Good morning everyone,

I am a 24(M) year old articling student working mainly in family law and civil litigation. I’ve passed the bar exams and plan on being called to the Ontario Bar in June 2027. I’ve had a hard time figuring out what I want to do with my legal career. My articling work is interesting, but I’m not sure that this is what I want to do for the rest of my life.

From the research I’ve done, being a Legal Officer offers a good, stable salary with frequent increases as well as good benefits and a pension. I’ve also seen people say that the job comes with a great work/life balance.

I’m young, unmarried, in good shape and have a genuine interest towards anything military. For these reasons, basic training and the possibility of being relocated do not scare me.

I was wondering if anyone in this sub has any experience, or knows anyone who does in such a field, and if it would be a good idea for me to seriously consider such a path.

I appreciate any and all replies!

im not completely unfamiliar with the demands of the profession but curious to hear from people dating someone working in biglaw

im seeing someone that works at one of the seven sisters, they are several years into their career and works pretty crrazy hours. i understand that the workload is demanding but i guess im wondering what's reasonable and what's not.

how often do you see each other? and is it normal to go for a few days without hearing from them?

I’m a 5th year call looking to make the switch into criminal law. I’m really interested in the area and I understand the substantive side well. I’ll also have a mentor and plan to start slow. The one thing holding me back is public speaking.

I think my problem is really two separate things.

1. Nerves in court. I already do some small appearances as agent for friends who are counsel on their files, mostly adjournments and similar quick matters. Even on those I get really nervous. Someone suggested I use a script, and I do, but when the nerves kick in I still fumble my words and lose my flow.

2. I’m just not naturally well-spoken. Even when I’m calm, I’m more introverted and shy. I’m educated and can hold a conversation fine, but I don’t have the polished, articulate delivery some people have naturally. My partner is incredibly well-spoken, and I notice the gap. It’s made me hold back from speaking up in groups more generally. I also worry that in criminal, where you’re on your feet constantly, opposing counsel and the bench will pick up on it right away.

I don’t want to avoid it anymore. I want to put myself in situations that force me to improve, because I don’t want this to be the reason I don’t pursue criminal work.

So I’m curious, especially from anyone who wasn’t a natural speaker:

• What actually helped you get better and calmer in court?
• Did things like reading out loud, practising submissions out loud (or talking to myself in the mirror, lol), or recording yourself make a difference?
• Any tips for using a script without sounding like you’re reading, or for recovering when you stumble?
• Courses, or other low-stakes ways to get reps?

Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance!

My employer recently issued me a “revision” of a letter of expectation being issued to me. In the email that the formal LOE was attached to the employer states they are providing this “without precedent or prejudice” which is written in bold in the email.
It strikes me odd that those words were bolded - my limited understanding is that phrase is used to ensure there can be no retaliation or repercussions? I could be totally off base.
Can anyone help explain this phrase a bit better and why the employer would have bolded it - what is the inferred significance??
Thank you!!

Howard levitt
Andrew monkhouse
Stuart Rudner
Steve Ball
Randy Ai
Stacy Ball
Samfiru Tumarkin
Howard Markowitz

I'm hoping an Ontario employment lawyer can weigh in on this situation.

I joined my company almost two years ago. When I received my job offer, a senior executive explicitly confirmed via email that the company offered unlimited paid vacation. However, my employment contract specifies three weeks of vacation, which we were told was included for vacation payout purposes.

Unlimited vacation was a well-established policy at the company, and employees regularly used it. I know unlimited PTO gets a bad reputation, but that genuinely wasn't our experience. We had a culture that encouraged taking time off, and the flexibility was one of the most valued benefits of working there.

Our company was subsequently acquired, and the new leadership now intends to eliminate unlimited vacation and replace it with a fixed entitlement, likely in early 2027.

Leadership has explained that the change is intended to standardize benefits across the organization and address financial reporting/revenue recognition considerations.

They've also stated that they've reviewed three years of historical vacation usage and believe virtually everyone will be "no worse off" under the new policy.

However, I don't think historical usage fully captures the value of unlimited vacation. Even if someone typically took four weeks per year, having the flexibility to take six weeks during an exceptional year was a meaningful benefit.

My questions are:

Can an employer legally remove unlimited paid vacation when it was explicitly promised in writing during the hiring process, even if the signed contract specifies three weeks?

Could this qualify as a substantial unilateral change to employment terms or potentially constructive dismissal under Ontario law?

If the employer removes a benefit with financial value, are employees entitled to compensation in return? For example, could we reasonably argue for salary increases to offset the loss, even if we don't have an automatic legal entitlement to them?

Does the company's argument that employees will be "no worse off" based on historical vacation usage have any legal significance?

Approximately 15 employees are affected. None of us wants to leave our jobs or pursue legal action unnecessarily, but we're concerned about losing a benefit that was explicitly offered when we joined.

We're also wondering whether it would be worthwhile to consult an employment lawyer collectively before the new policy takes effect.

I'd really appreciate any insight from Ontario employment lawyers or anyone who's dealt with a similar situation.

Thank you!

If you or anyone you know is able to take on a UK qualified lawyer for six months of articling (with a view to stay on) please let me know!!

I am qualified in aviation finance law and need to complete six months of articling in Alberta in order to be called. I have Canadian experience at a leading firm.