Didn’t Get a Biglaw Job? Blame Canada!
We’ll probably get some nasty comments from patriotic Canucks for this post. But it would be blogger malpractice to forego an opportunity to make fun of our neighbor to the north.
From the National Law Journal:
Many of the top [U.S. law] firms are increasingly relying on law schools in Canada to provide them with the fresh talent they need in private equity, mergers and acquisitions, general corporate work and more.The strategy appears to be a good fit between Canadian students who want a hand in the big deals — and the big salaries — that big U.S. law firms can provide, and hiring partners seeking associates who possess an international edge.
“An international edge”? Because they pronounce “about” as uh-BOOT, and end every other sentence with “eh”?
(Okay, fine, the Québécois are kinda international. Kinda.)
As President Bush likes to say, Mexicans “come here and do jobs Americans won’t do.” Meanwhile, Canadians come here and do jobs that Americans are lining up to do — but might not do if they knew more about them going in.
P.S. An interesting tidbit from the article: “[T]he feeling among Canadian students is that a job with a top U.S. firm is second only to a clerkship with a justice for the Supreme Court of Canada.” So Supreme Court clerks are venerated up there, too.
U.S. Firms Look to Canada for Talent [National Law Journal]
(5) 
Comments
There is another possible explanation that the National Journal may be too polite to mention -- Canadian law schools are simply better than their US counterparts at preparing practicing lawyers. Canadian law schools, for the most part, still focus on teaching the nuts and bolts of being a lawyer. My former firm employed a large number (50+) of Canadian lawyers. I was uniformly impressed with how well they grasped the important details that US lawyers often didn't.
The irony of this situation is that while Canadian-educated lawyers are in higher demand because of how well Canadian law schools focus on nuts and bolts, US law schools are moving in exactly the opposite direction in an effort to be more "relevant." Along these lines, Harvard recently announced that it would deemphasize the traditional 1L courses of property, contracts and torts in favor of more policy-oriented courses. This may be fine if your goal is to produce future policy analysts and legislative staffers. It's not so fine if your goal is to produce future practitioners.
Actually, “a boot” is usually a rural pronunciation. If you listen carefully, Canadian lawyers are more likely to pronounce about, “a boat”. Of course, they all seem to say passda for pasta.
IL
I've worked in both US and Canada. US firms will stop hiring Canadians once top US schools start teaching the law. It's absolutely ridiculous that you can find 25 courses at a top US school on policy of african development, but you can't find one on the law of restitution.
Actually the reason Canadians are getting hired is because, at least at U of Toronto, the 50% LSAT mark is 166, with GPAs to match and Canadians can really only work in Mass and NY, as opposed to other markets ($#*@$*#@ state bar associations!!).
And we actually aren't unbelievabled entitled-acting brats.
McGill Law REPRESENT. And we pay....wait for it....$3,000 per year in tuition!