with any matter, and with whom we continue to have a strong relationship and ongoing dialogue. We are committed to the Recruitment Process and providing students with a positive experience, as we take this very seriously.”
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
One respondent said that Paul, Weiss communicated an offer on Tuesday, November 6 (Day 2). The LSO Procedures dictate that no offer shall be made before Wednesday, November 7 (Day 3).
In an email statement to Ultra Vires, a spokesperson for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP said that the firm complied fully with LSO Procedures in its recent hiring of two students: “The firm extended offers after 5:00 pm on Wednesday (Day 3), in accordance with the LSO Procedures.”
Stikeman Elliott LLP
One respondent in the survey said that Stikeman Elliott LLP “asked people if they were their first choice and told people they were receiving offers on Day 1 and Day 2” (November 5 and 6).
Natasha Bhimji, the Interim Director of Student Programs at Stikeman Elliott LLP, said, “We certainly were surprised with the response to the question because it is not consistent with the training and guidelines that we provide to our interviewing lawyers on LSO recruitment procedures. We expect that our lawyers understand the rules and are expected to comply with these rules. That being said, we are not actually in the room when the interviews take place and we can’t know exactly what was said. Every year we reinforce the LSO recruitment procedures with the lawyers and will continue to do so.”
General comments
- “A major Bay Street law firm and one of the ‘Seven Sisters’ both asked how they stood in my preferences and indicated they would call me with an offer at 5 pm on Wednesday.”
- “They won’t say it out loud (first choice question, communicating offers, etc.)…but isn’t that just a matter of semantics?”
- “I knew I would get an offer before Wednesday at 5 PM”
Comments on the LSO Procedures
Ultra Vires also asked, “Do you have any comments on the LSO Recruitment Procedures?”
Many students thought the procedures were not being followed:
- “Literally, no one observes them.”
- “They’re useless — everyone breaks the rules”
- “They’re clearly very open to interpretation.”
- “The rules get broken or bent enough that they shouldn’t exist.”
- “There are so many ways to skirt the ‘no offers before 5’ rule that it is pretty much a cruel joke.”
Many students did not think that the procedures benefitted the students:
- “I don’t see how they benefit students at all”
- “The LSO is misguided in thinking that this process makes life easier for students.”
- “This process is fucking terrible and the law firms have all the power.”
- “Throw them the fuck out and start again. Do exactly what they are doing in New York.”
- “It’s a collusion that benefits law firms at the expense of students. The regulators are NOT on our side. We try our best to navigate within the framework, but frankly the students would be much better off if the recruitment process was de-regulated.”
Some students found that firms did not follow the spirit of the procedures:
- “I found that technically the firms do follow the rules, but the spirit of the rules is not always complied with. Firms want to know your interest level and that is understandable […] I found myself wondering afterwards if I had accidentally told a firm something that they were going to interpret as ‘first choice’ language. Really I was just trying to tell them I am very interested but still deciding.”
- “While I didn’t experience firms overtly asking me to identify them as my first choice, I had many firms suggest that it would strengthen my application to ‘indicate interest’ and once I had made a decision I should let the firm/student recruiter know. I think by default not following up to say that the firm was my first choice was taken to mean that it was not. While I was able to navigate this, it means I was forced to decide on Tuesday whether I wanted to pursue an offer from one of the firms I interviewed with, which felt rushed.”
Many others suggested ways to improve the procedures:
- “Intent to call emails make the stress worse. Better to know promptly at 8:00 am on call day, instead of sitting on pins and needles waiting for the waves of impending PFO’s or ITC’s for two weeks.”
- “The fact that firms can’t indicate offers is detrimental to students. Since we are only supposed to ‘first choice’ one firm, it creates an information asymmetry […] where they know much more about us than we are even allowed to know about them.”
- “If firms can send out ITCs for call day, I’m not exactly sure why they can’t give out ITCs for offers when literally everyone knows that firms will still heavily hint about this during interviews whether consciously or subconsciously. Students may get a strong hint that they will get an offer only to then have to wait hours agonizing over whether that would materialize at 5.”
- “Employers should be allowed to present students with the offer once they know to relieve the stress on whether to come back or misinterpret signs during the process. They do this informally anyways so why not give them the option to do it formally to give students a sense of relief if they already know which firms they are taking. It is also better for employers to receive confirmation on their numbers as well and focus on other resources if there is a need.”
- “Make it so that we rank our firms and they rank their top candidates. None of this first choice non-sense and this way it maximizes the best outcomes for everyone”
Lastly, one student had more neutral feedback:
- “First-choice signaling is incredibly awkward and feels overly strategic”
The Law Society of Ontario provided a statement to Ultra Vires:
“While the Law Society receives very few direct complaints about breaches or circumventions of the Recruitment Procedures, the Law Society is alive to the fact that many law students may be reluctant to come forward and report breaches of the Recruitment Procedures when they are encountered. As part of its ongoing effort to ensure the spirit and letter of the procedures are understood and adhered to, the articling office conducts an annual review of these procedures, and in doing so, solicits feedback from law schools and employers, and carefully reviews anonymized comments from students going through the process, including the Ultra Vires recruitment reports.
When considering changes to the procedures, the Law Society seeks to ensure that students are treated fairly and that the process enables students an opportunity to consider their employment options. Should anyone participating in the recruitment process wish to make a complaint, the Law Society has protocols in place to respond. Any questions or concerns about the recruitment process can be directed to the articling office for further clarification.
To help candidates entering the licensing process navigate the resources in place to prevent and address harassment and discrimination, the Law Society has created an information sheet, which is available on our website and provided to all new licensing candidates. Such resources include the Law Society’s complaints process, the Discrimination and Harassment Counsel service, and the Member Assistance Program, which is available to all law students and their families.”
