Legal Officer Recruiting [Merged]

[legalrec]

.... if you do it right, having an articling student is hard work for the lawyer.

100% accurate.  This is why it is so difficult for small boutique firms to take on students.  If there are only a couple of lawyers and they spend half their time teaching, they won't make any money.  Large Bay St. firms have the luxury of having departments dedicated to it.  I think we could use a change in Canada, but articling, if done right is an invaluable experience for a young lawyer.

Honestly, I don't think we ever really looked for experience in international or constitutional law--its nice to have but not a necessity--and all too often young lawyers in this field are more academic in their approach to the law than practical....

Rather relieved to read this.  I thought I might be sunk because I'm in civil litigation.

 

[FJAG]

. . .  I thought I might be sunk because I'm in civil litigation.

That was my own preferred area of practice before I retired.

It's a bit difficult looking at backgrounds for the regular side of the branch because most had fairly short civilian careers before joining the branch. Since Reserve Force Leg Os stay in their civilian careers throughout, its a bit easier with them. I'd say amongst reservists we had about 30-35% criminal law background, maybe another 20% litigators, another 20% solicitors with the rest a grab bag of this and that. I'd be guessing but I would think that the Reg F background percentages were probably not that much different.

I think it's safe to say that when the Leg O selection board does their interviews, it's the quality of the individual that is the overriding factor. Experience as a lawyer, regardless of the field, adds to that quality.

:cheers:

 

[Cloud Cover]

There were several (I can think of at least 3] MLTP fellows when/where I went to law school. All were of Capt. rank, and 2 were Inf and 1 Armour background, all bilingual, and very bright minded guys. I'm sure they are doing well with whatever they are up to now, it was more than a decade ago. 

I also had one outstanding individual [also Infantry, RNR then RCR] who went through MLTP, ended up in another federal government department, subsequently resigned and he ended up reporting to me as specialist in-house counsel at my former employer. Super sharp fellow, great sense of humour [we put white painted rocks around his office] and an outstanding mentor to the employees.  Tough bugger too, always up and ready for a good scrap.

IIRC, MLTP graduates struggle with finding an appropriate articling position>>>>there are so many conflict of interest checks with the large firms that offer articling positions. The federal Court usually takes a few on, sometimes the Federal Crown might add one or two.

In my current role I hope to offer an articling position to a mature student, hopefully MLTP candidate but the decision is not mine alone to make.

Cheers






 

 

[FJAG]

IIRC, MLTP graduates struggle with finding an appropriate articling position>>>>there are so many conflict of interest checks with the large firms that offer articling positions. The federal Court usually takes a few on, sometimes the Federal Crown might add one or two.

In my current role I hope to offer an articling position to a mature student, hopefully MLTP candidate but the decision is not mine alone to make. 

Most of the better law firms are hiring articling student with the aim that they become associate lawyers in their firms after their call to the bar. It's a kind of loss leader situation where your unprofitable investment in the student will stay with you as a profit generating asset later.

With an MLTP you have a 100% guarantee that the student will NOT be staying with the firm and as a result you lose your investment. That's somewhat offset by the fact that the MLTP is on government salary but its not just the pay loss, its the effort put into the student that's lost.

:cheers:

 

[legaleye]

Hi there,

I've been a long time lurker, reading about processing samples and the steps. I know the basics in that a candidate goes through the recruiting centre process (medical, CFAT, interview, security clearance) and is then merit listed and then waits to be selected for the desired trade based on competitiveness.

My question is whether this process is somewhat different for legal officers. Although I know the basics are no different, I also know that to become a legal officer, the candidate must pass a selection board composed of three JAG colonels. The JAG conducts its own interview and selects candidates based on the results of that interview.

My questions:

1) Is passing this interview a necessary step before being merit listed? (I suspect it is).
2) Therefore, does that mean that, once selected by the JAG colonels, the candidate has already been "selected" and selection at the recruiting centre level is just a formality? In other words, is there any possibility that once being selected by the colonels that the candidate would NOT be selected by the recruiting centre process? (I would guess no, and base that guess on the assumption that the JAG colonels are only selecting as many candidates as positions they have open? I would think they are not selecting more than that?)

Thanks very much for your time!

 

[FJAG]

Regular or reserve and are you already a serving member?

There are some differences.

:cheers:

 

[legaleye]

Applying for regular force.

Thanks for the help!

 

[FJAG]

Presently a member or not?

Have you been called to the bar?

:cheers:

 

[legaleye]

Not currently in the armed forces and I have been called to the bar.

Thanks so much!

 

[FJAG]

Okay then.

Your application is as a direct entry officer.

You apply through the recruiting centre which then sequences all the processes including an appearance before the JAG selection board.

Consider the process as the recruiting office doing all the staff work required to vet the candidate for being eligible for selection as a legal officer (medical etc. fitness, education standards etc) while the JAG selection board making the final determination as to which of the vetted candidates are the most suitable for employment with the branch. The board looks at various factors including experience that you have gained as a practising lawyer, second language abilities, community involvement, understanding of current (especially national and military events), university grades, additional legal qualifications, your basic ability to handle yourself during and interview, etc.

Successful candidates will receive an offer for enrolment subject to completion of the basic military officers' course and second language training (if required). If a candidate drops out or fails to pass, usually the highest ranked unsuccessful candidate will be given an offer and loaded on the next available basic officer training cycle.

Note that Basic Legal Officer and Intermediate Legal Officer training is done in-house by the OJAG and follows successful completion of basic officer and second language training.

I've been out of the branch since 2009 so I can't talk to the details of the process as it stands today, but generally your recruiting office should have the details.

:cheers:

 

[Tweak25]

So, how important is performance on the CFAT for this process then? - is it just useful for your placement on the merit list? - or can a poor performance drum you right out of contention?

- signed, a lawyer who hasn't done math since undergrad

 

[FJAG]

So, how important is performance on the CFAT for this process then? - is it just useful for your placement on the merit list? - or can a poor performance drum you right out of contention?

- signed, a lawyer who hasn't done math since undergrad

No idea really. I went to the reserve side of the legal branch having been a regular and reserve force arty and infantry officer so no testing etc.; just the selection board interview.

My guess is if you can get a high enough LSAT to get into law school and pass law school and the bar then the CFAT isn't a threat -- but then I don't work at the recruiting office.

I sat on selection boards for dozens of reserve force legal officers and never once saw any CFAT scores; the only documentation we had were resumes and in the odd case a transcript. The interview was the crucial element in the selection process because in large part we were interested in seeing what the 'whole person' was. Providing legal advice to higher ranking officers in the chain of command is at the core of being a legal officer. Because of this there is almost an art in selecting people who have not only the education and experience needed but the maturity and the poise to handle themselves under pressure.

:cheers:

As to math - why would you do math when you can just hire an accountant.  ;D

 

[Tweak25]

Haha ... my thinking exactly.

'preciate the reply.

Thanks.

 

[DAA]

You will have to achieve the required standard on not only the CFAT but also the TSD.  I would strongly encourage you to study prior to writing the CFAT, less you become another casualty in the application process and there are many.

Not only have practicing Lawyers failed to achieve the CFAT requirements but so have Doctors!

FJAG is pretty much on the mark.  Testing, processing, short listing, JAG Interviews then offers.  The later being the MOST important aspect.

 

[legaleye]

Thanks to both of you, FJAG and DAA.

I suppose I am still wondering whether, once you have passed the JAG interview, is there any possibility that you will not be made an offer?

(I am thinking that since the JAG interview is the key piece, that this is ultimately the selection point, even if you don't receive formal paperwork from the JAG directly?)

 

[FJAG]

Thanks to both of you, FJAG and DAA.

I suppose I am still wondering whether, once you have passed the JAG interview, is there any possibility that you will not be made an offer?

(I am thinking that since the JAG interview is the key piece, that this is ultimately the selection point, even if you don't receive formal paperwork from the JAG directly?)

Don't think of the interview as "pass/fail" but as "ranked". As an example there may be twenty applicants for three position. Only the top three candidates will be given offers even though another ten or fifteen might be good or acceptable choices as well. The fourth and fifth ranked candidates would only be given an offer if one or two of the first three either decide against accepting the offer or fail out of the basic officer training course or become medically ineligible etc.

DJAG/COS does maintain the ranked list for a period of time in the event of training failures etc or in the event that more positions become available but at some point the list is allowed to lapse and a new call for applicants is held. Unfortunately I do not know how long that period is these days. Perhaps DAA does.

:cheers:

 

[legaleye]

I see, thanks very much.

 

[atonz]

I am considering a career with the CF as a legal officer. I spoke with a recruiter and learned that there is a 7 year commitment. The recruiter could not really provide more information other than "people are not forced to stay" etc. Can someone enlighten me on these commitments? I had been operating under the incorrect assumption that if my university was not subsidized, there would be no commitment.

My concern is being in the military 1-2 years and finding it is not for me. Thanks!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We don't sign 'contracts' per sea, we sign Terms of Service (TOS).  Each trade/classification has set years of TOS for their initial engagement, with subsequent offers 1 year before their current TOS ends.  Your first TOS is usually a VIE (Variable Initial Engagement), followed by an offer for a CE (Continuing Engagement) and a IE25 (Intermediate Engagement - 25 years) in which you pick which one you sign. 

In a very general sense without any refs to refer to for specificity/accuracy, members can request release prior to the end of a TOS but it may come with a 'minimum time to release from request submitted' with the common timeline being 6 months from request to release.

Certain trades/classficiations, such as Legal Officer, may have more specific timelines.  But it sounds like the VIE for Legal Officer is 7 years.  I am not sure if you are able to request a shorter VIE, but I've never heard of a VIE of 1 - 2 years.  In the past, there were 3 years BEs (Basic Engagements) but that has now been changed to the VIEs described above.

 

[Michael OLeary]

When you enrol in the Canadian Forces (for nearly all enrolment options, including any you're probably looking at), there is an obligation of a number of years service, after which you may be offered an opportunity to remain in for a full career. When recruiting centres have line-ups and merit lists are long, the system isn't under pressure to hold people to those full terms, because there's always someone else ready to take your place, and voluntary releases can happen. If, however, recruiting gets challenging with fewer applicants (which can happen for a variety of reasons) and recruiting struggles to keep pace with attrition, then the CAF can (and in the past has) held people to those terms of service.