Specialization is for Insects…and Lawyers?

Recently, Borstal Boy had the opportunity to attend a meeting with several U of T law school grads to discuss ideas for career services directed at alumni. While on the surface this may not seem like interesting fodder for this blawg, the subtext of the meeting warrants at least one arched eyebrow. Think about it. Our intrepid Career Development Office, whose resources are already devoted to assisting current students with finding jobs, is also looking into providing career services to alumni. The meeting with alumni was a brainstorming event set up to identify some of the problems faced by new lawyers in pursuing their careers after articles. Tellingly, the alumni who attended this meeting are predominantly women (there was only one male) and for the most part are members of equity seeking groups. This is reflective of a broader systemic issue that has existed in the legal profession for the last several decades. Even as law schools have done a better job in increasing the diversity of its graduating classes, the legal profession has struggled with reflecting this diversity throughout its community. The Law Society has acknowledged this problem, and granted funding for the creation of a part-time position with our CDO to look into ways of addressing various post-article barriers faced by members of equity seeking groups through the provision of post-graduate career services.

When asked to identify some of the challenges encountered in their post-articling careers, the vast majority of issues arose in the context of changing jobs or practice areas. The reasons for this change of jobs are varied, and include the lack of hire-backs, the ending of contracts, concerns about the work environment with respect to corporate law firms, the desire for a healthy work/life balance, and the need for adequate mentorship and guidance during and after articles. Almost universally, the largest barrier to changing career paths cited by alums was the unresponsiveness of employers across practice areas (and in some cases across firms/organizations) to the relevancy of past work experience. Employers are risk-adverse and do not want to hire those without directly applicable experience. While it is trite to say that articling with a criminal firm will make it more difficult to obtain a corporate law job than if you had articled with a corporate firm, there other barriers operating as well. For instance, the contacts one tends to build during their crucial first few years out of law school tend to be within and limited to those professionals in a particular area of practice, which can be a limitation when considering changing areas. For recent grads, there is also the so-called “2 year rule”, which says that your ability to obtain interviews for positions within 2 years of being called to the Bar are significantly less than after you’ve been practicing 2 years. What this all boils down to is that there is increased pressure for law students to “get it right” with their choice of articles and practice areas.

Obviously, we are left questioning why the need for post-articling career services seems to be from lawyers who are women and/or members of equity-seeking groups. There are a number of possible explanations. On the one hand, some women may decide to switch careers as part of planning for a family. Another explanation is that law students are not carefully considering their career choices while in law school, and changing their career paths upon realizing their mistake. Finally, it may simply be that Heinlein was right and that specialization is for insects – a change of careers may simply be following a change of interests or a desire to expand one’s practice areas and experiences. Of course, this last explanation does little to explain why more white males are not seeking out post-graduate career services.

- Borstal Boy