(Caveat: it’s very difficult to get an accurate read on the inner workings of big Canadian firms, and that’s largely because the mainstream legal media (of which I’m a member) doesn’t dig too deeply into their affairs. There’s no Canadian equivalent of Above The Law, for instance, or even The AmLaw 100, to investigate and reveal the profitability and personnel machinations within the major firms. Our national legal culture is far more circumspect about these kinds of things, and sometimes that’s good and sometimes it’s not.)

Anyway, the question still stands whether a Canadian law degree is a good investment of your time and money right now. In that regard, I’d still adopt the principles that I espoused in the post: even in a relatively secure marketplace like this one, you need to be as sure as possible that this is a career you’re committed to. That’s not because of the recession, it’s because being a lawyer over the next 30 to 40 years is going to be a radically different line of work than it was for the preceding decades. If you’re entering school this fall, you’ll graduate in spring 2012 and get called in 2013; if you enter a law firm, you’ll likely be eligible for partnership around 2020. No one knows what the practice of law will look like then, other than that it very probably won’t look much like it did in 2000.

So I don’t think you can count on the existing business model to be much of a guide — what you’ll be doing day to day, how long you’ll have to work, and how much you’ll make all will change from today’s expectations, thanks to a new competitive landscape and new client and market demands. What won’t change, I hope, is the fundamental nature of legal professionalism: service, counsel, judgment, advocacy, analysis, trustworthiness, wisdom, doggedness and loyalty. If these things turn your crank, stick with a legal career, because if anything, they’re going to become more prominent, not less, over time. If you regard these as nice-to-haves but essentially not that relevant to the prestige, income, gunslinging and power-broking of a legal career, you’d be best advised to step off the elevator before it leaves the ground floor, because it’s not going to bring you where you think.

My final thought on Canadian law practice is that the market conditions for solos and the demand for lawyers outside urban centers is going to start seriously increasing over the next few years and continue through the 2010s. Less than 10% of the Canadian legal profession is in firms of 50 lawyers or more, but there are scads of older solos in smaller communities who will soon have to retire, leaving a market vacuum behind them. We’re running two feature articles in our upcoming Law Student Issue of National magazine: one on the business realities of running your own practice, and one on the career opportunities outside urban centers. They’re not even written yet, but I recommend them both in advance. Check back in September at http://www.cba.org/students, when they’ll be ready.

If I were entering law school today, I’d be getting ready to spend the next three years learning about how to run my own practice upon graduation — even if I got a job with a firm, I’d want to have those skills and that knowledge. And I’d start by reading Carolyn Elefant’s “Solo By Choice” (reviewed elsewhere at Law21) and enrolling in SPU. Good luck, Graeme!

I do have a follow-up question: How do you see the situation for Canadian law graduates?

I’m accepted for school here in the fall, and am trying to make up my mind as to whether to go or not. Differences I can think of include:

1. The articling requirement
2. Less overcapacity in our school system (though we still put out more graduates than articling positions, as far as I’m aware).
3. A legal system that was somewhat less leveraged, and an economy that is likely to weather the storm a bit better than down south.

Your article draws mostly on US sources, but I know you’re Canadian, so I’d be interested in hearing your perspective. Thanks,

Graeme