Legal Excellence Program Evaluation, Final Report
4. KEY FINDINGS (continued)
4.4 Retention
According to some Directors of Career Services at law schools, students are more likely to accept a lower salary in exchange for the certainty of a post-article job when deciding where to article. Some of them were of the view that top students are turning away from the DOJ due to the elimination of the hire-back policy. This assertion seems to be at odds with the findings from the third-year student survey in which post-article job offers were rated 11th of 18 factors to consider in choosing a place to article (Figure 3). However, this rating was raised to number two among current and former DOJ articling students (Figure 4). The finding points to a significant communication gap - both within and external to the Department - as even without the hire-back policy, almost all LEP students who successfully complete their articles are hired by the DOJ.
Managers’ views about the advisability of making the guaranteed hire-back policy an official departmental policy were mixed. While they reported that such a policy could potentially help attract top candidates, some were apprehensive about the potential impact the policy could have on their hiring decisions. Managers expressed concern that they could be put into situations in which they would be compelled to hire someone irrespective of whether the candidate was a “good fit” with their organization.
In recent years, private law firms have gradually abandoned their guaranteed hire-back policies, according to the LEP informants. Based on the information obtained by the evaluation, most provincial ministries of Justice do not have a guaranteed hire-back policy. Some provinces offer graduating articling students a term position of one or two years but all of them require their articling students to compete for an indeterminate counsel position at the end of their term employment.
In contrast, the bc_2 Region not only maintained the guaranteed hire-back policy but also made it more attractive early last year. It now offers their articling students indeterminate employment upon successful completion of their articles, instead of term employment as was the case under the original hire-back policy. The Ontario Region wants to explore the options before making any decisions on this issue. The termination of the guaranteed hire-back policy may have had an impact on the Department’s ability to attract applicants, but that doesn’t seem to have affected articling students’ chance to obtain a counsel position in the DOJ post-articles. For the period of three years, from 2007 to 2009, a total of 157 articling students graduated from the LEP, of whom 147 (94 percent) were offered a counsel job at the DOJ[15].
Table 7 provides a breakdown by region and year of the number of articling students who graduated from the LEP and the number of counsel job offers made during the three-year period. The majority of articling student graduates accepted the positions offered.
Table 7: DOJ Articling Students Offered a Counsel Job from 2007 to 2009, by Region and by Year
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | By Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Students | 1 | 100% | 1 | 100% | 1 | 100% | 3 | 100% |
| Job Offers | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | By Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Students | 6 | 83% | 5 | 100% | 6 | 83% | 17 | 88% |
| Job Offers | 5 | 5 | 5 | 15 | ||||
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | By Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Students | 16 | 94% | 18 | 100% | 20 | 100% | 54 | 98% |
| Job Offers | 15 | 18 | 20 | 53 | ||||
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | By Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Students | 10 | 90% | 9 | 100% | 9 | 100% | 28 | 96% |
| Job Offers | 9 | 9 | 9 | 27 | ||||
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | By Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Students | 13 | 77% | 9 | 89% | 7 | 86% | 29 | 83% |
| Job Offers | 10 | 8 | 6 | 24 | ||||
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | By Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Students | 7 | 100% | 8 | 100% | 10 | 90% | 25 | 96% |
| Job Offers | 7 | 8 | 9 | 24 | ||||
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | By Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Students | 1 | 100% | 1 | 100% | ||||
| Job Offers | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | By Region | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
| Students | 53 | 89% | 50 | 98% | 54 | 94% | 157 | 94%* |
| Job Offers | 47 | 49 | 51 | 147 | ||||
*Reasons given by the Program graduates for not accepting an LA-01 position with the Department post-articles were largely personal decisions related to: changing career direction, returning to school for more studies, and relocating the family.[16] Table 8 shows the job acceptance rate by articling students across the regions over the same period.
| Atlantic | Quebec | NCR | Ontario | Prairie | BC | North | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job offers made | 3 | 15 | 53 | 27 | 24 | 24 | 1 | 147 |
| Offers accepted | 3 | 15 | 49 | 25 | 19 | 24 | 1 | 136 |
| Job offers declined | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| Rate of retention | 100% | 100% | 92% | 93% | 79% | 100% | 100% | 93% |
The retention rate is also affected by the stiff competition from both the private and public sectors, particularly during the recent economic boom in Alberta and Saskatchewan. For example, the salary for articling students at Alberta Justice is approximately $18,000 (40 percent) higher than that offered by the Department. Toronto and Vancouver are also facing a similar challenge (i.e., a considerable gap in salary levels for articling students and junior lawyers between the provincial government and the DOJ). Despite this, both the Ontario and bc_2 regional offices have managed to maintain a high retention rate. According to a key informant, this could be due to the fact that the Ontario Office in Toronto has been trying during their recruitment process to eliminate candidates who were not committed to working for the Department.
4.5 Communication Strategies
4.5.1 Marketing Messages
Many LEP coordinators, managers, student supervisors and Directors of Career Services believed that the LEP could do more to inform and educate law students about the unique advantages of articling with the Department, including: the wide selection of specialties, some of which are exclusively DOJ domains (e.g. constitutional law, aboriginal law, tax law, legislative drafting); early opportunity to get involved in cases that provide courtroom exposure; high profile cases; good professional development opportunities; wealth of library information; and ultimately, the possibility to work in jurisdictions across Canada.
4.5.2 Communication Tools
4.5.2.1 Internet
The Internet has been gaining importance as a marketing tool among students. The survey showed that increasingly more students first become aware of the LEP through the Internet and that they generally learned more about the LEP from the DOJ Website than from other sources. The percentage of the current and former departmental articling respondents who first learned about the Program through the Internet is 22 percent; among third-year students, this level is 35 percent. For career planning, more students consulted the Internet (64 percent) than the Career Services Office (49 percent). Fifty-three percent of the students and 46 percent of the Department’s articling students reported that they had learned the most about the LEP through the DOJ Website.
Regarding the LEP Website, the Directors of Career Services at the law schools expressed the view that it is hard to find information about the Program because its name is not instinctive; key practical information is not readily accessible; the Website is hard to navigate and not always up-to-date. In short, the Website was viewed as not being very user-friendly and hence its usefulness as a marketing tool is compromised.
In contrast, most law students and current and former DOJ articling students were largely positive about the Website; they described it as being from fairly easy (65 percent) to very easy (25 percent) to navigate. Over 90 percent of the student respondents thought that the description of the LEP was both clear and complete. However, 23 percent of the DOJ articling student respondents, who had had the opportunity to work in the Department, thought that the description could be improved. Respondents from both survey groups liked the Program brochure Do Your Career Justice for its clarity and completeness. Student respondents also noted that information in electronic form is much easier to distribute and is more environmentally friendly.
A suggested improvement made by the students is to make the LEP Website more interactive. Some students indicated that they would like to be able to send questions and get answers through the LEP Website. Most of all, they would like to get in touch with people who have articled or who are currently articling with the DOJ. Quite a few Directors of Career Services and students suggested that the LEP Website should include video clips that portray the joys and challenges of being a Justice lawyer and that this could prove to be a powerful way of communicating to students (e.g. A Day in the Life of a Constitutional Law Lawyer).
When students were asked about their opinions on the use of FaceBook/MySpace in the context of the LEP, their reactions were mixed. Some said that FaceBook/MySpace is the way of future communication while others were adamant that they are a personal and private space and there would be resentment if they were intruded upon, at least for now.
4.5.2.2 Outreach
Outreach is an area that has witnessed more development in recent years as competition for top candidates intensified. LEP outreach activities include hosting open houses, participating in career fairs and making presentations to law student and career advisors. To raise the awareness of its articling opportunities, the Northern Region has developed a recruitment strategy, targeting students who are looking for certain articling experience only possible in the North.
Career fairs and open houses are the second most important marketing tool after the Internet, according to the two student surveys, which indicate that the LEP has been effective at these events and that progress has been made over time. Over three-quarters (82 percent) of the student and 70 percent of DOJ articling student respondents found the presence of the LEP at career fairs and open houses to be either useful or very useful to improving their understanding of articling opportunities in the Department.
Outreach activities are resource intensive. Some departmental managers reported that big firms maintain a constant presence by having a large number of their senior lawyers serve as part-time faculty members and by contributing money so that classrooms or reception halls are built in their name. This reality may have created a negative perception as one student respondent commended,“Private firms do a good job of getting their name out there but students have the impression that the government wants us to come to them”
.
Although it was generally acknowledged among informants that the Department could not be expected to spend money on expensive gifts or social events, it should be more proactive and innovative in its marketing approaches. The DOJ could focus on creating more direct personal contact with law students. The survey showed that meeting students at the school has become the most used approach by legal employers to reach out to students. Some of the smaller regions would like Ottawa to send senior lawyers to law schools across the country to speak directly to students and to answer their questions. Some students expressed an interest in visiting the office of their potential employer and talking to people working there in order to explore their articling options. Some LEP coordinators suggested that the Department could give organized student tours, thereby providing a more personal face to a large bureaucratic organization. This could prove to be a powerful marketing strategy for as one student respondent put it, “Personal relationships are a big reason why students decide to go to a particular firm”.
4.6 Visibility and Perceptions
According to the Directors of Career Services, articling opportunities in the Department were largely unknown among law students before the LEP; since its launch, law students have become increasingly aware of what the DOJ can offer to its articling students. However, this view might be overly optimistic according to the results of the law student survey. When third-year law students were asked about the LEP, just over one-third (37 percent) of the respondents indicated they were aware of the Program. This should be interpreted with caution because it is possible that more students were aware of articling opportunities at the Department but fewer of them associated it with the LEP.
Figure 2 provides a breakdown of respondents’ reported level of interest in articling at DOJ. Just over half of the students reported that the Department was either their top choice as a place to article or that they were very interested in articling at the DOJ.
Figure 2: Level of interest in articling at the Department of Justice by students
The same survey also revealed that somewhat distorted views still exist about the Department and government lawyers in general. For example, some law students reported that the DOJ only does policy work in the areas of constitutional law and aboriginal law; government lawyers are poorly paid; top lawyers don’t work for the government; public sector lawyers are generally not valued by the private firms, that is, it is easy to move from the private sector to the public sector while the reverse is not true.
When looking for a place to article or work, the two groups, current law students and DOJ current and former articling students, were asked to indicate the importance of certain factors when making a decision on where to article, using a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being not at all important and 7 being very important).
The most important factors for third-year law student respondents were to have a positive work environment, varied work, followed by advancement and work-life balance. The results are shown in Figure 3. The most important factors, reported by current and former DOJ articling student respondents, are varied work, post-article job offer, followed by work-life balance and positive work environment. Opportunity for language training and prestige were found to be the least important to respondents. The results are shown in Figure 4.
Note: For the purpose of this analysis, the lower end of the scale (1, 2 and 3) was combined as well as the higher end (5, 6 and 7).
Note: For the purpose of this analysis, the lower end of the scale (1, 2 and 3) was combined as well as the higher end (5, 6 and 7).
The biggest difference between the two groups was their rating of the importance of a job offer post-articles. DOJ articling student respondents ranked a post-article job offer as the second most important factor whereas student respondents ranked it 11 th out of the 18 factors. Possible explanations for the difference between the two groups might be a predicted shortage of lawyers in the country so students are not overly concerned about their job prospects; the new generation may be more open to the notion that job security is no longer the norm; and students may believe that by over-emphasizing job security one may limit one’s career options. However, the fact that both groups did not rank salary highly important should not be a surprise as those who apply to article or work in the Department are generally not expecting a high salary. Benefits were generally rated more highly.
For the 12 percent of student respondents who were not interested in articling with the DOJ, the reasons included low salary; more interested in corporate law/solicitor work; “slim chance” of being offered an articling position at the Department; not wanting to work for a big bureaucracy; more attracted to the criminal jurisdiction of the provincial government; and concern over reduced mobility from public to private practice. These findings correspond with the results obtained by the ORO from their enquiries over the years.
It appears that the Program needs to better tailor its message to students and to dispel certain myths, such as the DOJ mainly does policy work and has no need for lawyers in the area of commercial law. When the students were asked how the LEP might make articling or working in the Department more appealing to them, they remarked that while they understand that the DOJ cannot match big firms on salary or on promotion budgets, it could do a better job of advertising the breadth and the impact of its work, (i.e., the differences that the Department can make in the life of Canadians, and how well past DOJ articling students have faired in their careers).
As well, messages should be made more relevant to students on a practical level. For example, they want to know the kinds of files articling students might be asked to work on and highlights of recent or current legal issues in which the DOJ is engaged. They also want to know the level of education and other types of achievements successful articling candidates possess, which can help dispel some of the myths about the Department (e.g. only interested in “A” students).
4.7 Training and Supervision
4.7.1 Student Training
All regions have to meet the education requirements for articling students of their respective Law Society but some exceed these standards. BC, and to some extent Ontario regions, have developed extensive in-house courses for articling students and junior lawyers. In the BCRO, articling students are expected to commence a three-year curriculum of classroom training (roughly three hours per month) and to complete the curriculum if they are retained post-articles. The ORO has prepared a comprehensive orientation manual for their articling students and is offering them an extensive Trial Advocacy Program which runs for much of the articling term. It provides articling students with oral and written advocacy training in both civil and criminal litigation, culminating with a moot hearing at the Federal Court. The QRO piloted an in-house development program for articling students and new LA-01s in January 2009 to enhance their exposure to different areas of law as well as the skills and knowledge required for the practice of law.
The ncr_2 offers articling students over 70 potential rotations. To the extent possible, the ncr_2 attempts to match the students’ interests to the area of law in each rotation. However, student interests tend to concentrate in such areas as International Law, Public Prosecution, Human Rights and War Crimes. Due to the limited number of students who can be accommodated in these areas of law, some students may have to accept alternative rotations. Outside of the NCR, students are offered a standard set of rotations, most frequently through all sections in the Office.
According to the survey, approximately three-quarters (77 percent) of DOJ articling student respondents were able to choose the areas of law that interested them for their articling term. Of the remaining 23 percent who did not have this opportunity, 56 percent noted that there was a standard rotation; 19 percent indicated their preference but were not accommodated; 14 percent were not offered a choice; and the remaining 11 percent articled at the Federal Court of Canada.
Ninety-five percent (95%) of DOJ articling students indicated that they were offered work that interested them. Of those choosing to elaborate on what areas of work they would have liked to have done, 50 percent indicated they would have liked to have had more legal rather than research or administrative work. Others identified areas such as Economic Law, Environmental Law, Human Rights, Immigration Law, Indian and Residential Schools, Real Estate Law and War Crimes. Figure 5 shows that a significant majority of articling students reported that their rotations in the Department met their learning expectations.
Figure 5: Extent to which rotations met or are meeting students’ learning expectations
Ninety percent (90%) of students indicated that the rotation through different types of law helped them identify long-term career interests. Of the remaining 10 percent of respondents, more than half indicated that they already knew what areas interested them and their articling rotation did not change that.
Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 the extent to which certain aspects of their experience met their expectations (Figure 6). Varied work was identified as meeting expectations of a majority of respondents, followed closely by accessibility to their immediate supervisor and positive work environment. Less than half of the respondents indicated that the salary was meeting their expectations. Figure 6 provides a breakdown of their responses. Benefits were rated significantly higher by the respondents and may be an important point to advertize as a reason to work in the federal government.
Note: For the purpose of this analysis, the lower end of the scale (1, 2 and 3) was combined as well as the higher end (5, 6 and 7).
Ninety-six percent (96%) of respondents indicated that they would recommend the Department to others as a place to work for the following reasons:
- Varied and interesting work
- Good work-life balance
- Excellent work environment
- Good learning experience and mentoring
- Employment at the end of articles
A few current and former DOJ articling student respondents commented that, although they would recommend the Department to others, the low salary was an issue that should be considered.
Those who would not recommend DOJ as a place to article identified low salary, lack of work-life balance and mentoring as issues of concern.
The LEP needs to explore ways of improving collaboration and sharing among its teams in the area of training. It seems that some smaller regions are only able to meet the requirements of provincial law societies, but not much more. The reason for that is the lack of resources. Given the considerable work and investment of the BCRO and ORO in the area of training, it would seem that the other regional offices could benefit from this and adapt the training to meet their specific requirements. This would not only improve efficiency in resource use in terms of developing training resources, but would also work towards equalizing the learning experience of DOJ articling students across the country.
4.7.2 Student Supervision
Supervisors and principals are LEP front line staff; the LEP would not have been possible without the support it has received over the years from many counsel who have volunteered to supervise articling students. The evaluation found that most supervisors were enthusiastic about their student supervisory duties, which they do in addition to their regular duties. Some continue to act as a resource person and career counsellor for the students they supervised. In their view, they are having a satisfactory career with the Department and want to share their experience with articling students. Furthermore, they said that it is part of their professional duty to help develop Justice’s future lawyers.
Many supervisors stressed that they had benefited from being a supervisor, both professionally and personally. The fact of negotiating with their colleagues about projects for the student puts them more in touch with their colleagues and their work. Many supervisors continue to serve as mentor to their students many years after the students have finished their articles. One supervisor has remained closely connected to a network of his former students. This individual said with much pride that this network has greatly helped him in his work (e.g. speedy information exchange, cutting through red tape in foreign countries). Many supervisors claimed that working with young people and people with diverse backgrounds energizes them and gives them new perspectives; in addition, it helps them to do their job better, as through the Program they have become more sensitive to generational and diversity issues in the workplace.
Supervisors and principals receive little or no formal training for their supervision duties. In some regional offices, they are provided with duties and responsibilities in writing and in others, they operate on the basis of what they are told by their predecessors. In most regions, there is a student committee coordinated by the LEP staff and the students’ supervisors are members. These committees meet several times a year and they provide a forum in which supervisors can discuss or get updated on issues, get support from their fellow supervisors and give or receive informal coaching.
The lack of standard practices or training of supervisors has resulted in some former articling students complaining that their experience with supervisors has been inconsistent between rotations (i.e., some were excellent while others were not). Some supervisors have also expressed frustration about the fact that they are not totally clear about what is expected of them, even though they have been a supervisor for a number of years.
One of the ways that the LEP can build more consistency into the Department’s articling program is to ensure that the student supervisors are provided with training, particularly with respect to roles and responsibilities, expectations of supervisors, and how to assess the progress made by students in a consistent manner.
- Date modified: