A job is a job. If it’s the only offer take it. If you have a better offer take that. If you vibe with the people and the comp is good, take it.
Who knows maybe you’ll have an underperforming child in the future who wants to be a lawyer and you can bask in the knowledge that your firm will support you.
Lawyers if anything should really do their due diligence in learning about the firm culture before taking a job. Nepotism hires are generally not good, though they are largely reliant on the character of the hiring parent and their partners if they have any. I’ve seen nepo hired that grew into incredibly competent lawyers and who were aware of their duty of competence and avoided favoritism/ conflicts, and I’ve seen the opposite. The fact is that for a long time the profession was riddled with this sort of favoritism, doesn’t mean you should accept it, but you’re also likely to find other types of toxic environment. Lawyers talk, you can find cases and their track record online, a nepo hire might be a red flag, it might just be that the kid prefers to learn under their parent and the parent as a business owner has all the rights to do so.
I’ll tell this to Jim & Son Plumbing, Inc when Jim comes in looking to retire and transfer the business to Son and Granddaughter or when Husband and Wife Retail Store come in to have their mall lease looked over: “Sorry, folks, I don’t want to help businesses that only exist because Husband and Wife are literally married to one another.” I’ll make sure, while I’m at it, to hire the kid next door or down the street (whoever presents the better resume, references, and experience) to take out the garbage rather than giving my kid a couple dollars allowance for it. “Sorry, Junior, you’re my son. That’s why I have to hire six year old Andre from around the corner to do the garbage and ten year old Mirabelle to weed the garden. I hear Gregor’s parents are hiring, though. Good luck!” As a matter of fact, I am inspired right this moment to write a strongly worded letter to Hull & Hull: “I’m sorry, Ian, but you’re a nepo. I don’t care that you’re the top estate litigator in the country. I’m going with the kid at the mall practice because he worked his way there unlike you.”
taking care of your own flesh and blood isnt good?
entering an employment relationship, with your own damn business, with whoever you damn please, isnt good?
is this a free country
Like almost everything in law "it depends".
I've seen parent-child lawyers where if anything the child is smarter than the parent. I've seen parent-child lawyers where clearly the only reason they have a job is the family name.
I see from one of your posts that you point to Australian/UK degrees as a red flag for being non-competitive. That stereotype exists for a reason (many who can't get in here *do* go abroad) but again, it isn't universal - some of the best litigators I know went to the UK because their parents could afford to give them an 'experience' and they took advantage. BUT I've also met terrible lawyers who trained abroad.
You have to evaluate every firm separately.
- How many nepotism hires are there? If its more than half their associates, that is probably a red flag; if its just a couple, probably unremarkable
- Are they hiring their own kids or kids from other firms? If its their own kids, more of a red flag but not guaranteed; if its other people's kids is the hiring reciprocal?
- What is the firm's overall reputation? If its a well regarded firm, its less likely that they'll be 'carrying' poor associates.
Best thing to do is talk to people there, and talk to people who work at other firms. Generally people are more than happy to give you honest opinions about other firms if you're friendly and looking, even if they're not hiring themselves.
You make some great points. However, don’t you find it interesting that the parents who provide their kids with that "experience" usually only send their kids to low-ranked. but why don’t they send their kids to Cambridge Harvard, Yale or the like?
Also, who gets the benefit of the presumption that not all foreign trade lawyers are necessarily less competitive. Do you think that is a résumé that slides across the desk with an ethnic sounding name and a UK law degree is going to be given the same benefit of the doubt?
>don’t you find it interesting that the parents who provide their kids with that "experience" usually only send their kids to low-ranked. but why don’t they send their kids to Cambridge Harvard, Yale or the like?
>
It's not that they don't, its that the ones who do end up going to Ivy League Schools often don't come back to Canada (big law in the US pays far better), and if they do come back here, they a) ARE competitive just because of the degree behind their name so you're not noticing them, and b) target a small number of our top firms (often on bay street) so are less obvious in the large volume of names.
But for those who do go to lower ranked schools, it is entirely *because* they're easier and (assuming they're reasonably intelligent) will be able to get a higher GPA to appear competitive, and will have time to travel/party/whatever. Doesn't make them better lawyers, but also doesn't necessarily mean they'll be worse.
>Also, who gets the benefit of the presumption that not all foreign trade lawyers are necessarily less competitive. Do you think that is a résumé that slides across the desk with an ethnic sounding name and a UK law degree is going to be given the same benefit of the doubt?
Guess what? People with ethnic sounding names from *Canadian* schools are at the same disadvantage as those who are the kids of partners.
From my class with the exception of two people (one being the silver medalist of our class), EVERYONE who managed to get a summer job between 1L and 2L was the child or nephew/niece of a partner at a major firm in the city. (Calgary at the time had a small number of 1L jobs, but mostly 2L summer jobs).
That's the unfortunate reality from the day you start law, until the day you retire. If you have connections, you're going to have a WAY easier time than someone who doesn't, regardless of relative competence.
Look, I get the frustration. Nepotism hires are a thing, and its not exclusive to law, its just easier to find out about. But to just assume that everyone who has a parent in law is only hired due to nepotism is not always true, nor is it exclusive to those who went abroad. Look at the specific firm and decide if its one you want.
> who otherwise aren't competitive in the hiring process?
Are you 100% certain about this?
I've met nepo hires who are *excellent* lawyers, and others who are decidedly mediocre. Some of the mediocre nepo hires, however, grew up in a firm environment and were very strong with business development and client relationship management which -- as long as their work is acceptable -- means they are still assets to the firm.
I wouldn't say it's an automatic red flag when a firm appears to hire staff based on nepotism/connections, but it's certainly something to be wary of if/when you are hired.
To clarify, the question isn’t about the ethics or effectiveness of nepotism hires. The question is whether the culture of a firm that engages in nepotism hires could be problematic for lawyers hired without such nepotism.
They went to law school in the UK, their LinkedIn shows no other work experience, etc. They're not hard to spot.
If a Bond graduate ends up at an elite litigation boutique as their first and only law job, it's safe to assume other factors were at play.
All I will say is that at this point, I see almost no correlation between the school attended and the student/lawyer's quality - NONE. Can the person write well, are they conscientious, and do they have good judgment? Those are the only three predictive factors IMO.
It's one thing to say that there’s no cause and effect relationship but to say that there’s no correlation is a whole different thing I would disagree.
I am not saying there is no correlation generally. Instead, I am saying that from my perspective, I see absolutely no correlation (see the words "I see" above) In fact, my experience almost indicates a negative correlation. Some of the best students and lawyers have come from what are considered lower ranked schools.
So much if being a lawyer is what you learn at your job. Very little is from law school. Getting in somewhere good will make a mediocre student a great lawyer much faster than a great student at a so so firm.
To clarify, the question isn’t about the ethics or effectiveness of nepotism hires. The question is whether the culture of a firm that engages in nepotism hires could be problematic for lawyers hired without such nepotism.
I've worked at a firm where there was a clear nepotism hire. Their lack of self-awareness combined with their pretentiousness and management's preferential treatment actually affected team morale.
Are you joking?
Boomers were born between 1945 and 1965.
Their kids are Gen X on the early side and Millennials on the younger side.
My parents were born smack dab in the middle of their generation, in 1950 and 1958.
I was born in 1991; I’m 32.
That’s true and later millennials like you and me aren’t exactly outliers, but I don’t think we’re the centre mass of children of boomers. A lot of boomers had children relatively quite young. Plenty of them are in their 40s and 50s. There are even children of boomers that are boomers. But there are also Gen z children of boomers, like my sister.
Are these statistics anywhere? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a graph showing information on the ages of children of a given generation or even thought of that. But now that I have, I’m kind of interested to know to some.
Stats Canada says the children of baby boomers were born mostly between 1972 and 1992.
[So we’re now 31-51.](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-311-x/98-311-x2011003_2-eng.cfm)
So I guess there are some outliers who are in their 20s and 50s, but most of the boomer’s children are in their thirties and forties.
ur parents had u old
first poster is right
suppose the babyboomer was born in 1950
then has they kids at ages 25, 30 and 35
those kids is 49, 44 and 39 now
A job is a job. If it’s the only offer take it. If you have a better offer take that. If you vibe with the people and the comp is good, take it. Who knows maybe you’ll have an underperforming child in the future who wants to be a lawyer and you can bask in the knowledge that your firm will support you.
Lawyers if anything should really do their due diligence in learning about the firm culture before taking a job. Nepotism hires are generally not good, though they are largely reliant on the character of the hiring parent and their partners if they have any. I’ve seen nepo hired that grew into incredibly competent lawyers and who were aware of their duty of competence and avoided favoritism/ conflicts, and I’ve seen the opposite. The fact is that for a long time the profession was riddled with this sort of favoritism, doesn’t mean you should accept it, but you’re also likely to find other types of toxic environment. Lawyers talk, you can find cases and their track record online, a nepo hire might be a red flag, it might just be that the kid prefers to learn under their parent and the parent as a business owner has all the rights to do so.
This is kind of flippant. And maybe I’m a Pollyanna, but: Nepotism isn’t good, and we should tolerate it less than we do.
I’ll tell this to Jim & Son Plumbing, Inc when Jim comes in looking to retire and transfer the business to Son and Granddaughter or when Husband and Wife Retail Store come in to have their mall lease looked over: “Sorry, folks, I don’t want to help businesses that only exist because Husband and Wife are literally married to one another.” I’ll make sure, while I’m at it, to hire the kid next door or down the street (whoever presents the better resume, references, and experience) to take out the garbage rather than giving my kid a couple dollars allowance for it. “Sorry, Junior, you’re my son. That’s why I have to hire six year old Andre from around the corner to do the garbage and ten year old Mirabelle to weed the garden. I hear Gregor’s parents are hiring, though. Good luck!” As a matter of fact, I am inspired right this moment to write a strongly worded letter to Hull & Hull: “I’m sorry, Ian, but you’re a nepo. I don’t care that you’re the top estate litigator in the country. I’m going with the kid at the mall practice because he worked his way there unlike you.”
Yeah, I’m not reading all that (especially without paragraph breaks; good grief). Happy for you, though. Or sorry that happened.
Take the L
taking care of your own flesh and blood isnt good? entering an employment relationship, with your own damn business, with whoever you damn please, isnt good? is this a free country
Like almost everything in law "it depends". I've seen parent-child lawyers where if anything the child is smarter than the parent. I've seen parent-child lawyers where clearly the only reason they have a job is the family name. I see from one of your posts that you point to Australian/UK degrees as a red flag for being non-competitive. That stereotype exists for a reason (many who can't get in here *do* go abroad) but again, it isn't universal - some of the best litigators I know went to the UK because their parents could afford to give them an 'experience' and they took advantage. BUT I've also met terrible lawyers who trained abroad. You have to evaluate every firm separately. - How many nepotism hires are there? If its more than half their associates, that is probably a red flag; if its just a couple, probably unremarkable - Are they hiring their own kids or kids from other firms? If its their own kids, more of a red flag but not guaranteed; if its other people's kids is the hiring reciprocal? - What is the firm's overall reputation? If its a well regarded firm, its less likely that they'll be 'carrying' poor associates. Best thing to do is talk to people there, and talk to people who work at other firms. Generally people are more than happy to give you honest opinions about other firms if you're friendly and looking, even if they're not hiring themselves.
You make some great points. However, don’t you find it interesting that the parents who provide their kids with that "experience" usually only send their kids to low-ranked. but why don’t they send their kids to Cambridge Harvard, Yale or the like? Also, who gets the benefit of the presumption that not all foreign trade lawyers are necessarily less competitive. Do you think that is a résumé that slides across the desk with an ethnic sounding name and a UK law degree is going to be given the same benefit of the doubt?
>don’t you find it interesting that the parents who provide their kids with that "experience" usually only send their kids to low-ranked. but why don’t they send their kids to Cambridge Harvard, Yale or the like? > It's not that they don't, its that the ones who do end up going to Ivy League Schools often don't come back to Canada (big law in the US pays far better), and if they do come back here, they a) ARE competitive just because of the degree behind their name so you're not noticing them, and b) target a small number of our top firms (often on bay street) so are less obvious in the large volume of names. But for those who do go to lower ranked schools, it is entirely *because* they're easier and (assuming they're reasonably intelligent) will be able to get a higher GPA to appear competitive, and will have time to travel/party/whatever. Doesn't make them better lawyers, but also doesn't necessarily mean they'll be worse. >Also, who gets the benefit of the presumption that not all foreign trade lawyers are necessarily less competitive. Do you think that is a résumé that slides across the desk with an ethnic sounding name and a UK law degree is going to be given the same benefit of the doubt? Guess what? People with ethnic sounding names from *Canadian* schools are at the same disadvantage as those who are the kids of partners. From my class with the exception of two people (one being the silver medalist of our class), EVERYONE who managed to get a summer job between 1L and 2L was the child or nephew/niece of a partner at a major firm in the city. (Calgary at the time had a small number of 1L jobs, but mostly 2L summer jobs). That's the unfortunate reality from the day you start law, until the day you retire. If you have connections, you're going to have a WAY easier time than someone who doesn't, regardless of relative competence. Look, I get the frustration. Nepotism hires are a thing, and its not exclusive to law, its just easier to find out about. But to just assume that everyone who has a parent in law is only hired due to nepotism is not always true, nor is it exclusive to those who went abroad. Look at the specific firm and decide if its one you want.
> who otherwise aren't competitive in the hiring process? Are you 100% certain about this? I've met nepo hires who are *excellent* lawyers, and others who are decidedly mediocre. Some of the mediocre nepo hires, however, grew up in a firm environment and were very strong with business development and client relationship management which -- as long as their work is acceptable -- means they are still assets to the firm. I wouldn't say it's an automatic red flag when a firm appears to hire staff based on nepotism/connections, but it's certainly something to be wary of if/when you are hired.
To clarify, the question isn’t about the ethics or effectiveness of nepotism hires. The question is whether the culture of a firm that engages in nepotism hires could be problematic for lawyers hired without such nepotism.
How would you know whether those “children of well-known lawyers and public figures” aren’t otherwise competitive?
They went to law school in the UK, their LinkedIn shows no other work experience, etc. They're not hard to spot. If a Bond graduate ends up at an elite litigation boutique as their first and only law job, it's safe to assume other factors were at play.
Yeah, the UK/Aus law school and same last name as a partner is always a bad combo.
All I will say is that at this point, I see almost no correlation between the school attended and the student/lawyer's quality - NONE. Can the person write well, are they conscientious, and do they have good judgment? Those are the only three predictive factors IMO.
It's one thing to say that there’s no cause and effect relationship but to say that there’s no correlation is a whole different thing I would disagree.
I am not saying there is no correlation generally. Instead, I am saying that from my perspective, I see absolutely no correlation (see the words "I see" above) In fact, my experience almost indicates a negative correlation. Some of the best students and lawyers have come from what are considered lower ranked schools.
So much if being a lawyer is what you learn at your job. Very little is from law school. Getting in somewhere good will make a mediocre student a great lawyer much faster than a great student at a so so firm.
To clarify, the question isn’t about the ethics or effectiveness of nepotism hires. The question is whether the culture of a firm that engages in nepotism hires could be problematic for lawyers hired without such nepotism.
I would think of it as a red flag. I don’t want to be picking up slack for a bunch of boomer lawyers’ failsons and faildaughters.
I've worked at a firm where there was a clear nepotism hire. Their lack of self-awareness combined with their pretentiousness and management's preferential treatment actually affected team morale.
Pretty sure that the children of 'boomers' would be in the 40s-50s by now.
Are you joking? Boomers were born between 1945 and 1965. Their kids are Gen X on the early side and Millennials on the younger side. My parents were born smack dab in the middle of their generation, in 1950 and 1958. I was born in 1991; I’m 32.
That’s true and later millennials like you and me aren’t exactly outliers, but I don’t think we’re the centre mass of children of boomers. A lot of boomers had children relatively quite young. Plenty of them are in their 40s and 50s. There are even children of boomers that are boomers. But there are also Gen z children of boomers, like my sister. Are these statistics anywhere? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a graph showing information on the ages of children of a given generation or even thought of that. But now that I have, I’m kind of interested to know to some.
Stats Canada says the children of baby boomers were born mostly between 1972 and 1992. [So we’re now 31-51.](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-311-x/98-311-x2011003_2-eng.cfm) So I guess there are some outliers who are in their 20s and 50s, but most of the boomer’s children are in their thirties and forties.
Well this is a satisfying conclusion. Thank you.
In which case, theyre not entering law profession jn 2024
… Because everyone enters the law profession at 25 🙄
no one said they were we're talking in generalities here the original poster is likely 25, influenced by tiktok videos about nepo babies
ur parents had u old first poster is right suppose the babyboomer was born in 1950 then has they kids at ages 25, 30 and 35 those kids is 49, 44 and 39 now
We are.